Post by: Brad Johnson on February 20, 2007, 09:57:35 AM
Apparently they didn't think that their actions might place them under a microscope. Imagine their surprise when a local TV station goes out to the 12 proposed locations, times the lights, and finds that 8 of them don't even meet the minimum standards for proper and safe traffic control.
They even had the unmitigated gall to act surprised!
Bull-hockey. This goes beyond questionable and falls squarely into one of two categories. Its either a bold-faced lie or an outright example of complete and utter incompetence.
Don't know? Good grief, how can they NOT know!!?? The timing was the FIRST thing they would have checked if the intersections were becoming accident hot spots. It's Step One in the "Problem Intersection Analysis" playbook, for cryin' out loud!
The city knew full well these intersections were poorly timed. They were staying mute in the hopes of increased ticket revenue. That or they wanted the ability to play the Good Guy card by "discovering" the problem and retiming the lights some time in the future.
If they truly didn't know about the timing issue, well, I cant decide if that might not be worse than the lie. A lie can be fixed with proper application of truth. You can't fix stupid.
Brad
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2007, 10:11:19 AM
Post by: HankB on February 20, 2007, 10:42:43 AM
Post by: 280plus on February 20, 2007, 12:16:37 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 20, 2007, 12:23:01 PM
Post by: crt360 on February 20, 2007, 12:25:31 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2007, 01:59:18 PM
Won't they soon be needing cameras to watch THOSE cameras? And then cameras to watch the cameras that are watching the cameras? And then...
Why don't they just train the cameras on us dangerous subversives?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 20, 2007, 02:23:37 PM
Won't they soon be needing cameras to watch THOSE cameras? And then cameras to watch the cameras that are watching the cameras? And then...
Why don't they just train the cameras on us dangerous subversives?
Post by: Waitone on February 20, 2007, 02:38:13 PM
Post by: 280plus on February 20, 2007, 02:38:56 PM
Post by: Parker Dean on February 20, 2007, 03:28:40 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 20, 2007, 03:29:52 PM
What caliber for cameras?
.22LR, and don't miss. Most cameras are densely populated urban areas.
Post by: BobR on February 20, 2007, 09:16:37 PM
bob
Post by: Art Eatman on February 21, 2007, 06:46:58 AM
Or, lock up late and stop into the intersection. Even if they didn't get T-boned, there would be some traffic snarl.
Art
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 21, 2007, 06:50:46 AM
About a year ago I read the results of a study of these redlight cameras. It was observed that people would remember the cameras, lock up their brakes, and get rear-ended. The net result was an increase in whiplash injuries.
Or, lock up late and stop into the intersection. Even if they didn't get T-boned, there would be some traffic snarl.
Art
Or, lock up late and stop into the intersection. Even if they didn't get T-boned, there would be some traffic snarl.
Art
Everything I was finding corroborates that.
Brad
Post by: mtnbkr on February 21, 2007, 07:19:36 AM
I thought it was a metro area problem, but I've seen it happening more often in rural areas as well.
Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on February 21, 2007, 07:20:36 AM
Chris
Post by: charby on February 21, 2007, 08:36:17 AM
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/01/03/news/local/doc459ac944623a9554725656.txt
Quote
Judge rules against traffic cameras
By Dustin Lemmon and Tory Brecht | Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Every motorist who has received a citation from Davenports red light and speed cameras may get a refund after a court ruling Tuesday that found the machines violate Iowa motor vehicle laws.
District Court Judge Gary McKenrick ruled in favor of plaintiffs Monique Rhoden, Rock Island, and Curt Canfield, Davenport, and found the city does not have the authority to issue an ordinance that conflicts with state motor vehicle code.
City officials said they plan to appeal the ruling.
The fact is these cameras are widespread throughout the country, and throughout the world for that matter,
Davenport Police Chief Mike Bladel said. So its hard for me to believe that this thing is over.
Richard Davidson, one of the Davenport attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said the judge agreed with a motion they filed for summary judgment. In that motion, the plaintiffs argued that because the ordinance imposes a civil infraction against the owner of the car it conflicts with the state motor vehicle code.
Davidson said he plans to file a motion in coming weeks to make the case a class-action suit, which if approved by a judge could refund everyone who has received a ticket from the cameras. He estimates that 14,000 people have received a ticket based on violations recorded by the cameras.
It looks pretty good for people getting a refund, he said.
Davidson expects it to take two months to get the class action filed and possibly as long as 12 months for the case to go through appeals.
Attorney Catherine Cartee, who also represents the plaintiffs, said when the class action is filed, it could fall under two categories, one of which would require those whove received tickets to take action to join the suit. If that happens, she and Davidson would have to find a way to make the public aware of the suit, and it would likely be another six months before that happens, she said. In the other scenario, those who received tickets would be contacted in some way.
If the class-action status is not approved, which Cartee thinks is unlikely, they could file a separate legal action on behalf of everyone who received a ticket, she said.
Cartee said the attorneys have not filed for an injunction that would bar the city from continuing to use the cameras. She said they will give the city time to make that decision before considering legal action.
I dont know why it would be financially wise to continue when they might have to give all of the money back, Cartee said.
Rhoden and Canfield won their cases and will receive a refund, but the attorneys said they dont know how the refund process would work for the thousands of other motorists who would be included in the class-action case.
Mary Thee, Davenports corporate counsel, said she plans to appeal the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court within the next 30 days.
She said the facts in the case were virtually identical to those of a previous case that the city won.
We received a favorable decision in the Seymour case, she said, referring to a suit filed by Thomas J. Seymour last spring that alleged his constitutional rights were violated because the city ordinance shifts the burden of proof to the accused. In that case, Scott County Magistrate Kyle Williamson ruled that the use of the cameras is within the authority granted to municipalities by the state.
What we have now is two different judges who have a different legal perspective on the same same legal issue with two different results, Thee said. So ultimately, the Iowa Supreme Court will make the decision.
Meantime, the city has decisions to make, including whether to keep the cameras operational and whether to continue collecting revenue. In addition, finance director Alan Guard and Bladel recently announced plans to use $470,000 in camera fine revenue to help fund a new police officer, create a juvenile crime unit, fund the Volunteers in Police Service program and increase neighborhood enforcement.
Thee and Bladel said city leaders will meet today to discuss options, adding that city administrator Craig Malin was out of town Tuesday and could not be reached.
Alderman Keith Meyer, 3rd Ward, wants to have all legal issues resolved before earmarking the money for the police department.
Because of the amount of revenue generated and the pace at which it continues, the city should omit camera revenue from the 2008 budget and create an immediate contingency in this years budget, he said.
Bladel said hes more concerned about the impact on public safety than any financial hit to the police department.
These systems are worth fighting for, he said. I personally believe and there is growing empirical evidence that shows they make our streets safer. People are paying more attention to our traffic laws, and (the cameras) are keeping people alive.
The first of the eight speed cameras was installed in January 2006, and the five red light cameras went up in 2004. Rhoden filed her lawsuit in August after a camera at the intersection of Kimberly Road and Harrison Street caught her speeding. Canfield was added as a plaintiff a few months later.
Davidson said the ruling also includes citations issued by Davenports mobile speed limit enforcement van, which has been in use since January 2006.
Dustin Lemmon can be contacted at (563) 383-2493 or dlemmon@qctimes.com.
What it means
Motorists who have received a traffic citation from Davenports speed and red light cameras will have to wait about two months for a hearing that will determine whether the case becomes a class-action suit. A court date has not been set. If the case becomes a class-action suit, there could be a long delay while the ruling goes through the appeals process. Attorneys representing two plaintiffs who won their cases against the city Tuesday said its not clear yet how a refund process would work.
By Dustin Lemmon and Tory Brecht | Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Every motorist who has received a citation from Davenports red light and speed cameras may get a refund after a court ruling Tuesday that found the machines violate Iowa motor vehicle laws.
District Court Judge Gary McKenrick ruled in favor of plaintiffs Monique Rhoden, Rock Island, and Curt Canfield, Davenport, and found the city does not have the authority to issue an ordinance that conflicts with state motor vehicle code.
City officials said they plan to appeal the ruling.
The fact is these cameras are widespread throughout the country, and throughout the world for that matter,
Davenport Police Chief Mike Bladel said. So its hard for me to believe that this thing is over.
Richard Davidson, one of the Davenport attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said the judge agreed with a motion they filed for summary judgment. In that motion, the plaintiffs argued that because the ordinance imposes a civil infraction against the owner of the car it conflicts with the state motor vehicle code.
Davidson said he plans to file a motion in coming weeks to make the case a class-action suit, which if approved by a judge could refund everyone who has received a ticket from the cameras. He estimates that 14,000 people have received a ticket based on violations recorded by the cameras.
It looks pretty good for people getting a refund, he said.
Davidson expects it to take two months to get the class action filed and possibly as long as 12 months for the case to go through appeals.
Attorney Catherine Cartee, who also represents the plaintiffs, said when the class action is filed, it could fall under two categories, one of which would require those whove received tickets to take action to join the suit. If that happens, she and Davidson would have to find a way to make the public aware of the suit, and it would likely be another six months before that happens, she said. In the other scenario, those who received tickets would be contacted in some way.
If the class-action status is not approved, which Cartee thinks is unlikely, they could file a separate legal action on behalf of everyone who received a ticket, she said.
Cartee said the attorneys have not filed for an injunction that would bar the city from continuing to use the cameras. She said they will give the city time to make that decision before considering legal action.
I dont know why it would be financially wise to continue when they might have to give all of the money back, Cartee said.
Rhoden and Canfield won their cases and will receive a refund, but the attorneys said they dont know how the refund process would work for the thousands of other motorists who would be included in the class-action case.
Mary Thee, Davenports corporate counsel, said she plans to appeal the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court within the next 30 days.
She said the facts in the case were virtually identical to those of a previous case that the city won.
We received a favorable decision in the Seymour case, she said, referring to a suit filed by Thomas J. Seymour last spring that alleged his constitutional rights were violated because the city ordinance shifts the burden of proof to the accused. In that case, Scott County Magistrate Kyle Williamson ruled that the use of the cameras is within the authority granted to municipalities by the state.
What we have now is two different judges who have a different legal perspective on the same same legal issue with two different results, Thee said. So ultimately, the Iowa Supreme Court will make the decision.
Meantime, the city has decisions to make, including whether to keep the cameras operational and whether to continue collecting revenue. In addition, finance director Alan Guard and Bladel recently announced plans to use $470,000 in camera fine revenue to help fund a new police officer, create a juvenile crime unit, fund the Volunteers in Police Service program and increase neighborhood enforcement.
Thee and Bladel said city leaders will meet today to discuss options, adding that city administrator Craig Malin was out of town Tuesday and could not be reached.
Alderman Keith Meyer, 3rd Ward, wants to have all legal issues resolved before earmarking the money for the police department.
Because of the amount of revenue generated and the pace at which it continues, the city should omit camera revenue from the 2008 budget and create an immediate contingency in this years budget, he said.
Bladel said hes more concerned about the impact on public safety than any financial hit to the police department.
These systems are worth fighting for, he said. I personally believe and there is growing empirical evidence that shows they make our streets safer. People are paying more attention to our traffic laws, and (the cameras) are keeping people alive.
The first of the eight speed cameras was installed in January 2006, and the five red light cameras went up in 2004. Rhoden filed her lawsuit in August after a camera at the intersection of Kimberly Road and Harrison Street caught her speeding. Canfield was added as a plaintiff a few months later.
Davidson said the ruling also includes citations issued by Davenports mobile speed limit enforcement van, which has been in use since January 2006.
Dustin Lemmon can be contacted at (563) 383-2493 or dlemmon@qctimes.com.
What it means
Motorists who have received a traffic citation from Davenports speed and red light cameras will have to wait about two months for a hearing that will determine whether the case becomes a class-action suit. A court date has not been set. If the case becomes a class-action suit, there could be a long delay while the ruling goes through the appeals process. Attorneys representing two plaintiffs who won their cases against the city Tuesday said its not clear yet how a refund process would work.
Post by: Waitone on February 23, 2007, 02:58:45 AM
Post by: Lee on February 23, 2007, 03:31:39 AM
1) They rarely identify who the driver actually is.
2) Many cities require that the fine (not always called a fine though) be paid in advance of an appeal or conviction, e.g. the court date is scheduled long after the due date for paying the ticket. In Columbus Ohio the non-refundable appeal process costs more than paying the fine, and must be payed in advance. Hardly seems constitutional to me.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on February 23, 2007, 07:21:54 AM
Hardly seems constitutional to me.
The Constitution is dead. The government only refers to it when it helps them accomplish a goal.
Post by: Thor on February 23, 2007, 07:39:30 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 23, 2007, 07:47:01 AM
On the upside, it doesn't count as a moving violation and doesn't go on your driving record. However, this - in a of itself - is absolute proof that safety is not the issue. If it was, they would be taking extra steps to go after the driver. It's nothing but a run for money and an appeasment to those ill-informed, but very vocal, busybodies who think that red light cameras will solve the world's traffic ills.
Brad
Post by: MechAg94 on February 23, 2007, 12:24:03 PM
I believe Texas state law says that a machine can't issue a traffic citation or something similar. It was put into law some years ago regarding radar cameras for speeding.
I am not sure how Lubbock has done it, but if they plan to carry non-payment over to criminal action, they would likely have a fight on their hands regarding that state law.
Post by: Car Knocker on February 23, 2007, 05:41:30 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 24, 2007, 09:02:56 AM
Far as I know, it's against the law for a DRIVER to operate a vehicle in excess of the posted speed - I've never heard of a law that makes it a crime for a VEHICLE to speed. What is the basis for the fine?
From what I understand they are citing the owner of the vehicle for allowing it to be used to violate a city code. How they wrangled the inner workings of the code, I don't know.
I personally feel like this is proof-positive that the lights have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money. If it were they would be taking extra steps to make sure the DRIVER is issue the ticket, not just the owner.
Brad