dagblog - Comments for "Voters in Seven Cities Reject Photo Enforcement"

No it isn't partisan, unlike

Donal — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:49:37 +0000

In reply to Donal, traffic enforcement is

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.

Donal, traffic enforcement is

NCD — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:25:48 +0000

In reply to Sorry, I was unaware that

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.

Absolutely correct If you

Resistance — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:27:40 +0000

In reply to Agree VA, I am all for making

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.

Sorry, I was unaware that

Donal — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:43:41 +0000

In reply to Not surprised to see some at

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.

Agree VA, I am all for making

NCD — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:12:05 +0000

In reply to Why does this have to be

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.

Why does this have to be

Verified Atheist — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:20:09 +0000

In reply to Not surprised to see some at

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.

Not surprised to see some at

NCD — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:59:04 +0000

In reply to Voters in Seven Cities Reject Photo Enforcement

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.

No, never heard of them.

Donal — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:43:40 +0000

In reply to Good discussion, Donal. It

No, never heard of them.

Good discussion, Donal. It

Verified Atheist — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:39:05 +0000

In reply to I've read a lot of

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...

I've read a lot of

Donal — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:26:53 +0000

In reply to I have somewhat mixed

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.