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.

(Coshocton Tribune)   Ohio set to ban all traffic cameras. Tag is for the residents, who signed the petitions, and the legislators, who listened for once   (coshoctontribune.com) divider line 75
    More: Hero, Ohio, traffic cameras, Governors Highway Safety Association, due processes, legislators, petitions, Jonathan Adkins  
•       •       •

1317 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Mar 2013 at 8:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-11 08:10:21 AM
I wonder when we'll see the first lawsuits to overturn this ban...?
 
2013-03-11 08:42:08 AM

Weaver95: I wonder when we'll see the first lawsuits to overturn this ban...?


About when that asshat traffic cam company in Arizon a gets its lobbyists cranked up to shut this sh*t down before it becomes a trend.
 
2013-03-11 08:42:35 AM
Red light cameras were probably a good idea when they were used only at intersections where there were a high number of accidents caused by red light violations, but then cities got greedy. Now they're simply a source of revenue. Good for Ohio and the ten other states that outlaw them.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-11 08:52:01 AM
I wonder when we'll see the first lawsuits to overturn this ban...?

In 2011 Tennessee banned camera tickets for right on red, eliminating the profit potential at most intersections. The first lawsuit came four months after the law's effective date, the delay probably caused by negotiations over a contract buyout. The companies lost.

Ohio legislators proposed a ban on traffic enforcement cameras to eliminate what they see as violations of drivers' rights.

Ban bills are fairly common. The companies only need to pay off one leader or committee chair to stop them.
 
2013-03-11 08:56:31 AM
I'm okay with red-light cams usually, but speed cams are just awful.  But I'd rather go none than go both.  It's not often I can say this, but today I'm proud to be an Ohioan.
 
2013-03-11 08:59:41 AM

CruiserTwelve: Red light cameras were probably a good idea when they were used only at intersections where there were a high number of accidents caused by red light violations, but then cities got greedy. Now they're simply a source of revenue. Good for Ohio and the ten other states that outlaw them.


I don't knoew what the reason is. I'll confess that I thought they were a good idea when they first came out. But based on what has actually happened, I'd have to be an idiot to still think so. This is just one of those things that "seemed like a good idea at the time".
 
2013-03-11 09:00:45 AM

CruiserTwelve: Red light cameras were probably a good idea when they were used only at intersections where there were a high number of accidents caused by red light violations, but then cities got greedy.


Not really. Studies have pretty consistently shown that they increase collisions and property damage totals, especially when they're combined with yellow light timing shortages.

I like Georgia's approach, which boils down to "You can use them BUT you have to time the yellow signal to at least one full second more than the federal standard." Red light violations dropped by 80%, and many of the camera systems became unprofitable.
 
2013-03-11 09:00:47 AM

Weaver95: I wonder when we'll see the first lawsuits to overturn this ban...?


Back here in Illinois, a few years ago this town decided to ban all of the red light cameras in the town. Well the state stepped in and told them they could remove all of the cameras in the town if they wanted to, except for the ones on the the state route that run through the town because the state owns that road.
 
2013-03-11 09:01:02 AM

Weaver95: I wonder when we'll see the first lawsuits to overturn this ban...?


Who would sue? Who would have standing?
 
2013-03-11 09:04:33 AM
api.ning.com
 
2013-03-11 09:04:33 AM
If Ohio is doing something right, maybe next we can go for a total federal ban on weaponized drones operating in domestic airspace, before any of that shiat gets out of control.
 
2013-03-11 09:04:43 AM
ban cameras.  Use a combination of radar and RFID in license plates instead...
 
2013-03-11 09:09:15 AM
Won't someone please think of the revenue?
 
2013-03-11 09:10:16 AM
I have no problem with traffic cameras, I have a problem with law enforcement duties being given to a private contractor whose incentive is money and not safety.

Here's how I would like to see traffic cameras used:

A government entity issues a contract to company to install and maintain cameras in a lump sum. The contractor will not receive any portion of revenue. Tickets will be issued by the police department. Photos will be required to be reviewed in person by a police office and the issued ticket will be required to bear an officer's signature.
 
2013-03-11 09:10:16 AM

Zeno-25: If Ohio is doing something right, maybe next we can go for a total federal ban on weaponized drones operating in domestic airspace, before any of that shiat gets out of control.


Ready to protect Jane Fonda from the Nazis, are you? But, what about the reverse vampires, lying in wait to trample your rights and thuck your blahd?
 
2013-03-11 09:17:09 AM

Weaver95: I wonder when we'll see the first lawsuits to overturn this ban...?


Doubt they'd be successful. These cameras don't have a great track record in court.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-11 09:17:42 AM
danvon

In Tennessee the companies with contracts sued because the ban on camera tickets for right on red violations was (in their eyes) an unconstitutional impairment of a contract. They also sued in Texas to overturn ballot questions, in one case winning the battle (lawsuit) but losing the war (subsequent city council vote). In Washington ticket camera companies funded voter lawsuits against ballot questions.

Companies try to get contracts with harsh terms for cancellation so the city can't afford to stop. Some bans only affect new contracts, and companies have negotiated very long term contracts in advance of a prospective ban.
 
2013-03-11 09:19:43 AM

ltdanman44: [api.ning.com image 650x652]


As a non-Ohio native who is now stuck in Ohio, that one stings every time.
 
2013-03-11 09:20:24 AM

serial_crusher: ban cameras.  Use a combination of radar and RFID in license plates instead...


How would this accomplish anything, other than increasing the cost and complexity of the system while disposing of actual evidence that could be used in court to defend against bogus citations?
=Smidge=
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-11 09:21:13 AM
HeartBurnKid

While cameras do not have a good record against explicit state bans, they have a good record against cities acting on their own. Washington courts ruled ballot initiatives could not be used to ban cameras. A federal judge in Texas ruled against Houston's ban, but the city council listened to voters for a change and overruled the mayor and camera company.
 
2013-03-11 09:21:44 AM

max_pooper: I have no problem with traffic cameras, I have a problem with law enforcement duties being given to a private contractor whose incentive is money and not safety.


Do you have a problem with law enforcement whose incentive is money and not safety?
 
2013-03-11 09:22:38 AM

max_pooper: I have no problem with traffic cameras, I have a problem with law enforcement duties being given to a private contractor whose incentive is money and not safety.

Here's how I would like to see traffic cameras used:

A government entity issues a contract to company to install and maintain cameras in a lump sum. The contractor will not receive any portion of revenue. Tickets will be issued by the police department. Photos will be required to be reviewed in person by a police office and the issued ticket will be required to bear an officer's signature.


But what's the point of red light cameras? They don't actually make the intersection safer. Why have them at all?
 
2013-03-11 09:24:38 AM

Smidge204: serial_crusher: ban cameras.  Use a combination of radar and RFID in license plates instead...

How would this accomplish anything, other than increasing the cost and complexity of the system while disposing of actual evidence that could be used in court to defend against bogus citations?
=Smidge=


Just sounds like the sort of thing that would happen.
Kickbacks to politicians from the manufacturers (think TSA backscatter machines vs metal detectors).  Politicians get to be the guy who fought against traffic cameras until after the next election.
Plus it makes an easier surveillance state having the RFID on everybody's car.  Drones can't really see your license plate very easily right now.  The RFID will make it way easier to get a missile lock on you if needed.
 
2013-03-11 09:26:32 AM
Ohioans must be too stupid to figure out how to monetize these cameras.
Raising fines up to $500 per ticket would line some pockets, yes it would!
 
2013-03-11 09:28:23 AM

Misch: CruiserTwelve: Red light cameras were probably a good idea when they were used only at intersections where there were a high number of accidents caused by red light violations, but then cities got greedy.

Not really. Studies have pretty consistently shown that they increase collisions and property damage totals, especially when they're combined with yellow light timing shortages.

I like Georgia's approach, which boils down to "You can use them BUT you have to time the yellow signal to at least one full second more than the federal standard." Red light violations dropped by 80%, and many of the camera systems became unprofitable.


Could somebody please explain the above to a foreigner? What's a yellow light timing shortage? And what's so bad about speeding cameras?
 
2013-03-11 09:29:07 AM

CPennypacker: what's the point of red light cameras? They don't actually make the intersection safer


Are you arguing from uncited statistics here?  Seems like a no brainer to me that writing a ticket to a light-runner will make them less likely to run lights in the future (whether ticket is written by a real cop or a camera).  At the very least they'll think twice at that same light next time.

Tweaking the light so it doesn't stay yellow as long as it should, as a means of increasing violations/camera revenue... that doesn't make the intersection safer.  Makes it less safe.  But actual fair enforcement via camera, why not?
 
2013-03-11 09:33:53 AM

Ilmarinen: Could somebody please explain the above to a foreigner? What's a yellow light timing shortage? And what's so bad about speeding cameras?


1) Yellow lights can be timed to be on for longer or shorter periods of time.
2) Americans generally don't favor regulations or measures taken, especially by the government, that prevent them from doing stupid things; they feel their freedom is being infringed in some general way.
This benefits everyone in that the stupid ones get killed in higher numbers than they otherwise would.
 
2013-03-11 09:34:18 AM

serial_crusher: Tweaking the light so it doesn't stay yellow as long as it should, as a means of increasing violations/camera revenue...


I think one of my questions just got answered.....
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-11 09:35:49 AM
serial_crusher

Red light cameras decrease violation rates, as you suggest. You made an unsupported leap from reducing violation rates to improving safety.
 
2013-03-11 09:36:41 AM

Ilmarinen: Could somebody please explain the above to a foreigner? What's a yellow light timing shortage?


Legally the yellow light has to stay yellow for x number of seconds (where x is some function of the speed limit on the road).  Idea is to give drivers enough time to decide whether they can make it through once the light turns yellow.  Less than scrupulous red light companies have been known to reduce the yellow duration, basically to trick people into "running" the light, since it turns red earlier than they'd reasonably expect it to.
I don't readily have figures of how often that actually happens.  I know the times it has, people have fought their tickets in court and won, so seems like it would be too risky to actually reduce the time below legally established minimums.
I guess it's a more likely case that a light would provide more-than-minimum yellow time before having the camera installed, which would then be reduced to the minimum.  Drivers who hit that intersection regularly and got used to the old clock would time it wrong for a while after the change.

/ Don't some countries have an actual countdown displayed on their yellow lights?  Seem like a better idea to me...
 
2013-03-11 09:36:44 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Ilmarinen: Could somebody please explain the above to a foreigner? What's a yellow light timing shortage? And what's so bad about speeding cameras?

1) Yellow lights can be timed to be on for longer or shorter periods of time.
2) Americans generally don't favor regulations or measures taken, especially by the government, that prevent them from doing stupid things; they feel their freedom is being infringed in some general way.
This benefits everyone in that the stupid ones get killed in higher numbers than they otherwise would.


Thanks. About the second point, I always understood they were there to protect the freedom not to be killed by reckless drivers.
 
2013-03-11 09:37:35 AM
"Residents in Chillicothe and Heath overwhelmingly voted to eliminate red-light cameras in November 2009 after concerns that cited drivers could not face their accuser in court. "

In other words, people will pull just about anything out of their asses to protect their "right" to disobey simple traffic laws. Here's a thought: if you have a problem with speed and/or intersection cameras, don't speed or run red lights.
 
2013-03-11 09:38:58 AM

ZAZ: serial_crusher

Red light cameras decrease violation rates, as you suggest. You made an unsupported leap from reducing violation rates to improving safety.


eh, maybe my judgment was clouded by my firsthand experiences with the safety implications of other assholes not stopping at a red light, but I kind of assumed they would decrease proportionally.
 
2013-03-11 09:39:02 AM

Ilmarinen: Misch: CruiserTwelve: Red light cameras were probably a good idea when they were used only at intersections where there were a high number of accidents caused by red light violations, but then cities got greedy.

Not really. Studies have pretty consistently shown that they increase collisions and property damage totals, especially when they're combined with yellow light timing shortages.

I like Georgia's approach, which boils down to "You can use them BUT you have to time the yellow signal to at least one full second more than the federal standard." Red light violations dropped by 80%, and many of the camera systems became unprofitable.

Could somebody please explain the above to a foreigner? What's a yellow light timing shortage? And what's so bad about speeding cameras?


In the US, lights go green > yellow (amber) > red.  The yellow is to signal that the light will soon change to red, and you need to either get through the intersection, or begin stopping.

To catch more people running red lights, some places will make the yellow light very, very short, forcing people to eather slam on their brakes when the light turns yellow, or risk a ticket.

Speeding cameras suck because people like to speed.  Or, the speed limit is too low, depending.
 
2013-03-11 09:41:02 AM
In MD a few weeks ago, after they found that the companies charged with running the cams for the cops were issuing bogus tickets (shocker, I know), a state legislator introduced a bill that would make issuing bad tickets punishable by a $1,000 fine - per infraction.

I think that's the way to go - if they don't screw around with light timing, getting the speed limit lowered (they apparently lobby for that all the time), etc, fine; but the second they're caught being anything less than perfect angels, they pay so much money to the state that they won't need the ticket revenue anymore.
 
2013-03-11 09:42:25 AM
However, Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said traffic enforcement cameras deter unsafe driving. Many people dislike them simply because they like to speed and think it's their right, Adkins said.

And if that is the opinion of the majority of the drivers, then it is their farking right, because that's the idea this farking country was built on.
 
2013-03-11 09:42:49 AM

TerminalEchoes: people will pull just about anything out of their asses to protect their "right" to disobey simple traffic laws


Yep. Ideas like constitutionally required due process are totally fictitious.
 
2013-03-11 09:43:25 AM
Yeah, I'll trust the government to set up a fully automated enforcement system when they demonstrate an ability to set up traffic lights with the yellow duration set appropriately so that there isn't a region where it's impossible to not break the law in a car with standard stopping distance.
 
2013-03-11 09:45:05 AM
The guilt tax you'll pay it because we made you feel guilty.
 
2013-03-11 09:46:54 AM

serial_crusher: ZAZ: serial_crusher

Red light cameras decrease violation rates, as you suggest. You made an unsupported leap from reducing violation rates to improving safety.

eh, maybe my judgment was clouded by my firsthand experiences with the safety implications of other assholes not stopping at a red light, but I kind of assumed they would decrease proportionally.


Not necessarily. You have to consider getting rear ended at a red light is a safety hazard.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-11 09:53:04 AM
serial_crusher

The last few people I saw run a red light in front of me were not dangerous. They missed the light by a second or so, which is typical for red light camera tickets. One I couldn't have hit if I tried because his lane was too far away. The others were crossing a wide intersection with good visibility but a too-short all red interval; it's too short because a driver who barely beat the red going 25 would be as much of an obstacle as the more typical driver who missed by a second going faster.

The greater problem is people who run red lights later in the cycle. Those tend to be drunk or otherwise not paying attention to driving. Cameras don't stop those.
 
2013-03-11 10:05:31 AM

StrangeQ: However, Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said traffic enforcement cameras deter unsafe driving. Many people dislike them simply because they like to speed and think it's their right, Adkins said.

And if that is the opinion of the majority of the drivers, then it is their farking right, because that's the idea this farking country was built on.


If it's truly the opinion of a majority of drivers, they should be able to get the government to change the speed limit.
 
2013-03-11 10:06:17 AM
I think the formula for yellow lights is 1.5 seconds for every 10 MPH.

The red light cameras do not take into account the lights being obstructed because of a big-ass tractor trailer in front of you. There are simply too many real world variables that exist to make a perfect system. If you can't develop a perfect system, don't fine imperfect drivers. A cop can witness these variables so he/she can decide whether someone was being stupid or not.
 
2013-03-11 10:07:48 AM

danvon: TerminalEchoes: people will pull just about anything out of their asses to protect their "right" to disobey simple traffic laws

Yep. Ideas like constitutionally required due process are totally fictitious.


Oh, stop it. We'll just put the camera in the courtroom so that the person can face his accuser. Better?
 
2013-03-11 10:12:33 AM
Totally stupid idea. America needs more of these, not less. If it's a problem, then reduce the punishment.

/Of course the real solution is public transportation, so people don't have to drive their own cars, since they are obviously too stupid to, and not willing to accept the consequences of their stupidity.
 
2013-03-11 10:18:30 AM

TerminalEchoes: Oh, stop it. We'll just put the camera in the courtroom so that the person can face his accuser. Better?


So, you don't really have a response and just decided to post something silly.

The problem with the due process is much more than what you state. It is the issue of having to post the full amount of the fine to get a hearing to dispute the allegations--many times you have to post more than the fine. Name me any other court matter where you, the defendant, have to pay the plaintiff or the state to get a trial.

You go to the hearing and all of their evidence is hearsay. Every bit of it.

There is no one there to testify that the speed that the camera indicates is accurate. Many times, the last time the camera was calibrated was several months ago.

They mail you a citation if it was your car. You are presumed "guilty" because it was your car regardless of if you were driving it or not. If it wasn't you, they make you sign an affidavit swearing it was another person and you have to give that person's name and address. Basically, the state wants you to do their investigation for them.
 
2013-03-11 10:23:59 AM

qorkfiend: StrangeQ: However, Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said traffic enforcement cameras deter unsafe driving. Many people dislike them simply because they like to speed and think it's their right, Adkins said.

And if that is the opinion of the majority of the drivers, then it is their farking right, because that's the idea this farking country was built on.

If it's truly the opinion of a majority of drivers, they should be able to get the government to change the speed limit.


Until they get lobbied by some special interest group with money in the game.
 
2013-03-11 10:46:42 AM
I fought the law and I won.
 
2013-03-11 10:52:21 AM

max_pooper: I have no problem with traffic cameras, I have a problem with law enforcement duties being given to a private contractor whose incentive is money and not safety.

Here's how I would like to see traffic cameras used:

A government entity issues a contract to company to install and maintain cameras in a lump sum. The contractor will not receive any portion of revenue. Tickets will be issued by the police department. Photos will be required to be reviewed in person by a police office and the issued ticket will be required to bear an officer's signature.


Same here. I dislike every case I've seen where government services or activities are outsourced to private, profit-making companies. But most of the complaints I hear about red-light cameras in my area are because "they're attacking my rights as a driver." Their right to speed and run traffic lights and cause accidents, apparently.

There were also a lot of complaints when causing an injury while DUI was upgraded to a felony/
 
2013-03-11 10:55:23 AM

Pick: I fought the law and I won.


ww4.hdnux.com
Totally sees what you did there, wants a Twinkie.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report