FARK.com: (2402107) Voters in Ohio city reject speed cameras. Bonus: City forced to refund money already collected. Bonus bonus: City has to keep paying rent on cameras until contract expires

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Voters in Ohio city reject speed cameras. Bonus: City forced to refund money already collected. Bonus bonus: City has to keep paying rent on cameras until contract expires (thenewspaper.com)		170
		More: Spiffy

• • •

7820 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2006 at 8:14 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/2402107

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

170 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

Snarfle		2006-11-08 09:01:49 AM

serpent_sky: What is the origin of this?
And do people using this realize it is rather hard to take someone seriously in any way when they use such a silly choice of phrasing?

You realize you've just uttered one of the most common fallacies around, right? If all someone sees is the word "congresscritter", and they immediately assume I'm not to be taken seriously, well, let's just say I'd rather that person not take me seriously, and stay out of politicking. Content is so much more important that some stupid title.

celtic004		2006-11-08 09:02:04 AM

Excuse me, I didnt mean laws I meant practices that have been deemed to infringe on citizen's rights (such as putting up speed cameras). Just so you facists dont jump down my throat on that one too.

jcaustin		2006-11-08 09:02:26 AM

LGeezer: So you WANT a police state. Why couldn't you have said so earlier?

That does not compute. I think the court should rule on whether automated accusation of a crime is Constitutional. I don't believe it is due to the inability to question the witness.

scottbody		2006-11-08 09:02:27 AM

Fizpez: The only type of enforcement I could see being even remotely palatable by the general public was if the speed at which you need to be over the limit was raised to at least 15 mph over the speed limit.

That is the stupidest thing I have read in a while.

Jektal		2006-11-08 09:04:48 AM

celtic

We did vote.

We all voted for our representatives, you know, those crooked bastards in congress and the white house. Then they voted on our behalf on the speed cameras issue.

That's how a republic democracy works. Representation through representation.

/viva la revolucion

Snarfle		2006-11-08 09:06:45 AM

celtic004: Excuse me, I didnt mean laws I meant practices that have been deemed to infringe on citizen's rights (such as putting up speed cameras).

You don't get a ticket for driving past a speed camera though. You get a ticket for driving past a speed camera at an illegal speed.

serpent_sky		2006-11-08 09:07:00 AM

Snarfle [TotalFark]

You realize you've just uttered one of the most common fallacies around, right? If all someone sees is the word "congresscritter", and they immediately assume I'm not to be taken seriously, well, let's just say I'd rather that person not take me seriously, and stay out of politicking. Content is so much more important that some stupid title.

Actually, no. How sentiments are expressed is just as important as the sentiment itself. Anyone who spells every other word incorrectly, has typos, or and uses cute phrases to express themselves should not expect to be taken seriously the way someone who writes clearly, conscisely, and with actual words would.

"Congress-critters" sounds ridiculous. I'm not even picking on one person; I have seen this about 17 times today, and have rolled my eyes every time. I truly would like to know the origin, if only because I am curious, though nothing will make that a remotely acceptable phrase in a conversation where someone wants to be considered seriously.

It is almost as bad as intentionally misspelling words like woman and girl to "wymyn" or "wimmin" or "gurl". But not as bad. I believe I failed a class on principle, for refusing to spell words that way, or for refusing to remove them from quotes. I had the same argument then: it looks stupid and uneducated, and if I am to take something seriously, they should bring their writing up to an acceptable level.

Mekongcola		2006-11-08 09:08:12 AM

Speed cameras are a very bad idea. They cause more accidents than they prevent, and people don't like the state watching their every move.

Should these go up in my state, people like me will take high powered silenced rifles and snipe them at distance...

celtic004		2006-11-08 09:08:32 AM

yah, thanks jektal I totally didnt know that cause I live in a dark basement and never leave.

We can talk to our representatives and together we can request that they make changes. It doesnt happen very often that they will, but it can. And thats how its SUPPOSED to work.

Anyway, they deemed the practice illegal. I sadly dont know the details, but if its illegal there why isnt illegal everywhere in America? I bet a good lawyer could make that case.

I dont know what kind of "revolucion" you're talking about, but I bet I wouldnt like it.

Snarfle		2006-11-08 09:08:49 AM

LGeezer: No, America was deliberately set up as a republic, not a democracy. But you knew that, right?

A republic can be a democracy. But you knew that, right?

scottbody		2006-11-08 09:09:48 AM

Mekongcola: Should these go up in my state, people like me will take high powered silenced rifles and snipe them at distance...

And then you can claim that speed cameras cause gun violence to go up.

/good for you

Alephnaught		2006-11-08 09:10:23 AM

Jesus I hope the lowered the traffic violation qoutas for each department as well or those cops are going be going haywire trying to write enough tickets.

Honestly, I always suspected that things like red light cameras / and traffic police begin producing more accidents they prevent after a certain point. I mean whenever I'm speeding I constatanly am eying my rear view mirror and my left and right flank for polic vehicles, rather than actually insuring im not about to run over any small children / cars.

And i suspect running a quick red is better than say slamming on your bracks, being rear ended into traffic and killing yourself, the little old lady taking the u and the the other car making a left.

Just my two cents though.

Alephnaught		2006-11-08 09:11:42 AM

yes I realize my grammatical errors, you nazi's

tonglebeak		2006-11-08 09:11:43 AM

2006-11-08 09:01:38 AM monster87

tonglebeak >

the problem with that kind of situation ia that should the cops ever decide they want to do something about it, there's nothing you can do to prevent it. And you can be certain that some day someone with the police department will figure out that area and put in a speed trap.

That's true, but until then, it proves to me why having speed cameras is NOT a good thing. If the cops are letting us get away with it, there's a reason. Speed cameras would just nail us for anything without considering circumstances.

scottbody		2006-11-08 09:12:32 AM

celtic004: Anyway, they deemed the practice illegal. I sadly dont know the details, but if its illegal there why isnt illegal everywhere in America? I bet a good lawyer could make that case.

How about gay-marriage, sodomy laws(including oral sex), age of consent, and about 1 million other laws that vary by state? Any good lawyers ready to give it a go?

LGeezer		2006-11-08 09:12:48 AM

celtic004

Oh yah, I totally said that I want a police state... (what the hell are you talking about?)

You just said you wanted the courts to rule speed cameras illegal everywhere. Everywhere includes places where the locals, or their elected representatives, have voted FOR them. If you want the courts to overrule the will of the people, you are after a police state.

Dude -- THINK about what you write before you press 'add comment'!

Snarfle		2006-11-08 09:13:14 AM

serpent_sky: I had the same argument then: it looks stupid and uneducated, and if I am to take something seriously, they should bring their writing up to an acceptable level.

I can render your argument invalid, therefore you're wrong. Regardless of how I spelt any werds in my pizzost.

/god, I'm such an ass sometimes

FLoridaDon		2006-11-08 09:13:22 AM

lol Compareing and act of God vs the over zealous actions of the county goverment.

I fully support a local populations choice on how they should be governed. If the majorty feel Traffic Cameras are little more then Goverment harrassment then Good for them.

I know were I live We got the Radar Guns throw out too.

As an Ex-New Yorker i have been flat spolied by the south. Life sure is alot easier down here.

celtic004		2006-11-08 09:13:27 AM

celtic004: Excuse me, I didnt mean laws I meant practices that have been deemed to infringe on citizen's rights (such as putting up speed cameras).

You don't get a ticket for driving past a speed camera though. You get a ticket for driving past a speed camera at an illegal speed.

it never ends.
Well this particular court decided that the use of speed cameras was illegal, period. I didnt decide it they did, and I dont know the reason because it was not stated in the article.

What you just said is completely irrelevant to anything I've said.

scottbody		2006-11-08 09:14:09 AM

Alephnaught: I mean whenever I'm speeding I constatanly am eying my rear view mirror and my left and right flank for polic vehicles, rather than actually insuring im not about to run over any small children / cars.

So you admit that you are a dangerous driver?

And i suspect running a quick red is better than say slamming on your bracks, being rear ended into traffic and killing yourself, the little old lady taking the u and the the other car making a left.

Did they get rid of yellow lights?

Alexandra		2006-11-08 09:14:56 AM

I have a feeling that those cameras aren't just for speed control. Can you say Big Brother?

A while back we saw someone go through a red light, and a few seconds later we saw a cop catch him. No camera needed.

Snarfle		2006-11-08 09:15:13 AM

celtic004

Your posts didn't read the same way I read them five minutes ago or so. I must have misread then the first time. Sorry about that.

dj4aces		2006-11-08 09:15:21 AM

serpent_sky: If you pass one and do not flash your lights at oncoming traffic

I do, thanks.
However, what's the difference between the cop and the camera? The cop is getting paid to do his farking job, not sit around a farking Krispie Kreme. People will still slow up dangerously quick when they see the sign for the cameras anyway, and this will cause an accident too. So I fail to see your point.

LGeezer		2006-11-08 09:18:16 AM

Snarfle [TotalFark]

LGeezer: No, America was deliberately set up as a republic, not a democracy. But you knew that, right?

A republic can be a democracy. But you knew that, right?

Perhaps, but not in America's case. But YOU knew that, right?

:-)

celtic004		2006-11-08 09:18:49 AM

"celtic004: Anyway, they deemed the practice illegal. I sadly dont know the details, but if its illegal there why isnt illegal everywhere in America? I bet a good lawyer could make that case.

How about gay-marriage, sodomy laws(including oral sex), age of consent, and about 1 million other laws that vary by state? Any good lawyers ready to give it a go?"

Scottbody, if I were a laywer, I'd give it a go for sure.

I get rid of as many laws as possible. Including speeding laws. Yep, everywhere except for neighborhoods and schools would be just like the autobahn.

Thats what I've meant all along LGeezer. I just didnt say it in the right way because I was too busy thinking about what and ass you are.

jcaustin		2006-11-08 09:19:08 AM

LGeezer: You just said you wanted the courts to rule speed cameras illegal everywhere. Everywhere includes places where the locals, or their elected representatives, have voted FOR them. If you want the courts to overrule the will of the people, you are after a police state.

So, the Constitution defines a police state? It clearly grants the judicial branch that power.

Snarfle		2006-11-08 09:19:19 AM

LGeezer: Perhaps, but not in America's case. But YOU knew that, right?

How so?

Jektal		2006-11-08 09:19:36 AM

celctic

"Why don't we all get to vote whether or not we want speed cameras? Is this a police state? "

"If they can vote on it there must be someway the rest of us can."

Doesn't sound like you know what's going on to me. Sounds like you're crying and whining that "teh evil guberment" is putting in policies that you don't like, and you want a say in what they can and cannot do.

Guess what? If your representatives pass laws you don't like, you're partially responsible for their action. And if your judicial system doesn't overthrow those laws, you're partially responsible for their inaction. Even if you personally didn't vote for said persons, you're part of the community that did.

Whining about lack of accurate representation doesn't solve anything.

And let me just go on record and say:

SPEEDING IS ILLEGAL. You don't have to agree with the laws, in fact I think our current speeding laws are ridiculous. But if you're gonna "fight the system", fight the laws, not the enforcement.

celtic004		2006-11-08 09:20:44 AM

Snarfle: Its cool

Snarfle		2006-11-08 09:20:55 AM

celtic004: I get rid of as many laws as possible. Including speeding laws. Yep, everywhere except for neighborhoods and schools would be just like the autobahn.

What about all the people who want those laws upheld? What if the number of people who support said laws outnumber the number of people who don't support said laws?

sunishi		2006-11-08 09:21:32 AM

If every law were enforced to 100%, we'd all be in jail! Yay!

Snarfle		2006-11-08 09:21:47 AM

Jektal: Guess what? If your representatives pass laws you don't like, you're partially responsible for their action. And if your judicial system doesn't overthrow those laws, you're partially responsible for their inaction. Even if you personally didn't vote for said persons, you're part of the community that did.

Bears repeating.

celtic004		2006-11-08 09:23:53 AM

Well as I dont have the power to get rid of those laws it doesnt really matter. And if there were enough of them I didnt like I'd leave the country and find somewhere with more people who thought like me.

As it stands, there arent TOO many laws which piss me off TOO much. But I can still complain about the ones I dont like ")

LGeezer		2006-11-08 09:24:21 AM

Celtic004

Thats what I've meant all along LGeezer. I just didnt say it in the right way because I was too busy thinking about what and ass you are.

Maybe you could put all that spare time thinking about me into getting yourself a better edumacashun?

serpent_sky		2006-11-08 09:24:23 AM

DJ4Aces: However, what's the difference between the cop and the camera? The cop is getting paid to do his farking job, not sit around a farking Krispie Kreme. People will still slow up dangerously quick when they see the sign for the cameras anyway, and this will cause an accident too. So I fail to see your point

My point is both are bad; maybe I mis-read your original comment; I thought you were in favor of cops ticketing people in lieu of the cameras. My point is, both are bad ideas, and both should be outlawed. Cops should be paid to be on hand for true emergencies and real crimes: murder, rape, robbery, physical assault and related crimes, and that's about it. I'd be happy to pay them to eat all the doughnuts they wanted while waiting to tend to true crimes and issues, as opposed to these stupid, pointless laws about how fast someone can drive their car, designed largely to boost revenue for more pointless programs and laws.

Malicious Bastard		2006-11-08 09:26:45 AM

75 comments and not one person mentioned that:

"Because the city is bound by contract to continue the services of German camera operator Traffipax, regardless of the program's legality, it defied the judge's order and reinstated an essentially identical ordinance to continue issuing citations."

This article does not deserve a spiffy tag, it is asinine.

LGeezer		2006-11-08 09:27:13 AM

jcaustin

LGeezer: You just said you wanted the courts to rule speed cameras illegal everywhere. Everywhere includes places where the locals, or their elected representatives, have voted FOR them. If you want the courts to overrule the will of the people, you are after a police state.

So, the Constitution defines a police state? It clearly grants the judicial branch that power.

The right to overrule laws breaking the consitution, which a law against speeding manifestly does not.

bake420		2006-11-08 09:29:19 AM

dj4aces: The cop is getting paid to do his farking job,

which is to protect and serve, but has been bastardized into "tax collecting agent"

celtic004		2006-11-08 09:30:43 AM

I dont think the government is evil. Sh@t happens. Like laws I dont like getting passed. But I VOTE, so I'm allowed to complain. I realize my complaining won't change anything, but it makes me feel better.

When I speed I know I'm taking a risk and I pay the fines if need be (albeit I'm still pissed about it). If a politician were to come along who would make speeding laws more reasonable, I'd totally vote for them.

Did I whine about my lack of representation? Nope.

And I'm NOT responsible for something because the "community around me" voted for it. What am I supposed to do, brainwash them all so they agree with me? Or maybe I'm supposed to sit down and shut up. I dont think so.

celtic004		2006-11-08 09:33:10 AM

Maybe you could put all that spare time thinking about me into getting yourself a better edumacashun?

Maybe you could spend your spare time getting some damn manners.

LGeezer		2006-11-08 09:33:44 AM

Snarfle [TotalFark]

LGeezer: Perhaps, but not in America's case. But YOU knew that, right?

How so?

In a democracy there are no minority rights except as granted by the majority. In a republic, there are. As example: in a democracy 51% of the vote would be enough to see you head lopped from your shoulders. In a republic, 100% (minus your vote, presumably) would still not be enough.

Quick1		2006-11-08 09:36:55 AM

scottbody: Did they get rid of yellow lights?

No, but they sure do adjust them so that there's not enough time to roll through an intersection unless you're speeding. If there's not enough time for me to drive from 20 feet before the intersection to the other side without the light turning red first, then the yellow wasn't long enough. I'd bet if we did a study, we would find that yellows aren't nearly long enough already, and there have also been reports of tampering with the length of yellows in places where there are red lights.

LGeezer		2006-11-08 09:39:16 AM

celtic004

Maybe you could put all that spare time thinking about me into getting yourself a better edumacashun?

Maybe you could spend your spare time getting some damn manners.

So you'd rather be patronised than insulted? Jeez...

celtic004		2006-11-08 09:42:03 AM

Well yes I suppose I would. If I've made an error in something I've said I'd like to be given a chance to correct myself (because the mistake was merely in my wording, not in my thought). I'm not particularly good at debating, but I'd like to get better.

So yes, I'd rather someone be polite than insulting to me any day.

vastrightwing		2006-11-08 09:42:27 AM

sfphinkter		2006-11-08 09:44:13 AM

You know, I kind of like the red light cameras. I'm not too keen about automated speed traps (I'm not too keen on most of the speed limits in this country), but the red light cameras can prevent highly fatal side-impact accidents from happening.

Depending on how well it's implemented, you often see an increase in whiplash injuries and fenderbenders from people stopping suddenly, but you see fewer cases of people blowing through red lights. I think that's a pretty fair tradeoff. Of course there are going to be people who end up with fines they probably don't deserve, but I like that people have to think twice before entering an intersection.

Snarfle		2006-11-08 09:45:01 AM

LGeezer

Republic:

(1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit

Democracy:

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Emphasis mine. The US fits both of those. Also, neither definition says anything about minority rights. And only one mentions anything resembling a percentage.

staplermofo		2006-11-08 09:48:17 AM

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a lie!

LGeezer		2006-11-08 09:50:08 AM

celtic004

Well yes I suppose I would. If I've made an error in something I've said I'd like to be given a chance to correct myself (because the mistake was merely in my wording, not in my thought). I'm not particularly good at debating, but I'd like to get better.

So yes, I'd rather someone be polite than insulting to me any day.

Fair enough -- then I apologise.

I've no more love for speed cameras than you, and I know that the effect of their use is to generate revenue more than road safety. Perhaps the best thing to do is take your ass to another town where they don't have cameras; your first town will lose your tax revenue and end up a city full of oldies: then we'll see whether they like those apples.

FallingKnife		2006-11-08 09:51:28 AM

sfphinkter: you see fewer cases of people blowing through red lights

I remember the good old days when if you had to make a left turn at a busy light, at least you could use the yellow, and the guy behind you could turn too. Now you can't hardly use the red.

Displayed 50 of 170 comments