Speed cameras are more scary than Red Light. Often times you cant tell if the machine is calibrated correctly and there is no discretion for time of day and conditions. Your car speedometer could be 1-2 MPH off and you get a ticket. Most officers use their discretion in this case.  THey did a test on the speed cameras in the CIncy area a few years back and they were so off on their calibration they were effectively stealing money from motorists.

I don't believe that Cincy has ever had speed cameras that automatically issue tickets. They just display the speed limit and the driver's current speed. I agree that they should be calibrated correctly, but in any event, I don't think that speed cameras would issue a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 1 or 2 MPH. It would probably have to be 5 MPH or more.

Again, I think the solution to any of that is to make the street safer. The speed camera on East Third in Dayton is on what is an incredibly roomy road (effectively 7 lanes in width, though striped as 5) with virtually no businesses or stoplights along it, which obviously encourages speeding. Instead of cameras, add some bike lanes and get rid of some of the ROW width and you've won the battle, but that doesn't generate revenue.

Again, I think the solution to any of that is to make the street safer. The speed camera on East Third in Dayton is on what is an incredibly roomy road (effectively 7 lanes in width, though striped as 5) with virtually no businesses or stoplights along it, which obviously encourages speeding. Instead of cameras, add some bike lanes and get rid of some of the ROW width and you've won the battle, but that doesn't generate revenue.

 

Yeah obviously complete streets and road diets should be part of the equation. Here in Cincinnati, Main Street will be getting a sort of road diet between 12th and Liberty this fall. It will include adding several new crosswalks, adding bump-outs at crosswalks, and even a bump-out for one bus stop. It will be an interesting case study to see how much that reduces the speeding that's currently present on the street.

I don't believe that Cincy has ever had speed cameras that automatically issue tickets. They just display the speed limit and the driver's current speed. I agree that they should be calibrated correctly, but in any event, I don't think that speed cameras would issue a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 1 or 2 MPH. It would probably have to be 5 MPH or more.

 

Cincy never had cameras, Elmwood place did. This was a key finding in their case

Again, I think the solution to any of that is to make the street safer. The speed camera on East Third in Dayton is on what is an incredibly roomy road (effectively 7 lanes in width, though striped as 5) with virtually no businesses or stoplights along it, which obviously encourages speeding. Instead of cameras, add some bike lanes and get rid of some of the ROW width and you've won the battle, but that doesn't generate revenue.

 

Especially not for the Third-Party private sector company from Austrailia who was the main salesman and rhetoric creator for the entire idea of the cameras. Redflex kept over 60% of the revenue from tickets.

Again, I think the solution to any of that is to make the street safer. The speed camera on East Third in Dayton is on what is an incredibly roomy road (effectively 7 lanes in width, though striped as 5) with virtually no businesses or stoplights along it, which obviously encourages speeding. Instead of cameras, add some bike lanes and get rid of some of the ROW width and you've won the battle, but that doesn't generate revenue.

 

Yeah obviously complete streets and road diets should be part of the equation. Here in Cincinnati, Main Street will be getting a sort of road diet between 12th and Liberty this fall. It will include adding several new crosswalks, adding bump-outs at crosswalks, and even a bump-out for one bus stop. It will be an interesting case study to see how much that reduces the speeding that's currently present on the street.

 

The change on Brown Street in Dayton has been pretty remarkable since they completed the diet. It's still signed as 35 mph, but I don't ever go more than 30 on it, and usually more like 25. Dayton actually is doing a lot in the way of road diets (they just narrowed 5th at Keowee and West 3rd is getting bumpouts near Sinclair College) but the actual death-trap intersections and roads (I'm looking at you, Keowee - god help you if you want to bike on Keowee, much less cross it on foot or bike) are all located where the cameras are, and really should be completely re-made instead of policed by cameras.

I agree that road design is the first remedy to be used but as a cyclist and pedestrian I come across drivers who see to have no concern for the safety of others around them.  I am all for people speeding on city streets getting tickets in the mail. 

But they don't even remember doing it. It's like rubbing a dog's nose in its own shit 2 hours later. It doesn't do as much to change their behavior as getting pulled over, having to sit for 20 minutes, getting lectured by a buzzcut cop and having your plates ran and checked for warrants.

Bleed them dry then if they are dumber than a dog.

I agree that road design is the first remedy to be used but as a cyclist and pedestrian I come across drivers who see to have no concern for the safety of others around them.  I am all for people speeding on city streets getting tickets in the mail. 

 

What about when you lend your car to someone and they speed and you get the ticket in the mail? I don't think you would like that too much.

 

The one key characteristic which is troubling, and the way the laws have met constitutional muster so far (which I feel their day of reckoning is coming) is that tickets issued by cameras are nto moving violations and you do not get points for them on your license, whereas if an officer gave you the same ticket you would get 2 points. 

 

This clearly shows that speed and red light cameras are not  about protecting the public and discouraging speeding but about generating revenue. Otherwise, if discouraging speeding were the chief concern, they would be placing points on the license and calling it a moving violation.

 

 

I crossed the Louisville toll bridges 6 weeks ago and still haven't gotten my ticket toll in the mail. 

There is a big difference between a toll bridge and speed cameras, legally speaking. With tolls, you are essentially contracting to cross the bridge and pay a fee to do it. When you get fined for skipping the toll, you have an open and obvious stopping point (toll booth) and you do have an opportunity to cure, in the event the toll was assessed improperly.

 

You do not have a chance to cure with speed cameras or red light cameras. Plus, tolls are essentially a contract, speeding cameras are entrapment.

^ but what if someone borrows your car and does it?

There is a big difference between a toll bridge and speed cameras, legally speaking. With tolls, you are essentially contracting to cross the bridge and pay a fee to do it. When you get fined for skipping the toll, you have an open and obvious stopping point (toll booth) and you do have an opportunity to cure, in the event the toll was assessed improperly.

 

You do not have a chance to cure with speed cameras or red light cameras. Plus, tolls are essentially a contract, speeding cameras are entrapment.

 

A modern toll bridge doesn't have a toll booth. It's all done using cameras.

^ Similar to speed and red light you can try and challenge that you were not the driver, but the principle surrounding tolls is different than speed or red light cameras. Tolls are contractual. You essentially enter into a contract to drive on the road, with that car for the privilege of paying a fee. If you don't want to pay the fee, you will have to take a different route. By entering on that road, you have contracted to pay the fee. It is the same concept with parking meters.

 

With speed cameras, there is no implied contractual agreement that is created so drivers have more rights that apply in these situations. the only implied contract is that you have the right to use the roads in a safe and reasonable manner. Enforcement is not contractual. Speed cameras and red light cameras fall into the enforcement category. This is where individual rights come into play

^ Isn't there a contractual obligation to obey the speed limit on roads and the "fine" is merely the contractual cost for driving beyond that speed.  You have mentioned a distinction without a difference as far as I am concerned.

There is a big difference between a toll bridge and speed cameras, legally speaking. With tolls, you are essentially contracting to cross the bridge and pay a fee to do it. When you get fined for skipping the toll, you have an open and obvious stopping point (toll booth) and you do have an opportunity to cure, in the event the toll was assessed improperly.

 

You do not have a chance to cure with speed cameras or red light cameras. Plus, tolls are essentially a contract, speeding cameras are entrapment.

 

A modern toll bridge doesn't have a toll booth. It's all done using cameras.

 

ryanlammi[/member]  - It does not matter how they collect the toll. Using a camera to charge does not change the fact it is a contractual relationship that is created. Parking meters operate in the same manner.

 

Speed cameras are not about a contractual relationship. That is the key difference.

I'm amazed by how much the red light cameras upset the average Joe Shmo. 

^ Isn't there a contractual obligation to obey the speed limit on roads and the "fine" is merely the contractual cost for driving beyond that speed.  You have mentioned a distinction without a difference as far as I am concerned.

down4cle[/member]  - The difference is enforcement. With tolls your right to the road (using the bridge in Jake's example) is contractual. If you break the contract, you have to pay damages in the form of a fine.  Same with Parking meters.  WHen you pay the "fine" or "toll" these are not considered moving violations because of the contractual nature of the incident. The "fine" is akin to breach of contract and the damages are what amounts to making the city "whole" again.  This is not a criminal offense. You do not get points on your license.

 

When you have a speeding ticket you have a criminal offense, you get points to your license. The Constitution states that in a criminal case you have the right to confront your accuser. That is the big difference. SPeeding is a misdemeanor and therefore, falls in the criminal code, and the rules are different there.

Camera tickets are usually civil infractions and carry no points.  Therefore it is a contractual agreement. 

That is how they maneuver around the law to justify this I suggest you read the Elmwood Place decision to get a good understanding on why speed cameras should be illegal. the judge lays it out well there.

I fail to see the difference between the fine for speeding and the fine for not paying a toll.  You claimed that criminality was the difference but there is none in a camera ticket situation.  I feel no empathy to people who endanger others safety.

How are traffic cameras entrapment? Did they somehow induce you to break the traffic laws? And if you give your car to someone who breaks the speed limit by 10+ mph then you're just as irresponsible for giving a car to an irresponsible driver.

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?

 

No one has explained how these things are different. If you get a ticket you have the "right to confront your accuser" by going to court, and a police officer will show up. They will play the video that shows you breaking the law. Just like, if I break some law from the privacy of my own home (via the internet), police will point to server logs to prove that I did something illegal. Just because a police officer wasn't at the location and personally witnessed the law being broken, doesn't mean that the law can't be enforced.

There are a lot of reasons why red-camera tickets are bullshit.

 

First, the cameras cannot positively identify the driver so the bill goes to the registered owner. And if the owner is presumed guilty because its his car, well, so much for the presumption that a defendant is innocent under proven otherwise.

 

Second, who can the defendant cross-examine in court? There's no witness to the violation. Doesn't a person have the right to cross-examine their accuser? Due Process? Bueller??

 

Third, the chain of evidence is pretty vague and is effectively hearsay.

 

Fourth, fundamentally, red light cameras are a tax on the poor. There's a reason you see them in East Cleveland and not Hunting Valley.

 

Fifth, those things actually cause accidents as drivers brake upon seeing the cameras, unnaturally interrupting the flow of traffic. Plenty of consequences there. Obviously the traffic safety argument that proponents make is bullshit.

 

And never mind issues with ineffective and poorly maintained cameras, along with so many related fraud scandals (such as cities shortening yellow lights nearby cameras and improperly certified equipment).

 

We had cameras in Cleveland for many years and managed to not get any tickets by driving in a safe and prudent manner.  Some of you seem to think you have a constitutional right to endanger everyone else on the road.  I wish we could bring the cameras back and have more of them for the truly terrible drivers.

How are traffic cameras entrapment? Did they somehow induce you to break the traffic laws? And if you give your car to someone who breaks the speed limit by 10+ mph then you're just as irresponsible for giving a car to an irresponsible driver.

 

They are not entrapment. The problem with cameras is that the data goes to the company that owns them, sends the ticket out, then collects on the ticket and sends the municipality a check. They control the calibration of the cameras and the machines. The city is pretty much hands off, other than setting them up and taking them down. If you try and fight the ticket, you cannot confront your accuser which is a right guaranteed to the accused in the Constitution. You cannot cross examine a camera, you cannot ask it questions about its calibration, etc. You do not truly know what they are set at on that particular day when they issue you the ticket. In order to get this information you will need to subpoena the company and fight to get the records through discovery. The company will likely fight this discovery as long as possible, thus making it harder to fight the ticket. This is the problem with cameras.

 

As for giving holding the car owner responsible for someone who breaks the speed limit, that is just purely absurd. If you did this, you would put the entire rental car industry out of business. Speeding is an individual offense, not a vehicle offense. It is unlawful to give someone a fine for a crime they didn't commit.

 

Ken, of all people on this forum, I would be shocked you would be supportive of these cameras. As someone who often espouses social justices principles, these things prey upon the poor in the urban cores and ultimately generate revenue on the backs of the poor and working class. The wealthy who may be caught by this have the means to successfully fight it in court. The poor have no means and are often frustrated by the roadblocks and barriers that the cities and camera company construct to thwart the defense. It is one thing for the camera company to act like this, but you should expect more from your government.

We had cameras in Cleveland for many years and managed to not get any tickets by driving in a safe and prudent manner.  Some of you seem to think you have a constitutional right to endanger everyone else on the road.  I wish we could bring the cameras back and have more of them for the truly terrible drivers.

 

You act like going over the speed limit by 2-5 miles an hour is driving in a dangerous manner? You also seem to think that the cameras are 100% accurate and calibrated correctly all the time. Exceeding the posted speed limit by a few miles an hour does not make one a dangerous driver. 

 

Even if there was some merit to your claim, it does not matter because the accused still have rights and you cant have a law that takes away the rights of the accused. It is akin to the movie Minority Report, just because you have the ability to prevent crime from happening does not make it the right thing to do. In this case the ends do not justify the means.

 

We had cameras in Cleveland for many years and managed to not get any tickets by driving in a safe and prudent manner.  Some of you seem to think you have a constitutional right to endanger everyone else on the road. 

 

So being against Robocops makes us think we can run red lights? I was definitely planning to murder a random person with an M-16 but then I found out that someone might have a camera on their drone and snap a pic. That's the only thing that stopped me, really, rather than the myriad of other reasons not to do it.

Speeding is an individual offense, not a vehicle offense. It is unlawful to give someone a fine for a crime they didn't commit.

 

How will this work for self-driving cars? Will the ticket be sent to the manufacturer of the self-driving car or will the passenger who set the destination be issued the ticket?

 

Would it be okay for a red light camera to issue a ticket to a self-driving car?

as a matter of fact a few miles per hour makes a huge difference in reaction time.  A few miles per hour is the difference between a pedestrian surviving an impact.  Again, you do not have a constitutional right to endanger the lives of other road users.  Driving is a privilege if you don't like the rule then please don't endanger the rest of us.  Your Minority Report analogy is so ridiculous I won't even touch it.

Speeding is an individual offense, not a vehicle offense. It is unlawful to give someone a fine for a crime they didn't commit.

 

How will this work for self-driving cars? Will the ticket be sent to the manufacturer of the self-driving car or will the passenger who set the destination be issued the ticket?

 

Would it be okay for a red light camera to issue a ticket to a self-driving car?

 

If corporations want to be citizens, we're going to have to be able to ticket them when their cars break the law.

To expand on my previous post here is some data that shows a few miles per hour makes a difference.  The fatality rate for pedestrians hit by vehicles increase exponentially as vehicle speeds increase.

 

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

as a matter of fact a few miles per hour makes a huge difference in reaction time.  A few miles per hour is the difference between a pedestrian surviving an impact.  Again, you do not have a constitutional right to endanger the lives of other road users.  Driving is a privilege if you don't like the rule then please don't endanger the rest of us.  Your Minority Report analogy is so ridiculous I won't even touch it.

 

Meanwhile, Ohio doesn't even inspect cars for safety. There's cars running all over the state with junk tires, worn-out brakes and broken suspensions that endanger us all way worse than the lack of Robocops. West Virginia makes fun of us all the time for this.

I feel like bad drivers are not punished enough.  We go so lenient on people by calling things accidents that are not accidents.  When someone goes 35 in a 25 and kills a pedestrian, I don't think that is an accident.  It is reckless and the driver should be majorly punished but they they are not usually punished because everyone feels that driving is a god given right.

as a matter of fact a few miles per hour makes a huge difference in reaction time.  A few miles per hour is the difference between a pedestrian surviving an impact.  Again, you do not have a constitutional right to endanger the lives of other road users.  Driving is a privilege if you don't like the rule then please don't endanger the rest of us.  Your Minority Report analogy is so ridiculous I won't even touch it.

 

Ok, lets put it into perspective. If you are going 5 miles over in the school zone, that makes a big difference if you hit someone. If you are going 68 in a 65 and you hit someone, it will not make a difference. Quit pretending otherwise.

 

Again, if you are paying attention, you will see that this argument has nothing to do with speeding, it is about the rights of the accused. Your sole argument is that speed cameras reduce accidents and that those who speed break the law and deserve whatever punishment they receive and the ends justify the means to ensure they receive their punishment. Fortunately, there is the Constitution to protect the accused from opinions like this, so that the poor in society have a chance to defend themselves.

I feel like bad drivers are not punished enough.  We go so lenient on people by calling things accidents that are not accidents.  When someone goes 35 in a 25 and kills a pedestrian, I don't think that is an accident.  It is reckless and the driver should be majorly punished but they they are not usually punished because everyone feels that driving is a god given right.

 

If the driver is recklessly exceeding the speed limit and kills a pedestrian, they will be charged with manslaughter and punished accordingly

A lot of people seem to think that they should be able to drive 7mph over the speed limit, all the time, with impunity.  They also roll through stop signs all the time. 

 

It's like the old stock picking fallacy -- everyone things they're above average.

as a matter of fact a few miles per hour makes a huge difference in reaction time.  A few miles per hour is the difference between a pedestrian surviving an impact.  Again, you do not have a constitutional right to endanger the lives of other road users.  Driving is a privilege if you don't like the rule then please don't endanger the rest of us.  Your Minority Report analogy is so ridiculous I won't even touch it.

 

 

 

Ok, lets put it into perspective. If you are going 5 miles over in the school zone, that makes a big difference if you hit someone. If you are going 68 in a 65 and you hit someone, it will not make a difference. Quit pretending otherwise.

 

Again, if you are paying attention, you will see that this argument has nothing to do with speeding, it is about the rights of the accused. Your sole argument is that speed cameras reduce accidents and that those who speed break the law and deserve whatever punishment they receive and the ends justify the means to ensure they receive their punishment. Fortunately, there is the Constitution to protect the accused from opinions like this, so that the poor in society have a chance to defend themselves.

 

Traffic cameras are usually set on city streets.  Quit pretending otherwise.

I feel like bad drivers are not punished enough.  We go so lenient on people by calling things accidents that are not accidents.  When someone goes 35 in a 25 and kills a pedestrian, I don't think that is an accident.  It is reckless and the driver should be majorly punished but they they are not usually punished because everyone feels that driving is a god given right.

 

If the driver is recklessly exceeding the speed limit and kills a pedestrian, they will be charged with manslaughter and punished accordingly

 

You seem to think it's just fine to go a little over the speed limit.  Is it reckless or is it fine?  You need to make up your mind.

A lot of people seem to think that they should be able to drive 7mph over the speed limit, all the time, with impunity.  They also roll through stop signs all the time. 

 

It's like the old stock picking fallacy -- everyone things they're above average.

 

They also think they should be able to whip around corners and get mad at pedestrians trying to cross the street. 

If a camera ticket is not a criminal charge is does not violate constitution.  It's no different than parking ticket or ticket for not paying toll.  We've discussed this already.  The constitution doesn't protect your right to exceed the speed the limit.

A lot of people seem to think that they should be able to drive 7mph over the speed limit, all the time, with impunity.  They also roll through stop signs all the time. 

 

It's like the old stock picking fallacy -- everyone things they're above average.

 

Way too many people think in absolutes rather than percentages. Absolutes lead to belief systems and chaos whereas percentages lead to positive outcomes. This is the main reason why businesspeople and STEM triumph over proles.

We had cameras in Cleveland for many years and managed to not get any tickets by driving in a safe and prudent manner.  Some of you seem to think you have a constitutional right to endanger everyone else on the road. 

 

So being against Robocops makes us think we can run red lights? I was definitely planning to murder a random person with an M-16 but then I found out that someone might have a camera on their drone and snap a pic. That's the only thing that stopped me, really, rather than the myriad of other reasons not to do it.

 

the point went right over your head at 10mph over the speed limit. 

But what percent?

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.

use the camera proceeds for road diets.

If a camera ticket is not a criminal charge is does not violate constitution.  It's no different than parking ticket or ticket for not paying toll.  We've discussed this already.  The constitution doesn't protect your right to exceed the speed the limit.

 

You seem to not understand abstract principles very well. Is it illegal to exceed the speed limit, yes. It is reckless?? That depends. If you are 70MPH on the highway on a clear day in a 65MPH zone, it may technically be illegal, but it is not reckless. If you are going 65MPH  in a 65MPH zone on a snowy day, it is technically legal, but it is reckless. 

 

Traffic cameras are horrible policy. The legislature tried to strike a balance a few years back with the current law and the city of Dayton was too stupid for their own good and challenged it. I anticipate the legislature looking to shut these down completely now by outlawing them in a blanket rule that would nto violate home rule. It was a pyrrhic victory for Dayton.

 

Believe it or not, the stated speed limit does not determine whether or not you are driving recklessly. It depends on a number of factors and analysis. Apparently, you have trouble grasping this fact.

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