Red light cameras coming to the Metro

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:50 pm

Well, this still needs to pass the Iowa House (which is not a done deal), but I agree with you Brad, they should be legal everywhere.

For the love of the Almighty, the proponents of this ban claim that "in the future" these cameras could record individual passengers in the vehicle and that's an invasion of privacy. What about every time you step into a convenience store, a bank, pull up to a drive-thru ATM, etc.? You can't go anywhere anymore without being recorded, and in many instances you aren't even aware of it. If somebody runs a red light and parks the front end of their Lincoln Towncar inside my car, that is what I would consider an invasion of privacy.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:08 pm

1) People don't "shutter", they "shudder". That's just funny.

2) How these things - along with unmanned speed traps - haven't been utterly destroyed by a 6th Amendment challenge is beyond me.

-Big E

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:55 pm

I think you mean "udderly" destroyed.

I'm glad those are being taken out. I've gotten one and you have no legal way to fight them. That's what I don't like about them. I almost got one again just after I paid off the first one. I had to slam on my brakes and about caused more problems than if I would have just went through.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:17 pm

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:14 pm

That one was WAY red man.

I don't really care about the camera's either way. I stop when they are red, downshift when they are yellow.

Post by **Brad** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:51 pm

Holy |expletive|. That was red before you even started to enter the intersection.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:41 pm

Not when you're running late. I think that fire truck may have had an emergency to turn into too. I was really late and work was cracking down that week. I remember that day because all of the restaurants in Omaha were busy so I decide to give some of my money to CB. Spent a little more than I planned on.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:12 am

Brad wrote:Holy |expletive|. That was red before you even started to enter the intersection.

That's the only way you get one...if you are in the intersection before it turns red, you shouldn't have any problem.

How anyone can deem that unacceptable is beyond me (and to not yield the right of way to a firetruck? Holy schnikes man! If a cop had been there, you would have been facing two or three more tickets beyond the red light)

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:32 am

Since "udderly" isn't a word, I doubt I meant it. Irregardless, either way the point is moo. ;)

For the record, I'm not actually opposed to the traffic light or speeding cameras. I'm all for cracking down on idiot drivers. What I can't figure out is how no one has managed to have these things banned based on their obvious trampling of the 6th Amendment.

I had three of these in DC for speeding on the parkway (which is insanely easy to do). Each time I waited until the 3rd super-mega ultra final notice before I sent them a polite letter saying something along the lines of "According to my records, this is my first receipt of notice of this infraction. Please forward me the documentation that establishes my trial date and any documentation I may have signed and overlooked pertaining to my acknowledgment of receipt of said notice. Thank you."

Never heard about any of them again.

-Big E

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:06 am

Well, Big E, you are given the opportunity to appeal in person, while a police officer plays the video of you running the light, and even appear in court on these tickets, if that's your ultimate choice, but your chances of winning are about nil (and then you get assessed court fees on top of the ticket). The 6th amendment angle has been played and lost in court already, as these are civil violations, not criminal violations (as they would be if an officer ticketed you).

You could play dumb and say you never got notice, however, and that might buy you some time, but by that time you will have received notice in order to say you've never got notice, so either

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:47 pm

icejammer wrote:The 6th amendment angle has been played and lost in court already, as these are civil violations, not criminal violations (as they would be if an officer ticketed you).

I missed the civil part. Sounds to me like a legal loophole. If an officer tickets me to make it a criminal violation, why is it not a criminal violation when I have to face him/her in court to watch the video of my red light running?

I'm not on an anti-red light camera crusade. I just think the legal justification behind them is weak at best.

-Big E

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:19 pm

Big E wrote:I'm not on an anti-red light camera crusade. I just think the legal justification behind them is weak at best.

Understood, BUT....how many times do police rely upon video surveillance cameras to finger a suspect in a store robbery? That certainly stands up as evidence (although some physical evidence is preferred to solidify the camera's evidence). I know, it's a tricky path to navigate, but my feeling is the more tools the police have at their disposal, without infringing upon your true privacy, the better...

Candleshoe · Post by **Candleshoe** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:00 pm

There are a lot of laws concerning traffic that don't seem right... but, driving is regarded nationally as a privilege and not a right.

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:00 pm

Jesus D'Shawn. No wonder karma stole your car.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:42 pm

Until the whole world is hooked up to mass transit you should have the RIGHT to drive.

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:24 am

Hey, the way you drive, it's no wonder you knocked out two cars last year.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:54 pm

Official: Intersection cameras 'effective'

The Iowa Department of Transportation released a report Tuesday showing a 90 percent decrease in the number of red light-running crashes in Council Bluffs at intersections with camera enforcement.

I think they exceeded our expectations, City Engineer Greg Reeder said. We installed the cameras because we expected them to create safer driving conditions. They appear to be doing the job. . . .

NDizona · Post by **NDizona** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:12 pm

if they do this for speeding - Its time for a revolution....

Post by **Brad** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:55 pm

90%

Why do people not want these?

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:54 pm

Iowa Supreme Court: Traffic cameras legal

Traffic enforcement cameras have survived another round of judicial challenges.

In decisions released today, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in two separate cases that state law did not preempt the Davenport Automated Traffic Enforcement ordinance. Both decisions by the Supreme Court validate the use of cameras to capture people violating traffic laws. . . .

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:02 pm

I think they should be outlawed!

I haven't seen that picture in a while.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:11 pm

I've never understood how these things (along with speed cameras) can be even remotely considered Constitutional.

That being said, one's opposition to these cameras is usually directly proportional to one's need to be watched by these cameras.

Post by **Brad** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:14 pm

Big E wrote:I've never understood how these things (along with speed cameras) can be even remotely considered Constitutional.

Not sure either but I love them! I wish Omaha had them... Until then I guess I just need to floor it at green lights and teach people a lesson. Soiled drawers is probably better than a ticket!

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:25 pm

Red light cameras reduce accidents

In the three years since Council Bluffs began its red-light camera program, there's been a big decrease in red-light related accidents, overall accidents, plus a consistent drop in drivers being caught running red lights where the cameras are installed, statistics show.

According to a study by the Iowa Department of Transportation, Council Bluffs saw a 90 percent reduction in red-light related accidents and a 44 percent reduction in overall crashes. . . .

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:49 pm

City mulls adding traffic cameras, increasing fine

Drivers, beware.

There could be more of those red light cameras taking photos of impatient motorists. . . .

The city’s legal, police and public works departments have recommended that three more intersections be added to this program. Those intersections are South Expressway at 30th Avenue, cameras installed for both east and westbound traffic; Kanesville Boulevard at Harrison Street, cameras installed for both east and westbound traffic; and at 25th Street at West Broadway by Thomas Jefferson High School for both east and westbound traffic on Broadway.

At present, the fine for running a red light is $65, the same amount when the program began. However, it is recommended that fine be increased to $105, in part to higher court costs. Just a few years ago, court costs for such tickets was only $17, according to Bauermeister. Today, that cost is $60, he said. . . .

RegisResident · Post by **RegisResident** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:13 pm

I think the red light cameras are a good idea in the metro (especially downtown). At 16th & Harney, people run the light all the time.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:36 pm

I'm still vehemently against these.

2Adam29 · Post by **2Adam29** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:27 am

I'm in strong support as long as they can construct these cost-effectively.

Post by **Brad** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:58 am

I know where the cameras are in Council Bluffs and I slow down at the intersections just in case the light turns yellow...

I want a camera that sends a "your a bad driver" letter to people the people the are turning right on a GREEN and yield to people turning left.....
I also want a camera that sends a "Move the F over" letter to people that drive in the left lane on the interstate....

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:19 pm

I'm torn on these. While I get what they're doing, they are so fundamentally un-Constitutional it isn't even funny.

I think cities would be better off hiring a Traffic Patrol to cruise around in a fleet of Priuses (Priui?) and just hand out $25 no-point fines for all the stupid little |expletive| that thousands of drivers do all day every day.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:17 am

Big E wrote:I'm torn on these. While I get what they're doing, they are so fundamentally un-Constitutional it isn't even funny.

So far, the Iowa Supreme Court would disagree with your legal opinion there, Big E. Of course, this is the same Supreme Court that ruled gay marriage is legal, so.....

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:57 am

icejammer wrote: Of course, this is the same Supreme Court that ruled gay marriage is legal, so.....

What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of "Dancing Queen".

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:21 am

Big E wrote:I'm torn on these. While I get what they're doing, they are so fundamentally un-Constitutional it isn't even funny.

I think cities would be better off hiring a Traffic Patrol to cruise around in a fleet of Priuses (Priui?) and just hand out $25 no-point fines for all the stupid little |expletive| that thousands of drivers do all day every day.

Initially I was all for red light cameras until I found out the companies that are contracted to install and maintain them get paid a fee for every ticket they help generate. That is a huge conflict of interest and is highly exploitable. I like your idea of hiring a traffic patrol and small no-point fines. Is that been done in any other city?

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:34 pm

bradley414 wrote:Initially I was all for red light cameras until I found out the companies that are contracted to install and maintain them get paid a fee for every ticket they help generate. That is a huge conflict of interest and is highly exploitable.

No more of a conflict of interest than many other items that are contracted out on a per-unit basis, rather than a flat fee. There are enough safeguards built into the system that no one is going to exploit anything.

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:17 pm

icejammer wrote:
bradley414 wrote:Initially I was all for red light cameras until I found out the companies that are contracted to install and maintain them get paid a fee for every ticket they help generate. That is a huge conflict of interest and is highly exploitable.
No more of a conflict of interest than many other items that are contracted out on a per-unit basis, rather than a flat fee. There are enough safeguards built into the system that no one is going to exploit anything.

I'm not entirely certain I understand your difference of per-unit fee and flat fee. Do you mean flat fee vs. usage fee? With a usage fee, the company is banking on handing out the maximum amount of fines possible to increase their own revenue. If the cameras are not capturing enough events to be profitable, then the company will have to raise the rates of the fees in order to maintain the cameras. Your implementing cameras to deter traffic violations, but if the program is a deterrence, the company running the program will eventually raise the rates. The city will pass those fee increases to us in the form of higher fines.

2Adam29 · Post by **2Adam29** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:05 pm

I don't get DTO's justification of, "they're going to do it either way, so why penalize them?" because people are going to kill each other, that doesn't mean murder should be legal.

Post by **Brad** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:06 pm

2Adam29 wrote:I don't get DTO's justification of, "they're going to do it either way, so why penalize them?"

He is still upset he got caught!

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:11 pm

Getting caught has nothing to do with it. It's red lights now but I'm not fond of the idea of cameras being used to catch crimes in such public areas. If a private place wants to install security cameras fine but I don't think that this level of public spying in the name of preventing crime is acceptable.

2Adam29 · Post by **2Adam29** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:17 pm

What part of "in public" don't you understand? IF you want to do something illegal, do it in your own home, if you do it in public you should expect to be caught, frankly, a lot of crime can be solved with better camera coverage. Working for the store I do, because of our cameras I always feel 100% secure at all times, but tell me to park across the street, and suddenly I'm looking over at my car every other minute to be sure it hasn't been stolen. If public places were covered by cameras more regularly it would be a more safe environment free of the he-said she-said arguments that tie up our justice system. Should there be cameras everywhere? certainly not. There is such a thing as privacy, but installing a camera or two on our busiest intersections is hardly a breach of that privacy.

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:22 pm

DTO Luv wrote:Getting caught has nothing to do with it. It's red lights now but I'm not fond of the idea of cameras being used to catch crimes in such public areas. If a private place wants to install security cameras fine but I don't think that this level of public spying in the name of preventing crime is acceptable.

You're not fond of having solid evidence a crime took place? I think the evidence of these cameras is more solid than the testimony of a police officer.

BUT....

I wonder how the recent supreme court ruling on evidence would relate to the enforcement of these fines:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Legal experts and prosecutors are concerned about the results of last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that requires lab analysts to be in court to testify about their tests. Lab sheets that identify a substance as a narcotic or breath-test printouts describing a suspect's blood-alcohol level are no longer sufficient evidence, the court ruled. A person must be in court to talk about the test results.

The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, has prosecutors and judges shaking their heads in disgust and defense lawyers nodding with satisfaction at the notion that the Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantee that defendants "shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him" is not satisfied by a sheet of paper.

The percentage of cases going to trial could well go up if defense lawyers think that bringing lab analysts to court will help their cases. Lawyers also could go to trial with the hope of a dismissal if the analyst cannot be there.

If you wanted to fight your ticket, would the court be compelled to require an analyst from the camera manufacturer to testify about the evidence?