A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From TheAssHoleLawyer's workspace   

Grab the cash -- avoid the crash -- pay the price later!

City counsel is considering a proposal to increase the fine for speeding and red light violations caught by traffic cameras within the city. Personal, political, and constitutional arguments aside, why would the city counsel be considering such a move at this time while a case is currently before the Ohio Supreme Court on the constitutionality of such tickets, and legislation has been proposed at the state level banning all such measures. Additionally, several cases from Toledo are currently being litigated on this issue, including, as the recent Blade article stated, one seeking class action status.

Why not wait. If the violations are ruled to be unconstitutional, or the legislation passes banning them, what benefit will the city have gained by this most recent move. The counsel may in fact have created a larger job for the law department in attempting to collect from the private company after the fact and defending the potential flood of lawsuits.

The facts about this enforcement method are sketchy at best. They have not been shown to reduce accidents. When a driver is approaching an intersection with a camera, it is unlikely they have the time or aforethought to consider the camera when making the decision to go through or aggressively apply their brakes. IF they do consider the camera, they are likely to stop more abruptly (or try to, often on wet/icy roads), potentially causing more accidents when the drivers behind them don't anticipate the quick stop. On a national level the cameras have been shown to be ineffective, and increase accidents.

I trust the science; the technology, delay in photo activation, and video replay systems in place are accurate. BUT, I don't agree with taking enforcement discretion out of the equation, removing the due process rights of: confrontation, presentation of evidence, and fair trial/hearing out of traffic enforcement for financial gain. But I digress.

My initial point is, once again the city is considering a counterproductive, potentially inefficient and costly move toward increased government control, the big brother state, and waisting its time and resources on measures that may be deemed illegal soon by our Supreme Court and Legislature.

Take a breath Carty, Chief Navarre and Counsel................lets see where the chips fall before we ante up more citizens freedom for the almighty dollar to a private Arizona company.

I guess I will add my pending red light ticket to the class action.

The A-Hole.

www.theassholelawyer.blogspot.com

created by TheAssHoleLawyer on Nov 08, 2007 at 04:01:01 pm     Comments: 19

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

I am all for doubling, tripling and even quadrupling fines for speeders and red light runners. I am for expanding the camera surveillance and I personally have noticed a big improvement in intersections where they have been placed.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 08, 2007 at 04:12:12 pm     #



even though im a chronic speeder, i agree with you ilovetoleod

posted by upso on Nov 08, 2007 at 04:48:47 pm     #



Don't they make sprays/covers that refract cameras view of your plates?
What's the legalities of that?
I like to screech my car to a halt at those things, just to concede how important they are. Like Stephen A. Smith important.

posted by charlatan on Nov 08, 2007 at 06:35:06 pm     #



So you don't like traffic light cameras? Why? So long as you don't run the light, you have nothing to worry about.

What I enjoy is turning West onto Monroe Street from Northbound Secor Road and seeing an empty intersection when I get the green arrow. I didn't have that prior to the infamous red light cameras.

As for enforcement discretion, don't make me laugh. Traffic law enforcement isn't about discretion, it's about enforcement. The bad behavior of running red lights and following too closely has been curbed at the intersections that use red light cameras.

I'd prefer to see violators lose their car and license for six months or so, but I suppose I'll have to settle for the fine.

posted by madjack on Nov 08, 2007 at 06:55:54 pm     #



You can say that again MJ! Before the photo devices were put in it was getting really bad with people running lights. I thought for sure it was only a matter of time before myself or someone I knew got clobbered.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 09, 2007 at 09:09:48 am     #



Don't they make sprays/covers that refract cameras view of your plates? What's the legalities of that?

They make them but they don't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%28season_5%29#Episode_73_.E2.80.94_.22Speed_Cameras.22

Besides, I think they're illegal in most places.

posted by Hulkster on Nov 09, 2007 at 10:47:35 am     #



I've paid three "red-light" tickets for when I turned the corner from Anthony Wayne to South Avenue. If anyone should be incensed about these lights you'd think it would be me.

I only wish the city's government owned these cameras rather than leased them. Then perhaps all the revenue would go to our city's coffers rather than sharing it with a "private enterprise".

I broke the law. I was careless. I have no problem with being held to account for violating the law. I have no reason to squirm out of it. I am a a law-abiding citizen, and not someone who choses the violate the law and covers it with cries that "my rights have been violated".

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 09, 2007 at 11:24:04 am     #



Interesting responses and valid points by many of the replies. I too have seen a difference at Secor/Monroe intersection, POSSIBLY because of the red light camera installation.

The larger point however was my concern that the city is jumping the gun on their increased use and fines when the SC and the legislature may ban them.

Discretion is a a HUGE part of all police action, and rightfully should be. The purpose of the traffic code is to make streets safer. As my post stated I believe in the science behind the cameras and I am a HUGE proponent of taking personal responsibility for your actions, all actions, including those behind the wheel.

That does not remove my concerns about the expanding control government has over our lives, the proper use of the police power, and the fundamental rights we have as citizens confirmed and protected by the constitution.

oldsendbrdy's comment

"I have no reason to squirm out of it. I am a a law-abiding citizen, and not someone who chooses the violate the law and covers it with cries that "my rights have been violated"

is understandable given the pervasive abuse of "its my right" by the left in any attempts to avoid personal liability, combined with the myriad of other excuses to avoid being held to proper standards of conduct, but it misses the point.

The A-Hole is not a loophole, technicality, anti cop defense lawyer. The A-Hole proudly wore a badge for many years and supports cops in almost everything they do.

The problem is, in this case......THERE IS NO COP!! Citizens can't contest the ticket to a judge, cant question or even confirm the quality, accuracy, or maintenance of the MACHINE, can't confront the OFFICER and question his or her basis for the citation.

The excuse/justification that its not a criminal charge and is only pursued civilly so those protections don't apply is a fallacy.

Since a civil collection action (without right of due process and hearing) may be pursued against the registered owner of the subject car, AND in the modern world major decisions such as auto instability, insurance rates, home mortgage rates and eligibility, college entrance, and many other life effecting determination can and are based on someones credit rating, the impact of this "civil" penalty can be much more onerous than a "criminal" traffic ticket.

The A-Hole

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Nov 09, 2007 at 11:58:48 am     #



Seems like there are thousands of different types of crimes that occur while a policeman is not around and still people are successfully prosecuted because of evidence, even recorded evidence that remains. There is no difference if someone is being prosecuted for comitting a crime in a store parking lot that is recorded on camera and if they run a red light while it is being monitored by radar and a camera. I think it is quibbling. Also, I notice that there is a big difference in the number of people who are running red lights. It is probably a moot point to discuss this now because in the future the black boxes in your car will keep track of speed, position, who is driving, and whether or not you have run a red light. In the future cars will probably immobilize themselves and even issue you their own tickets.

I can understand the fears of Big Brother in a society under surveillance everywhere. I don't really like it, but if it wouldn't be for the people who feel that the rules of society don't apply to them, then we wouldn't need it. That is a big concern. Who is watching the watchers? You know the government has been illegally watching all internet traffic, and probably for good reasons. But who will keep their eye on the watchers? I think it has generally believed that such power will always end up being abused and used for political purposes. It is quite a conundrum.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 09, 2007 at 01:04:09 pm     #



Here is a chance to turn this red light thing into an opportunity to make millions. One of you can market your own onboard camera for cars to film lights, other cars, pedestrians, etc from the driver's perspective. You can call it the "Defender Cam." I will bet insurance companies will eventually demand something like that. On one hand it could protect you but on the other hand it could incriminate you. Anyway, I will be that that will one day be standard.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 09, 2007 at 01:30:26 pm     #



By the way, if you do market something like this and make money, I think a small gratuity to yours truly would be in order.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 09, 2007 at 01:31:20 pm     #



Remember - the red light cameras are not charging you with violating the law - that would be a criminal offense. These are 'civil penalties' instead - which is why they can get away with not having a police officer witness the violation, a requirement under the criminal code.

This is, in effect, the government charging you civily in order to increase the revenue to the city while using 'public safety' as the excuse.

What I find interesting is that the people who reject the claim of "if you're not saying anything illegal, it shouldn't matter if the government listens to your phone conversations" are not equally up in arms over this type of action by the government.

as ilovetoledo said - quite a conundrum.

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 09, 2007 at 02:08:20 pm     #



I hate the cameras. I have paid twice for red light violations. Now, I find myself looking for the crosswalk warning, worrying if I'll make it through the yellow if it changes, or should I stop as soon as I see the yellow to prevent any possibility of violating the law and risk being rear-ended. Seeing a picture of my vehicle in an intersection for .3 seconds after a red light is way too critical for me. I'd like to see countdown counters on green lights so I could make better decisions about going through lights.

posted by tommy1 on Nov 09, 2007 at 10:12:42 pm     #



I try to slow down on the yellow myself now. I usually got caught because I didn't stop before doing a "right on red".

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 09, 2007 at 10:58:18 pm     #



The AssHoleLawyer's feels that traffic cameras are a violation of a person's rights, if I get this correctly. This link, http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/NEWS03/71109013/-1/NEWS, reports an effort by law enforcement to enforce traffic laws concerning speeding. This would seem to be legal. How prohibitive would it be for the TPS to lease as many planes as needed, put them in the air, and put additional crews (perhaps even cadets or the "volunteers" police now use to go with them) to work with the aircrews. We could put an end to speeding (especially if we combined it with say a fine of $50 for each 5 miles over the speed limit. Two or three hundred cars a day would put a dent in the deficit, and take the wind out of a lot of speeders' sails. It seems more efficient to me to use "eyes in the sky" combined with surface crews.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 09, 2007 at 11:30:51 pm     #



I probably average passing through 3 to 7 monitored intersections daily (4 to 14 if you count return trips) and have never had a ticket.

posted by ilovetoledo on Nov 10, 2007 at 08:31:37 am     #



Maggie Thurber, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, using an argument like that!

Video surveillance used by the city for the purposes of traffic law enforcement is not the same as a wire tap or search of private property without a warrant. I know it, and you probably know it better than I.

The red light enforcement cameras are charging you in civil court (as Maggie quite correctly pointed out), and you can challenge the case. I'm not going to go into details - I have neither the time nor the energy - but if violators knew the law and the legal system, these cameras would be history in a month or so. The red light system relies on ignorance of the judicial process coupled with the path of least resistance.

Then we have OldSendBrdy who wants to give the TPD an air force. Here's a little suggestion for you, genius. Look into South African military surplus before you start investing in new airplanes.

That has got to be the dumbest idea I have seen since LimeDrops got suspended.

posted by madjack on Nov 11, 2007 at 08:56:30 pm     #



Madjack - I think you misunderstood my 'sarcasm'...

I was referring to the intrusion into the lives of citizens and the 'big brother' comments. To me, the red light cameras are one more step in that direction.

And it would seem that those who advanced the argument "if you're not doing anything illegal, you shouldn't mind" the red light cameras would have been blasted for THAT statement, as much as those who advanced a similar argument about listening in on phone conversations (legal permission aside).

It was the similarity of the the argument (if you're not doing anything illegal...) - not the similarity of the action (red light cameras vs. monitoring phone calls) - that I was focusing on.

posted by MaggieThurber on Nov 12, 2007 at 09:42:40 am     #



I think you misunderstood my 'sarcasm'...

Maybe. Could be I was bored and wanted to rattle your cage a little.

You see the red light camera as the edge of the wedge, as well as something that allows a high degree of potential abuse. I agree with you, but given that our constitutional rights are already being violated left and right by a Federal government that probably can't even quote the bill of rights correctly twice in a row, and seeing the effect of these cameras on the scofflaws who run red lights, I'm inclined to support them.

If we ever get our government to start protecting our civil rights again, then I'll support removing such cameras.

posted by madjack on Nov 12, 2007 at 08:20:46 pm     #