Fact Check

 

.....

1). Don't you ever give up?

2). And your point is?

3). I guess because it's on the internet it's true

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

money money money!

Interesting to see that the minute the money decreased, the "project" is stopped.

So much for the security ......

--
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem quickly resembles a nail. (Maslow's Hammer)

Barney, I think you misunderstood jg's point

BarneyBadass wrote:

1). Don't you ever give up?

2). And your point is?

3). I guess because it's on the internet it's true

I think you were too quick to jump on jgermann and assume that he was linking you to an article that supports the use of traffic enforcement cameras for safety.

The linked article does the opposite. By posting a link to it, jgermann is being fair in sharing information that contradicts his general view. In these days of never-give-an-inch, divisive politics, that's refreshing and deserves positive recognition.

The source the link goes to is a well-respected nonpartisan organization that routinely skewers politicians for misleading and dishonest statements and ads. And its point in that article was that a St. Pete administrator who had gone on record when campaigning for mayor as saying that RCLs were for safety, not revenue, voted to pull the plug on them once they weren't pulling in enough dough to pay the cost--so he was not being honest that safety was his top priority.

You may not agree with jgermann's frequent pro-enforcement-camera posts, and I don't either, but he is fair. Like the Chicago Tribune, he supported Chicago's RLC program when it was announced but turned against it and posted that when the corruption and bribery that got the cameras installed in Chicago came to light.

Jgermann sincerely believes that enforcement enhance safety generally, and a few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch in his view.

--
JMoo On

dagarmin

I'm in complete agreement with the safety aspect of RLC's and speed cams.

It's the choice of corrective action I am opposed to.

If the financial penalties were say $1500 for the first offense, $5000 for a second offense and license revocation for a third offense I'd agree.

But with the puny little fines imposed it really turns into little more than a lucrative ash cow for jurisdictions that are financially strapped.

As for the ticket being given to the owner of the vehicle, most many locations will let the owner put forth an affidavit allowing the owner to identify the actual driver so the citation can be appropriately dispensed.

Like I said I and I hope everyone is in favor of safety. It's the penalty is inconsistent with the stated goal of achieving safety through meaningless financial penalties and no further actions to remove these apparent unsafe drivers from the roads.

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

Well Put

BarneyBadass wrote:

I'm in complete agreement with the safety aspect of RLC's and speed cams.

It's the choice of corrective action I am opposed to.

If the financial penalties were say $1500 for the first offense, $5000 for a second offense and license revocation for a third offense I'd agree.

But with the puny little fines imposed it really turns into little more than a lucrative ash cow for jurisdictions that are financially strapped.

As for the ticket being given to the owner of the vehicle, most many locations will let the owner put forth an affidavit allowing the owner to identify the actual driver so the citation can be appropriately dispensed.

Like I said I and I hope everyone is in favor of safety. It's the penalty is inconsistent with the stated goal of achieving safety through meaningless financial penalties and no further actions to remove these apparent unsafe drivers from the roads.

And agreed.

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

Calif

Calif. is $480, that to me is pretty steep, and serious. One can conceivably go through 4 or more on the way to work. Go through 3 and get caught, and there is your entire day's net pay. Go through 5, and there's your gross pay. And you can't pay with FSA or day care money.

Personally, I'd rather have it be $100 for a rlc, and $40 for a speed cam. Nobody likes to blindly throw money away. Not even the wealthy.

But none of this takes us away from the fact of the matter. A driver who possesses a license, has no trouble whatsoever, stopping when a red light turns red. We have 4 y.o. playing ice hockey and soccer, and they manage to stay onside.

I Still Have a Problem with the Process

Separate from the merits of whether or not we should have RLCs, when a jurisdiction does decide to use RLCs, I'd like to see the process of issuing the tickets require the ticket to be issued by a sworn law enforcement officer, and that officer should be required to be present in court if the ticket is challenged. I have a real problem with the presumption that the camera is right and the driver is guilty.

fact

DiQuest wrote:

Separate from the merits of whether or not we should have RLCs, when a jurisdiction does decide to use RLCs, I'd like to see the process of issuing the tickets require the ticket to be issued by a sworn law enforcement officer, and that officer should be required to be present in court if the ticket is challenged. I have a real problem with the presumption that the camera is right and the driver is guilty.

I understand what you are saying, but it's far-fetched. If a video shows an individual hopping over a counter and beating a store owner to death, you are saying that only a law enforcement officer can determine what happened. Why would that be?

On a side note, I saw two vehicles run a red light yesterday, and there was no flash until the 3rd vehicle did so. Once again, demonstrating a grace period.

You have to be very unlucky to actually get a rlc ticket, or willful.

My Views

I have been patiently reading the many posts here on speed and rlcs’s over the last year or so and now feel obligated to weigh in even though I expect my comments will just add fuel to the fire.

I completely agree with jgermann’s views on the subject and admire his willingness to look at all sides of the issue. I can’t understand why any of us here at the Factory would be opposed to the use of these cameras. We all have access to arguably the best database available on the location of these devices. Since we know where they are, they cannot harm us financially. We can however be harmed physically by a speeder or another driver running a red light.

Yes there have been reports of an increase in minor rear end collisions caused by drivers who stop suddenly when they see these cameras. Many jurisdictions are posting warning signs in advance of rlc intersections to prevent this. I have yet to read of a fatality caused by one of these minor collisions. I wish the same could be said for the thousands of pedestrians and other drivers who are involved in accidents each year caused by speeders and red light runners.

So what if it’s all about the money. I have yet to hear of the fines levied through the use of these cameras lining the pockets of individuals. The fines, no matter how large or small, for the most part are being used to promote law enforcement or reduce the tax burden on law abiding citizens.

Not being an outlaw, a conspiracy theorist or part of the “Big Brother is watching you” set, I just don’t see how these cameras can be a bad thing.

While the increased safety aspect surrounding the use of these cameras is still in debate, I for one feel just a little bit safer when I pass a speed cam or go through an rlc intersection.

RLC

Very well said.

--
3790LMT; 2595LMT; 3590LMT, 60LMTHD

I finally got one

I received a notice in the mail of my car running a red light and I should pay the fine. I looked at the video and it was my car running the light. The only problem was that it was at an intersection I have never used. I paid the fine but that was not the end of it. I checked the date and found that it occurred while the car was in a repair shop having my rear bumper fixed due to a woman who ran a stop sign.
After watching the video and my receipt from the shop we agreed that I would get my deductible back and the case was closed. Since my deductible was more than the fine, I won and after the woman's insurance paid I was verrry happy

not sure

kurzemnieks wrote:

I received a notice in the mail of my car running a red light and I should pay the fine. I looked at the video and it was my car running the light. The only problem was that it was at an intersection I have never used. I paid the fine but that was not the end of it. I checked the date and found that it occurred while the car was in a repair shop having my rear bumper fixed due to a woman who ran a stop sign.
After watching the video and my receipt from the shop we agreed that I would get my deductible back and the case was closed. Since my deductible was more than the fine, I won and after the woman's insurance paid I was verrry happy

I understand, your car ran a red light while it was not in your possession, and you are happy about it. To each his own?

No One WANTS a Ticket

bdhsfz6 wrote:

... snip...
I completely agree with jgermann’s views on the subject and admire his willingness to look at all sides of the issue. I can’t understand why any of us here at the Factory would be opposed to the use of these cameras. We all have access to arguably the best database available on the location of these devices. Since we know where they are, they cannot harm us financially. We can however be harmed physically by a speeder or another driver running a red light.

...snip...

Prevention is never a bad thing! As bdhsfz6 says, we have access to POI files that will alert us to speed and red light cameras, and we can check our speed or be more aware of our surroundings when an alert goes off. That will reduce the likelihood of getting a ticket.

Or we could just check our speed and be more aware of surroundings all the time. That is prevention!

LEOs only

johnnatash4 wrote:

....
I understand what you are saying, but it's far-fetched. If a video shows an individual hopping over a counter and beating a store owner to death, you are saying that only a law enforcement officer can determine what happened. Why would that be?

Only a LEO (law enforcement officer) should make the arrest or issue the ticket. While any of us can view the evidence and arrive at a conclusion, we do not want civilians, especially those who receive commissions on the tickets, to be issuing tickets or making arrests.

sad

johnc wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:

....
I understand what you are saying, but it's far-fetched. If a video shows an individual hopping over a counter and beating a store owner to death, you are saying that only a law enforcement officer can determine what happened. Why would that be?

Only a LEO (law enforcement officer) should make the arrest or issue the ticket. While any of us can view the evidence and arrive at a conclusion, we do not want civilians, especially those who receive commissions on the tickets, to be issuing tickets or making arrests.

What a sad society it would be, if people just sat around doing nothing, while another person were beaten or robbed.

Why didn't you do anything when you were right there, and it happened right under your nose?

"Only a LEO (law enforcement officer) should make the arrest..."

LEO

johnnatash4 wrote:
DiQuest wrote:

Separate from the merits of whether or not we should have RLCs, when a jurisdiction does decide to use RLCs, I'd like to see the process of issuing the tickets require the ticket to be issued by a sworn law enforcement officer, and that officer should be required to be present in court if the ticket is challenged. I have a real problem with the presumption that the camera is right and the driver is guilty.

I understand what you are saying, but it's far-fetched. If a video shows an individual hopping over a counter and beating a store owner to death, you are saying that only a law enforcement officer can determine what happened. Why would that be?

On a side note, I saw two vehicles run a red light yesterday, and there was no flash until the 3rd vehicle did so. Once again, demonstrating a grace period.

You have to be very unlucky to actually get a rlc ticket, or willful.

At least in Maryland, the law authorizing the traffic cameras REQUIRES that a law enforcement officer certify the ticket. So it's irrelevant how obvious the infraction is, a LEO must certify the ticket. I would suspect other jurisdictions legally require an LEO to certify the infraction.
Mark

Verification

baumback wrote:

At least in Maryland, the law authorizing the traffic cameras REQUIRES that a law enforcement officer certify the ticket. So it's irrelevant how obvious the infraction is, a LEO must certify the ticket. I would suspect other jurisdictions legally require an LEO to certify the infraction.
Mark

If the law requires an enforcement officer to review the video or pictures to verify the infraction, then that process must be followed. I recall reading where municipalities with similar requirements skipped this process and the tickets were overturned.

And that is what should happen!

I do not object to municipalities using speed and red light cameras to identify drivers who, for convenience or through complacency, speed or run a red light. But municipalities can not demand that residents obey the law, when they ignore legal processes and requirements imposed on them.