I am glad that you spoke up. I thought for awhile I was the only one who saw the crazy driving EVERYWHERE in the county ! I will affirm your statement !!!! 100 %
Still think automated enforcement isnt about money
- Thread starter glhs837
- Start date
I am glad that you spoke up. I thought for awhile I was the only one who saw the crazy driving EVERYWHERE in the county ! I will affirm your statement !!!! 100 %
32 years as a cop
Right on Brother !!
glhs837
Power with Control
And that qualifies you as an expert on the effects of automated enforcement on general motoring safety in what way? In the effects of normal enforcement, of course, your years give you that. But I'm not sure knowing how an officer and his actions affect safety automatically translates into knowing what effect RLCs and speed cameras have.
To say they make us safer. I have spent +30 years in military aviation, that does not make me an expert in how autonomous aircraft will change warfare. Not without a lot of additional study. Have you done that homework in this regard?
T
TheGreatZamboni
Guest
This whole thread is ridiculous. Every rational person can agree that excessive speed is a problem and can potentially cause an accident. I find it hilarious that some of you are arguing over what the excessive speed is. Is it 12 MPH over? 5? 20? 1? Meanwhile, I have no idea how speed limits are decided and personally feel that 10 MPH over on some roads is far worse than 10 over on others. While I can sometimes go 15+ on a highway and not feel endangered, I sometimes think going the speed limit on that same road is safer for other circumstances. Of course, speed limit can't be based on circumstance, nor can a circumstance be surmized from the accidents you're all arguing about, so all of these arguments are ridiculous.
When it's all said and done, there are laws that are supposed to be followed. You either follow them, or there are potential consequences. Traffic cameras are around to enforce the law. If you don't want to follow the law, you get a ticket. If parking illegally (for example), which endangers nobody, can be enforced, then so can speeding. For another example, breaking a traffic light by 1 second probably won't do any harm, but it's illegal and you're getting a ticket. If you "block the box", even a little, it's a ticket. That's all there is to it.
If you're caught speeding by a cop (assuming you don't slow down when you see them and avoid it), you're getting a ticket. So the cameras are just invisible cops...no warning. Why should we get a warning to slow down just by seeing a police office? Sometimes they may let you off, but other times they'll sit in the perfect spot so they ring you up before you see them and you're still getting a ticket even if you slow down. What's the difference, other than more widespread speed enforcement?
Maybe these towns had speeding problems in areas where there are a bunch of pedestrians, or maybe they were trying to reduce man hours required for traffic enforcement. I'm not sure if they have signs that say "speed enforced by camera" or what, but typically there are signs that warn you when you enter one of those zones. If you ignore them, you're penalized. If you break a law, you pay the penalty. 1 MPH over or 20 MPH over, you're still above the posted speed LIMIT.
So quit complaining, stop trying to find some "alterior motive" for the cameras, and realize it for what it is -- they're simply enforcing the law in a more efficient manner.
When it's all said and done, there are laws that are supposed to be followed. You either follow them, or there are potential consequences. Traffic cameras are around to enforce the law. If you don't want to follow the law, you get a ticket. If parking illegally (for example), which endangers nobody, can be enforced, then so can speeding. For another example, breaking a traffic light by 1 second probably won't do any harm, but it's illegal and you're getting a ticket. If you "block the box", even a little, it's a ticket. That's all there is to it.
If you're caught speeding by a cop (assuming you don't slow down when you see them and avoid it), you're getting a ticket. So the cameras are just invisible cops...no warning. Why should we get a warning to slow down just by seeing a police office? Sometimes they may let you off, but other times they'll sit in the perfect spot so they ring you up before you see them and you're still getting a ticket even if you slow down. What's the difference, other than more widespread speed enforcement?
Maybe these towns had speeding problems in areas where there are a bunch of pedestrians, or maybe they were trying to reduce man hours required for traffic enforcement. I'm not sure if they have signs that say "speed enforced by camera" or what, but typically there are signs that warn you when you enter one of those zones. If you ignore them, you're penalized. If you break a law, you pay the penalty. 1 MPH over or 20 MPH over, you're still above the posted speed LIMIT.
So quit complaining, stop trying to find some "alterior motive" for the cameras, and realize it for what it is -- they're simply enforcing the law in a more efficient manner.
dave1959
Active Member
DAMN DUDE....let it go already....
dave1959
Active Member
And what do you think the state, county, and federal government don't get money from regular traffic citations, parking tickets, etc etc so what ... get real dude.
glhs837
Power with Control
Sorry, Dave, not going to "let it go". Enforcement solely for profit with no other saving grace is a bad idea. The only benefit is the money, and that's the only reason they get put in. It's not about safety, that's the cover, the sugar coating used to get folks to go along with it.
If it was really about safety, there would be more significant fines, and points. You speak as if I support speeding or running red lights, but I dont. If the profit motive were removed and the penalties made harsh enough to be real deterrents, I would support them.
They are not invisible cops. Police officers use judgement, and don't get a cut of every ticket they write, and if I feel they have unfairly ticketed me, I can face them in court. And when they cite me, the penalties are high enough, generally speaking to be a real deterrent.
If it was really about safety, there would be more significant fines, and points. You speak as if I support speeding or running red lights, but I dont. If the profit motive were removed and the penalties made harsh enough to be real deterrents, I would support them.
They are not invisible cops. Police officers use judgement, and don't get a cut of every ticket they write, and if I feel they have unfairly ticketed me, I can face them in court. And when they cite me, the penalties are high enough, generally speaking to be a real deterrent.
TPD
the poor dad
I agree with you 100% - I've got your back!
My original thread on this was the point you keep hitting home on - don't sell this idea as a safety thing, but tell us it is about the money, and explain to us the process, and who is going to make what amounts of money in this process. Then after the sheriff and the commissioners have given us ALL the information on the money involved, let the voters decide if it is still a good idea. Do you think the 'occupy Wall Street' types will go along with it when they learn of the corporate/government greed involved?
Actually I don't think the true working stiff cares at all about the occupy wall street crowd. Personally those idiots have cost the government over $13,000,000.00 in police overtime yet they are complaining about the governemtn spending money....Second of all it is about safety people slow down and people are safe REMEMBER THAT IF A COP WRITES YOU A TICKET THERE IS A FINE ATTACHED ....WHO DO YOU THINK GETS THAT MONEY....THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT....EVERY CITATION HAS A $7.50 HELICOPTER FUND FEE ATTACHED...COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TO GET FLOWN OUT.... LIKE I SAID EARLIER Don't speed and it won't be a $77,000,000.00 industry. Nobody is under the illusion this won't bring badly needed money into the government, just don't break the law and you won't have to be apart of it !!
glhs837
Power with Control
Vince dont forget #3.
3. To make money for a private company, who gets paid per citation and who therefore has a reason to "game the system".
So, lets me ask you this, Vince. Keep in mind that state law only allows these to be placed in marked school zones. Which school zones do we currently have a problem with speeders in, where should these be placed, in your opinion?
Also, are you okay with the county expanding existing schools zones, and/or dropping the speed limits in the school zones?
And, if the point is really to discourage speeders, why is it a measly $40?
3. To make money for a private company, who gets paid per citation and who therefore has a reason to "game the system".
So, lets me ask you this, Vince. Keep in mind that state law only allows these to be placed in marked school zones. Which school zones do we currently have a problem with speeders in, where should these be placed, in your opinion?
Also, are you okay with the county expanding existing schools zones, and/or dropping the speed limits in the school zones?
And, if the point is really to discourage speeders, why is it a measly $40?
smibarines
New Member
I've tried to stay out of this thread because theres just no reasoning with these 3 but I got sucked back in out of pure stupefaction of thier agruments.
Well, after they're installed, keep driving 15mph over the speed limit and/or blowing through red lights and see how many $40 tickets it takes for you to slow down and/or stop for red lights. I don't know about you but it wouldn't take me long to figure it out.
In case you missed it, when an LEO writes you a ticket - it's about money. If it were really about safety, then he would demand you exit the vehicle, confiscate your drivers license, call you a cab and give you the court date of when you can find out from a judge how long your license is suspended for. It's all about money!
Well, after they're installed, keep driving 15mph over the speed limit and/or blowing through red lights and see how many $40 tickets it takes for you to slow down and/or stop for red lights. I don't know about you but it wouldn't take me long to figure it out.
In case you missed it, when an LEO writes you a ticket - it's about money. If it were really about safety, then he would demand you exit the vehicle, confiscate your drivers license, call you a cab and give you the court date of when you can find out from a judge how long your license is suspended for. It's all about money!
Last edited:
dave1959
Active Member
Who cares if a private company makes money off the backs of criminals..
"A game system"... You only cite information about sytems that have a problem. What about the hundreds or thousands of systems countrywide that have been operating with out problems ?
Which school zones have problems ?? IMO every one of them !!! I drive through active school zones every day and constantly have people riding my ass and blowing past me with no reguard to the flashing lights and reduced speed.
Expanding school zones...Get off the phone and pay attention and you will see when the speed limit is lowered, adjust you speed accordingly and you wont have a problem.
"a measly $40.." Sorry we are all not as rich as you. $40 dollars is a lot of money to me and a lot of other people, so it does work..
If you would use 1/10 the effort you have shown here to advocate a system that is not "game" instead of condeming the whole basket just because of a few bad apples.
glhs837
Power with Control
I dont drive 15 over, nor blow through red lights, but if all you have is making stuff up and insults to bolster your case, thats fine, when you have no facts, I suppose that's whats left. And yes, when an officer pulls me over, I pay, but it's not about profit. The state doesnt turn a profit on enforcement, it's not supposed to.
Dave, in order.
1. The speed cams dont just ticket lawbreakers, but innocent citizens, and even that might be acceptable if the system wasn't rigged so the innocent driver so accused has no way to defend himself.
2. There are not hundreds of thousands of systems nationwide, not in this country anyway. And there are good ones, I'm sure, where the accused has a fair break, and the profit motive is removed. And if I were sure that such were the kind deployed here, I would pipe down. Butr given the way the rest of the state has gone, I dont think it's likely. I would love to be wrong.
3. I meant a problem with crashes or pedestrians being injured by speeders. If that's not happening, what problem are we solving, if we are not preventing injuries? AS far as expansion, again, if we don't have a problem in the existing ones, why make them bigger? If its only to make more money, thats not the right reason. I do pay attention to school zones, thanks. Why do you guys all think you know how I drive?
I do advocate a syetm that better, it officers being moved from straight speed enforcement to actual unsafe driving enforcement. And I advocate that a lot.
Ohio Supreme Court upholds law slashing state funding for cities collecting traffic-camera fines
The village of Newburgh Heights and the city of East Cleveland had challenged the law, which reduces state funding to a municipality by the amount of money it bills in traffic-camera fines -- which could result in a city losing revenue, as it’s not always able to collect money from the citations. The law also requires local governments to pay costs and fees in advance when taking civil action to enforce a traffic-camera citation, except for cases involving school zones.
The two Cleveland suburbs argued that the law violates their home-rule powers guaranteed in the Ohio Constitution.
But Justice Sharon Kennedy, writing for the court, disagreed. “The Ohio Constitution does not require the General Assembly to appropriate any funds to municipalities, and it does not create a specific right for a municipality to receive local-government funds from the state,” Kennedy wrote in the court’s opinion. The requirement to pay costs and fees ahead of time, she held, “merely requires that municipalities that ask state courts to enforce citations issued using traffic cameras shoulder the costs that their litigation creates.”
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County, which previously sided with Newburgh Heights and East Cleveland.