Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
missmuffet

Motorists want to put brakes on red light cameras.

14 posts in this topic

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.com/us/2014/04/01/angry-motorists-prompt-nationwide-camera-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.”

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0