Obviously, opinions vary. And for me there seems to be a problem with law enforcement in general. The “Simon Says” situation seems fitting. Far too many in law enforcement are overly controlling even to a psychotic degree. Somehow a great many in law enforcement seem to have obsessive compulsive behavior regarding the public. They really lose sight of their mission and the limits of their authority. And it seems there is a SWAT team in every podunk village across this country eagerly awaiting the opportunity to suit up and kick down a door. It would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.
I agree with Twotone…Paint Ball Guns and Raw Eggs. I don’t run red lights either. But in some cities
those cameras have caused some problems.
They are illegal in Minnesota. Minneapolis tried it and had to refund all the money. No their sole purpose is not to raise money for the city, their purpose is to raise money for the vendors selling them. Since when should traffic fines go to pay private vendors???
Cameras are just tools as are radar etc. It is not the tool that makes it right or wrong, it is how it is used. I see both sides of the argument loosing sight of the goal of safety.In my experience, the biggest deterrent to any anti social behavior is the assuredness of getting caught. Even if the fine amount was very little, if you knew it would be placed on your driving record EVERYTIME you committed a driving offense, and not just those times you could talk your way out of it…you would be less likely to do it.
I’m in favor of these devises, but with lower fines when you don’t contact a law enforcement officer. There are some very few times when speeding could be a safety issue if not done…cops get it and you can explain it then. In the case of a “trap”, you can accept the blemish with a low fine.
Albuquerque turned OFF all of theirs.
Could not PROVE any safety benefit due to their existance. ( actually proved safer intersections by changing the timing of the lights ! )
Weak or nonexistant laws to collect unpaid tickets.
Citations contested in court cost too much.
For all the dollars generated by the citations, far far too much just went to the operating company and not to the city. The city took the losses on unpaid and court challeges lost.
It was all just a big waste of time. A lesson against " just because the technology exists, do we have to use it ? "
I have always thought that the penalty for any offense should be in part determined on the seriousness of the offense and in part to the likely hood of being discovered.
For example if I were to steal 500 pounds of copper wire from a remote power station or if I were to steal that same wire from a power station across from the police station, Should the penalty be the same? Do we not need a greater penalty if you steal it from a location where you wound not likely be discovered?
In either case I would weigh my risk. If it is little risk and if the penalty is the same, I will be more likely to do it, If the risk is higher, then I am less likely to do it.
Our goal is not to punish someone, but to prevent the crime. Both are crimes, both are equally undesirable and we want to reduce the likely hood of it happening. In order to make the likely hood of each crime the same we need to adjust the penalty.
Joseph, the problem is that in many cases the goal is not safety. It’s revenue. Especially when a private contractor is managing the system and its revenue stream is generated by taking a cut of the fine.
Radar may be a good illustration of the problem. Would you support having a private company operate radar traps and create a revenue stream for themselves as a “cut” of the fines? Would the “tool” then be being used as a law enforcement device or a revenue generating stream for a private company? Should our criminal laws and statutes be used to generate private company profits?
This is ethically a very slippery slope. IMHO private companies should not be involved in the violation or citation process in any manner. Those are enforcement and penalty actions.
That’s ultimately why Albuquerque told that private company to make thier money elsewhere.
Albuquerque wasn’t making much , money wise.
The intersections were NOT safer, which was the initial premise and selling point.
That silly private company never had to see any loss of income, to them , from unpaid citations and court costs from citations contested.
They were not even a deterent, people would continue to shave off the end of the yellows and toss the pretty picture in the circular file.
It’s not hard to see how these things come about. A company comes up with a way to cash in and they aproach city officials, both elected and non-elected, about the idea and it becomes a done deal.
What’s difficult or near impossible to deduce is whether or not any of these officials receive any financial consideration behind the scenes to go along with this.
A lifelong friend of mine who now lives in the NW part of the country told me about his town getting involved in a deal a few years back in which the town agreed to allow its name to be used commercially in exchange for a comparatively small amount of money.
The city council members, pretty much all low income and with few resources, suddenly (within 2 weeks) acquired new vehicles, home remodeling, and so on.
This video is indicative of the heavy handed law enforcement that seems much too common
Such videos are very common and I must guess that for every one that gets out to the public hundreds are kept under wraps.
I think they’re great! The company I work for makes a critical component of the system and there has been a huge uptick in demand. License plate recognition, occupancy checks for HOV lanes, speeding…all good applications for this technology. Coming soon to an intersection, police cruiser, parking checker and/or toll booth near you!!
Joseph, the problem is that in many cases the goal is not safety. It’s revenue. Especially when a private contractor is managing the system and its revenue stream is generated by taking a cut of the fine.
Radar may be a good illustration of the problem. Would you support having a private company operate radar traps and create a revenue stream for themselves as a “cut” of the fines? Would the “tool” then be being used as a law enforcement device or a revenue generating stream for a private company? Should our criminal laws and statutes be used to generate private company profits?
This is ethically a very slippery slope. IMHO private companies should not be involved in the violation or citation process in any manner. Those are enforcement and penalty actions.
Joseph, the problem is that in many cases the goal is not safety. It’s revenue. Especially when a private contractor is managing the system and its revenue stream is generated by taking a cut of the fine.
I totally agree with thesamemountainbike.
That is about as relevant as pepper spray occupy protesters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4
The conversation is about unmanned ticket assessments. What are the jabbering fascist insects at Fox News saying about the school cops viciously attacking America’s college students? Oh, you know, pepper spray is just a “food product,” right? And college kids are often liberals, so … totally warranted! And harmless! So we guess Bill O’Reilly and his vapid hair product sidekick are saying is this: Get your “food product” and head on over to the Fox News studios and prove them right! Hell, it hardly hurts to be pepper sprayed in the face. Professionals actually like it.
http://wonkette.com/456920/fox-news-cop-slobberers-say-pepper-spray-is-food-product
I get kind of irate over incidents such as Rod Knox posted. They settled it for 158 grand. The problem with that is the money doesn’t come from the guys doing the damage; it’s taken from the taxpayers.
Just a few years back near me a convenience store clerk saw a guy weaving on the roadway late one night as he pulled into the store. The guy was staggering,bumping into things in aisle and appeared to be competely disoriented. The clerk, thinking the guy was intoxicated, called the cops who came out, got a bit rough with the guy, and hauled him to jail while impounding his car.
The guy was in jail for a while before almost lapsing into a diabetic coma and was then hauled to the hospital. He was not on drugs or drunk and it came out that he was having a diabetes flare up and was simply trying to get a candy bar so as to shake it off. This one cost the taxpayers also and apparently the cops paid no attention to the diabetic bracelet that he was wearing.
How many of you are old enough to remember all the objections to using radar speed checks. Many of the same arguments are being used for un-attended enforcement today (red light runners etc.? People thought (or found it convenient to infer, all those radar devices were totally false and they wanted the use of radar be outlawed. Sounds like the same kind of arguments about the automated read light enforcement.Yep, I got nailed by a camera at Aero Drive & Murphy Canyon in San Diego-- my only ticket ever. Six months after I paid the fees (online traffic school and an administrative fee totalling over $300), the local paper came out with a story that the yellow light had been shortened at that intersection by the company that ran the cameras. To generate revenue, of course. I was just outside the window for refunds, didn’t bother fighting it. They still have the camera but the yellow light is back to a normal duration. Was I steamed!
If the revenue being raised is at the expense of red light runners, I’m still all for them.
Regarding radar, that brings up the question of whether the accused is actually guilty of the speed shown on the radar unit.
When my youngest son got his first car I went with him to take care of the title and so on. On the way home while traveling on a divided 4 lane he was pulled over for allegedly doing 73 in a 65. This was bogus because he had the cruise set and I was sitting right beside him at the time. A check of the speedometer later on showed it was dead on.
To make matters worse, this same trooper stopped my oldest son, 2 brothers who are friends of my oldest son in separate incidents, and my wife; all for allegedly doing 73 MPH in a 55. As far as I know, that radar unit is never cleared and they’re using a 1 violation fits all formula. I’ve heard rumors of others in this are being stopped for doing 73 but can’t verify that.
And this from a state trooper whom I personally saw take a different road to avoid being tied up by a bi-plane crop duster that uses a public highway to tank up. This trooper says he did not see this yellow aircraft with a spinning prop from 200 yards away. Headquarters says they can’t get involved because “it’s an FAA matter”.
Bunk, you guys are responsible for any public roadway.
The kids on the bus one day were just lucky that this plane did not ram them from behind as it was landing; as exciting as it may be for the kids on the bus to watch.