MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Voters in eight cities in three states cast ballots Tuesday to decide whether red light cameras and speed cameras should be used in their communities. Seven of the races went against the use of photo ticketing.
The night's first results came from Ashtabula, Ohio where 60 percent of residents approved an amendment to the city charter stating that the city "shall not use any traffic law photo-monitoring device" unless a police officer personally issues the citation.
"I feel that the citizens of Ashtabula stood up," Mark Leatherman, chairman of the Citizens of Ashtabula Camera Committee told TheNewspaper. "We had the police chief attacking and fighting citizens on this issue on Facebook. We stuck to our guns to get this passed."
Leatherman and fellow volunteers held twenty rallies in support of the ballot measure, ensuring that voters understood that a "yes" vote meant no more cameras. In Garfield Heights, officials were far more aggressive in pushing cameras. Voters in the city had struck down photo enforcement last year, but the city council proposed a charter amendment permitting photo monitoring devices "in school zones and/or park and recreation areas only." This idea found even less support than the cameras received last year. Fifty-four percent opposed the school zone speed cameras.
Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia kicked in at least $108,000 to fund the Safe Roads Ohio front group to campaign for cameras in both Garfield Heights and South Euclid -- the equivalent of $15 per vote. This compares to the unfunded effort in South Euclid to put a stop to the cameras, which won 55 percent of the vote.
In East Cleveland, local officials went to the most extreme lengths of any contest to date to badger voters into supporting cameras. Off-duty police officers, in uniform and with their police cruisers parked on the curb, were ordered to go door-to-door to convince residents to vote to return the cameras. Last month, Mayor Gary Norton mailed layoff notices to thirty-six cops and fourteen firefighters, claiming the city would have to fire them if it lost the photo ticketing revenue. The strong-arm tactics worked, as the city picked up 54 percent of the vote.
Comments
I have somewhat mixed feelings on the issue (I've not read any strong discussions either supporting or attacking red light cameras), but the tactic most likely to influence me would be a mayor discussing the issue in terms of lost revenue. In case it's not clear, that tactic would most likely have me voting against the cameras.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:03pm
I've read a lot of discussions, and while the idea of automated traffic enforcement— greater safety for all—is not a bad one, its execution seems primarily motivated by profit. Local jurisdictions hand enforcement to private companies, who tweak the situation to make more money. For example, with red light cameras, they shorten the duration of the yellow light—a lot. Drivers who are used to making it through, start getting ticketed. And pissed off.
Cameras in work zones aren't quite as bad. Protecting workers from being sideswiped is a noble idea, even though you almost never actually see the workers that are supposed to be at risk. But they do post readouts of your measured speed, so you can have a chance to slow down. Still, some drivers learn where the cameras are mounted, so while you are trying to drive a steady fifty through the work zone, others are speeding up, slowing down and weaving in and out.
There's a series of cameras on the way to my sister's townhouse that drives everyone nuts. They are on a windy old country road that has been choked by ticky tacky housing projects. People were used to going 50 in the 35 mph speed limit, and with the cameras they lowered the speed limit to 25. Feels like you're hardly moving.
by Donal on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:26pm
Good discussion, Donal. It sounds like it comes down to the difference between theory and practice. Btw, are you ever on any of the Stack Exchange sites? I saw someone with Donal as a first name there, and as I've never seen that name before, it made me wonder...
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:39pm
No, never heard of them.
by Donal on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:43pm
Not surprised to see some at DAG espousing the usual Republican claptrap about 'revenue'. Seems those too dumb to know the speed limit or read their own speedometer, or to note the warning signs that say 'photo enforcement in use' should be immune from the consequences of their breaking the law.
There is no way any state can afford to put cops all over the place enforcing the speed limit, most are busy enough responding to accidents and other law enforcement activity. Cameras make drivers responsible for their actions. The concepts of 'accountability' and 'personal responsibility' seem an anathema to Americans today.
The fact is photo enforcement increases safety on roads, as ample data from Phoenix and other areas has shown. In spite of this, photo radar on freeways was dismantled by Republicans in Phoenix. Before it was it led to the arrest of at least one Republican Party official (I'm shocked!), going at 109 mph, it also helped apprehend a murderer who had dragged a college student through the street, killing her. There was no cop there to check his speed, there was a photo radar shot of him from a previous incident which helped nail him.
by NCD on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 4:59pm
Why does this have to be tribal? Why can't we just discuss the pros and cons of red light cameras without making accusations about "some at DAG espousing the usual Republican claptrap"? Your second and third paragraphs were good, however. What would've been even better would've been to link to studies supporting your first sentence in that third paragraph. It's interesting to note that same study also suggests that increasing the length of the yellow light (which would decrease revenue) also improves safety. Being prepared with such information allows for informed discussion of the issues.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 6:20pm
Agree VA, I am all for making driving safer, extend the yellow lights.
As to tribal, I am probably second only to Dick Day in my disgust of Republicans and their talking point BS. Accountability that comes with a $ attached seems particularly hard for the denizens of the right to handle, whether it be paying more taxes for the wars of their recent War President, or a photo speeding ticket.
The trait of not facing up to doing the right thing, be it a cost to your wallet or your football team (at Penn State), may in fact, not be restricted to the right wing.
The riot at Penn State last night is a disgrace. Paterno should have kicked the SOB raping the 10 year old in the shower the hell out and told him to never come back, its him or me he could have told the U Prez. If he had done that he would show he knows more about life than winning football games. His firing is unfortunate for the football team, but more so for the kids molested, the University did the right thing.
by NCD on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 9:12am
Absolutely correct If you want to make the intersection safer, extend the yellow light.
Last year I called the National Highway Administration, found out that many municipalities have their own traffic engineering equations, and not following the recommended speed /stopping distance formulas
These municipalities were using the less safe method..... Hmm wonder why? Could it be revenue was more important than safety?
I also discovered that on your initial arraignment, ask for a copy of the incident.
You have a right to examine all evidence and you'll soon learn the evidence Redflex provided is in a format that is spoliated; it can not be used if you vigoously raise objections/
Film runs at so many feet per second/ so many frames in a three second yellow light, it's interesting when you discover the light was too short, in violation of State law .
Defendants and the courts do no have to rely solely on the States evidence.
You and your legal counsel are entitled to the evidence to be presented, and to be allowed an independent evaluation.
I was able to prove with Redflex' own camera, the yellow light was not the minimum 3 seconds.
It seems Redflex doesn't like it, when their own equipment indicts them. That goes to credibility of the witness and your right to ascertain bias
Bottom line if you don't raise constitutional issues at the time of the trial, you are precluded from raising them on appeal.
If you don't raise constitutional issues, YOU will be found guilty. Unless you want to waste your time pleading to a judge to show mercy. A judge whose job depends on revenue from red light cameras.
No sweat off of them, after the first trial they'll probably let you pay the filing fees to appeal (more revenue) and at the last minute you'll find the Municipality is no longer interested in pursuing justice
The municipalities DONT want appellate review; without a higher court interceding, they can abuse their authority.
There are two major laws regarding electronic recording devices.
.... you have to know your rights, they don't have to tell you.
BAN THE CAMERAS, it's not really about safety it's about fleecing he unsuspecting motorists.
If safety was the main concern the yellow lights would be longer. The longer the light the less revenue.
The National suggested allowing the cameras, but only allow ticketing to occur .30 seconds after the 3 second marker. Better yet, because of perception/reaction time in elderly drivers they recommended a 1 minute all red intersection.
All sides see a gated red, allowing the intersection to clear safely.
by Resistance on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 10:27am
Sorry, I was unaware that Redflex and American Traffic Solutions were idealist Democratic organizations. As I already stated, traffic surveillance is not a bad idea. I'd love to see them hand out tickets to tailgaters, road hogs and lane changers, who in my opinion are a lot more dangerous than speeders. Not to mention the road ragers.
But in practice traffic cameras are often more about profit.
by Donal on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 9:43am
Donal, traffic enforcement is not partisan, seeking to avoid accountability for ones actions or votes, especially if a dollar sign is attached (an ex-vote War President, then fight raising taxes to pay for the war), does often seem to reside politically on the right, as I have pointed out.
If there aren't enough cops for the traffic violations you cite, it shouldn't be a mental stretch to see there are not enough to control speeding violations, or that having cops do what radar and cameras can do could free up cops to handle other law breaking issues on the road.
by NCD on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 11:25am
No it isn't partisan, unlike your initial comment. But when they hand enforcement over to private firms, and shorten the yellow light so everyone can make money off the driver, it becomes entrapment, not accountability—which is just bad government, period.
Coincidentally, we have a Florida State Trooper in trouble with her brethren officers after ticketing a Miami policeman for weaving through traffic at 120 mph so he could get to an off-duty assignment.
by Donal on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 11:49am