ForumGarden

Link to Full Story




Kelly Mendenhall, whose car was captured speeding by a school-zone camera, had challenged the constitutionality of issuing civil fines for what would be a criminal violation if personally witnessed by a police officer. She had also questioned the practice of issuing the fines against the owner of vehicle whose license plate is digitally captured rather than the driver as is usually the case with other traffic violations.How can an owner be held responsible for the actions of another driver? What if the driver had dropped the car off with a mechanic? Still responsible??




Critics of the programs in the General Assembly have accused cities of using the cameras as revenue-generators. ... Toledo keeps 25 percent of each $95 fine collected. The rest goes to the cameras' operator, Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems, a subsidiary of an Australian company.Kind of takes away any incentive for keeping the speed radar accurately calibrated, doesn't it?



This particular story concerns a camera monitoring a school zone. Speed limits are in place for safety, aren't they? I don't want our kids' safety left up to a camera and traffic ticket that comes in the mail days later. It doesn't help the kids who are in danger at that time.

This particular story concerns a camera monitoring a school zone. Speed limits are in place for safety, aren't they? I don't want our kids' safety left up to a camera and traffic ticket that comes in the mail days later. It doesn't help the kids who are in danger at that time.


That is true, and I have some reservations with speed cameras myself, but overall the reality is that you cannot place a traffic cop at every school zone either. It is a fact that drivers tend to be careful with their speeds in areas that there are none to have cameras, and in fact do slow down.

If it was only a money making racket, then the cameras would be moved constantly, or hidden better so you can’t see them. Here (in Ireland anyway) the cameras are fixed and in plane sight. I know where every camera is on the routs I normally drive, and therefore I have never been ticketed.

Does it stop me from speeding away from camera locations? Not always, however if the desired effect is to get people to slow down in high risk areas such as school and other accident hot spots, then it is achieving it’s purpose and is for the overall good.

I’m in the midst of purchasing security cameras and I hate it. I hate it because we keep hardening the target rather than to deal with the root problem. We have to quit slapping hands for crime and begin handing out real discipline.

We are willingly giving up our freedom to avoid seeming too harsh or spending too much money when we deal with those who don't care about freedom.

Accountable;770637 wrote: Link to Full Story


Kelly Mendenhall, whose car was captured speeding by a school-zone camera, had challenged the constitutionality of issuing civil fines for what would be a criminal violation if personally witnessed by a police officer. She had also questioned the practice of issuing the fines against the owner of vehicle whose license plate is digitally captured rather than the driver as is usually the case with other traffic violations.How can an owner be held responsible for the actions of another driver? What if the driver had dropped the car off with a mechanic? Still responsible??


Critics of the programs in the General Assembly have accused cities of using the cameras as revenue-generators. ... Toledo keeps 25 percent of each $95 fine collected. The rest goes to the cameras' operator, Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems, a subsidiary of an Australian company.Kind of takes away any incentive for keeping the speed radar accurately calibrated, doesn't it?



This particular story concerns a camera monitoring a school zone. Speed limits are in place for safety, aren't they? I don't want our kids' safety left up to a camera and traffic ticket that comes in the mail days later. It doesn't help the kids who are in danger at that time.


You totally fooled me with the title.

In the UK we have speed cameras (Gatsos) but we also have red light cameras to catch anyone crossing traffic lights on red.

The first are probably the single biggest cause of accidents in the UK whilst the second should be fitted to every traffic light in the country.

Jumping red lights is lethal and inexcusable unless the lights are broken and stuck red all around. Far too many people push their luck and the cameras are the best deterrent to prevent it.

Since the revenue from Gatsos has been paid to the police force that installed them almost all traffic policing has been suspended in favour of more Gatsos. Although there are strict guidelines as to where they can be placed and how visible they should be (they should only be used at known accident black spots) they are often placed where they are most likely to raise revenue (just after a change of speed limit, on an open stretch of road with an unusually low limit etc.).

The result of this obsession on speeding as the root of all evil is that the policing of driving standards has all but disappeared. Not only dangerous driving such as tailgating and undertaking but drink driving etc are not longer policed because there are so few traffic police on the roads.

The result is an increasing number of deaths on the roads, an increase of the number of drink drivers on the roads and a deterioration of the driving standards. Paradoxically, there is also an increase in the amount of speeding as Gatsos are mostly fixed position and are detectable when not so you just slow down round the Gatso and speed everwhere else - at least when there were traffic police on the roads you had to keep and eye out.

Another way that we differ from the States is that it is the driver not the owner that is prosecuted. The owner receives a notice of intended prosecution with a demand for confirmation of the name of the drive at the time - failure to supply results in a fine. Also, most Gatsos are forward facing and so get a picture of the driver for confirmation.