driver triggers 2 cameras (and 2 tickets) in 1 minute

Don't be giving them any ideas.....

Don't give them any more ideas, there are plenty of cities still out there who have not jumped to that bandwagon yet.

I hate red light/speeding camera tickets, but I do think he deserves the second one also. If he were caught by a real police officer at one point in the road and then drove off and started speeding again only to be caught by another police officer down the road, he would get two tickets. This would not be considered double jeopardy.

I do understand he may not have realized he got the 1st ticket (perhaps didn't know there was a camera set up, etc), but ignorance is not an excuse. If he were driving the limit or very close to it, he probably would not have gotten any tickets.

Good Luck with those tickets..

Not being informed is not an excuse. If a cop gives you a ticket and you peel off in a huff, he's going to pull you over again and give you a second one for unsafe driving or squealing the tires.
that being said, I'm not exactly Mr. obedience up here in Chicago. I don't speed because I'm a thoughtless driver, I have to or I risk getting shot or run off the road. I'd just as soon do 55, but up here that's incredibly dangerous.

Has anyone read this?

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=94...

The basic problem with this is, that the cameras were sold to the people as a safety device. It turns out it's a revenue device instead.

That's my beef. Those who still think it's about safety are missing the boat.

Real safety would have been having an officer pull the guy over the first time. That would modify behavior for most people, so they slow down immediately. The cameras do not discourage speeding immediately, so the guy gets two whamo tickets in the name of "safety", when a real police officer would have been more effective at reducing the speed (if that makes things safer, which is debatable).

The answer is for the public to demand the money be given to charity. This would remove the perception of there being a conflict of interest. Give all the money to Make A Wish Foundation. The public would still be every bit as safe, nobody would question the municipalities motive for the cameras any more, and drivers that blow red lights would at least get to know they made a dying child's wish a reality.
It's not about the money, it's about public safety now repeat after me!

It's not about the public safety, it's about the money, How's that!

What I don't understand, here in the Phoenix area, is that you can drive through a speed enforcement zone and less than .5 a mile DPS will have one of their speed camera vans parked. Sounds a little excessive to me. I'm no speed demon but enough is enough!

As long as people recognize it for what it is, then I think we've made an important step. It's a tax on drivers, no more and no less.

Strip away the curtains, and everyone will see that the emperor has no clothes.

Hi, everyone,

You've got a point. Cops utilize what's known as "selective enforcement". Usually they stop one driver at a time and write 'em up. While they're doing this, many other drivers see the police car and slow down for awhile, until they see the next one. Unless the locations of speed cameras are known, and in some areas they put up warning signs in the vicinity, people are unaware of the "enforcement" activity going, never slow down, and many end up with a ticket.

Wait till they'll start using satellites and start ticketing folks on back country roads from 25,000 miles out!

Miki

You do have to realize that if a cop was chasing him for 52 seconds he would be getting more than two speeding tickets. Everyone is right he would get one speeding ticket, then a fleeing and chase ticket plus whatever else the cop could come up with, So actually he probably got off easy.

I live here in Cleveland, Chester Ave. is right near Cleveland Clinic and has always been a lawless speedway. The cameras are not actually 52 seconds apart at 35 miles per hour, but at 52 I guess they are.

Someone used the word double jeopardy here, if he got two tickets for the same speed camera I could see that, but he committed two completely different offenses and there is not double jeopardy.

I myself don't believe in the cameras, and do think they are revenue collection devices. with that said this guy was definitely speeding and deserves his tickets.

When I use my Gps and red light Files it doesn't give me the right to speed or run a red lights. What it does is makes me aware of my surroundings and if I am over the speed limit by a couple MPH it sure brings me into reality quickly. I don't feel sorry for this guy in the lest and neither should you, chances are he also runs red lights in that area.

You do have to realize that if a cop was chasing him for 52 seconds he would be getting more than two speeding tickets. Everyone is right he would get one speeding ticket, then a fleeing and chase ticket plus whatever else the cop could come up with, So actually he probably got off easy.

I live here in Cleveland, Chester Ave. is right near Cleveland Clinic and has always been a lawless speedway. The cameras are not actually 52 seconds apart at 35 miles per hour, but at 52 I guess they are.

Someone used the word double jeopardy here, if he got two tickets for the same speed camera I could see that, but he committed two completely different offenses and there is no double jeopardy.

I myself don't believe in the cameras, and do think they are revenue collection devices. with that said this guy was definitely speeding and deserves his tickets.

When I use my Gps and red light Files it doesn't give me the right to speed or run a red lights. What it does is makes me aware of my surroundings and if I am over the speed limit by a couple MPH it sure brings me into reality quickly. I don't feel sorry for this guy in the lest and neither should you, chances are he also runs red lights in that area.

That's for sure. But where is the money going. there should be more transparency and accountability. We have been paying tolls, fines, penalties, tickets, etc. yet our infrastructure is falling apart. What have they been using the money for?

Your argument that if "a cop was chasing him for 52 seconds" is based on what? Most people pull over and stop when a cop puts on the lights. There is absolutely no reason for you to assume he would not pull over any more then there is any reason for you to assume he "also runs red lights". You're simply justifying.

He commited 1 offence, speeding on a particular street at a particular moment and deserves only 1 ticket. He didn't slow down and speed up again, he didn't go down another street and he didn't stop and restart.

If your logic is followed then you could get a new ticket for every second you were over the speed limit. I could see it now "Policeman says he was doing 60 in a 50 and followed him for 2 miles before he pulled him over, that's 120 speeding tickets but he only gave him 119 because his book was empty.

if a burglar broke into 3 houses next to each other he would only be guilty of 1 breaking and entering. In this particular case, the cameras were separated by at least a half mile or 4 average city blocks if they were tripped 52 seconds apart at 50+ MPH. So being tagged for speeding at Chester and Ave A is not the same as being tagged for speeding at Chester and Ave D even if it was a camera.

In my opinion Guilty As Charged...If he didn't know he was tagged for the first why would he slow down for the second. It seems quite simple...follow the speed limits within reason and you won't get tickets....

Absolutely the guy is guilty as charged.

However, the real issue is not one of guilt, but one of the real utility of the cameras, which is about grabbing money from drivers, than any semblence of safety.

Real safety, if it is about reducing speed (which I am dubious about), is about stopping that behavior as soon as it is detected.

The cameras do not prevent the guy from speeding after the first infraction, nor after the second infraction. Thus the cameras are not about saftey, but a tax on the people.

If you like being taxed in the name of another "guise", then more power to you.

I think the burglar example is not the best comparison, because you're comparing a felony to a civil offence that is more like a tax than true crime.

A better comparison maybe a parking meter example, where a driver exceeds time at a parking meter, and gets a parking ticket for every minute that the car has exceeded the parking meter.

This "person" is personified by the saying in "Forrest Gump"

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Do you suppose he really wanted a Trifecta !

Don't always assume it's the driver.

Cities and the camera companies have been caught tampering with yellow lights to increase the likelihood of tickets, and another thread discussed the "coincidental" action of lowering speed limits in an area where speed cameras went up.

Here in AZ the speed limit on the 101 conveniently changed to fluctuate from 65 - 55 - 65 mph when the speed cameras went up. You can say "speed trap" or "bait" to try to increase revenue.

It's too simplistic to say it's all the driver's fault, and just follow the speed limit. It's not a fair game when the speed limits are being randomly changed and people aren't always familiar with the changes, and aren't aware that they were ticketed by a faceless machine that sends a tax bill weeks after the fact.

it is a very valid comparison as the comparison is not regarding the severity of the offense, it is about the number of times an offense was committed in a period of time. Would you have preferred I stated running two red lights in successive intersections and having the offenses recorded by an impartial device? One ticket - or two?

We can agree to disagree, but I don't think speeding by a few miles is as dangerous or bad as running a red light. And the mechanism of running a red light as a singular identifiable event versus how long someone speeds per ticket is distinctly different. It is disingenious to pretend that those are directly comparable and the same.

I wish I had the article in front of me, but in the recent issue of car and driver, a 33 year veteran of the CHP who specialized in auto accidents and speeding, wrote a long and well stated article on why "speeding" is false attributed as the danger to drivers / passengers on the road. He said it was inaccurately attached as a false statistic on a lot of accidents to falsely portray speeding as the main danger when other factors were really the true underlying factors. Thus the attention on "speed kills" and "speeding as the primary demon" was really not the appropriate factor to focus on in driving safety.

I'll try to find it and post a link to it here.

Partial Quote from first message in Thread.

"The Pepper Pike man racked up two speeding citations in 52 seconds Nov. 23 from a pair of city click-and-send photo shops not even a mile apart on Chester. Adler said he deserved the first ticket for going 52 mph in a 35-mph zone."

Hmmmmmm - 52 in a 35 is "by a few miles"

Bad example! Every new house he breaks into is a new crime, but if he broke into one house in which 4 people lived it would not be 4 crimes. If he remained in the house for 52 seconds it would not be 52 crimes.

According to your logic and math every 3/4 of a mile is a new speeding offence. Why settle for 3/4 of a mile, why not make it 1/4 mile or 1 foot. Or even better why don't you say how far you have to travel to commit a new offence. Make up any distance you like, because once you head down this slippery slope the sky is the limit.

It don't work that way. Violation of speeding ordiances is not based on length of time nor distance traveled. It is based on the occurance AND there was only 1 occurance.

quite right, and I'm speaking generically, about speeding in general versus running redlight cameras, not about this guy in particular. I'm saying that in general, speeding by a few miles over, while technically is breaking the law, is not as bad as running a red light, which is black and white and bad.

"Adler said he deserved the first ticket for going 52 mph in a 35-mph zone. But the second one?

In Adler's opinion, the city zapped him twice for the same misdeed. hmm, if he robbed a bank, he'd be charged with one robbery charge, not one for each dollar...maybe he'd rob a second bank because (he didn't get caught) nothing signaled him not to.

Adler said he was "just driving along" on his way to a Browns game when the first enforcement camera snapped at 12:05:40 p.m. at Chester and East 71st Street. Nothing signaled Adler that he needed to ease his heavy foot off of the gas pedal. Nothing signaled him?? Maybe Cleveland should post speed limit signs...oh, they are posted.

He kept driving, at roughly the same speed, without a red light in sight. The second camera flashed at 12:06:32 at 4701 Chester. It caught him cruising at 50 mph". Maybe he just speeds between redlights

Adler didn't learn of his unlawful ways until a tsk-tsk letter arrived at his home about two weeks later. "My first ticket since I don't know when," the retiree said. He paid the fine unquestioningly, scribbling out a $100 check to the city of Cleveland. should read -first time caught since I don't know when.

My observation is this, if a cop pulled him over he would have gotten his signal to slow down, therefore he wouldn't have gotten a second ticket.
Second, if a cop did stop him, perhaps the officer may have noticed Mr Adler might have had a head start on the tailgate party. Maybe he hadn't been drinking, perhaps his inattention was due to something else. What would his defense be if he drove 15-20 mph over through a school zone? There were no children present? Therefore no signal to slow down?

I wonder what the traffic was like when he got caught? Was he the only one in that area on that day at that time? If he were just "driving along" with the traffic (had to be traffic at noon on a game day) there would have been more unhappy people voicing their displeasure with tickets from a speed camera. Freedom of Information Act, should allow access to dates and times of tickets.

I don't agree with the use/overuse of cameras and indeed it's been proven they are for revenue. That doesn't negate the fact that there are still plenty of idiots driving on the streets. He got caught, he's not happy, he paid the penalty, he probably won't be speeding for awhile, at least not through that area.
Don't speed, don't run redlights, no excess revenue.

Real safety, would be for everyone on the road to take responsibility and be responsible for their actions. Following posted traffic regulations, signaling intentions to turn/change lanes and driving with some courtesy AND paying attention would lend a lot to "real safety"

So, tripping 2 cameras at least a 1/2 mile apart is only 1 occurrence of speeding? Even though the infraction was observed at 2 locations by 2 devices?

With that reasoning if the person drove from Cleveland to Toledo without stopping and exceeded every posted limit by 17 mph, they should only get 1 ticket because they only sped once on the trip.

Sorry I don't agree with your analogy.

If you go over the speed limit by a few MPH thats tolerable, if you go 52 in a 35 you are speeding no doubt. if you get a ticket by a police officer then speed off and get stopped again you will get another ticket. Same here, you got two tickets, you got one then another, there is no difference. two different offenses. if you rob a bank then go across the street and rob another you will be charged with two robberies, and it was all in the same crime wave.

Again just use your GPS poi files to see your surroundings not to speed or run red light cameras.

It's a jungle out there. Red light cameras, speed cameras, patrol cars, ticket quotas, revenue enhancements, gps tracking in phones, it's getting harder and harder to go anywhere without big brother looking over your shoulder.

I certainly don't advocate speeding or breaking the law, but a cop will stop the lawbreaking immediately. (And prevent unforeseen consequences like an accident.)

A camera will record the "crime" but let the lawbreaker continue on his merry way. Heckofaway to run a ship.

Do we need another tea party?

im gonna bust out my bike and start using that. time to relive the early 90s!

[quote=a_user
So, tripping 2 cameras at least a 1/2 mile apart is only 1 occurrence of speeding? Even though the infraction was observed at 2 locations by 2 devices?

With that reasoning if the person drove from Cleveland to Toledo without stopping and exceeded every posted limit by 17 mph, they should only get 1 ticket because they only sped once on the trip.

Forget the what ifs. The fact is he didn't speed off and get stopped again. And to use your bank robbery example: Why stop at 2 robberies, why not charge the robber for 1,000 or 10,0000 robberies - 1 for every dollar he stole. How about giving this driver 17 speeding tickets 1 for each MPH over the limit.

By the way who determins how fast is "tolerable". Speeding is speeding regardless if you're over the limit by 1 mph or 20 mph. The issue of how fast he was going determins how much he will be fined not how many ticlkets he gets. The more he was over the limit the more it will cost him. Go to traffic court and tell the judge "I was only a 'tolerable' amount over the speed limit". You can then pay the fine on the way out!

The point is not if he was speeding - he was. The point is how many tickets are you going to give him for a single offence.

If anyone is claiming that it is more then a single offence then tell me the specific distance/time before 1 offence becomes more then 1 offence. Can they take your picture every 1/2 mile on the interstate while you drive 200 miles doing 70 in a 65 and then send you 400 tickets. If not, why not since you are arguing that a 1/2 mile is another offence in this case.

Your mind is made up and that is all there is to it.

9

Working closely with law enforcemnet, many of them, especially DPS (Highway Patrol) absolutely hate the idea of having the speed cameras. Officers are getting just as many tickets as the rest of us. Unless they can prove they were responding on a call they will get personally cited. Now I know fair is fair.. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.. I find myself driving at a more "responsible" speed without having to be reminded by my trusty Garmin to slow down. But to have them every 2 miles or closer is a joke and a waste of tax payer money.

Just my random thoughts...

Yep - idiots who speed and run red lights are helping pay for lots of stuff which I think is great because my taxes are not up....

Only issue I have is that the idiots who do the speeding and running red lights are far more likely to kill me than the rest of the driving public so I wish they would learn the simple lesson and perhaps I will live a little longer to pay more tax - better taxed than dead!

And - by the way - I choose not to pay extra tax by speeding and running red lights.... if that is what you think they are there for!

I think the driver was guilty of two offenses, having gone down that street with my GPS, and having the alarm go off twice. They aren't that close together.

Here in Columbus, if you park at a meter, but you aren't careful, and you are in a second meter's "space" too, even if you pay for the meter closest to your car, you will get two citations, because you took two spaces.

Parking meters are also a way to collect revenue, but also limit parking access so it is more likely to be a space that is not monopolized by one lucky individual.

Having two cameras within 1 mile of each other on the same road seems a tad excessive in my opinion.

"I hate red light/speeding camera tickets, but I do think he deserves the second one also. If he were caught by a real police officer at one point in the road and then drove off and started speeding again only to be caught by another police officer down the road, he would get two tickets. This would not be considered double jeopardy."

However, it is not the same as Being stopped, getting a ticket, and then speeding off to get stopped again. In this case one is driving down the highway and gets caught by 2 cameras at different locations. This would be the same as a police officer following someone down the road in say a 45 mph zone and observing that they were doing 65 mph in one block and then 65 mph in the next block, stopping the individual and giving 2 tickets, one for each block. This could go on forever, ticket the offender for each block they were speeding within the stretch they were clocked within.