Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Motorists want to put brakes on red light cameras.

* * * * * 1 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
13 replies to this topic

#1
bopeep1909

bopeep1909

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,768 posts

Well,if they are going the speed limit and not going through reds lights they would not have a problem with them.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...amera-backlash/

Angry motorists are fed up with having to shell out big bucks to pay fines generated by red light cameras and speed cameras.

Take Jim Mehlhaff, an elected municipal official in Pierre, S. D. He got a speed camera ticket on busy I-29 in Sioux City, Iowa. He was fined $168.

“I had to mail the fine to ‘Sioux City Saves Lives,’ which was annoying,” he told FoxNews.com. “I crossed that out and put on the envelope ‘Sioux City Extorts Money from Out of State Travelers.’ They still the cashed the check.”

Complaints from Mehlhaff and others recently prompted South Dakota lawmakers to act. They passed a bill to put the brakes on red light cameras in the state and to bar red light vendors from going after South Dakotans for citations from other states. Republican South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed the bill into law last week.

The new law makes South Dakota the sixteenth state to stamp out red light cameras and speed cameras by statute or state court ruling, according to TheNewspaper.com. Other states, including Missouri, Ohio and Florida, are considering similar prohibitions.

Critics complain the cameras violate due process, don’t make intersections safer and generate revenue more for the red light vendor than the community.

The pushback is being felt around the country. The number of towns and cities that use cameras to catch motorists running red lights or speeding has dropped six percent since 2012, from 540 to 506, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. About 130 communities use speed cameras. An unknown number use both.

“You’re starting to see more public backlash against cameras,” said John Bowman of the National Motorists Association. “People are finally starting to realize what cameras are all about and public officials don’t want to experience all of the problems associated with cameras: legal entanglements, lawsuits, class-action lawsuits, unfavorable contract terms with cameras.”

But Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said red light cameras are a useful tool to keep communities safe. They are effective in reducing accidents, even at intersections that don’t have them, he said.

He said there is an explanation for the shrinking market for cameras. In some places, people avoid running red lights or speeding if they know there is a camera watching.That causes fewer citations to be issued. “As the numbers fall, they are no longer self-supporting,” he said.

But as the market has gotten smaller, so have the profits of the companies that install the cameras.

Brekford, based in Maryland, reported last week that it is losing money. The firm told Wall Street that it faces a deficit of $9 million and that revenues had dropped 25 percent from $18 million to $13 million in the past year. It reported a net loss in 2013 of $1.4 million.

"The increased net loss when comparing 2013 to 2012 was due to increased expenses related to salaries, benefit programs and associated support costs for the expansion of (photo ticketing) programs without corresponding increases in revenue as certain program implementations were delayed or terminated," Brekford said in a news release.

Brekford's biggest problem was its loss of the speed camera contract in Baltimore because of problems.

Redflex Traffic Systems in Phoenix has even bigger headaches. The firm has been the subject of a federal bribery investigation in Chicago for the past year.

In its most recent financial reports, Redflex said the loss of the Chicago contract cost the company $9 million. That and other write-offs resulted in a14 percent decrease in after-tax profit in the last six months, the company said.

Redflex did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mehlhaff said his speed camera ticket cited him forgoing 68 MPH, 13 miles over the speed limit. He said he knows three others who got speed camera tickets on I-29 in Sioux City for going just as fast,“68 in a 55.”

“I thought it was odd,” he said.

He called the camera speed ticket a violation of due process. “You don’t get to plead your case on the spot and you don’t even get the satisfaction of saying, ‘My bad,’” he said.

One person who is not pleased with what South Dakota has done is Sioux City Police Chief Doug Young. He told FoxNews.com lawyers for the department are weighing legal action.

“There is due process,” he said. “It’s clearly marked that speed cameras are being used. Yet, these people still ignore that.”



#2
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,701 posts

I agree. eliminate the cameras, but get rid of the entrapment rules the cops have to follow.



#3
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,498 posts

my garmon gps warns me of the camera locations....   I've noticed that the yellow lights at those locations are only on for half or less time than the others.



#4
bopeep1909

bopeep1909

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,768 posts

my garmon gps warns me of the camera locations....   I've noticed that the yellow lights at those locations are only on for half or less time than the others.

I think alot of the trucks have radar too.They can be roaring down the road about 20 miles over the speed limit and then all of a sudden they will slow down.Then soon....here comes a cop.



#5
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,619 posts
So speeding is not the problem? Getting caught is? Or does anyone have another suggestion to stop speeding? Back to the cop behind the bush?

We have average speed fining here. It is a lot more painful believe me. You pass a camera, five miles on you pass another. A computer works out your average speed. If it is over the limit you get a photo in the post. You are welcome to contest it in court if you wish.

#6
bopeep1909

bopeep1909

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,768 posts

So speeding is not the problem? Getting caught is? Or does anyone have another suggestion to stop speeding? Back to the cop behind the bush?

We have average speed fining here. It is a lot more painful believe me. You pass a camera, five miles on you pass another. A computer works out your average speed. If it is over the limit you get a photo in the post. You are welcome to contest it in court if you wish.

I wish we had the cameras where I live.People don't care.We have alot of traffic accidents.



#7
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,619 posts

So speeding is not the problem? Getting caught is? Or does anyone have another suggestion to stop speeding? Back to the cop behind the bush?
We have average speed fining here. It is a lot more painful believe me. You pass a camera, five miles on you pass another. A computer works out your average speed. If it is over the limit you get a photo in the post. You are welcome to contest it in court if you wish.

I wish we had the cameras where I live.People don't care.We have alot of traffic accidents.
I would scan and PDF my last camera fine in if I could. I was speeding, I got caught, I knew I was speeding, I am guilty, I hate cameras, they cost me money, but the fact remains I was guilty. I don't drive as fast in that area now. I learned my lesson.

The guy quoted in the OP should do the same. It's not about the cameras, or who gets the money, it's about, were you speeding or were you not?

#8
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,701 posts

My problem with the cameras is not catching speeders is I view them as a invasion of privacy and remove due process. I have no problem eliminating the entrapment laws that prohibit cops from hiding in blind areas that drivers cant see-I think a cop should be able to hide out of sight and catch speeders, after all if you wernt speeding you wouldn't be caught-but I don't like cameras. Its not the governments business where Im going-and these cameras can, and have been, used to track people. Usually criminals-but that doesn't mean the system can't be used for nefarious reasons in the future.



#9
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,498 posts

Fez, the problem we are having here is that the yellow is changing so fast that people are starting to slam on their breaks when the lights change, (in some cases it's necessary) and it's causing rear end collesions at the lights.....

 

I personally don't mind the camera's however the companies who run them are causing accidents to make more money from the camera's. Like any other business, it needs to make a profit, and they are creating a dangerous intersection with the short yellow lights just to make more profit.



#10
Taker

Taker

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts

I don't want to drag people off topic, so I wont. However, I will present Taker's simplified rules for driving safety. These rules are the rules that I would employ and enforce if I were the president of the United States. Bear in mind, that I will not dispute any of this, anyone who responds to this post will not be responded to by me. 

 

Taker's Simplified Rules for Driving Safety (TSRDS):

 

1. No insurance is required by law.

 

If you get into an accident and don't have insurance then that means you have to pay out of pocket (ouch!). It doesn't matter whether or not the accident was your fault, you still have to pay to fix your car. The truth is, I don't like the idea of "insurance". God is the only insurance I need in life. If I run into an UN-expected expense, then I will pay for it out of my own pocket, with my own savings. The idea of handing someone money every year and then hoping that they will give it back to me when I need it sounds ridiculous to me.

 

2. No laws or regulations that prevent accidents. In addition, no cops or cameras that serve the purpose of accident prevention.

 

When an accident happens, all drivers are responsible to pay for any repairs that relate to their car. There is no need to file any kind of report. A report only needs to be filed if one of the drivers intentionally tried to crash into another, or, if someone inside one of these cars was severely injured and those involved in the accident cannot reach a verdict on their own. Reports will be handled in court.

 

Bear in mind that under #2, there will be no age restriction on getting a licence. A person may get a license whenever they can prove that they are able to drive properly. There are also no rules about drunk driving or driving while impaired. 

 

The speed limit will only serve as a suggestion, and (because I still have some faith in humanity) I feel like most people will follow the speed limit. :cool2:



#11
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts
The speed limit will only serve as a suggestion, and (because I still have some faith in humanity) I feel like most people will follow the speed limit. :cool2:

 

You should drive through Maryland sometime.

 

People who drive the speed limit tend to be road hazards (because they block traffic and people have to change lanes to get around them).



#12
chloe_fantastic

chloe_fantastic

    Senior Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,362 posts

 

It doesn't matter whether or not the accident was your fault,

 

This effectively rewards the bad drivers and penalizes the good ones.



#13
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,498 posts

I don't want to drag people off topic, so I wont. However, I will present Taker's simplified rules for driving safety. These rules are the rules that I would employ and enforce if I were the president of the United States. Bear in mind, that I will not dispute any of this, anyone who responds to this post will not be responded to by me. 

 

Taker's Simplified Rules for Driving Safety (TSRDS):

 

1. No insurance is required by law.

 

If you get into an accident and don't have insurance then that means you have to pay out of pocket (ouch!). It doesn't matter whether or not the accident was your fault, you still have to pay to fix your car. The truth is, I don't like the idea of "insurance". God is the only insurance I need in life. If I run into an UN-expected expense, then I will pay for it out of my own pocket, with my own savings. The idea of handing someone money every year and then hoping that they will give it back to me when I need it sounds ridiculous to me.

 

2. No laws or regulations that prevent accidents. In addition, no cops or cameras that serve the purpose of accident prevention.

 

When an accident happens, all drivers are responsible to pay for any repairs that relate to their car. There is no need to file any kind of report. A report only needs to be filed if one of the drivers intentionally tried to crash into another, or, if someone inside one of these cars was severely injured and those involved in the accident cannot reach a verdict on their own. Reports will be handled in court.

 

Bear in mind that under #2, there will be no age restriction on getting a licence. A person may get a license whenever they can prove that they are able to drive properly. There are also no rules about drunk driving or driving while impaired. 

 

The speed limit will only serve as a suggestion, and (because I still have some faith in humanity) I feel like most people will follow the speed limit. :cool2:

 

If I were you i wouldn't respond to anything you wrote either......    My thoughts would be against the TOS and would be deleted so I won't bother to write them.

 

But just a note to remind you that I did say that the camera's and the shortened yellow lights are becoming a serious traffic hazard in that they are causing rear end collisions where people are slamming on their breaks to avoid getting a ticket and causing the person behind them to hit them.....    and it's happening everywhere they shorten the lights.

 

 

buw I like your name......   fits your cyber personality perfectly.


Edited by other one, 08 April 2014 - 05:17 PM.


#14
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,701 posts

@ taker. The problem with your method, is it will leave a lot of people in trouble. Yes, people make mistakes and accidents happen-to the best of drivers. but lets take an example here, lets say theres this rich kid-lots of money nice car, drives around like a mad man, and whenever he hits something he pays to fix his car out of his pocket. no big deal. he has the money. But lets say one day, theres this single mom driving to work, now shes barely making ends meat-scrapping by on pennies, drives a car thats barely driveable, and her only source of transportation and without it she will lose her job. Now one morning she is driving to work, the light is green so she goes through it-and here comes rich kid, blows the red light in the other direction and completly totals her car. Now, rich kid is just going to take his car to the body shop, 20,000 dollar repair job, no big deal. Now, single moms car, even though its only valued at 1500 is totaled-whos going to pay for that? we know the rich kid won't, and single mom can't. now shes fired and her and her child are on the street, all because of some rich kid, and no rules enforcing him to pay for his crime. that is what police reports and insurance are for. And thats assuming she wasn't injured in the accident-we all know how much medical expenses can be these days.

 

saying just take away all that stuff-may sound good on the surface, but in reality, are a bad idea. Maybe the current system isn't the best-but there needs to be an accountability system. I was raised if I brake it I fix it-so if I was the one who ran the red light and totaled that young mothers car I would make sure she got it fixed or got another car just as good or better-but not everyone has that set of morals. Whether we like it or not we do need some sort of accountability system, if you don't like the current one, then perhaps suggest a system that is fair and works, but to just eliminate the current system without replacing it with a better one will just lead to anarchy.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network