Slashdot Mirror
Ohio Judge Rules Speed Cameras Are a Scam
Hugh Pickens writes "The Columbus Dispatch reports that southwestern Ohio Judge Robert Ruehlman has ordered a halt to a speeding-ticket blitz in a village that installed traffic cameras saying it's 'a scam' against motorists and blasting the cameras and the thousands of $105 citations that resulted. 'Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3-Card Monty,' Ruehlman wrote. 'It is a scam that motorists can't win.' The village began using the cameras in September, resulting in 6,600 speeding citations in the first month, triple the population of the village of 2,188. Optotraffic installed the Elmwood Place cameras and administered their use, in return for 40 percent of ticket revenue — which quickly topped $1 million. But business owners and motorists struck back, charging in a lawsuit that the cameras hurt the village's image and said they were put into use without following Ohio law for public notice on new ordinances. 'This is the first time that a judge has said, "Enough is enough,"' said plaintiffs' attorney, Mike Allen, who called the ruling a victory for the common people. 'I think this nationally is a turning point.'"
" 'It is a scam that motorists can't win.'"
I'm sure they are also against the IRS using computers to catch revenue cheaters, because it gives them an unfair advantage.
Sure they can win, just don't speed. The motorists are just used to breaking the law and not getting caught most of the time.
Did somebody check how many tickets the judge got?
This sounds like New Rome all over again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio#New_Rome_speed_trap
I don't know what's happening recently, but it's a pleasant surprise to see these kinds of article cropping up more frequently on /.
Now if only we had the same kind of possibilities here in Europe, where there are more and more cameras everywhere, and the margin before you get a ticket is in some places ridiculosly low. I'm all for enforcing safer driving, but many camera emplacements are obviously for revenue-generating rather than safety.
They don't do anything to discourage the single-biggest cause of road deaths either, drunk driving.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the speeds that people were going when they received a citation. If it's within 10% of the speed limit, then yeah it's probably a scam. Yet my experience is that speeders tend to go over 20% faster than the posted speed limit. In that case, it's not a scam. You break the law, you pay the price. As long as people are receiving notification of a speeding ticking before receiving their next speeding ticket, the police are perfectly within their rights to use highly efficient technology to catch those law breakers.
Just because one judge finally got his head out of his ass long enough to breath in the fresh air does not mean it is a turning point. Corruption is massive across the country and this is but one example.
If the courts do not put an end to it quickly, I will not be surprised to see civil war break out in the next few years.
People learned to avoid this town and its $105 speeding tickets ($25 to appeal, you lose anyway), and business owners began to complain they were losing business due to the get rich quick scheme. Judge sounds like a good man.
Virginia Courts threw those things out long ago.
IIRC, they ruled that they clearly did not affect public safety, they were just a disguised revenue generation plan. And since only the General Assembly had the constitutional right to institute new revenue, the cameras were illegal.
6 teens killed in Ohio SUV crash is the next article on the same site. Quite consistent, both articles show that reckless driving is high priority for the people in Ohio.
The speed cameras correctly measure speed transgressions, the drivers have sued the city, and the judge calls the speed cameras a scam? Provided that the cameras work correctly, what's wrong with making these asshole drivers pay?
Between automatic cameras, GPS, and OBD we could completely eliminate speeding. Or, at the very lease, insure than anyone who speeds _even a little_ is instantly ticketed. If speeding really is dangerous, maybe we should take these steps to eliminate it. If speed limits are too low, maybe we should raise them. But we seem to prefer these strange cat and mouse games.
you sound exactly like the "public officials" of New Rome, Ohio defending their utterly corrupt "village". As a native and lifelong citizen of Ohio I am ashamed of this too-common "tradition" of my state with $$$$$$-inspired enforcement of traffic laws.
If only this would hold up in The Netherlands, where speeding camera's are everywhere.
Nowadays, we even have systems in several places that measure average speed over a certain distance, meaning braking for the camera won't work.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Optotraffic installed the Elmwood Place cameras and administered their use, in return for 40 percent of ticket revenue
So 40% of all fines aren't actually fines, but revenue for the camera company. Holy shit, that's flawed.
This sort of setup doesn't exactly persuade the camera company to ensure the correct margins to adjust for measurement errors are used either. Who checks if the camera's comply with the spec? The company who receives 40% of the revenue or the government who receive 60%?
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
I remember a stand-up comedian once saying that he'd received a ticket in the mail for $140 and a picture of himself speeding, so he took a photo of $140 and sent it back to them.
Don't speed or run red lights. You'll put these guys out of business and make the streets safer. Everybody wins.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"It is a scam that motorists can't win."
- so the judge got caught speeding in the cameras and is unhappy? :-)
Reading the article, it looks like the argument is that not enough notice was given before putting the cameras up.
Were the cameras correctly indicated according to the laws?
Are speed restriction signs correctly posted on the roads?
If so, surely you can "win" as a motorist by just *obeying the speed limits*?
If you've been caught speeding and fined, isn't your argument "previously I ignored the speed limits which were correctly marked, but now I got caught and fined without due notice they would actually enforce the speed limit"?
Can anybody comment on whether the cameras were signed correctly and the speed restrictions correctly flagged on the roads? Just trying to understand the dispute here.
I'd definitely agree that a company getting paid a percentage of fines has an incentive to collect fines and that seems very suspect, I wouldn't like that, but hey, it's the USA, you guys prefer payment-by-results model rather than payment-for-a-public-service model so I guess we have to ride with that.
If you are unhappy with being fined for speeding, and the cameras and signs are legitimate, then is the argument not with the cameras but with the speed limit?
Do people object to slowing down to 25mph near a school where children are walking? or is the argument about being fined when you choose to go at a higher speed there?
On some level, I agree with the "just don't speed" people. The real problem is the traffic laws themselves. They are far too rigid. Rigid laws can lead to rigid enforcement, which I don't think is generally what people want to see. Unfortunately, it is easier to write a ticket for "56 in a 55" and demonstrate that "my laser gun measured it" than it is to write a ticket for something like "driving at a dangerous speed for the conditions". I guess. I don't know.
Governments need increased revenue to cover their deficits, so why not allow speed cameras? Obviously a fair and reasonable amount of leeway should be given (e.g. 10km/h). We have other sin taxes, cigarettes, alcohol etc... If you don't want to pay the "tax" then don't speed, and as a result our communities and roads are safer.
"what if the camera loses its calibration? how do you fight that without knowing?
- you appeal on the grounds that you believe the camera wasn't correctly calibrated and demand a calibration test by an independent tester? Costs to be picked up by the loser in the court case?
I am assuming this is unlikely to be an intermittent fault, what do you think? (not my area). There are millions of speed cameras around the world, there must be some evidence on how often/likely "losing calibration" is and what forms it takes.
It doesnt make a mention of why the cameras are ineffective.
The people are aware there are cameras.
They know the speed to go.
They are getting caught.
PANIC?
http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
Change the penalty for moving violations from a monetary fine to a mandatory community service.
The incentive for police to write frivolous tickets will disappear, and people who are caught will be made to spend real time helping their community in some way, benefitting them, and costing them time, which is more valuable than money.
Zing!
Here in lower Michigan, Ohio has kind of gotten a reputation for this kind of thing. We used to drive through a small town on our way to Toledo, after about the third or fourth ticket for a few MPH over the speed limit everyone in our family was warned to avoid it at all costs. The one officer in a town of at most a hundred seemed to focus his full attention on a single blind corner just before the town where the speed limit dropped from 55 (before the corner) to 35 (Just after the corner). I've also heard of stories where officers actions were tantamount to extortion, pulling individuals over for minor infractions and offering them a choice 1: Going down to the courthouse, waiting for a judge for a couple hours, having your license taken and held after court officers record your full information OR 2: (officer pulls out device) We can take your credit card, debit card, check or cash right here to pay off your ticket.
I read in one place where the company that did a similar deal over red light cameras recommended to the city to shorten the yellow light time thus increasing the chances you would get burned having proceeded on a green and still been in the intersection when it turned red. The result apparently was that people would massively slam on their brakes if the light turned yellow just as they were about to pass through.
The key problem here is simple; when you have a company that can make profits backed by laws they will make sure that there are as many law breakers as possible. Since you can't sell people on breaking the law the next best step is to basically set them up to fail. In my shitty city Halifax they switched to a private company doing parking tickets. They are relentless. If your meter runs out they will get you. Plus the parasites know where the best meters are such as those near the emergency rooms of Hospitals where people are not thinking about things such as putting change in the meters.
No private company should have almost anything to do with the legal system. Running prisons, enforcing laws, scanning our emails, Nothing. Not only will they not use common sense but they will use the worse common sense possible and that is to make as much money as possible and at any cost.
A government that becomes too efficient will cause problems. In this case, they infractions are detected too efficiently. Catching major infringers is good, but when every slight infraction is punished, citizens will become unhappy.
We want government to have constant hurdles to overcome, because we have expectations regarding the persistence of overseers. Even though we may not be able to have the default anonymity we enjoyed pre-21st century, we can still regulate government to have stumbling blocks so that it doesn't become an efficient Orwellian machine.
I used to work for the parent company. Their cameras are inaccurate, and the company knows this. While I never worked for Optotraffic directly, their operations are fairly tightly woven into the parent. I heard many a conversation in the halls about this issue.
...if I can't break whatever laws I like, regardless of the consequences to others.
One, is that it looks like this could serve as clear precedent to help stem the flow of the obvious scam that is the US traffic court system. Everyone knows about the money-making scam that it is. How many here have gotten pulled over for speeding, then ticketed for a fancy license plate frame, or something that didn't result in "points", but still made revenue for the township? It's one of humanity's lesser but very prominent failures. The second thing is that, if you're ever around Cincinnati, learn where Elmwood Place is, and avoid it! Google Map of Elmwood Place: http://goo.gl/maps/rnbN0
The real issue is the fact that the company who placed the cameras got 40% of the revenues, which means that the primary incentive is to catch as many people as possible, not to make the roads safer.
You can place as many street signs and cameras as you like - and it is true that the motorists must (by law) follow all those signs and rules - but it won't make the roads safer.
Well to be more accurate I like speed cameras in places where speeding is a definite danger or problem like school zones, "rat runs" through residential areas, accident black spots, etc.
What really annoys me is the trend to use speed bumps in these areas instead of cameras. You end up in a situation where someone in a large 4wd SUV drives through at 50mph but someone with a compact car has to slow to 20. I know people who have actually switched to a larger vehicle because of speed bumps.
So take away the speed bumps and give me cameras any day!
"I think nationally this is a turning point"
Errr... a single ruling by a single county non-appeals judge in Ohio isn't any kind of "turning point", even for Ohio, much less nationally.
I think somebody has delusions of grandeur.
I wonder if the police from New Rome found a new place to live after his previous community was dissolved by the court for being nothing more than an excuse for the cops to ticket passing motorists.
It does seem similar; just a blip of a town along a major highway. I doubt they are issuing that many tickets to locals.
Hopefully this ruling can be used as precedent for future rulings against these cameras.
If civil engineers designed traffic lights like this, it would _ruin_ automobile transportation. Have you ever driven a car/truck/bicycle in America?
It seems like you're encouraging a race to see who can approach the light at the slowest possible pace to ensure they can stop before it turns red for fear of being punished? That is the wrong paradigm.
We have essentially two problems here.
1) Letting someone else fining people for breaking law is very bad. It creates mistrust. And if you really want to make people to obey the common sense law they really like to break (speeding is one of them, I *won't* get into details why psychologically so many want to justify it), you have to fine them yourself, not by some commercial entity; Otherwise it just make people angry. It's bad policy, period;
2) People will like to speed more than allowed and no matter of common sense will appeal to them. So other half of arguments - scam, can't win, etc. - sorry, been there, done that. People love to violate speeding limits. Yeah, some places those limits aren't really thought trough, but they are not that many.
So while I agree it's a really bad way of controlling speed limits, judge jumped a shark here and made more of political statement. But as Judges in US are part of political system - not very big surprise.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
The law in Utah is that you may legally go through an intersection if at least your front two wheels cross the line before the light turns red. This leads to many people speeding up on yellow instead of stopping. If people know the yellow light will last longer, more people will try to make it through. Motorists are in a hurry.
If you're driving so fast towards a traffic light that you can't stop in twenty yards without screeching the tires, you're doing it wrong, yes.
Really? The road in front of my house has a speed limit of 50mph. Explain to me how I can stop from the posted speed limit of 50mph in my truck within anything close to twenty yards. Even a Corvette ZR1 with huge brakes and tires can only do 60-0 in about 31 yards. For a lot of driving conditions and situations what you are suggesting is physically impossible. And no, driving like my grandmother is not a reasonable solution.
will get thrown out of court. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2269.asp
Were you elected to make laws? Oh, so you're NOT part of the legislative branch. So then wtf are you doing with this ruling? If you have a problem with what the legislatures have done, you need a better reason than "it's a scam". Oh, I don't know, like say, it's something that conflicts with current law or the state's constitution. Well, I see that you've made that claim. So the legislators and/or police would have to appeal, which would cost quite a bit of money and risk their own jobs next election season. And since you're from a state where your job depends on you being elected as well, it's no surprise you do something that resonates with the popular vote. Yea, sounds like you're the scam to me.
When they entered in a revenue sharing scheme, they throw away any semblance of justice to the use of these devices. There is an strong incentive to miscalibrate the cameras and fine people that didn't did anything wrong. On principle I'm in favor of the use of technology in public security and transportation, but they need to be in an environment in that they are not considered a direct source of revenue, for the State or for a subcontracted private entity. The "revenue" from increased safety comes in a better standard of living for a given community, and the increase in common welfare by having less people hurt or killed in traffic accidents. The greedy bastards that signed this contract from both parties deserve to never hold again a public office or provide a service to the State for the rest of their lives.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
put speed bumps every 50 feet and at intersections. that should take care of quite a few speeders.
Some have already mentioned how you can beat speeding cameras by not speeding past them, so I won't reiterate. Other commenters complain about how silly speed limits are. I agree, but let's be practical.
For the time being, we're going to have speed enforcement. The public sea change necessary to eliminate that isn't going to happen any time soon. If we must have nannies running around, wasting time and money, who are making sure all the little kiddies are following playground rules, we might as well have machines doing it. Machines that can't prove our identities in court, and don't doll out points that adversely affect our license status and help insurance companies jack up our premiums.
We've got countermeasures (pick your favorite: Waze and Trapster) against these cameras that are legal in all states (unlike radar detectors), and, if you happen to get caught by one you've missed, your driving privileges aren't put in jeopardy.
tl;dr: less cops, more cameras.
If people are not paying attention and speeding through the city just to get somewhere else, fuck 'em, write 'em tickets so they learn to slow down or find a different route.
These speed cameras are there to gather revenue, not slow down traffic. The city has a conflict of interest built in. If they really want to control the speed of traffic there are many more effective means of doing so. Police presence, speed bumps, road design, stop signs, etc. Speed cameras are just a cash grab. Furthermore there is no opportunity to face your accuser, the speed camera cannot make allowances for unusual conditions or circumstances and frankly speed limits are not really supposed to be hard upper limits and NEVER have been treated that way by societal convention or enforcement.
Perhaps I am jaded by all the people speeding down my street rushing to the highway on ramps. 35MPH and not many are doing it.
Then either lobby your governement for additional speed control measures or change the speed limit to something more reasonable. If everyone is ignoring the speed limit, there is a strong chance that it is set unreasonably low. Happens all the time, sometimes on purpose. There is a road near our local airport that has a 45 mph speed limit and by all reasonable measures it should be 55 or 60mph at that location. Instead the town uses it as a well known speed trap and collects a lot of revenue. I've also seen roads that had their speed limit set by local statute but where the actual reasonable speed was somewhat different. There is a road on my way to work where the speed limit is 50mph but unless you are in a high performance car on a dry day, good luck going that fast and remaining on the road in the turns. Conversely I've seen plenty of roads where the speed limit was set to 35 or 45 mph but should have been 5-10mph higher.
I've taken to tossing gravel at them as they race by while waiting to put my kindergartener on her school bus.
Then you are an asshole. You think you have the right to damage property just because you dislike how someone else is behaving? I think the phrase about people in glass houses not throwing stones is particularly apt in this case. If I saw you doing that I'd call the police on you and probably try to get you doing it on film.
Thanks for your considered response. I think you make a good point indeed, I think there will always be a problem when speed camera companies earnings are related to income, perhaps another metric would help make sure cameras improve public safety rather than generate income. Perhaps a before and after comparison of traffic accidents/ pedestrian fatalities in the areas covered?
I'd agree with you, I'd hope to see revenue declining as more people obeyed the speed limit going past a school where children are walking. And if it doesn't? Does this say that people refuse to slow down when travelling past a school? (would be possibly indicated by repeat offenders) or that there's a lot of passing traffic (single time offenders) and the warning notices aren't well posted (e.g. you come down a fast slope and immediately round a corner there's the school, and there's no distance between the school and the slow down notices?) Have to go and think about the implications of this!
Generally speaking speedometers are accurate to +/-10%. In the US they can have a variation of +/- 5mph at 50mph. This means that at 60mph you could be as much as 3mph high or low. Factors such as tread depth, tire pressure and other variations cannot be controlled by the manufacturer and can cause a variation of 1-2% easily. Interestingly lower priced cars tend to have more accurate speedometers than higher priced cars and speedometers are usually wrong by a bit over 1mph. By international agreement the indicated speed should never be lower than the actual speed. This makes sense since going slower than you think you are is generally a safer situation for most people most times.
Speed Traps are common everywhere; cameras arfe just a low-cost way to implement them with hadly any fuss...
http://www.speedtrap.org/
These "speed cameras" have nothing at all to do with safety. They don't even have that much to do with speeding. 5 MPH over is enough to get a citation where as most PO will let you keep on keeping on.
I received one of these "tickets" roughly a month ago with a scary looking letter in the mail addressed to the address where the vehicle was registered. The stated fine is less than the fine for speeding if one were to actually be pulled over. The fine is right at the point where it's easier to pay, and cheaper than contesting it to avoid the hassle. In addition, the requirement is that you have to pay the fine to the city before you're allowed to contest it which then means you have to appear (which means a day off of work essentially doubling the fine).
The letter states in the most obfuscated way possible that it's a civil thing, it won't be reported to your insurance, it won't add points to your license, in fact, you don't even have to pay it. However, if you don't pay it, the city reserves the right to tow the vehicle at owner expense until payment is made.
So, if I'm driving someone elses car, they could get this ticket in the mail and be expected to pay unless they can prove it was not them driving. They then are at risk of having their car towed for my negligence as a driver.
On top of all that, a certain percentage of the fine gets diverted from the city to the company that maintains the camera system itself and the city ends up getting a very miniscule amount of the overall fine.
tl;dr Assumption that driver is registered owner of car. Assumption is guilty. Assumption that driver will pay reduced "speed camera" fine to avoid missing work. Camera company gets most of the money, not the city. Scam indeed.
Christ on a crutch, what a bunch of wimpy responses; and the higher the UUIDs get, the more namby-pamby the reasoning seems to get.
"If you're not speeding then ...."
"Speed kills...."
"Cops have every right to use available tech to catch the bad guys..."
Oh, just FOAD already!.
You're not even addressing the bigger issue, which is not public safety; but numbers concocted to justify greater surveliance and enforcement powers.
Speeding alone does not kill; repeat speed does not kill. Loss of control kills. Bad windshield wipers, old age, being under some influence or other, bad tempers, texting. Being distracted and not paying attention, that's what causes injury or death.
Speed limits are also arbitrary, a posted limit in New England is for 'winter' safe speeds, the lowest possible rate. And 25mph at 3PM is totally different than 25mph at 3AM. Speed limits are meaningless for anyone with an ounce of common sense; they are at best recommendations and would be better heeded if they just said 'please'
You sissies! You want a nanny state that 'thinks of the children' because you are crappy parents; to protect your right to graze in front of the tube. Succumbing to cry-babies like you who never considered the blowback of your desires vreating a State that treats everyone like children.
Protect your own F'in selves! Be present! Be aware of what's around you; Try defensive driving. Bec if you are in ANY kind of accident, it's partially your fault. You'd have seen it comming if you were more alert and attentive to what's around you. Probably spare yourself getting hit, or mugged, or worse.
I'm seriously sick of talking this shit that gives LEA ever more power just to cover your lazy, ignorant, asses. When the better approach is focusing on enforcing outcomes only! If you cause an accident - you lose your license, period. You hurt somebody, you pay for their loss and serve some time. Make the punishment force you to think twice before getting behind the wheel or whipping our your cell.
You know, being held accountable for your actions that actually cause harm.
My 20yr old (240K miles) 300z has not a dent or scratch on it. But i have plenty of speeding tickets. Its the cost of driving, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Passing the troop in wait behing some sign when my headlites were the only ones on the highway.
Or and landing in the speed trap where Cops get to show they're "on the job" and filling their quotas. They could have pulled the car in front of or behind me over, no difference.
A few more 'points' in a 'no-fault' insurance racket, plea-bargaining, paying fines while denying guilt; this does not serve society. It serves PHB's, bureaucrats and their masters. Left to their own devices, we're getting cars that control us on streets that control cars in cities whose machines control the streets.
No doubt, you will call this 'living'. A civilization of idiots, a parliment of crows.
Thought-crime and skynet and drones, oh my.
Welcome to the future, we got what we deserved.
P.S. Get off my lawn
resist propaganda
Car speedometers are accurate enough these days that there is no need for any tolerance.
They demonstrably are not that accurate. Your speedometer can vary by up to 2% simply due to tire pressure and tread depth variations. Most are fairly close but if the difference between getting a ticket or not is whether I was 3kph or 4kph over the limit then they are not accurate enough to be certain.
Here in Soviet California, we pay $446 for stop light camera violations.
In Paraguay (South America), some time ago, cameras were installed to monitor traffic light violations, but shortly afterwards their use for this purpose was declared unconstitutional. The cameras are still there, and are sometimes used to collect evidence of other incidents like street violence and so on, but nobody will ever get billed for crossing a red light because of them.
I wonder if the judge stopped to think that this is no different than without the cameras. Tickets are a major revenue source for police departments, to the extent that it is not uncommon to hear of stations which have ticket quotas.
There are some very important differences. First is that the accuser in this case is a human who I have a right to face in court should I feel the need. I cannot do that with a camera and a faceless management company. Second, the police officer can make allowances for a situation outside of normal parameters. Sometimes weird things happen. Third, the effectiveness of speed cameras as a safety measure is very much in doubt. Their effectiveness as a revenue generation tool is not in any doubt. Speed cameras are almost always used primarily as a revenue source and have no other purpose than to fine speeders. If no one speeds then they make no economic sense. Police officers have numerous other functions and make sense whether or not people speed.
Finally, and probably most important, I have a HUGE problem with governments depending on people breaking the law as a means of funding regardless of the means used. Any revenue gathered from fining speeders should not be accessible to fund government operations. There should be NO direct financial incentive for governments to benefit from people breaking the law. If it is about safety then it should only be about safety and revenue should not need to play into it.
On general principle, if we could trust authorities, red light cameras are a really good idea.
Our government is premised on the idea that our trust in authorities should be strongly limited. That is why we require warrants, have separation of powers, etc. And I disagree that they are a really good idea. They demonstrably cause more of certain types of accidents (rear end collisions), it is very unclear that they improve public safety, and their primary purpose is to raise revenue for local governments.
Got a toll ticket image from Florida, for a car that has NEVER been south of Georgia.
They also scam the databases and swap them state to state.
It was dropped when I raised a big stink.
Florida State Atty General never responded...
Who's the criminals ?
jr
There's an argument to be made that fine revenue should be used to defray the costs of parking and traffic enforcement.
I already pay taxes to do that. I have a HUGE problem with the idea of government depending on people breaking laws to fund their operations. It is essentially an indirect form of graft.
...that this is the reason that these cameras generally take at least two pictures: one of the car after the light has turned red before it has entered the intersection and another of the car in the intersection with the red light still on. Tickets have been successfully appealed and designs changed over red-light cameras that only took a single picture.
That's what we get when we allow our infrastructure to be "privatized". If something is "private" well then *duh* that means that it's owned by some-one rather than every-one. Big difference.
There is too little information in the links to make an informed opinion.
The only "fact" in the article is that the # of tickets is triple the population. But that is a useless statement for reasoning: it assumes the borders are sealed and begs the question that speeders can't possibly speed more than once.
IMHO: I think speeding cameras are fine, there just needs to be regulation making sure they are routinely calibrated, and there needs to be a clear and FREE path to contesting the ticket. I've received rightly deserved tickets from speedvans; there's no argument (short of life-threatening emergency) for illegal speeding.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Ramps and turns rate their speed limits based upon what it takes to skid the car 10 mph faster than the sign indicates. Now, sure if you have a fancy car with fancy tires... but you still should be informed what the limit is for a lousy car and besides, when your tires are worn out you slide easier.
The other problem is that at least in the USA, drivers are fools and I think if we raised the bar to a reasonable level we'd lose half the drivers on the road. Not that I'm against that but there is no decent mass transportation in the USA so even fools need to drive. The driving exam was a joke. I can't wait until computers can drive, I'll be lobbying my reps to force them into every situation... 3 tickets? you lose the right to drive, the computer takes over! Billions should be put into solving this-- more people die yearly from cars than by terrorism or most diseases and we put money into "solving" those.
Cops don't have quotas, haven't you heard the official statement EVERY time the issue is brought up? (yes, of course they do, but that is off the record.) Having quotas for police tickets is arbitrary... and is a poor indicator of them working; as are the arrest statistics etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The "we even" makes it sound like you think it's a bad thing, when in reality this is a good thing.
Most of the opponents of speed cameras cite as reasons:
'Trajectcontroles' - speed checks based on average speed over distance - do away with all of these concerns.
However, they do nothing about the quintessential "I was only going 5km/h over!" complaint, which disregards standard margins, overly cautious error corrections, etc. that eventually lead up to actually having gone more than 10km/h over - nor anything about the "but that road should really be 160km/h anyway!" excuse - nor the "$#@&*(@! they caught me!" frustration, which tend to be the underlying reasons for not wanting speed cameras in the first place.
I know a bit about trucks from a roommate, my current girlfriend (a former bus driver) and an uncle. The problem with slowing a truck down is the enormous weight you are dealing with; if the vehicle is moving fast enough, friction braking is insufficient and in the worst case can fail entirely. Engine braking is important in trucks, and truckers will shift to a lower gear when going downhill or when they need to slow down or stop.
If you ever hear a truck that sounds like a jackhammer, that is a truck that is using a kind of braking system called compression-release braking or a "Jake brake." Basically, this system works by using a piston to compress air as it moves upward, then releasing the compressed air through the exhaust; the energy needed to compress the air comes from the turning crankshaft, and ultimately from the vehicle's forward motion (hence slowing it down). Some places have banned the use of these systems because of the noise pollution, but that is equivalent to telling truckers they cannot use a safety feature of their vehicle.
Palm trees and 8
4.5 second yellow - FHWA recommendation.
Per their formula, 4.5 second yellow would be for a level red light at ~35 mph. Assuming 40 mph, level slope, that the intersection is 40 feet wide(2 vehicle lengths of 20 feet), and using the 'usual' figure everywhere else, you get a recommended yellow of 5.2 seconds. Assuming a 10% slope(pretty steep), it increases to 6.8 seconds. I'll note that even 25 mph gives you a yellow recommendation of about 4 seconds, depending on the width of the intersection.
The formula gives people 1 second to decide whether to stop or continue through, and enough time to either stop at a comfortable speed or clear the intersection. Even if you go with the more aggressive ASHTO handbook 11.2 ft/s stopping speed vs the ITE 10 ft/s only drops the recommended change time to 5.5 seconds. Though if you use the more aggressive stopping speed AND ignore slope you do get 4.5 seconds for the change. Going by how common semis are quoted as being, I tried adding another 10 feet to vehicle length, but that was only .1 seconds additional time.
Playing with the formula, given what's been stated they need to add a second to the change interval.
Just as a note - it's a recommendation for 'change interval', not 'yellow period'. If they implement a 'all red' period, it counts in the formula towards the duration. So they could have a 4.5 second yellow, 1 second all red, totaling 5.5 seconds for a safe intersection. Though it might be unkind to give somebody a red light running ticket if the ass end of their car was still in the intersection when it went all red.
Crosswalks - Don't you have button types in your area? What cross walks there are in my area are all sensor based - they remain red unless somebody hit the button, in which case it'll give a longer green to give the person extra time to cross. So normally no help there.
I don't read AC A human right
Quite closely associated to speed traps for profit are prisons for profit. Prison corporations get 'law-and-order' politicians elected through massive donations that are recouped through ever-more laws passed (always based on moral arguments and crafted to target non-whites)... Profit!!
The USA having more of its population percentage-wise locked up than any other country (except Best Korea?) is not an accident; it is a business plan.
Americans (and Canadians) could learn something from the Brits.
The original site seems to be down, but this mirror gets the idea across.......
http://www.redditmirror.cc/cache/websites/www.speedcam.co.uk_adyvb/www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
Why are my comments on /. being deleted, whether anonymous or signed? I made one of the first comments on this story, mentioning New Rome and Ohio (my home state) and now it is gone. None of my comments have been defamatory or obscene, and this one wasn't even politically incorrect. Previous comments were, and they were gone real fast.
The 55mph limit was meant to save gas, not lives. It was enacted in the 1970s when OPEC first flexed their muscles and caused an oil crisis. People actually did mostly obey out of a sense of patriotism and a desire to strike back against OPEC. Later, people noticed that highway fatalities had fallen, because apart from all other factors, slower really is safer. Safety proponents embraced the national speed limit, and the primary argument in favor of it changed from economy to safety. Since then of course, cars have become much safer. Handling is better. Also cars are better at muffling road and engine noise. We have decent radial tires that don't fail after only a few miles like the infamous Firestone 500 was apt to do, and we've learned a few things about safer road design. Slower is always safer, but we accept a little more risk for faster speeds.
Tolls of any kind lower road usage. A strictly enforced artificially low speed limit is just a backhanded way of raising tolls, with safety as the excuse. Same deal with red light cameras, especially when they use yellow lights that are too short.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
The Judge struck down the ordinance on Ohio Constitution grounds based on
1. It is possible to enter the village and a camera enforced area, without encountering a sign warning of the camera (as required by Revised Code 4511.094)
2. State & Federal Constitution require "due process of law", meaning the ability to contest the fine. However the contest procedure involves only hearsay evidence from the Village (They just read the company's report... no witness). Furthermore, if you claim you're not the driver, you have to prove you're not the driver by coughing up the actual driver. If the driver was your spouse, you're then required to testify against your spouse, in violation of the Spousal Immunity statute 2917.02(d).
I think the real LOL is in the Bond decision. In case the injunction is determined to not be valid, the plaintiffs (you and me) are required to post a bond to cover any damages in the meantime. But since the city has flatly declared the ordinance is not about the money, the Bond to cover the potential millions of dollars of loss is... $1.
I like this judge.
IANAL. This is just my own layman's interpretation of the ruling.
It is a speed camera, it is set up at place where there are no lights, to check if you speed, and usually they are set up so that if you are above 5% of the limit they blitz you. Frankly they are not a scam, and force people to slow to the speed the road is set at. We have 3 at our town and the number of accident and near accident reduced significantly, people were going into the town at high speed, thinking the high speed road was continuing despite all the warning signs on lower speed in the city.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Betas are trained to highly approve of things like speed cameras. The logic goes "break a rule and you must pay a penalty". Alphas (the non-evil ones) look upon all forms of 'zero tolerance' with horror. Alphas are a tiny minority, but their insight is supposed to protect the world against the worst ideas promoted by leading betas (and evil alphas that exploit them).
The movie 'Demolition Man' satirically explored a futuristic beta dominated world, where every social rule was a 'crime' when disobeyed (just as betas are taught at school). Swearing produced an automatic fine, and voice recognition machines were placed wherever possible to ensure maximum enforcement. The 'conceit' of the film was that this 'future' was sold as a 'utopia' to the citizens, reinforced by birth-to-death propaganda conditioning people to this POV.
A beta will always say (when properly trained) "why shouldn't a speeding driver always be punished". To a beta, it just seems 'obvious' and at school betas get gold stars for mindlessly 'thinking of society' in this way. Betas are current taught (under the concept of 'zero tolerance') to believe in as MUCH enforcement as possible, driven by pro-active investigation. Betas experience, for instance, the entire student body being put into 'lockdown' while police dogs sniff all their bags, lockers and coats.
Betas are told that that authorities do NOT need a specific reason to target people for investigation. The concept of assumed innocence is irrelevant. All that matters is that 'crime' exists and that 'crime' must be prevented or detected. When a person (or ten thousand people) gets a speeding ticket, all the beta will ask is "was the person 'guilty').
It gets worse. Betas are taught that the purpose of enforcement is to PREVENT crime. Beta logic is that if current penalties are NOT discouraging the offense (no matter what the offense may be), the penalties must be increased. Betas are taught to have no concept of proportionality, because after all, no-one HAS to commit an offense. They are even trained to support the LOWERING of the age of criminal responsibility, by ensuring that classrooms of young betas are encouraged to think of themselves as having an adult 'outlook' when discussing ways to make society 'better'.
Concepts like 'anarchy' (we should be our OWN authorities), individuality, tolerance, proportionality, minimum-policing, freedom of expression (including appearance), decency, etc can most certainly be appreciated by most betas as well. The problem lies in the defense of 'higher' and more sophisticated forms of society. Betas can trivially justify the police-state after moderate training. Betas, by-and-large, CANNOT properly justify better forms of society, because the arguments in favour of them are so much more sophisticated and esoteric.
Traditionally, betas wanted kings etc to exist, and do the higher societal thinking for them. When betas are encouraged, en masse, to allow their collective 'imagination' be their ruler (what do you think the system that produced Obama and Blair actually represents?), I promise you, behind the scenes profoundly evil alphas are rubbing their hands with glee.
Dear Submitters,
"Ohio Judge Rules Speed Cameras Are a Scam" -> This is a typical headline that you'd find in a tabloid, to hook readers in, only for the readers to find a different context. Please stop doing that.
Thank you,
One /. reader
About 5-6 years ago I came up with a nice two step solution to the issue of traffic citations, especially getting rid of the revenue generation angle most police departments have.
1) "Robin Hood" the citation money, similar to how Texas and other states redistribute education taxes to poorer districts. In this case, since most traffic violations are a matter of state law, collect all of the money centrally to the state and redistribute to each municipality based on a straight per capita basis. Automatically every small town trying to use that 2 mile stretch of freeway they think is their local replacement for normal taxation is done with.
2) Require statewide referendums in order to change enforcement methods.
Further, a camera is never a constitutionally permissible accuser, but others have already gone nicely into the constitutional and legal service requirements not met by current attempts at new revenue sources.
I actually live in Cincinnati, where Elmwood Place is located. A friend at work lives in Elmwood proper. He managed to get hit with 6 of these tickets within a week, not one of which was more than 5 mph above the posted limit. 2 separate tickets each for going 26 in a 25 zone. What a joke.
Maybe a calibration issue is at hand even, as no actual officer is going to issue a citation for going 1 mph over the limit.
Anyway, good riddance.
You're assuming a lot then. In my experience when a town wants speeding ticket revenue, right behind the sign is indeed where they put the officer.
Though if the sign isn't maintained per standards you 'might' be able to fight the ticket in court - traffic standards actually require that the sign be easily visible from the road - but they depend on the idea that you don't want to drive to the local court that's who knows how many miles away from you to contest it, with a locally sympathetic/hostile to you judge.
I don't read AC A human right
Timers come in handy. Of course, retrofitting timers across a state can be very costly even for our well-to-do states. However, knowing how long it will be before the light changes can be very helpful in decision-making. Timers are very common in urban spots and cities, but are by no means pervasive, especially in the areas where they would be most useful.
The bottom line is that drivers should be given a fair shot at avoiding tickets and fines, it really should be all about safety now shouldn't it?
I completely agree with you: if you're measuring by results then it should indeed be reduction of road traffic accidents that is the measure.
I don't think that any agency that determines who receives a fine or how much a fine will be should directly benefit from said fine. It should usually go to the next higher levels' coffers. e.g., the Police department shouldn't directly receive the money from a fine, it should go into the city's general fund. Seizures and forfeitures especially should never go to the issuing agency. This practice is plagued with abuse.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
I recently got a ticket for running a red light, not from a camera but a real cop. It had snowed the night before and the roads were still quite slippery. The light went yellow literally right at the tripping point, the moment where it could go either way and you have to make a split-second decision. I honestly felt that given the slick conditions there might be problems if I tried to stop, so I kept going - after all, I felt sure there was plenty of time to make it through. I did not speed up, I was absolutely not trying to run the light, I was just trying to do the right thing. Of course, the light went red so fast I couldn’t believe it, when I was almost but not quite directly underneath. The damn cop was right there and immediately pulled me over, it was all so suspiciously convenient, but what can you do? I explained to the cop I wasn’t trying to run the light, I wasn’t even in a hurry, I honestly felt it was safer to keep going and thought I had time to do so. His response was to inform me that the lights are timed to give drivers plenty of room to stop before they go red, and if I couldn’t stop safely then I must have been speeding. He actually started to write out another ticket for speeding! Or perhaps he just pretended to, I don’t know. Either way, it was obvious I would get no sympathy at all from him, so I just said “Yes sir, officer, whatever you say“ and meekly accepted the single $120 ticket he eventually gave me. I sent it in Not Guilty, which was probably overly optimistic and will cost me a day at court, but what the hell, I was honestly just trying to do the right thing, we'll see what happens with the prosecutor.
But it's the point about the light being calibrated to the speed limit that interests me. Is this a common practice, or a legally mandated thing? If so, what exactly is the perfect amount of yellow time for a stoplight on a 25 mph city street? Is there a table or formula somewhere that will give me this information? Is there even a universally accepted way to derive that time, or do different States have different ideas about what constitutes a safe stopping time? If there are in fact known safety durations, then I would imagine any light with a yellow time below that safety threshold should be challengeable in court. I would also bet that a lot of these for-profit camera operations are either setting the lights right at, or even below those safety thresholds. Does anyone know what the accepted standards really are in these situations? That info just might be of help to me when I go to court.
ruling is upheld on appeal.
Last time I checked, speed cameras only took your picture if you were speeding. So, where's the 'scam'? Unless speed limits no longer apply of course.
It's great to know somewhere in the world, people don't take it up the ass from the beaurcrats, like we do in Australia here.
It would never happen here that thousands of people would protest against the speed & red light cameras here.
This has happened before in Ohio requiring higher authorities to step in. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio
In further news a group of motorists worked out how to avoid getting fined for speeding: they always drove through the village under the posted speed limit. One driver, wishing to remain anonymous, commented "this will show city hall that they can not get money out of me without a fight".
So not telling people your trying to catch them breaking the law is a scam? Am I missing something cuz last I knew if you didn't want to get caught speeding, you kinda shouldn't be speeding.
I don't agree with speed limits either, they are only in place because some people can't frikkin' drive, but its a law and put there for a reason. Dont wanna get caught by the cams, don't break the damn law.
The British don't like seed cameras; Google "burnt Gatso" to see the answer.
From someone that lives near Cincinnati I can tell you people had been pissed since the beginning. It all boiled over when a guy was issued a speeding ticket from one of Elmwood Place's cameras that was for a parked car. The camera sends the picture of your car with the citation and his was parked on the curb so we all knew it wouldn't be long before these cameras were gone. Total scam from the start.
I have no problem with a small town fining motorists for speeding through it, endangering the townsfolk. If the town makes a lot of money out of it, then that is fine with me too. No one is forcing drivers to speed. What I do have a huge objection to, is a private firm taking a large percentage of the revenue as a fee for providing the speed catcher service. That is privatizing the justice system, and giving public compensation revenues from crime punishments to private individuals. Oh wait! We have been doing that for many years now by forcing the inmates of our prisons to work as slaves for corporates.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
If they are ticketing at 10% over then they are not enforcing the law. If the limit is 55 then at 56, you get a ticket. They are avoiding public backlash by playing with the numbers.
Good to see people still have common sense and are able to see these cameras for what they truly are.
See also (sorry for the ad-laden links, but they're the top two results):
http://www.carinsurancequote.net/auto-accident-fraud.html
http://www.4autoinsurancequote.com/uncategorized/swoop-and-squat-auto-insurance-fraud/
I say we drop all speed limits to 5mph everywhere, and limit passenger vehicles to 3 horsepower rubber cars. Traffic fatalities would plummet!
Of course, you'd have to exclude "starving to death on the way home" from the actual statistics. Better exclude road-rage shootings as well, come to think of it...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Anything that pays a percentage is likely to get used and abused to get bigger paychecks, especially when it comes to law enforcement! They should be paid a flat hourly rate. This is so backwards that I am so surprised I never hear this being brought up. Like the criminal prison systems that are privatized getting money from tax-payers to hold prisoners and are making huge profits... They also are given contracts to ensure a set prison population level to be maintained. So many fundamental bad designs in all these government systems, seriously needs a closer examination!
South Carolina: photo enforcement prohibited with narrow exception; citations for violating traffic laws relating to speed or disregarding traffic control devices may only be used when the State declares an emergency and citations must be served in person within one hour of the violation