Fighting Camera Tickets?

[bawbie]

I haven't seen a single anti police post.

Saying police departments value revenue over safety ("cameras are there only for revenue", which was stated at least 3 times in this thread) sounds anti-police to me.

 

[Rabbuk]

I'm on the left and I think traffic cameras are essentially a money grab.

 

[3TrueFans]

For it to be immoral, it does not need to be "all" or "many", it just needs to be a potential conflict of interest.

Which would make every fine given by an officer immoral! Anarchy!

 

[clone52]

See there is a big difference between being legitimately caught speeding and the speed cameras. I don't know if there are multiple in that stretch or what not but the one in Cedar Rapids is especially bad as the DOT has told them to move it.

The take your picture at the first camera and take your picture at the 2nd camera and then use the distance and time to compute the speed.

 

[clone52]

I'm on the left and I think traffic cameras are essentially a money grab.

A bit of a money grab, but you can't argue that the ones in Cedar Rapids don't save lives.

 

[jkclone]

Saying police departments value revenue over safety ("cameras are there only for revenue", which was stated at least 3 times in this thread) sounds anti-police to me.

That is a result of departments having to fund themselves. All fines should go into the general fund or a fund to help victims of crashes.

Just like it isn't anti police to say that police officers that shoot citizens need to be held responsible.

 

[jkclone]

A bit of a money grab, but you can't argue that the ones in Cedar Rapids don't save lives.

Unless I missed that they moved them those ones are the worst because they are in violation of the DOT's rules on them. So even if you think cameras are ok those ones aren't.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Which would make every fine given by an officer immoral! Anarchy!

Not really, as officers do not have the ability to be everywhere at once, or to penalize for every single time a trespass against state regulation is committed. This gives them that ability, which is why it violates the spirit of the relationship between citizen and government.

 

[3TrueFans]

Not really, as officers do not have the ability to be everywhere at once, or to penalize for every single time a trespass against state regulation is committed. This gives them that ability, which is why it violates the spirit of the relationship between citizen and government.

There's not at the very least a potential of a conflict of interest when people are being issued fines that at least partially go to the entity that is doing the fining?

 

[bawbie]

That is a result of departments having to fund themselves. All fines should go into the general fund or a fund to help victims of crashes.

Just like it isn't anti police to say that police officers that shoot citizens need to be held responsible.

This isn't like that at all. In that case someone was actually shot - there is responsibility to assign. In this case it's just a broad aspersion against the police force - that their main mission is to make money - with no evidence or underlying act whatsoever.

 

[bawbie]

Unless I missed that they moved them those ones are the worst because they are in violation of the DOT's rules on them. So even if you think cameras are ok those ones aren't.

Unless you disagree with the DOT's placement rules...

I think they should compromise by raising the speed ticketed from 67 to 72, which should alleviate any concerns about the speed limit dropping nearby.

 

[Cyclonepride]

This whole scenario is symptomatic of the plight that local governments are in. The federal government has become so oppressive that people tend not to support any taxes that they are allowed to vote on, which is really only something that usually happens at the local level.

 

[clone52]

1. It's a violation of the spirit of the relationship between citizens and government. If law enforcement was able to enforce every transgression against their regulations in this way, the average citizen would be in jail.

2. These have created a dual system where the same violation is treated differently. Why? Because they have to. If it was a criminal violation to be caught with a speed camera, it violates the 6th Amendment's right to face your accuser.

3. There are many reasons that a person may speed. At times, it is actually safer to increase your speed to allow for other traffic to merge, or to avoid an accident. A camera cannot capture the context of this.

4. Speed cameras are for revenue generation, not safety.

1. That is a ridiculous assertion that the average citizen would be in jail. Exactly what crimes that lead to jail time do you think the average person commits?

2. Do you also feel that parking violations violate the 6th amendmant?

3. This is just bogus. The speed cameras don't take your instantaneous speed. You have to be going more than 11 mph over the speed limit for a significant distance to actually get a ticket. There is no legitimate reason for that.

4. A very dangerous portion of the interstate through Cedar Rapids has become much safer since the speed cameras were installed. That is just a fact. In the 41-month period before the camera program beginning in 2010, 213 crashes were recorded on I-380 including 92 with at least one driver or passenger being injured and four fatalities, according to Cedar Rapids data. In a 54-month period after the cameras were turned on through 2014, 164 crashes had been recorded, including 48 with an injury and none with a fatality.

 

[bawbie]

This whole scenario is symptomatic of the plight that local governments are in. The federal government has become so oppressive that people tend not to support any taxes that they are allowed to vote on, which is really only something that usually happens at the local level.

That's quite the leap, but I'm glad you found a way to perform enough mental gymnastics to get the blame where ideologically it always ends up.

 

[jbindm]

1. It's a violation of the spirit of the relationship between citizens and government. If law enforcement was able to enforce every transgression against their regulations in this way, the average citizen would be in jail.

2. These have created a dual system where the same violation is treated differently. Why? Because they have to. If it was a criminal violation to be caught with a speed camera, it violates the 6th Amendment's right to face your accuser.

3. There are many reasons that a person may speed. At times, it is actually safer to increase your speed to allow for other traffic to merge, or to avoid an accident. A camera cannot capture the context of this.

4. Speed cameras are for revenue generation, not safety.

Couldn't agree more on points 3 and 4. You could also make an argument that the cameras can make some roadways less safe. If you're ever headed east on 235 in what constitutes "rush hour" for Des Moines, you know that right around the 56th Street the traffic flow suddenly slows down to less than the posted speed limit. And I guarantee it's because all it take is a couple idiots to see the traffic camera signs posted, overcompensate by dropping below the speed limit, and messing up everyone behind them. I'm amazed I don't see more rear end collisions along that stretch from 56th to 42nd.

 

[clone52]

Creating a huge automatic revenue generating system that unquestionably benefits law enforcement budgets is not just a potential conflict of interest. And it's not anti-police, it's anti-police state, or anti-overbearing government. The subservience of some on this topic has not surprised me in the least.

You don't trust the police officers reviewing the video before issuing the ticket?

 

[jkclone]

1. That is a ridiculous assertion that the average citizen would be in jail. Exactly what crimes that lead to jail time do you think the average person commits?

2. Do you also feel that parking violations violate the 6th amendmant?

3. This is just bogus. The speed cameras don't take your instantaneous speed. You have to be going more than 11 mph over the speed limit for a significant distance to actually get a ticket. There is no legitimate reason for that.

4. A very dangerous portion of the interstate through Cedar Rapids has become much safer since the speed cameras were installed. That is just a fact. In the 41-month period before the camera program beginning in 2010, 213 crashes were recorded on I-380 including 92 with at least one driver or passenger being injured and four fatalities, according to Cedar Rapids data. In a 54-month period after the cameras were turned on through 2014, 164 crashes had been recorded, including 48 with an injury and none with a fatality.

1. Drugs would be a big one. People don't realize how many laws they break.

2. Different because it isn't someone actively doing something. Also there are not seperate ways to do it ever.

3. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. It isn't instantaneous but it isn't very far.

4. This probably also has a lot to do with the statewide decrease.

 

[mdk2isu]

You have to be going more than 11 mph over the speed limit for a significant distance to actually get a ticket. There is no legitimate reason for that.

How about rushing someone to the hospital? That's a legitimate reason.

 

[bawbie]

How about rushing someone to the hospital? That's a legitimate reason.

yes it is, and I've heard from people who have gotten their ticket waived for that reason.

of course, the officer sitting on the side of the road doesn't know you are rushing to the hospital any more than the officer reviewing the video does.

 

[jkclone]

To add to the it's about safety not revenue. Look at what city is the biggest proponent of cameras in the metro Windsor Heights. The city that even police officers don't like.