Also, courts have found that it is not a violation of due process. You have the chance to confront your accuser, who in this case is the officer who reviews the footage and issues the citation. They don't have to be present on site to do that. Other court rulings have also found that a civil violation and fine for speeding does not rise to the occasion of constitutionally protected due process. So it's really a moot point.

1 hour ago, freefourur said:

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. 

They do not have to witness crimes, but with murder, there is more than the police word vs your word in court. There is usually a lot more evidence. 

 

With the red light or speed camera cameras, you have the camera as the main evidence, but camera evidence alone is not sufficient and would have to overcome a hearsay objection so you need the police officer to effectively authenticate the camera and the video on the camera in many cases (not all but many). 

27 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

Also, courts have found that it is not a violation of due process. You have the chance to confront your accuser, who in this case is the officer who reviews the footage and issues the citation. They don't have to be present on site to do that. Other court rulings have also found that a civil violation and fine for speeding does not rise to the occasion of constitutionally protected due process. So it's really a moot point.

It depends on the jurisdiction for one. Even in Ohio, different counties have their own rules on what qualifies.  You also cant look to what other states do and apply it to Ohio as the rules are different here. Since the state passed the law about 5-6 years ago, you cant have speed cameras without an officer present (effectively nullifying their use in Ohio) so it is moot from that point. But it is important to note that this is state law so even if courts in Illinois or Pennsylvania or Michigan do not find due process concerns, that is irrelevant to what Ohio does. 

37 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

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. 

Of course they factor in to the budget. WHen you write more tickets on average, the amount of fines collected goes up dramatically. Look at Elmwood Place a few years back when they were using speed cameras as example #1 on this. The revenues to the police force increased significantly as they stepped up enforcement.  When you say that Ohio municipalities are not allowed to make additional revenue off the cameras, what that means in reality is that they cannot charge additional fees for the cost of a camera or other fees associated with the use of the new technology. It does not change the fact that their ticket revenue will double or triple because the camera will pick up more violators both large and small. 

 

The camera does not make a judgement call, you are either in violation or you are not. If someone makes a judgement call and goes through a yellow as it turns red, they will get a ticket. A live police officer may realize that this was a borderline judgement call and the driver should only receive a warning. If a driver makes an illegal right turn on red on Xmas Day when no cars are on the road, it does not imperil safety but would still trigger a fine. Finally, if a car stops late because the light is turning red and is partially sticking out in the intersection, this would again trigger a ticket. 

 

All of these examples are often examples where a police officer would not send a ticket for such a violation but the camera system will ultimately trigger a ticket. The volume of these minor violations would increase exponentially and the ticket revenue would dramatically increase.  That has nothing to do with making extra money off the tickets,

14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It depends on the jurisdiction for one. Even in Ohio, different counties have their own rules on what qualifies.  You also cant look to what other states do and apply it to Ohio as the rules are different here. Since the state passed the law about 5-6 years ago, you cant have speed cameras without an officer present (effectively nullifying their use in Ohio) so it is moot from that point. But it is important to note that this is state law so even if courts in Illinois or Pennsylvania or Michigan do not find due process concerns, that is irrelevant to what Ohio does. 

 

You're talking about a statutory law, which can be changed. And that is exactly what people are advocating for. We're not talking about a constitutional right.

29 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

They do not have to witness crimes, but with murder, there is more than the police word vs your word in court. There is usually a lot more evidence. 

 

With the red light or speed camera cameras, you have the camera as the main evidence, but camera evidence alone is not sufficient and would have to overcome a hearsay objection so you need the police officer to effectively authenticate the camera and the video on the camera in many cases (not all but many). 

OK. But you are still describing due process here. 

5 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Of course they factor in to the budget. WHen you write more tickets on average, the amount of fines collected goes up dramatically. Look at Elmwood Place a few years back when they were using speed cameras as example #1 on this. The revenues to the police force increased significantly as they stepped up enforcement.  When you say that Ohio municipalities are not allowed to make additional revenue off the cameras, what that means in reality is that they cannot charge additional fees for the cost of a camera or other fees associated with the use of the new technology. It does not change the fact that their ticket revenue will double or triple because the camera will pick up more violators both large and small. 

 

No, when I say they can't make additional revenue, I mean they can't make any additional revenue. Ohio passed a law in 2019 that reduces state funding for municipalities by the amount they collect in speed camera revenue. So it eliminates that incentive.

 

Quote

The camera does not make a judgement call, you are either in violation or you are not. If someone makes a judgement call and goes through a yellow as it turns red, they will get a ticket.

 

Good. That's what I want to happen. If it is borderline, next time they will stop instead of trying to beat it.

 

Quote

A live police officer may realize that this was a borderline judgement call and the driver should only receive a warning. If a driver makes an illegal right turn on red on Xmas Day when no cars are on the road, it does not imperil safety but would still trigger a fine.

 

Again, good. I don't care if no one is around. You should follow the law.

 

Quote

Finally, if a car stops late because the light is turning red and is partially sticking out in the intersection, this would again trigger a ticket. 

 

Finally, good. They should've stopped sooner.

 

Quote

All of these examples are often examples where a police officer would not send a ticket for such a violation but the camera system will ultimately trigger a ticket. The volume of these minor violations would increase exponentially and the ticket revenue would dramatically increase.  That has nothing to do with making extra money off the tickets,

 

No, these are examples where a police officer MIGHT not send a ticket or they might, depending on how they are feeling that day, or who the offender is, or what other implicit biases they may have. We know that Black people get tickets more often for the same violations. The cameras take that out of the equation. The law is the law and it should be applied equally.

There is due process, albiet a different sort due to these being administrative fines. You're entitled to a hearing though I believe you have to pay the fine first, then receive potential reimbursement. 

2 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

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. 

Totally understand (and think the officers deserve it).  I'm just going off what I was told back then.   Good to know that my next ticket I might not be so lucky.   

7 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Totally understand (and think the officers deserve it).  I'm just going off what I was told back then.   Good to know that my next ticket I might not be so lucky.   

If it's a traffic unit guy you're screwed. Those guys love court time. If it's a normal patrol officer, everyone's burned out, they might just take the day off and not show up. 

 

Me personally, I don't speed anymore after seeing how crazy people drive. You never know when someone's gonna smoke you going through a yellow light. Back when I was on patrol I was almost hit multiple times in a zone car.

 

I see it even more now driving an undercover car. I had someone cut me off and try to break check me because I took one extra second when a light turned green. I got them with the wee woohs and they just fled. Great times we live in. People thought the broken glass theory was dumb including me. But I'm not so sure anymore. 

7 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

Me personally, I don't speed anymore after seeing how crazy people drive. You never know when someone's gonna smoke you going through a yellow light. Back when I was on patrol I was almost hit multiple times in a zone car.

I never speed in the city.  Only out in the hinterlands when by myself.   Not worth the risk in any heavy traffic.  But get me out on the 90 in Northeast PA on the way to Buffalo, and I don't mind cruising at 90.  

11 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

I never speed in the city.  Only out in the hinterlands when by myself.   Not worth the risk in any heavy traffic.  But get me out on the 90 in Northeast PA on the way to Buffalo, and I don't mind cruising at 90.  

Same. I don't speed on surface/city streets. I'll speed on the interstate though. Although, my wife likes me to keep it at 80MPH. 

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

No, these are examples where a police officer MIGHT not send a ticket or they might, depending on how they are feeling that day, or who the offender is, or what other implicit biases they may have. We know that Black people get tickets more often for the same violations. The cameras take that out of the equation. The law is the law and it should be applied equally.

That may be how some groups may try to sell this in theory but as usually happens in reality is that these fines are disproportionally paid and levied on the poor, minority and underrepresented of society. The injustice is still there, it is just easier to walk away when you can point to the fact that a computer or camera levied the fine so there is more of a perceived fairness.  However, if you would look these cameras, there is a disparate impact on the fines being disproportionately levied against the poor. That may happen today too but red light cameras will not change this. 

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

There is due process, albiet a different sort due to these being administrative fines. You're entitled to a hearing though I believe you have to pay the fine first, then receive potential reimbursement. 

That is the potential due process violation when it comes to the speeding tickets levied by cameras. By structuring it where you have to pay the fine before you can have a hearing, that creates a big issue. 

4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That may be how some groups may try to sell this in theory but as usually happens in reality is that these fines are disproportionally paid and levied on the poor, minority and underrepresented of society. The injustice is still there, it is just easier to walk away when you can point to the fact that a computer or camera levied the fine so there is more of a perceived fairness.  However, if you would look these cameras, there is a disparate impact on the fines being disproportionately levied against the poor. That may happen today too but red light cameras will not change this. 

 

Did these poor people break the law by running a red light?

6 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Did these poor people break the law by running a red light?

Well that depends on how you interpret the law. 

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

No, when I say they can't make additional revenue, I mean they can't make any additional revenue. Ohio passed a law in 2019 that reduces state funding for municipalities by the amount they collect in speed camera revenue. So it eliminates that incentive.

 

 

Good. That's what I want to happen. If it is borderline, next time they will stop instead of trying to beat it.

 

 

Again, good. I don't care if no one is around. You should follow the law.

 

 

Finally, good. They should've stopped sooner.

 

 

No, these are examples where a police officer MIGHT not send a ticket or they might, depending on how they are feeling that day, or who the offender is, or what other implicit biases they may have. We know that Black people get tickets more often for the same violations. The cameras take that out of the equation. The law is the law and it should be applied equally.

There are absolutely situations where it is safer to go through an orange light than it is to slam on the breaks. Poor road conditions, someone following too close behind, etc. I'm not saying that is the reason for anything close to a majority of borderline red light cases, just think it's worth bringing up.

 

When I was a young driver I was more rigid in following traffic rules. I almost got rear-ended stopping at an orange light. I've since realized that safety should always be prioritized over the law. (I'd rather get a ticket than be in an accident, regardless of fault). One reasonable criticism of robot assigned tickets is that uniformed officers will understand these niche safety situations in ways that traffic cameras don't.

 

I don't know enough make a call on the usefulness of traffic cameras overall, this is just my two cents.  

23 minutes ago, Ethan said:

There are absolutely situations where it is safer to go through an orange light than it is to slam on the breaks. Poor road conditions, someone following too close behind, etc. I'm not saying that is the reason for anything close to a majority of borderline red light cases, just think it's worth bringing up.

 

When I was a young driver I was more rigid in following traffic rules. I almost got rear-ended stopping at an orange light. I've since realized that safety should always be prioritized over the law. (I'd rather get a ticket than be in an accident, regardless of fault). One reasonable criticism of robot assigned tickets is that uniformed officers will understand these niche safety situations in ways that traffic cameras don't.

 

I don't know enough make a call on the usefulness of traffic cameras overall, this is just my two cents.  

 

Not hard, have a second or two delay between the light turning red and the camera engaging.

4 minutes ago, X said:

 

Not hard, have a second or two delay between the light turning red and the camera engaging.

and some municipalities may do that, others may not. Some intersections may have a delay, others may not. It will take someone willing to bring a case to subpeona the records to challenge it. Chances are, it could go on for years and be abused by the powers that be because the odds of getting caught with such a scheme are minimal. 

Just now, X said:

 

Not hard, have a second or two delay between the light turning red and the camera engaging

I was under the impression this was already the case, not sure if I heard that or just assumed. Regardless, if that is not the case I agree it should be.

 

The borderline cases will be the ones that get challenged and lose the cameras what public goodwill they have left. Most people have little sympathy for people running clearly red lights, but many people have run orange ones either due to legitimate safety concerns, or noticing the yellow light a bit late to safely stop. 

3 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I was under the impression this was already the case, not sure if I heard that or just assumed. Regardless, if that is not the case I agree it should be.

 

The borderline cases will be the ones that get challenged and lose the cameras what public goodwill they have left. Most people have little sympathy for people running clearly red lights, but many people have run orange ones either due to legitimate safety concerns, or noticing the yellow light a bit late to safely stop. 

 

The overwhelming majority of red light cameras throughout the country have a couple of second delay. 

 

Also, if you are going the speed limit the number of times where you have to make that split second decision and go through and it turns red are pretty much zero. The yellow light is long enough to give a driver going the speed limit ample time. 

 

Plus, if this was a huge issue we would see a lot more rear end collisions where red light cameras exist and we don't. The data show that they increase initially but fall again. On the other hand, intersection collisions drop significantly. The overall outcome is that everyone is much safer.

7 hours ago, freefourur said:

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. 

Considering speed and red light cameras have been in uae in other parts of the country for years now, due process isn't the argument @brutus_buckeye thinks it is. Also, the accuser is the gov't entity issuing the ticket.  Doesn't matter if it's an officer or camera catching it.  

FWIW, the often cited study out of UIC that criticized Chicago's ATE for being racially biased has a recommendations section:

On 4/14/2023 at 11:36 AM, Dev said:

FWIW, the often cited study out of UIC that criticized Chicago's ATE for being racially biased has a recommendations section:

Similar problem in DC.  Most cameras there are in poorer neighborhoods.   Completely ridiculous. 

On 4/13/2023 at 9:53 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

Or he wrote a very questionable ticket and wants to be able to keep writing them.    When I challenged a ticket in Cleveland the officer never showed up. Once I made my case I intended to ask the judge to bar further tickets in that spot (where people would turn around by my workplace to get on 480.)

21 hours ago, gildone said:

Similar problem in DC.  Most cameras there are in poorer neighborhoods.   Completely ridiculous. 

 

In many cities, minorities live close to arterials which are indeed dangerous roads for all users including even people walking on the sidewalk. So the roads have both high crash incidence and severity. Putting up a bunch of red light cameras may not have had racist intentions but the results were. The real way to fix arterials is with design but the cheap way to attempt to reduce danger is with cameras.

On 4/13/2023 at 7:01 PM, gildone said:

Considering speed and red light cameras have been in uae in other parts of the country for years now, due process isn't the argument @brutus_buckeye thinks it is. Also, the accuser is the gov't entity issuing the ticket.  Doesn't matter if it's an officer or camera catching it.  

Again, this is state law you are dealing with so due process in Ohio under the Ohio Constitution can have different requirements in other states. Also, many of the more liberal states tend to spit on and give lip service to due process rights so the perceived ends can justify the means. 

 

Also, it is more than semantics when issuing the ticket. Ultimately, it is the government, but many of these cameras are owned by private 3rd party contractors who contract with the cities. It is not quite as clear as the government being the accuser in those cases. In some states you have cities commoditize revenue for things like tolls and parking tickets (so what says they could not do that with red light cameras someday) and ultimately sell the system to a 3rd party for enforcement. 

 

Fortunately, Ohio has protected these due process rights and looks after the average driver (maybe to the expense of the cities budgets in some cases). Cities like Chicago have had to deal with repercussions from their plans to sell of their parking systems and other essential city enforcement activities.  

14 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Again, this is state law you are dealing with so due process in Ohio under the Ohio Constitution can have different requirements in other states. Also, many of the more liberal states tend to spit on and give lip service to due process rights so the perceived ends can justify the means. 

 

Also, it is more than semantics when issuing the ticket. Ultimately, it is the government, but many of these cameras are owned by private 3rd party contractors who contract with the cities. It is not quite as clear as the government being the accuser in those cases. In some states you have cities commoditize revenue for things like tolls and parking tickets (so what says they could not do that with red light cameras someday) and ultimately sell the system to a 3rd party for enforcement. 

 

Fortunately, Ohio has protected these due process rights and looks after the average driver (maybe to the expense of the cities budgets in some cases). Cities like Chicago have had to deal with repercussions from their plans to sell of their parking systems and other essential city enforcement activities.  

None of this changes the fact that these cameras have been in use for many years in other states.  If due process was such an issue, there would be relevant court cases, and @depacincy  covered this already in this thread.  There have been court cases, and they have found no due process violations.  If you know of one, please cite it here.

 

The hand-wringing by people over these cameras is because people want to be able to break the law and get away with it.  Period.  All the whining about due process and them being nothing but revenue generators is just a distraction from that.  All people have to do to avoid being ticketed is follow the law wherever they are driving.  Speed limits are posted and everyone learns in driving school to obey traffic signals.  It's pretty simple.  There is no right to break the law. 

 

Personally, I'd like to see more of these cameras.  20 years ago very few people ever ran red lights.  Now it's commonplace.  I've had two instances where I was getting ready to cross a street in my own town at a legal crosswalk when I had the crossing signal where red light runners could have killed me.  It's a good thing that I was paying attention, otherwise my son (who was little at the time) and I would be dead.  People who run red lights deserve to be ticketed, even by contracted-out traffic cameras.

 

Now, I will say this:  Enforcement isn't the best way to keep people driving the speed limit and obeying traffic signals. Road/street engineering and providing high-quality options to driving is. The US doesn't seem to want to accept that. Until we do, enfocement is the only tool we have.  

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by gildone
Clarity

1 hour ago, gildone said:

The hand-wringing by people over these cameras is because people want to be able to break the law and get away with it.  Period.  All the whining about due process and them being nothing but revenue generators is just a distraction from that.  All people have to do to avoid being ticketed is follow the law wherever they are driving.  Speed limits are posted and everyone learns in driving school to obey traffic signals.  It's pretty simple.  There is no right to break the law. 

 

Personally, I'd like to see more of these cameras.  20 years ago very few people ever ran red lights.  Now it's commonplace.  I've had two instances where I was getting ready to cross a street in my own town at a legal crosswalk when I had the crossing signal where red light runners could have killed me.  It's a good thing that I was paying attention, otherwise my son (who was little at the time) and I would be dead.  People who run red lights deserve to be ticketed, even by contracted-out traffic cameras.

So we can put you in the camp that Due Process rights are unimportant to you and that the ends will justify the means. Other people's rights are unimportant to you as long as you have some perceived safety (which may or may not be real). 

 

You keep trying to argue that Due Process is just another excuse for people to get away with breaking the law. Cameras, may be a significant piece of evidence but they are only one piece. You cannot rely solely on the camera (despite what others may try and depict). Many times, camera footage may look horrific but only tell a small part of the story, or even provide a completely false narrative. It is why in many cases, camera footage is not always admitted into a case and is treated as hearsay in many circumstances. There has to be other evidence to allow the admission of camera footage in court. How often have you seen a photo, or video and been outraged by what was in it, only to learn that the actual truth contradicted the image or short video clip. This is too common. Take the Cov Cath kid for example. All too often, acting as if video evidence is infallable is a mistake yet people are too quick to put all their faith in that. 

 

Using your own example of speed cameras. In your words, if you do not break the law and speed, you have nothing to worry about. But oftentimes, these cameras are contracted out to a 3rd party company who gets a % of tickets they write. Or even when not contracted out, how tempting or easy is it for the small town to add more to their coffers by mis-calibrating the camera? Not too hard, and these are very realistic examples. But yes, these people will eventually be caught. they always are. However, that could often take years, and typically, a defendant with deep pockets who is able to pay the costs to discover the fraud going on. If I were with such a company, or even with a local municipality, the odds are in your favor that you will get away with it for a long time. There will be thousands of fines that the little guy will pay that they should not have to pay because of a rigged camera system. But, if I understand your point, you argue that this is fine or perfectly acceptable because you will save some lives in the process? After all, what is a few extra fines on people who may or may not have broken the law by speeding if you save a couple of lives in the process. That theory turns the entire constitutional premise of presumed innocence on its head, and it is a dangerous thought. 

 

Offloading everything to cameras, especially a 3rd party camera is troublesome. Yes, some other states do it, and they are wrong in doing it. It causes trouble. Fortunately, Ohio law has been strengthened to severely limit the scope of when these cameras can be used in order to protect Due Process. 

2 hours ago, gildone said:

The hand-wringing by people over these cameras is because people want to be able to break the law and get away with it.  Period.  All the whining about due process and them being nothing but revenue generators is just a distraction from that.  All people have to do to avoid being ticketed is follow the law wherever they are driving.  Speed limits are posted and everyone learns in driving school to obey traffic signals.  It's pretty simple.  There is no right to break the law. 

More precisely, when a fat cat in a position of power gets cited, he wants to do away with it.   Case in point--Linndale handed out tickets on their little patch of I 71 for years, until a state rep got a ticket and decided to introduce legislation to kill their speed trap, cameras and even the mayor's court.  

10 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

More precisely, when a fat cat in a position of power gets cited, he wants to do away with it.   Case in point--Linndale handed out tickets on their little patch of I 71 for years, until a state rep got a ticket and decided to introduce legislation to kill their speed trap, cameras and even the mayor's court.  

Or maybe it was someone with the power to make a difference to expose the fleecing of innocent people? How many people get screwed by speed traps, even if they were not speeding. Play the odds. 90% of those cited (legitimate or not) will not want to take the time or energy to challenge things, Of the remaining 10% who would challenge, 9.9% have a threshold where the city will settle with them and pay them out rather than risk discovery on any potential malfeasance that may be going on with the ticket writing scheme. The scheme will then continue in perpetuity. The sole risk is the politician who gets the ticket and has the ability and means to peel back the onion and discover the malfeasance that had been going on for years. All while thousands of drivers get fleeced for tickets some of them never deserved.  

21 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So we can put you in the camp that Due Process rights are unimportant to you and that the ends will justify the means. Other people's rights are unimportant to you as long as you have some perceived safety (which may or may not be real). 

 

 

Lol this reads like satire. 

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Or maybe it was someone with the power to make a difference to expose the fleecing of innocent people? How many people get screwed by speed traps, even if they were not speeding. Play the odds. 90% of those cited (legitimate or not) will not want to take the time or energy to challenge things, Of the remaining 10% who would challenge, 9.9% have a threshold where the city will settle with them and pay them out rather than risk discovery on any potential malfeasance that may be going on with the ticket writing scheme. The scheme will then continue in perpetuity. The sole risk is the politician who gets the ticket and has the ability and means to peel back the onion and discover the malfeasance that had been going on for years. All while thousands of drivers get fleeced for tickets some of them never deserved.  

 

Sources for these numbers?

2 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Sources for these numbers?

The numbers are for illustrative purposes. The point is that if you are a public official who wants to use a red light/speed camera scheme to either pad your own pockets or pad the city's coffers, it is not that hard to get away with it (especially if the only party enriched is the sovereign). Whether it is 80 or 90% is irrelevant. Point being, the vast majority accept their fete, whether it is justified or not, and the remainder who challenge can be bought off with an out of court settlement. Playing the odds, it is not to hard to continue to get away with and exploit drivers who are passing through the town. 

4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The numbers are for illustrative purposes. The point is that if you are a public official who wants to use a red light/speed camera scheme to either pad your own pockets or pad the city's coffers, it is not that hard to get away with it (especially if the only party enriched is the sovereign). Whether it is 80 or 90% is irrelevant. Point being, the vast majority accept their fete, whether it is justified or not, and the remainder who challenge can be bought off with an out of court settlement. Playing the odds, it is not to hard to continue to get away with and exploit drivers who are passing through the town. 

What if it's 99.98% accurate? Then does that change the calculation?

 

There is no way red light or speeding cameras are calibrated 10-20% off.

 

And again, we can have county auditors verify every camera's accuracy like we do gas pumps and scales. You don't see lawsuits about these tools being calibrated wrong.

 

And we can require a minimum speeding threshold (say 10% over or 7mph over on a regular street and 3mph in a school zone) and minimum delays in red light cameras (say 3 seconds) to completely avoid the issue of poor calibration.

 

Then, as others have pointed out, have an officer review all of the flagged violations, verify they are accurate, and issue the ticket.

 

If you're really worried about money generated, only allow cities to collect X% of their total revenue from tickets and send the rest to the state education fund or something. 

 

There is no problem that can't be remedied.

7 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

What if it's 99.98% accurate? Then does that change the calculation?

 

There is no way red light or speeding cameras are calibrated 10-20% off.

 

I am not talking about the accuracy of the camera. The point in the numbers are the % of people who would put up a challenge to the ticket. What % would just pay it out (justified or not) what % will challenge it. Of those who challenge it, what % of people who are justified will take a private settlement and what % will fight it out to prove the point and seek "justice for all"

 

My point was that the odds of getting caught on a small skimming scheme would be small especially if nobody is personally enriched in the process. 

Since there's so much attention on this thread right now, I might as well throw in the monkey wrench that is the other big concern that a lot of people have; these cameras could be (or could be fairly easily modified to be) used for government surveillance purposes.

 

I don't think these cameras are currently being used to track anyone, nor do I think it is something they are currently capable of. The concern is that a camera used to track people wouldn't look any different from a red light / speed trap camera. There may be a bit of slippery slope / conspiratorial thinking issue with this line of thought, but the problem is that the technology certainly exists that an interested government could use cameras to determine that a car registered to Jane Smith has made 4 trips to the Home Depot (or the local swingers club) in the past week. Indeed some foreign governments are employing such technology.

 

Assuming a bare minimum level of trust this problem could easily be solved by the government tying its own hands. (Maybe they have already? Idk). That said, I'd be very surprised if the specter of government surveillance isn't in the back of the mind of many people who oppose red light cameras.

26 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Since there's so much attention on this thread right now, I might as well throw in the monkey wrench that is the other big concern that a lot of people have; these cameras could be (or could be fairly easily modified to be) used for government surveillance purposes.

 

I don't think these cameras are currently being used to track anyone, nor do I think it is something they are currently capable of. The concern is that a camera used to track people wouldn't look any different from a red light / speed trap camera. There may be a bit of slippery slope / conspiratorial thinking issue with this line of thought, but the problem is that the technology certainly exists that an interested government could use cameras to determine that a car registered to Jane Smith has made 4 trips to the Home Depot (or the local swingers club) in the past week. Indeed some foreign governments are employing such technology.

 

Assuming a bare minimum level of trust this problem could easily be solved by the government tying its own hands. (Maybe they have already? Idk). That said, I'd be very surprised if the specter of government surveillance isn't in the back of the mind of many people who oppose red light cameras.

 

Again, something that a carefully crafted state law could prohibit. Only allow recording specific data like license plate or actual video of the car of offenders (generalized data like speed of each car without license plates or other identifying feature should be fine for data collection). Require the deletion of info after X days if a citation is not issued. I do think there is a role for the statehouse to take to prohibit municipalities from abusing the system, but banning them makes us all less safe.

5 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Again, something that a carefully crafted state law could prohibit. Only allow recording specific data like license plate or actual video of the car of offenders (generalized data like speed of each car without license plates or other identifying feature should be fine for data collection). Require the deletion of info after X days if a citation is not issued. I do think there is a role for the statehouse to take to prohibit municipalities from abusing the system, but banning them makes us all less safe.

This is what I meant by the government tying its own hands, and I think this would mollify the concerns of anyone who has a modicum of trust in the government. (Which isn't everyone, but is most people). It's a solvable problem. 

On 4/13/2023 at 12:40 PM, DEPACincy said:

 

No, when I say they can't make additional revenue, I mean they can't make any additional revenue. Ohio passed a law in 2019 that reduces state funding for municipalities by the amount they collect in speed camera revenue. So it eliminates that incentive.

 

 

Good. That's what I want to happen. If it is borderline, next time they will stop instead of trying to beat it.

 

 

Again, good. I don't care if no one is around. You should follow the law.

 

 

Finally, good. They should've stopped sooner.

 

 

No, these are examples where a police officer MIGHT not send a ticket or they might, depending on how they are feeling that day, or who the offender is, or what other implicit biases they may have. We know that Black people get tickets more often for the same violations. The cameras take that out of the equation. The law is the law and it should be applied equally.

 

On 4/13/2023 at 4:00 PM, DEPACincy said:

 

The overwhelming majority of red light cameras throughout the country have a couple of second delay. 

 

Also, if you are going the speed limit the number of times where you have to make that split second decision and go through and it turns red are pretty much zero. The yellow light is long enough to give a driver going the speed limit ample time. 

 

Plus, if this was a huge issue we would see a lot more rear end collisions where red light cameras exist and we don't. The data show that they increase initially but fall again. On the other hand, intersection collisions drop significantly. The overall outcome is that everyone is much safer.

4 hours ago, gildone said:

The hand-wringing by people over these cameras is because people want to be able to break the law and get away with it.  Period.  All the whining about due process and them being nothing but revenue generators is just a distraction from that.  All people have to do to avoid being ticketed is follow the law wherever they are driving.  Speed limits are posted and everyone learns in driving school to obey traffic signals.  It's pretty simple.  There is no right to break the law. 

 

Personally, I'd like to see more of these cameras.  20 years ago very few people ever ran red lights.  Now it's commonplace.  I've had two instances where I was getting ready to cross a street in my own town at a legal crosswalk when I had the crossing signal where red light runners could have killed me.  It's a good thing that I was paying attention, otherwise my son (who was little at the time) and I would be dead.  People who run red lights deserve to be ticketed, even by contracted-out traffic cameras.

 

Just curious, how far do you take this?  Should the government (whether law enforcement or NHTSA) have global, warrantless access to all dashcam and cabin camera footage and be able to issue citations based on that?  Should all cars come with the ability to transmit telemetry data (speed, braking, etc.) to the government and/or to insurance companies, and no opt-out ability for the owner/driver?  Should the government and/or manufacturer be able to remotely disable a vehicle, or possibly even exercise further control than that?  What's your line beyond which the gains in safety aren't worth the intrusion anymore?  Or is there no such line--a single life saved is worth any amount of monitoring and surveillance of the entirety of the driving population?

 

29 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

Just curious, how far do you take this?  Should the government (whether law enforcement or NHTSA) have global, warrantless access to all dashcam and cabin camera footage and be able to issue citations based on that?  Should all cars come with the ability to transmit telemetry data (speed, braking, etc.) to the government and/or to insurance companies, and no opt-out ability for the owner/driver?  Should the government and/or manufacturer be able to remotely disable a vehicle, or possibly even exercise further control than that?  What's your line beyond which the gains in safety aren't worth the intrusion anymore?  Or is there no such line--a single life saved is worth any amount of monitoring and surveillance of the entirety of the driving population?

 

 

This is a disingenuous slippery slope argument and I think you know that.

3 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is a disingenuous slippery slope argument and I think you know that.

No, it's not, because a question isn't an argument...

20 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is a disingenuous slippery slope argument and I think you know that.

 

Actually, it isn't, and your attempt to avoid answering the question by calling it that is what is disingenuous.  But perhaps illuminating in its own right.

 

The actual slippery slope would be simply asserting that you would never stop, not asking where you would.  (EDIT: Looks like @Ethan understood that first.)  I'm genuinely interested in the answer to that question, because I want to see how far apart we are.  I'm also interested more genuinely in popular movement on this issue, what people are accepting now that they didn't before (which is not the same thing as a slippery slope argument, either), e.g., when Heath voted to remove red light cameras and voted out the mayor who made installing them a major point of his administration.  That was in 2009, though, so it's fair to ask if (and if so, how much) attitudes have changed since then, and even to consider how they might change in the future (which is also not a slippery-slope argument, or just about every form of political prediction would be guilty of it).

 

I know we're at least somewhat apart on this issue; I supported the camera removal in Heath in 2009 and, more recently, the successful effort to have "traffic calming" (a.k.a. "driver enraging") measures uninstalled on Akron city streets.  But that doesn't answer how far apart we actually are, just sets a minimum.

The cameras do not have the ability, as a traditional police stop does, to determine and then detain people who have outstanding warrants. 

 

Meanwhile, we have people arguing that there ought to be little to no penalty for not paying a red light fine.  

 

So if people who are already in collections and don't have an 800 credit score to protect aren't going to pay the red light fines, what deterrent are they for those characters who regularly flout the law?  

@Brutus_buckeye You have failed to make a convincing argument that there is a due process problem and keep repeating the same things with no evidence.  You haven't provided any court cases.  Someone asked you to back up number and you said they  were "just for illustrative purposes".   All of your writing boils down to this: All you have is your opinion.  That's fine.  Opinions are fine so far as they go, and I have made no claims that anything I've said is anything but my opinion.  And in my opinion, we can put you in the camp of:  "I want to break the law and get away with it.  I'll just scream about due process, even though I can't back any of it up".   So let's just agree to disagree and be done. 

 

On the tracking subject brought up by others, I find the paranoia about traffic cameras to be rather ridiculous, when far more tracking of people and their behavior is done via their smart phones and no one bitches about it.  Plus, the privacy arguments put forth here conflate the issue.  All traffic cameras do is the same thing a police officer does at less cost to the municipality.  It's not really comparable to government access to dash cams, ability to disable vehicles, etc. 

 

As for this little gem: "I supported...the successful effort to have "traffic calming" (a.k.a. "driver enraging") measures uninstalled on Akron city streets. "  It's just another example of driver entitlement.  Translation:  "We can't make drivers mad, but it's ok to have unsafe, pedestrian-killing streets."   

 

The most thoughtful recent comments here are from @ryanlammi

 

 

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by gildone
clarity, additions

12 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

The cameras do not have the ability, as a traditional police stop does, to determine and then detain people who have outstanding warrants. 

 

Meanwhile, we have people arguing that there ought to be little to no penalty for not paying a red light fine.  

 

So if people who are already in collections and don't have an 800 credit score to protect aren't going to pay the red light fines, what deterrent are they for those characters who regularly flout the law?  

The flip side of this, is that traffic cameras don't perform pretextual stops. Camera tickets don't escalate traffic offenses to 4th amendment violating vehicle searches by using canines to manufacture probable cause.  Cameras, provided that they are situated properly, have no bias. They don't use their "judgment" to let some people go. Finally, camera enforcement will not result in escalation of violence by and to police officers. 

7 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Cameras, provided that they are situated properly, have no bias. 

 

But we are told in previous posts that the cameras are somehow racist.  Just like credit scores and any of these automated things that aim to eliminate bias.  

2 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

But we are told in previous posts that the cameras are somehow racist.  Just like credit scores and any of these automated things that aim to eliminate bias.  

The cameras are not racist. They can have unequal racial outcomes based on how they are situated which is why i included that clause in my comment. 

4 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

But we are told in previous posts that the cameras are somehow racist.  Just like credit scores and any of these automated things that aim to eliminate bias.  

 

No.  What was said is city decisions in some cases on where cameras are placed is resulting in racial bias.  Not the same thing at all.

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by gildone

35 minutes ago, gildone said:

On the tracking subject brought up by others, I find the paranoia about traffic cameras to be rather ridiculous, when far more tracking of people and their behavior is done via their smart phones and no one bitches about it.  Plus, the privacy arguments put forth here conflate the issue.  All traffic cameras do is the same thing a police officer does at less cost to the municipality.

Unless you're dealing with a police offer with an eidetic memory for license plates, the claim that cameras are just doing the same thing as a camera with even rudimentary computer vision doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Effectiveness matters, a police officer can't post hoc tell you every intersection a person has passed through in the past week. A task which would be trivial for a network of surveillance cameras. 

 

Once again, there is no evidence that speed / red light cameras are doing double duty as surveillance cameras, but that doesn't mean it is unreasonable to be concerned about how the technology could be misused and be proactive in guarding against it. 

 

--

 

Also, another thing I wonder about if cameras become more frequent is if the prevalence of removing license plates will increase? Removing license plates (or rendering them illegible) seems to have become more frequent recently. Outside of police chasing the unplated vehicle down, I'm not sure what else can be done to enforce the law with an unplated car.