Author Topic: Ohio to ban red light cameras  (Read 7934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wrightway

  • Guest
Ohio to ban red light cameras
« on: June 27, 2013, 04:54:51 pm »
http://toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/26/Ohio-House-passes-measure-to-ban-red-light-cameras.html

I don't know how I feel about this yet. It is being used as a huge revenue stream for some municipalities, at the obvious discomfort of tax payers. On the other hand, I could almost favor it if it shows a significant drop in vehicle related accidents.

Distind

  • Guest
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2013, 04:57:00 pm »
When all factors are accounted for it actually increases accidents. Fewer side and front impacts, but a significant increase in rear end collisions. You know, because of people slamming their breaks at red lights.

At least according to the data of the last study I saw used to promote them as being safe an effective, which ignored rear end collisions in it's conclusions.

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2013, 10:39:14 pm »
...Uhhh.

Have the people being ticketed by those cameras broken traffic laws? If so then doesn't it mean that they SHOULD be ticketed? I don't see how that counts as "money grab."

When all factors are accounted for it actually increases accidents. Fewer side and front impacts, but a significant increase in rear end collisions. You know, because of people slamming their breaks at red lights.

At least according to the data of the last study I saw used to promote them as being safe an effective, which ignored rear end collisions in it's conclusions.


WHY are those rear end collisions happening? Don't the drivers in USA normally stop for red lights? Again, the from what I've heard here and read from the article it sounds like the cameras are a good thing and it's just that people are driving dangerously.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

QueenofHearts

  • Guest
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2013, 10:59:50 pm »
...Uhhh.

Have the people being ticketed by those cameras broken traffic laws? If so then doesn't it mean that they SHOULD be ticketed? I don't see how that counts as "money grab."

I was recently in an Ohio municipality with these camera's and they came up as a subject of conversation. Turns out the mayor of such municipality was going around after the law passed to impliment these camera's telling everyone "it will raise a lot of revenue for the city" before changing their tune when lawyers told them "ixnay on the oneymay because lawsuits, eh?" But fact is the cameras catch all people who run red lights and then the city tickets them (figure a $30 fine + $50 court cost is $80 bucks per incidence) they do raise revenue for the city.

Which brings me to why they came up in conversation, turns out they also give false positives. Especially so if your car is moving too fast when it comes to the red light or if you cross a certain point (while not necessarily running the light). When we talked about the light cameras, at least 3 people admitted to having been photographed by them while not running the light.

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2013, 11:18:33 pm »
Ok, if the cameras give false positives then they need improvement. Did those peple get ticketed after the photo got taken? Do they have people checking the images before deciding wether or not to send the ticket?

Because we have people checking the photos in Finland, in fact our police does not have the resources to go through every image so there are people who never have that ticket sent to them even if they were speeding.

Which is of course a better solution than sending a ticket automatically since that might have innocent people getting ticketed. (Not saying that there still aren't a few mistakes but at least this method does reduce them.)

And no, I don't mind that the city or whatever is getting revenue from this. People who endanger themselves and others on the road get a mild punishment and the money can be spent to help the city, thereby reducing the need for taxes. Basically people who would harm the community are being forced to help the community while reducing burden from law abiding citizens.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

QueenofHearts

  • Guest
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2013, 11:24:19 pm »
Well, the thing is the mayor couldn't say "this is for revenue" but could say "this is for the safety of our streets." Allegedly, one would raise challenges to the law in court and the other wouldn't. Quite frankly I don't have a problem with either reason either, since a lot of traffic tickets are used for municipal revenue, it's just not stated openly.

But those who got the false positives, I haven't seen them since earlier this month. I'm sure some will get tickets mailed to them, but I can't follow up on how the system works for that individual municipality. A legal expert in the city said that the people should request the camera footage (I guess they run all the time) and use that in court to prove they stopped, just past the "safe" line. He made it sound like it was an easy mistake to get out of. But still some people are innocent, they will show up in court, and still would have to pay. Law of averages dictates such mistakes on the part of the court.

Distind

  • Guest
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2013, 06:26:08 am »
WHY are those rear end collisions happening? Don't the drivers in USA normally stop for red lights? Again, the from what I've heard here and read from the article it sounds like the cameras are a good thing and it's just that people are driving dangerously.

Well, it doesn't particularly help that the places that deploy them tend to shorten yellow lights, leaving people unsure of just how long they have to stop before they get a ticket. So it goes from a caution, I'm going to be red soon, to FUCK STOP! STOP NOW OR YOU'LL GET A TICKET! Which goes poorly for the elderly or remarkably slow among us who happen to be behind the person stoping.

Offline Sylvana

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Gender: Female
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2013, 07:55:53 am »
Which goes poorly for the elderly or remarkably slow among us who happen to be behind the person stoping.

Well no, that is not an excuse. At least locally, traffic laws are such that one must always maintain a safe following distance. This is a distance that is specifically long enough for you to be able to stop in the event that something happens to the vehicle in front, such as them slamming breaks to prevent themselves from getting a ticket. If you rear end someone you are entirely at fault for not following the road rules, which is why your insurance has to pay for such accidents regardless of what the person in front was getting up to.

I know realistically this wont happen, and people will still drive just as recklessly. The issue though, is that people drive too dangerously, not that traffic enforcement technologies exist and are in place.

Distind

  • Guest
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2013, 08:18:52 am »
Or I could point out that people tend to focus on the light when they notice a change, and someone slamming on their brakes the second the light goes yellow may catch anyone by significant surprise.

The reality is the things do cause accidents, even if in some perfect world where drivers don't suck they wouldn't.

Offline Arctic Knight

  • Neonate
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2013, 09:22:39 am »
While I generally support the use of red light cameras, there are two arguments that I have heard against the cameras that hold some validity;

1) The 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his/her accuser.  Since there is no human witness to the crime,  the accused is unable to face an accuser.

2) While not as strong as the first point, there is an issue of "right to privacy" when it comes to passengers in the vehicle.  A camera does not distinguish between the driver and passenger, it takes a picture of everyone in the front of the vehicle.  Some passengers have objected to their likeness being used in a court case that does not involve them.  Two arguments against this are; a)the face of passengers can be blurred out, but this requires human intervention and thus expense through paying someone to do this, and b)there is often no expectation of privacy when in a public location of when visible to the general public.

Personally, I feel if one is breaking the law, then one is breaking the law regardless if a human witnesses it or an unmanned camera snaps a picture of it.
Congress is currently locked in a three-way tie for America's least trusted branch of government.

wrightway

  • Guest
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2013, 10:03:59 am »
A big issue Ohioans are having with these cameras is the one Queen pointed out. We get an absurd amount of false positives. The tickets are issued automatically and come in the mail. And, considering the company leasing the municipality the equipment gets a 40% cut, they aren't always keen to hand over evidence.

Offline Sylvana

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Gender: Female
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2013, 10:10:32 am »
1) The 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his/her accuser.  Since there is no human witness to the crime,  the accused is unable to face an accuser.

The accuser is the state. When you receive a traffic fine, you have the option of accepting guilt and paying the fine, or contesting the fine in court as is your right as a citizen of the nation. Most people just pay because its far easier, cheaper and they know they were in the wrong. Claiming that the constitution requires you to have an accuser to face would imply that if you kill someone and there is no witness the state cannot charge your with murder after analyzing the evidence.

2) While not as strong as the first point, there is an issue of "right to privacy" when it comes to passengers in the vehicle.  A camera does not distinguish between the driver and passenger, it takes a picture of everyone in the front of the vehicle.  Some passengers have objected to their likeness being used in a court case that does not involve them.  Two arguments against this are; a)the face of passengers can be blurred out, but this requires human intervention and thus expense through paying someone to do this, and b)there is often no expectation of privacy when in a public location of when visible to the general public.

The privacy issue is trickier. Given that you are on a public road it could be seen as being in the public domain, and hence extreme right to privacy is void. Also as your vehicle has windows that allow others to see in, such a privacy stance seems weak, but might hold as one is technically within their own property while in a vehicle. regarding the court cases with their likeness, again it is tricky. Does that mean police have to ignore and discard all evidence of a crime because it might be a slight violation of someones privacy? I think this argument is something lawyers would have quite a heated debate over.

The reality is the things do cause accidents, even if in some perfect world where drivers don't suck they wouldn't.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have any need for them in the first place. Running red lights as well as speeding and other forms of reckless driving also causes accidents. Personally, I feel that there should be red light cameras at all intersections. As well as average speed cameras on roads. Then people would drive more carefully because they would be well aware that breaking the law would be prosecuted. Of course such a system is impossible to implement, but hypothetical worlds are fun.

A big issue Ohioans are having with these cameras is the one Queen pointed out. We get an absurd amount of false positives. The tickets are issued automatically and come in the mail. And, considering the company leasing the municipality the equipment gets a 40% cut, they aren't always keen to hand over evidence.

To be honest, this is the only real valid reason to remove the cameras. With them leased to a company that gets a cut on each capture, they is really no incentive to make the system accurate and reliable as false positives equates to more money. It is better to have false negatives in situation like these, but of course that makes less money.

Offline Cerim Treascair

  • My Love Is Lunar
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3092
  • Gender: Male
  • Get me my arbalest... explosive bolts, please.
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2013, 11:18:07 am »
When it came to my drivers' ed course, what I was taught is 'slow for a yellow in preparation for a red, unless you CANNOT stop safely, in which case, you run the light.  Better to blow the light than cause an accident if it can be helped'
There is light and darkness in the world, to be sure.  However, there's no harm to be had in walking in the shade or shadows.

Formerly Priestling

"I don't give a fuck about race...I'm white, I'm American, but that shit don't matter.  I'm human."

Offline Arctic Knight

  • Neonate
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2013, 12:17:03 pm »
When it came to my drivers' ed course, what I was taught is 'slow for a yellow in preparation for a red, unless you CANNOT stop safely, in which case, you run the light.  Better to blow the light than cause an accident if it can be helped'
That's how I was taught back in the early '80s.  It was permissible to go through a yellow if you could not stop safely.  By the time it turns red, though, you should have already had enough tie to stop safely.
Congress is currently locked in a three-way tie for America's least trusted branch of government.

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: Ohio to ban red light cameras
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2013, 01:59:53 pm »
While I generally support the use of red light cameras, there are two arguments that I have heard against the cameras that hold some validity;

1) The 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his/her accuser.  Since there is no human witness to the crime,  the accused is unable to face an accuser.

That is seriously an argument people use? I thought that was just something the made up on The Big Bang Theory.
Σא