use the camera proceeds for road diets.

 

Completely fine with this solution. The goal of these things should be to make themselves obsolete!

use the camera proceeds for road diets.

 

Where does your hatred of cars come from. It is obvious that your bias against cars has blinded you from common sense policy

I don't hate cars.  I own one and enjoy the convenience it provides.  I just don't like entitled reckless drivers that endanger those around them.  Using fines from cameras to make roads safer is about as common sense as it gets.

I think GCrites point is that he wants the same outcome but a different solution. Personally, while I don't think it's all that difficult to just actually follow the law, I still think it would be far better if we A) actually trained people better or B) made the punishment so much worse that people would stop risking it. I lean more toward option A for a variety of reasons, but I also think that people just learn where the cameras are and still drive recklessly elsewhere. On 3rd Street, I could just go 35 past the camera and still go 50 the rest of the way, because the road is still huge. Nothing changed, and you won't change that without constant monitoring, road diets, bigger punishments and/or better training. Cameras are just a band-aid that move the problem around in the long run, and don't fix the problem as effectively as they could be fixed, but there is zero political capital to be gained in increasing the requirements for getting/keeping a license.

 

There isn't, and there also is little motivation from lobbyists to make roads safer with road diets and zero motivation from them to implement consumer vehicle safety inspections. But there seemed to be an unlimited amount of lobbying for red light cameras from Redflex and other private sector manufacturers/managers of them. That profit motive and sky-high profit margin led to graft. Profit from safety inspections is so scattered among vehicle manufacturers, parts suppliers, tire companies, independent repair shops and auto parts stores that it is much harder for them to lobby in concert. Road engineering consultants (a powerful lobby) would much rather move a bunch of dirt rather than do bump-outs, minor traffic engineering and re-striping.

 

Remember that 25 in a 35 is 40% over the limit as opposed to 75 in a 65 which is 15% over. There should never be any pedestrians present in a 40 mph or over zone.

use the camera proceeds for road diets.

 

Where does your hatred of cars come from. It is obvious that your bias against cars has blinded you from common sense policy

 

Reducing the amount of street space dedicated to cars and giving some of it back to bikes and/or pedestrians is not a "hatred of cars". Cities should be designed for people first, and giving more space to wider sidewalks, better crosswalks, or bike lanes is usually the better option in cities. It also naturally reduces speeding since drivers have to be more careful.

 

I don't hate cars.  I own one and enjoy the convenience it provides.  I just don't like entitled reckless drivers that endanger those around them.  Using fines from cameras to make roads safer is about as common sense as it gets.

 

People need to learn to be less impulsive and impatient. They also need to maintain their vehicles and their skills. Robocops aren't the way to accomplish that. "Common sense" = "agrees with ME" and isn't an effective debate tool when dealing with IQs over 110.

^ My use of the phrase common sense was mocking another person that brought it up. 

There seems to be an assumption here that all speed limits are inherently sensible, and yet they vary from place to place.  Is Columbus more dangerous than Cleveland due to higher speed limits on similar roads?  Do fatality statistics bear this out?  Is Linndale safer because its tiny stretch of Memphis Ave is 25 instead of 35?  I would venture that Brooklyn and Cleveland are safer because they ban phone calls and texting. 

^ 327 you don't understand, all speed limits are sensible because they are determined by government who is all knowing and has the smartest people in the world working for it. They know all areas of the road, since they built it, and know exactly what the safest speed is on every inch of road. Other factors do not matter at all. We must trust the experts that the safest speed is exactly what they post, no more no less. There is no room for debate. 

 

 

^ Translation:  all laws are made up by all knowing government, therefore, I should just do whatever I want. 

^ I don't know about you. I obey the law. I also use common sense and good judgment and think for myself on the road too. I pay attention to the road conditions and drive under the speed limit when the conditions dictate, I also don't sweat about going 5 miles over on the highway on a clear day and the road is uncongested. This is called common sense.

 

Relying solely on what the sign does without any other analysis as to the conditions and situation. That is being a lemming.

^ I drive the posted limit with the exception of interstates where I do exceed the limit.  However, I accept that I am breaking the law and deserve the punishment that the state has determined is appropriate.  It is called living in a society and respecting the rule of law.  You call it being a lemming I call it being personally responsible for my actions. 

You realize that ISPs and governmental agencies are monitoring our phone calls, website visits, etc., right? And if the US government finds a website that's hosting child porn or pirated movies or some other illegal content, they're going to check the visitor logs and find the IP addresses of the people who have accessed that site, and go after them for breaking the law, right?

 

So... how are red light cameras any different? Let's say that you have a red light camera that simply generates a log of every car that run a red light, along with a video of them doing it. Once a day, a police officer logs into that system, and issues a ticket to each of the drivers that ran a red light. How is that any different?

 

Obviously the severity of the crime is different... but technically speaking, how it any different? If you have been logged in a database as having broken a law, and we have video to back it up, why shouldn't the police be able to issue you a ticket?

 

Two pages later and no one has been able to answer this question.

 

But it's become increasingly clear.

 

People's problem with red light cameras isn't the cameras at all. It's that they feel like it's okay to break the speed limit and they don't like the fact that cameras catch them doing it.

On the topic of speed limits: they are statutorily set by the Ohio Revised Code. If cities want to lower the speed limit beyond what the ORC states, it needs to commission an engineering study and ODOT must approve it. Conversely, if cities want to raise the speed limit on their roads they can do so on their own without study.

I just don't understand where this argument is going. A uniform speed needs to be established and enforced in order to have the safest operation of the road. I don't think you can argue that. Then logically you need to enforce said speed limits.

 

Individual dangerous can be cited under a different statute (reckless op, disregard of safety, etc). But speed limits are still there for a safety reason.

 

*Edited for clarity

I have a hard time believing that a "calibration" issue with a speed camera is anywhere near as complicated as those with breathalyzers.  It is well-known that breathalyzers are very complicated machines that give errant readings if they are not properly maintained.  They also give errant readings when the officer administering the test cajoles a suspect into doing things that exaggerate the alcohol reading.  The most common tactic is to force the suspect into blowing as hard as humanly possible into the tube.  That causes undigested alcohol from a the suspect's last drink to shoot directly into the machine and cause the needle to go wild.  Obviously, alcohol that has not yet been digested is not in the blood stream, but it puts people over the top. 

 

There's simply no way that a radar gun is as complicated as what goes on with breathalyzers.  In rare cases one might lose its calibration, but not at the epidemic level that afflicts breathalyzers. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad Cincinnati's local regulation is in line with the state law that was overturned - so nothing here will really change:

 

Article XIV. - LIMITATIONS ON USE OF PHOTO-MONITORING DEVICES TO DETECT CERTAIN TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATIONS

 

Section 1.

 

The city, including its various boards, agencies, and departments, shall not use any traffic law photo-monitoring device for the enforcement of a qualified traffic law violation, unless a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device and personally issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation.

 

(Added by Ord. No. 276-2008, § 1, effective November 4, 2008; election of November 4, 2008)

I'm glad Cincinnati's local regulation is in line with the state law that was overturned - so nothing here will really change:

 

Article XIV. - LIMITATIONS ON USE OF PHOTO-MONITORING DEVICES TO DETECT CERTAIN TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATIONS

 

Section 1.

 

The city, including its various boards, agencies, and departments, shall not use any traffic law photo-monitoring device for the enforcement of a qualified traffic law violation, unless a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device and personally issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation.

 

(Added by Ord. No. 276-2008, § 1, effective November 4, 2008; election of November 4, 2008)

 

Put a few of those cameras on McMillan St. and the Vine St. hill and the motorcycle swarms are no more. 

 

I'm glad Cincinnati's local regulation is in line with the state law that was overturned - so nothing here will really change:

 

Article XIV. - LIMITATIONS ON USE OF PHOTO-MONITORING DEVICES TO DETECT CERTAIN TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATIONS

 

Section 1.

 

The city, including its various boards, agencies, and departments, shall not use any traffic law photo-monitoring device for the enforcement of a qualified traffic law violation, unless a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device and personally issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation.

 

(Added by Ord. No. 276-2008, § 1, effective November 4, 2008; election of November 4, 2008)

 

Put a few of those cameras on McMillan St. and the Vine St. hill and the motorcycle swarms are no more. 

 

 

They've already got their license plates trapped underneath their rear faring and bent around to meet the contour of the fender which is legal but not photogenic.

 

This conversation is obviously not going anywhere. Please quit bickering.

Justin Jeffre calls for a new charter amendment to overturn the charter amendment he campaigned for back in 2008:

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2023/03/06/opinion-time-to-put-red-light-camera-ban-on-the-ballot-again/69956498007/

Well at least he's being honest about his prior involvement.

 

I'm still interested in how this program can avoid being a net-loss for the city. It's my understanding that these systems are usually rented and I wonder if the city would also lose LGF for the court fee part of the tickets. According to Mark Jeffreys, the LGF deduction does not count in school zones, so maybe that's the start.

On 7/28/2017 at 11:28 AM, Enginerd said:

I just don't understand where this argument is going. A uniform speed needs to be established and enforced in order to have the safest operation of the road. I don't think you can argue that. Then logically you need to enforce said speed limits. (emphasis added by Gildone)

 

Individual dangerous can be cited under a different statute (reckless op, disregard of safety, etc). But speed limits are still there for a safety reason.

 

*Edited for clarity

 

In the US and Canada, the setting of speed limits is far too disconnected from the engineering design of roads.  In the Netherlands they do very little traffic enforcement because they design roads to encourage the speed outcome they want for it.  In the States, we design city streets for higher speeds than what is truly safe for the environment in which the street exists.  It's completely backward, and people are dying because of it.  Speeding is an engineering problem first and an enforcement problem last. 

 

To make matters worse, we have ridiculous bureaucratic hurdles in place if a city wants to do any re-engineering of city streets to make them safer.  There are also too many city engineers out there who refuse to acknowledge that road design matters and keep saying that speeding is an enforcement problem.

Edited April 6, 20232 yr by gildone
spelling, clarity

46 minutes ago, gildone said:

 

In the US and Canada, the setting of speed limits is far to disconnected from the engineering design of roads.  In the Netherlands they do very little traffic enforcement because they design roads to encourage the speed outcome they want for it.  In the States, we design city streets for higher speeds than what is truly safe for the environment in which the street exists.  It's completely backward, and people are dying because of it.  Speeding is an engineering problem first and an enforcement problem last. 

 

To make matters worse, we have ridiculous bureaucratic hurdles in place if a city wants to do any re-engineering of city streets to make them safer.  There are also too many city engineers out there who refuse to acknowledge that road design matters and keep saying that speeding is an enforcement problem.

My post is 6 years old and I have no idea what I was responding to lol, but I don’t disagree with you at all

3 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

My post is 6 years old and I have no idea what I was responding to lol, but I don’t disagree with you at all

I didn't realize it was that old.  Oops...

6 hours ago, gildone said:

 

In the US and Canada, the setting of speed limits is far too disconnected from the engineering design of roads.  In the Netherlands they do very little traffic enforcement because they design roads to encourage the speed outcome they want for it.  In the States, we design city streets for higher speeds than what is truly safe for the environment in which the street exists.  It's completely backward, and people are dying because of it.  Speeding is an engineering problem first and an enforcement problem last. 

 

To make matters worse, we have ridiculous bureaucratic hurdles in place if a city wants to do any re-engineering of city streets to make them safer.  There are also too many city engineers out there who refuse to acknowledge that road design matters and keep saying that speeding is an enforcement problem.

As an aside, ODOT is convincing another speed limit review committee to figure out better ways to set speed limit. Matt Butler of the Devou Good Foundation is a committee member and live-tweeted their first meeting: 

 

@Dev  Good to hear.  Let's hope some good comes of it. 

21 hours ago, gildone said:

@Dev  Good to hear.  Let's hope some good comes of it. 

I agree. The last round barely did anything, as they only made minor tweaks to the calc sheet for speed limits. For urban settings, it could maybe get a 35 reduced to a 30, so a lot of work for fairly little gain.

On 3/14/2023 at 9:15 AM, Dev said:

Well at least he's being honest about his prior involvement.

 

I'm still interested in how this program can avoid being a net-loss for the city. It's my understanding that these systems are usually rented and I wonder if the city would also lose LGF for the court fee part of the tickets. According to Mark Jeffreys, the LGF deduction does not count in school zones, so maybe that's the start.

Let's keep speed cameras and red light cameras out of the city. They are highly problematic and pose due process challenges. They do not serve a purpose other than to line cities pockets with ticket revenue most often from lower income residents. Jeffre is wrong, they should not be revisited. There are better ways to control speeds without infringing on due process rights

31 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Let's keep speed cameras and red light cameras out of the city. They are highly problematic and pose due process challenges. They do not serve a purpose other than to line cities pockets with ticket revenue most often from lower income residents. Jeffre is wrong, they should not be revisited. There are better ways to control speeds without infringing on due process rights

I am also a skeptic of ATE but to say that they are only used to pad the city's budget is disingenuous. It's not hard to set up the financial stack so that it isn't just a money-making exercise. Have the revenue fund proven traffic calming measures so that it acts similar to a Pigouvian Tax. As the ticket revenue helps pay for street improvements, eventually the ticket revenue will dry up, and the cameras will no longer serve any useful purpose allowing them to be removed. Given the vast amount of work necessary to calm our streets, some form of ATE is going to at least be necessary as a stop-gap measure until the government can update the design to be inherently safe.

 

Also, the oft-cited study that showed that Chicago's cameras were racially biased had specific recommendations on how to fix the network to be less predatory of a specific subset of the community. So like everything else, the devil's in the details.

 

The due process argument has never made any sense to me. Just require that a PO review the alleged infraction before sending the ticket. If someone wants to challenge their accuser, that's the person that would have to respond at a court hearing.

I love when you state your opinion as fact. There should be limits to revenue generation to avoid exploitation, but short of redesigning every street, this can greatly reduce crashes and serious injuries.

 

They save lives.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factsheet/speed.html

 

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/abstract

3 minutes ago, Dev said:

The due process argument has never made any sense to me. Just require that a PO review the alleged infraction before sending the ticket. If someone wants to challenge their accuser, that's the person that would have to respond at a court hearing.

Due process is the most important part of it. The problem is you have traffic camera that does not determine driver of the vehicle and only serves to determine who the vehicle belongs too. This sets up issue where the driver gets a ticket and fine and could lose their property when they were not the one who committed the offense. In addition, it is expensive and time consuming for the individual to question the calibration of the equipment and ensure it is correct without the physical officer there to testify. while the person may have the ability to contest in court, without a physical witness there to testify on behalf of the police, it creates due process issues (which should ALWAYS take precedence over any potential safety issues that could be gained from such a scheme).

 

Safety is important but not at the expense of Due Process.

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Due process is the most important part of it. The problem is you have traffic camera that does not determine driver of the vehicle and only serves to determine who the vehicle belongs too. This sets up issue where the driver gets a ticket and fine and could lose their property when they were not the one who committed the offense. In addition, it is expensive and time consuming for the individual to question the calibration of the equipment and ensure it is correct without the physical officer there to testify. while the person may have the ability to contest in court, without a physical witness there to testify on behalf of the police, it creates due process issues (which should ALWAYS take precedence over any potential safety issues that could be gained from such a scheme).

 

Safety is important but not at the expense of Due Process.

 

So are camera operated toll booths illegal? We don't know who is driving. What about parking tickets?

 

Simply have county auditors verify the accuracy like they do gas pumps and scales. This isn't that hard.

35 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Let's keep speed cameras and red light cameras out of the city. They are highly problematic and pose due process challenges. They do not serve a purpose other than to line cities pockets with ticket revenue most often from lower income residents. Jeffre is wrong, they should not be revisited. There are better ways to control speeds without infringing on due process rights

 

If we're specifically talking about red light cameras, isn't running a red light a pretty clear violation?  This isn't a speeding issue and calibrating speed guns or whatnot.  Just a camera, reviewed by a police officer, and video evidence of a vehicle running a red light.  Contestable in court like any other ticket, but probably a tough reverse.

 

Running a red light is a clear safety issue.

 

They already levy a fine against the car, not the driver (no points on license).  How about "any car that runs a red light must pay $400 or get a tire boot for three days"? 

 

Your objection to an due process might be the "automatic" nature of a fine levied without an assigned court date.  That's easily fixed and is a process objection not an objection to using traffic cameras.

16 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

If we're specifically talking about red light cameras, isn't running a red light a pretty clear violation?  This isn't a speeding issue and calibrating speed guns or whatnot.  Just a camera, reviewed by a police officer, and video evidence of a vehicle running a red light.  Contestable in court like any other ticket, but probably a tough reverse.

 

Running a red light is a clear safety issue.

 

They already levy a fine against the car, not the driver (no points on license).  How about "any car that runs a red light must pay $400 or get a tire boot for three days"? 

 

Your objection to an due process might be the "automatic" nature of a fine levied without an assigned court date.  That's easily fixed and is a process objection not an objection to using traffic cameras.

I'd love to see them back in Cleveland, where some folks have decided red lights are optional.  

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Due process is the most important part of it. The problem is you have traffic camera that does not determine driver of the vehicle and only serves to determine who the vehicle belongs too. This sets up issue where the driver gets a ticket and fine and could lose their property when they were not the one who committed the offense. In addition, it is expensive and time consuming for the individual to question the calibration of the equipment and ensure it is correct without the physical officer there to testify. while the person may have the ability to contest in court, without a physical witness there to testify on behalf of the police, it creates due process issues (which should ALWAYS take precedence over any potential safety issues that could be gained from such a scheme).

 

Safety is important but not at the expense of Due Process.

You can't break the rules just because no one is watching. Driving isn't a right. It's a privilege on public property.

On 4/10/2023 at 12:27 PM, Dcs3939 said:

ou can't break the rules just because no one is watching. Driving isn't a right. It's a privilege on public property.

This has absolutely nothing to do with due process. You cant murder someone either, but that same criminal has a right to fair trial to present his/her case.

14 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

This has absolutely nothing to do with due process. You cant murder someone either, but that same criminal has a right to fair trial to present his/her case.

Traffic cameras don't prevent people from requesting a trial.  

20 hours ago, gildone said:

Traffic cameras don't prevent people from requesting a trial.  

Due Process is more than a trial. It is a Fair Trial. You seem to have forgotten the fair part. With due process, you have a right to question your accuser to his face. It is why the police officer must appear in court whenever they write the ticket and someone challenges it. Otherwise, the case will be dismissed out of fairness. It does not mean that the person was not speeding, but it means that the state has the burden of proof and must make the officer available at the time of the trail for questioning.

 

Do you seriously think that this could happen with red light cameras? The whole point of them is to cut down on police resources and allow better coverage. Then often, you have 3rd party companies that actually own and run the program. Do you think you could actually subpoena the parties to testify before a court for every ticket that someone challenges? Wont happen, cant happen, just not practical. And when it does happen, those cases would take months to resolve themselves 

 

Who suffers the most through this process? Yes, that is correct, the poor, often minority, who does not have the money to properly challenge a dubious claim and has to pay a fine that they should not be responsible for in the first place. 

 

Which is why the whole revenue enhancement scheme using cameras is problematic  

25 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Due Process is more than a trial. It is a Fair Trial. You seem to have forgotten the fair part. With due process, you have a right to question your accuser to his face. It is why the police officer must appear in court whenever they write the ticket and someone challenges it. Otherwise, the case will be dismissed out of fairness. It does not mean that the person was not speeding, but it means that the state has the burden of proof and must make the officer available at the time of the trail for questioning.

 

Do you seriously think that this could happen with red light cameras? The whole point of them is to cut down on police resources and allow better coverage. Then often, you have 3rd party companies that actually own and run the program. Do you think you could actually subpoena the parties to testify before a court for every ticket that someone challenges? Wont happen, cant happen, just not practical. And when it does happen, those cases would take months to resolve themselves 

 

Who suffers the most through this process? Yes, that is correct, the poor, often minority, who does not have the money to properly challenge a dubious claim and has to pay a fine that they should not be responsible for in the first place. 

 

Which is why the whole revenue enhancement scheme using cameras is problematic  

But it's technology...something we all submit to for highway tolls, airport screening, ordering coffee, etc...

 

 The court has a photo of your car and license plate running the red light with a time stamp.   Of course some rich guy could pay his lawyer to challenge ever little aspect of the technology in court, but if the end result is fewer people running lights, less accidents, injuries and deaths, isn't that a net positive? 

34 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is why the police officer must appear in court whenever they write the ticket and someone challenges it. Otherwise, the case will be dismissed out of fairness. 

 

I didn't know this.  Twenty years ago I was ticketed for riding a bicycle the wrong way on a one-way and just paid the ticket instead of challenging.  It's unlikely that the officer would have shown up.    

3 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

I didn't know this.  Twenty years ago I was ticketed for riding a bicycle the wrong way on a one-way and just paid the ticket instead of challenging.  It's unlikely that the officer would have shown up.    

In my youthful and freewheeling days of my 20s, I once managed to get 3 speeding tickets within a 10 day period (2x from the same officer on 480, 1x on the innerbelt downtown).   I went to court for all three, and all three were dismissed due to prosecution lack of witness.    I learned later that CPD officers only get OT in court for felony cases.  Not sure if this is true.   @KFM44107could maybe corroborate? 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

But it's technology...something we all submit to for highway tolls, airport screening, ordering coffee, etc...

 

 The court has a photo of your car and license plate running the red light with a time stamp.   Of course some rich guy could pay his lawyer to challenge ever little aspect of the technology in court, but if the end result is fewer people running lights, less accidents, injuries and deaths, isn't that a net positive? 

Toll roads and red-light cameras are apples to oranges though. The state has a right to impose a "user fee" to use the roads. Everyone pays tolls equally no matter who you are, just by driving you are subjected to tolls. There is no due process issue taking a photo of your license and sending a bill in the mail. This is just a more efficient way to collect a user fee, which is what tolls are. Only when you do not pay the toll or fee, does a criminal matter of fines apply. That is a separate issue than the actual application of the user fee of going through a toll plaza and having your license scanned.

 

The red-light camera or speeding camera is solely to catch people who are violating the legal speed limit or running the red light. It is not a user fee because only users who do not follow the rules are subject to pay the fee (I know many people say so what, they broke the law and deserve the fine, which is true as long as it is done correctly). Therefore, since this is essentially a criminal issue enforced under the law by the state, the Due Process applies and matters. This is why Ohio changed the law a few years back in regards to speed cameras in the state where the police officer needed to be on-site to monitor the camera (which effectively eliminates the benefits of a speed camera when the police can just use their radar) because of the due process issues involving calibration, etc.  It is also why DUI cases are tough to prosecute (and most of the people convicted of DUI are the ones who are not represented) because it is easy to challenge all the steps in the process (including the calibration of the breathalyzer) which make it easier to reduce the charges and have the person plead to a lesser charge. 

26 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

I didn't know this.  Twenty years ago I was ticketed for riding a bicycle the wrong way on a one-way and just paid the ticket instead of challenging.  It's unlikely that the officer would have shown up.    

It is a crap shoot sometimes. When you think he wont show up, he usually does. It always helps when the officer works late night and was on duty the night before your court date and had a busy night and a lot of paperwork to complete before going home or going to court. 

24 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

In my youthful and freewheeling days of my 20s, I once managed to get 3 speeding tickets within a 10 day period (2x from the same officer on 480, 1x on the innerbelt downtown).   I went to court for all three, and all three were dismissed due to prosecution lack of witness.    I learned later that CPD officers only get OT in court for felony cases.  Not sure if this is true.   @KFM44107could maybe corroborate? 

 

 

Not true. We get +3 OT for any court appearance or grand jury testimony off duty if you work a normal person shift. +4 if you work night shift. 

31 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Toll roads and red-light cameras are apples to oranges though. The state has a right to impose a "user fee" to use the roads. Everyone pays tolls equally no matter who you are, just by driving you are subjected to tolls. There is no due process issue taking a photo of your license and sending a bill in the mail. This is just a more efficient way to collect a user fee, which is what tolls are. Only when you do not pay the toll or fee, does a criminal matter of fines apply. That is a separate issue than the actual application of the user fee of going through a toll plaza and having your license scanned.

 

The red-light camera or speeding camera is solely to catch people who are violating the legal speed limit or running the red light. It is not a user fee because only users who do not follow the rules are subject to pay the fee (I know many people say so what, they broke the law and deserve the fine, which is true as long as it is done correctly). Therefore, since this is essentially a criminal issue enforced under the law by the state, the Due Process applies and matters. This is why Ohio changed the law a few years back in regards to speed cameras in the state where the police officer needed to be on-site to monitor the camera (which effectively eliminates the benefits of a speed camera when the police can just use their radar) because of the due process issues involving calibration, etc.  It is also why DUI cases are tough to prosecute (and most of the people convicted of DUI are the ones who are not represented) because it is easy to challenge all the steps in the process (including the calibration of the breathalyzer) which make it easier to reduce the charges and have the person plead to a lesser charge. 

I'm not following the due process arguments here. If you receive a traffic citation in the mail that has a a traffic court date, then I fail to see the issue. Secondly, parking infractions are issued to vehicle all the time without knowing who the actual driver is. There is no difference. 

34 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

Not true. We get +3 OT for any court appearance or grand jury testimony off duty if you work a normal person shift. +4 if you work night shift. 

Even for a speeding ticket?   

 

I wonder if it was different in the early 1990's as well...

 

At any rate, very good info--thanks!  

11 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Even for a speeding ticket?   

 

I wonder if it was different in the early 1990's as well...

 

At any rate, very good info--thanks!  

Speeding ticket is still a court appearance. Think about it. It's paying for you travelling on your day off downtown, sitting in court and waiting for your appearance and then your commute home on your day off. 

19 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I'm not following the due process arguments here. If you receive a traffic citation in the mail that has a a traffic court date, then I fail to see the issue. Secondly, parking infractions are issued to vehicle all the time without knowing who the actual driver is. There is no difference. 

Because one of the key tenets of Due Process is that you have a right to question your accuser in court. In this case, it is the officer who wrote the ticket.  For parking infractions, if you challenge them (which is rarely done, but can be challenged), the officer who wrote the ticket will have to appear in court to serve as state's witness to show that they did in fact write the ticket, the meter was expired, car was in a no parking zone, etc. at the time, and the officer was acting in the normal scope of their duties. Parking tickets do not care who the driver is because in one sense it does not matter under the theory of the law, it is up to the owner of the car to ensure that it is stored or parked in a proper way. Speeding and Red light violations are a different part of the law so the same theories do not apply as readily. With a red light camera, if someone challenges you would need to subpoena the officer who wrote the ticket, but they can only testify as to what they saw from the footage or stamped off on, not necessarily as to the accuracy of the camera or the time stamp etc, as those were calibrated by different companies. 

 

Point being, there are a lot of legal due process challenges that can be brought to invalidate such tickets. It is not super complicated for most attorneys who work in that space and essentially, the mere presence of an attorney in such a case will get it either thrown out or plead down to a lower offense because it is not in the state's interest to prosecute such a case (for many reasons, namely cost, but also the potential risk that the entire law could be struck down by the court). So the people that suffer the full brunt of such laws is often younger, minority, immigrants, and poor people who do not understand the technicalities of the law and cannot afford a lawyer to act in their interest.

 

So that begs the question, should cities be trying to balance their budgets in this way and fund the police on the backs of poor people?

Just now, Brutus_buckeye said:

Because one of the key tenets of Due Process is that you have a right to question your accuser in court. In this case, it is the officer who wrote the ticket.  For parking infractions, if you challenge them (which is rarely done, but can be challenged), the officer who wrote the ticket will have to appear in court to serve as state's witness to show that they did in fact write the ticket, the meter was expired, car was in a no parking zone, etc. at the time, and the officer was acting in the normal scope of their duties. Parking tickets do not care who the driver is because in one sense it does not matter under the theory of the law, it is up to the owner of the car to ensure that it is stored or parked in a proper way. Speeding and Red light violations are a different part of the law so the same theories do not apply as readily. With a red light camera, if someone challenges you would need to subpoena the officer who wrote the ticket, but they can only testify as to what they saw from the footage or stamped off on, not necessarily as to the accuracy of the camera or the time stamp etc, as those were calibrated by different companies. 

 

Point being, there are a lot of legal due process challenges that can be brought to invalidate such tickets. It is not super complicated for most attorneys who work in that space and essentially, the mere presence of an attorney in such a case will get it either thrown out or plead down to a lower offense because it is not in the state's interest to prosecute such a case (for many reasons, namely cost, but also the potential risk that the entire law could be struck down by the court). So the people that suffer the full brunt of such laws is often younger, minority, immigrants, and poor people who do not understand the technicalities of the law and cannot afford a lawyer to act in their interest.

 

So that begs the question, should cities be trying to balance their budgets in this way and fund the police on the backs of poor people?

Police don't have to personally witness crimes. If I get arrested for murder, the fact that the office didn't witness the crime has no bearing on my due process. So I'm not sure I understand this argument. 

The balance the budget argument also doesn't make any sense since Ohio municipalities are not actually allowed to make additional revenue off of the cameras.