Traffic cameras issuing tickets!
By speakeasy
@speakeasy (4171)
United States
February 15, 2007 3:28pm CST
Our governor has decided that using traffic cameras to catch speeders will bring in extra revenue and make our highways "safer".
Well, it looks like she is in for a battle. Our state legislature has passed a requirement that this issue must go on the ballot and be decided by the voters.
Personally, I am against it. Yes, we need to do something about the people who are speeding and causing accidents. I am for ticketing them and making them pay fines.
What I am against is a camera taking a picture and recording your speed and then automatically issuing a ticket. It issues the ticket based on the registered owner of the vehicle NOT who is actually driving it. People loan other people their cars to make a quick trip to the store or while another car is in the shop. The father is listed as the registered owner on all family vehicles; but we both know the mother and the teenage drivers will also be driving - now Dad would get the tickets and bad driving record.
There has to be a better way.
What do you think about this? Do any of you already have traffic cameras where you live?
2 people like this
10 responses
@lucy02 (5015)
• United States
16 Feb 07
We don't in the town I live in but nearby cities and bigger towns are getting them. I hate them. My husband has received a ticket in the mail. The thing that bothers me is that you can't really dispute them. If I receive a ticket in the mail a week later I don't know if I was speeding at the time or not and I don't always trust their radars. I am afraid the government may take advantage of the situation.
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
16 Feb 07
Speakeasy, we had the same problem (and still have opponents) in Houston, Texas. Personally, I think these redlight cameras - as we call them in Houston, Texas - are more fair to the people, especially since several law officers became obsessed with issuing unjust tickets just in order to get some percentage as compensation. They are several accounts in Houston, Texas, where several officers are known to have been motivated to issue tickets just for the expected compensation (and I was a victim).
I support redlight cameras, as long as the alleged violators are given the opportunity by law to dispute if they so please and the alleged pictures are brought to court as evidence. Sure, more revenue will be generated this way, but fairly.
I know that the major opponents in Houston, Texas, are attorneys who mostly made money defending traffic violators. I think they are merely lamenting the losses in their bank accounts.
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
16 Feb 07
Well, that will be the catch! Let the State shoulder the burden of proof!
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
16 Feb 07
Well, it already sounds like ours are supposed to be different from yours. Ours are not going to be at red lights. Ours are going to be "along the state highways". I agree with allowing them to be disputed in court; but, how many judges have had guilty people stand up in front of them and say "it wasn't me"? Why should they believe you? To me, it seems like there would be more people going to court, not fewer.
@kgwat70 (13387)
• United States
29 Jul 07
We do have traffic cameras in my state and as a matter of fact it was in todays paper that they will be adding more cameras to catch not only speeders but people that run red lights. They put statistics in the paper today stating how the cameras have reduced the number of accidents at certain intersections so they will be adding more. Hopefully the cameras will make people more aware and follow the rules. The cops can not be everywhere to catch people speeding or committing some other violation.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
30 Jul 07
I could understand it better IF our state required BOTH front and rear license plates. But, unless you have been customizing your car, a front photo only gets a picture of the driver and a rear photo only get a picture of theplate. Anyone could be driving with the photo of the back (your spouse, kids, etc.) and it is too easy to say they got the photos of the drivers mixed up with the front photos if no plate shows.
I can easily understand having traffic cameras at the lights. You can't put a cop at EVERY intersection 24/7.
But, the traffic cameras they were trying to get approved (and failed) were along the highways throughout the state. With the exception of right around the capital, in our state most towns and cities are 40 miles apart or more. As people learn which milemarker they are near they would just slow down for the camera and resume speeding anyway; and, the constant speeding and then suddenly slowing for the camera is just another road hazard.
@minnie_98214 (10557)
• United States
16 Feb 07
We had these in our state but they have since been shut down (waste of money). Just like you said they cant prove who was behind the wheel so if you take it to court you will win. Not only did we waste money on cams but court costs too.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
16 Feb 07
Sounds like the only winners in your state were the lawyers. I know some people ahve already been saying they will just shoot the cameras down. Then the state will have lost all the money that the cameras cost; trying to repair and/or replace them.
@supersonic4life (63)
• Canada
16 Feb 07
yup my mom actually got caught for one lol its really unfair that my father was the one to get the bad driving record, they hhave to change the rules or policy fr these because there not making any sense at all. Lets say a bay is being born or someone needs medical atteintion its really horrible to give them tickets like that. People should really fight this traffic light picture taking. This to me shows how lazy police officers are.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
16 Feb 07
Maybe they should give the police cars tickets too. Around here they speed more than the other people. No lights or sirens, just driving around real fast. But since the city, county, or state owns the police cars; the cops wouldn't get the ticket anyway.
@mememama (3076)
• United States
15 Feb 07
We have traffic cameras in my hometown. We had this intersection that was notorious for red light runners, I mean you could sit at a green light and six people would still be driving when they aren't supposed to, this caused a lot of accidents! They put one of those cameras up on there, and I've never seen a person run a red light since. I love this since I had to cross this intersection daily and sometimes I'd be late to work because of all the red light runners.
As for the speeding ones, my friend recently got a ticket in the mail, he got a picture and you could clearly see he was driving, and even picking his nose lol. I only loan out my car to people I could trust, if I got one of these pictures, I'd take it right to them and demand the money or for it to get cleared up!
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
15 Feb 07
I don't know what state you are in but in my state we only have license plates on the rear; so they would have to get a photo of the back to identify the vehicle. You don't see the driver from back there. While the cameras might deter the owner of the vehicle from speeding or running a light; they wouldn't deter someone else that was using your car.
@amministra (1040)
• Italy
16 Feb 07
I think both a correct thing, the safety of a person doesn't have price
@elisata (568)
• Netherlands
16 Feb 07
As long as I can remember we have those traffic camera's. Of course no one is actually happy with them, but they do have a good influence on speedy drivers, especially since you never know whether the camera is on or off.
If somebody else is driving your car and be caught by the camera, you just simply let him or her pay for the ticket... We settle those things amongst ourselves - just like parking tickets - an go on with our lives...
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
16 Feb 07
So how do you figure the cost of three years of higher insurance prices? Plus, too many tickets and your license is suspended. How can you place a "cost" on that?
@moomincat (321)
•
15 Feb 07
We already have this system working in our country. A local camera brought in 1.5 million pounds the equivilant to nearly 3 million dollars in one year. Very lucrative revenue. We have the same rules registered owner of the car is responsible for fines and points against the license. This in turn can put insurance cost up as well. MONEY MONEY MONEY
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
15 Feb 07
I don't deny it makes money; but, it is NOT right to give the ticket to someone that didn't commit the offense. Too many tickets and you can lose your license. Also, the tickets stay on your insurance record for THREE years.
@simesc (248)
•
16 Feb 07
We have these cameras all over the UK and they are just there as a licence to print money.
They do not make people drive slower (apart from the 30 feet that they cover).
They are often more dangerous, as drivers will hit their breaks very hard when they see the camera.
Also they have introduced cameras that not only check your distance at one point, but they monitor your spee over a number of miles.
Fight these cameras. Once introduced there will be more and more appear as they see how much money they can make.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
16 Feb 07
I am trying to do something. Not only have I written about it here but I sent in a letter to the editor and it was published the other day. I have also been talking to people about it. I really do not want them here.
