I don't like them but I quite like the following extract from this website. (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/)
(http://www.safespeed.org.uk/ss100.gif)
Dumb enforcement or intelligent justice?
British justice is renowned the world over for its fairness and impartiality. The British judicial system or many of its principles form the basis of the systems of numerous other nations. As a Magistrate, I am proud to be able to play a role in it.
There is far more to "Justice" than merely enforcing the law. This is not only because justice involves concepts and judgements of what is fair, honourable, open-minded and even-handed but also because the actions of human beings are complex and the law needs to be interpreted to suit the circumstances of individual cases and to take account of changes in society.
For an extreme example, take the question of "mercy killing" or "assisted suicide", both of which could be regarded as murder. In some circumstances the "offender" is not convicted of murder because it would seem unjust. They may be a long term carer of the deceased who has clearly acted upon the wishes of that person and obviously acted "in extremis", without any thought of personal gain, and the circumstances in which they would offend again are unlikely ever to be repeated, so their conviction would serve no useful purpose. In other cases they may be convicted, but of a lesser charge. This is an example of intelligent justice rather than dumb law enforcement.
As a simpler example, consider a man who has just returned from many years working abroad and who has no home in this country. He goes to stay temporarily with a relative while he finds a place of his own. While the relative is out, the TV licence records inspector calls and finds an unlicensed TV in use by the visitor. The visitor is charged with using a TV without a licence, which, in law, is correct. By the time he appears in court, he may have moved to an address of his own where he has a TV licence and he has no previous convictions for not having a TV licence. He was clearly guilty of the offence and he could be fined hundreds of pounds. But would this be "justice" when he was an innocent victim of his relative's error?
It is easy to enforce the law. To administer justice is much more difficult. That is why much of it is done by people specially selected for their experience of life, their standing in the community and their ability to make balanced, fair and impartial judgements based upon all the circumstances of an individual case - Magistrates.
There is an increasing trend today for enforcement of the law to become an automated process where not only guilt but also punishment is specified in an inflexible way. Fixed penalties now exist, and more will soon exist, for all kinds of petty misdemeanours and in some cases there may not be any human judgement in the process. Politicians, driven by what they perceive as public demand, specify more and more minimum sentences which tie the hands of Judges and Magistrates. Automated detection and mandatory minimum sentences make enforcement of the law simpler but make achieving "Justice" in its widest sense much more difficult.
Nowhere is this more so than in the case of automated speed cameras to enforce speed limits. I will not call them safety cameras because they cannot measure safety or the lack of it. I am not against the use of properly set and appropriate speed limits which have been decided on road safety grounds rather than on political correctness. I do think that there is a small place for speed cameras in road safety policy, but only at true long-standing accident black spots which have proved impossible to remove by road engineering, and there should be very few of these. It is abundantly clear from all the information on the Safe Speed web site that speed cameras are not being used in this way at present, but are being placed where blips in the statistics can best justify their installation in the short term on financial grounds and where drivers are most likely to be found exceeding speed limits without necessarily causing danger. The result is that thousands of normal, law-abiding people are being unfairly criminalised and penalised. This is made worse by a lack of mandatory national guidelines for the setting of speed limits and the tendency for lower limits to be set by local councillors on grounds of political expediency rather than road safety.
Exceeding a posted speed limit is the classic victimless crime. It is never, of itself, a cause of danger. It must always be seen in the context of the road and traffic conditions and the capabilities of the driver and the vehicle, all variable factors which a speed camera cannot distinguish. But if a driver decides not to pay the fixed penalty and instead goes to explain himself in court, he cannot be fined less than the fixed penalty whatever the mitigating factors and he has costs to pay in addition. The court can take into account such information as is available to it regarding the seriousness of the offence, but in such cases the information is usually minimal and may rely on the Magistrates knowing the road concerned. The main determinant of the punishment, apart from the defendant's income, is by how many miles per hour the limit was exceeded. It makes justice a numbers game and this is not justice as I understand it. Nor, to judge from Safe Speed, is it road safety, because a safe speed cannot be judged in miles per hour. Drivers see the injustice and irrationality of this approach and rightly resent it. So many drivers now have points for speeding that such a conviction is losing its stigma. An organisation has grown up to criminally damage the cameras, a far more serious charge than speeding. The unjust use of and enforcement of a single law is reducing respect for the law generally, not only motoring law but the whole relationship between individuals and society.
Meanwhile, the over-emphasis on speed limit compliance detracts from drivers' judgement of a safe as opposed to a legal speed. Many now confuse a legal speed with a safe one and no longer vary their speed correctly according to hazards and conditions. Their whole understanding of the relationship between speed and safety and between speed and the conditions has been undermined and distorted. This is clearly to the detriment of driving standards and hence of road safety.
It is time for the Government to rethink its present disastrous road safety strategy. After ten years it is obvious that the great speed camera experiment has been a failure. Instead of being used where they could actually make a difference, they have been exploited for financial gain and the statistics which have been used to support their current use has been a gigantic confidence trick.
Speed cameras should be used only as a last resort in intractable black spots which cannot be resolved by road engineering (I mean proper road engineering, not speed humps and chicanes).
Speed enforcement should be carried out by traffic police and should be based upon whether the speed used is safe, not solely on a game of numbers. Officers should use judgement about when a vehicle's speed is causing actual or potential danger. Enforcement of a safe speed, whether this is above or below the speed limit, is the only enforcement which will improve road safety and is the only enforcement justified in the public interest. It is totally counter-productive to penalise a driver who is driving safely, whether above or below the speed limit. Enforcement may include anything from stopping and warning or advising a driver to bringing a charge of dangerous driving, all depending on the circumstances. No driver who is driving safely and responsibly should feel in danger of prosecution. Drivers need to be free to concentrate on the road and to choose a safe speed for the situation, without having to check the speedometer continually. Intelligent justice in place of dumb enforcement would serve both justice and road safety.
Driver education needs to be brought to the fore. There are so many opportunities and avenues for this today, from fleet training and driver improvement courses to the voluntary sector (IAM, RoSPA etc.) and the internet, that no drivers need to miss out. This education needs to cover all aspects of driving, not merely the safe use of speed.
This guy needs to be cloned!
Harvy
Intelligent government is an oxymoron
I love when they trot out that assisted suicide and end of life care can be taken as murder. Yes, it can be. I murder someone at least once a month, as far as that goes.
But then they forget to point out if murder's bad or not. Like nearly everything (except asparagus and mosquitos), it's good in the right time and right place.
speed cameras simply generate revenue for the MAN.
Brits required to have "TV Licenses"?
Quote from: ddlewis on July 09, 2011, 04:48:17 PM
Brits required to have "TV Licenses"?
Yeah, I've sen that before. They are flaming liberal socialists over there, this sort of crap is fairly common place.
(where is the sh!t stiring smiley?)
Dan
Quote from: Dan Filetti on July 09, 2011, 04:54:56 PM
Quote from: ddlewis on July 09, 2011, 04:48:17 PM
Brits required to have "TV Licenses"?
Yeah, I've sen that before. They are flaming liberal socialists over there, this sort of crap is fairly common place.
(where is the sh!t stiring smiley?)
Dan
Dan,
Yes we have a TV licence and what a great idea it is. We get to watch TV (& listen to radio) on the BBC channels with no adverts. Incidentally "liberal" is a compliment here rather than an insult and "liberal socialist" could be considered an oxymoron.
Stuart (Glasgow, Scotland)
Quote from: mz_rider on July 09, 2011, 06:00:48 PM
Dan,
Yes we have a TV license and what a great idea it is. We get to watch TV (& listen to radio) on the BBC channels with no adverts.
Fun. I can watch/ listen to PBS/ NPR for FREE and it too has no adverts. All with no hardware license. Question, do you need to pay for a computer license? or a blender license? or a microwave license? How about an FM radio? TV licenses are just another nonsensical government money grab -seems to me, classic liberal crap.
Dan
Ha ha!
You're funny.
It was a Conservative Government that introduced the licensing scheme.
Quote from: Mark Olson on July 09, 2011, 02:29:53 PM
speed cameras simply generate revenue for the MAN.
I couldn't agree more, bastards got me earlier this year for $75 !
Nothing against my driving record...just cash outa my pocket!
Quote from: 1tinindian on July 09, 2011, 10:58:24 PM
Quote from: Mark Olson on July 09, 2011, 02:29:53 PM
speed cameras simply generate revenue for the MAN.
I couldn't agree more, bastards got me earlier this year for $75 !
Nothing against my driving record...just cash outa my pocket!
Here in Oz $75 is more like parking ticket money. Speeding fines start at about double that and kick in ( in Victoria ) at just 3kph ( 2 mph! ) over any posted speed limit. 20mph over any limit will see your vehicle impounded for 30 days with the cost of towing and storage added to the accompanying fine, somewhere around $700. Higher speeds automatically become "dangerous driving" by virtue of speed alone and, if fast enough, and have been known to involve jail time without any other associated offences, just excessive speed and posing no risk self or others. The rest of Australia isn't quite this bad. It certainly gives you something else to think about while legitimately checking to see if you've fixed that "miss" at 9000rpm in 5th.
Noel
Quote from: Klavdy on July 09, 2011, 10:21:52 PM
It was a Conservative Government that introduced the licensing scheme.
As long as we agree that it was a 'scheme'/ racquet/ money grab/ I don't much care who introduced it. They're all a bunch of crooks. I use the word 'liberal' to represent those that wish to redistribute wealth. Ostensibly from the rich to poor, but in reality, it becomes from
everyone to the government. The re-distribution, such that it occurs at all, is a pittance of larjest to the poor, which sustains, but does not help, the under-class.
The bureaucracies that are formed from successful liberalism are inherently inefficient and corrupt, as such I'm not a fan.
Dan
Dan,
I'm guessing you will not be keen on this. The problem with TV licensing is collecting the fee (tax) In the past there were sinister detector vans hunting down those watching TV without a licence. Thinking back I'm not sure if these worked or were just to scare folk into paying. Haven't seem one since I was a kid though.
(http://www.britishtelephones.com/vehicles/lightvans/pict0023.jpg)
Stuart
Quote from: 1tinindian on July 09, 2011, 10:58:24 PM
Quote from: Mark Olson on July 09, 2011, 02:29:53 PM
speed cameras simply generate revenue for the MAN.
I couldn't agree more, bastards got me earlier this year for $75 !
Nothing against my driving record...just cash outa my pocket!
$260 in AZ, the photo tickets don't get sent unless you're at least 11mph over...... Got mine last Oct. :bomb:
Quote from: RichBaker on July 11, 2011, 09:57:21 PM
Quote from: 1tinindian on July 09, 2011, 10:58:24 PM
Quote from: Mark Olson on July 09, 2011, 02:29:53 PM
speed cameras simply generate revenue for the MAN.
I couldn't agree more, bastards got me earlier this year for $75 !
Nothing against my driving record...just cash outa my pocket!
$260 in AZ, the photo tickets don't get sent unless you're at least 11mph over...... Got mine last Oct. :bomb:
You forgot to wear your mask and then later claim it was not you driving the vehicle....
That, and the damn process server caught me the day after christmas with the flu..... Thought it was my parents, didn't even check before I opened the door. :dash1:
Quote from: RichBaker on July 12, 2011, 09:10:03 PM
That, and the damn process server caught me the day after christmas with the flu..... Thought it was my parents, didn't even check before I opened the door. :dash1:
I guess the guy with the mask has really stirred the pot and put boots on the ground to collect revenue.....Major bugger!!!
Not having a rev at anyone or having a go, just my .20 c ( .2c currency no longer exists here, but can still remember buying 5.00 of .1c lollies as a kid, but i digress....)
Yes speed cameras suck yes i got pinged the other day, probably doing 80 in a 60 on my way to work in the wet, and yeah it was sillly through a 4 way intersection on the edge of Mayfield... corner of maude st and mayfield rd if your interested....and yes they are just a cash cow. BUT! When i got my licence i signed up to the government to use THEIR roads and THEIR systems and basically promised to obey the RULES and regulations that they have imposed on these said roads. You guys liking your Firearms ( yes i like em no i dont have any but thats a different story) i put in akin to a guy buying one, promising to lock it away and keep it safe and not do stupid shit with it. so if he then goes and uses it incorrectly and kills someone would it be ok for someone who is appointed ( like having a copper say no he was speeding but i dont think it was dangerous) to say no his accident was justified?
I would like speed cameras removed but to appoint someone as the be all and end all of speed monitoring..... power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely....where would you draw the line?
I like the idea stuart, of a tv licencing system ( worked on radio, the amount of paper work to make sure the artists get their royalties is a pain in the keister) main reason i dont watch tv is the ads.... i consider it an insult, if i want something i will LOOK for it when i WANT it not be force fed shit and drivel every 4 minutes of tv time.... its bloody annoying!!! that and no offence to our us counterparts but your tv shows suck.... same old drivel over and over again on here...( simpsons two and a half wankers, repeat repeat adnauseum.... but thats just probably because im in the lowest common denominator bracket.... compare some BBC shows to the US shows.... you will see what i mean, tho i still do watch SBS they put some very interesting stuff on,no not just the late night porn)
Basically what im trying to say is the licence thing.... you signed up for it.... you dont like the rules build your own roads.... simple reallly.
And for the record ..... 130 in a 60 zone gets you a 700 buck fine and loss of licence for 6months and a court appearance.... get caught whilst disqualified and its another 600 bucks and another 6 months suspension... when you do get your licence back you have 1... yes 1 point for a year. let me tell you that you ride to the letter of the law then, i m saying this to point out that i had to learn the hardish way.....
I noticed the other post someone mentioned "loud pipes save lives" and the reply was "BULLSHIT "..( agree) and " learning to ride properly saves lives" (agree as well). isnt obeying the road rules riding properly? being able to control your machine ( which has the potential to kill a few people more than just you) riding properly?
As posted above, i can also agree that riding at high speed and cornering with it leaned well over knee out and still being smooth is control as well ( i know that i love doing it... see 130 in a 60.... still stupid) but shouldnt that be confined to a track? have to remember its not just us that it affects... how pissed would you be if a car was (legally) speeding and wiped out you and your mates even tho you were riding properly?
perhaps another option would be to designate safe roads with an open speed limit. but then if they did that there would have to be more training, different licence classes, more monitoring systems and as far as i have seen, although they suck arses, MOST speed cameras are in potential if not proven black spots.... look for the little crosses on poles and posts etc....bit of a give away.
I m not saying whos /whats right or wrong... these are just my thoughts, now days every time i see im more than 5 over the speed limit in built up areas i verbally call myself a dickhead and slow down to the limit OR the speed of the traffic around me...( dont want to get run over)
it just annoys me that people whinge about the sysytem they signed yp for, complain when it doesnt work, whinge when it does work, and dont come up with a viable good strong alternative.
what would you replace police with?
martial law?
and no im not a cop, dont like 'em.... but wouldnt do what they do for quids..
wow.... .20c gets you more these days huh? chuckles
ride safe fellows.
:good2:
Quote from: NJona86FJ on July 21, 2011, 02:44:14 PM
wow.... .20c gets you more these days huh? chuckles
ride safe fellows.
:good2:
yes .20c is 10 times more than the usual .02 cents
Ok, I am for the speed cameras. I have seen the difference before and after. They do work. If they didn't, speeders wouldn't be complaining. Do I speed ? Yes of course. Even cops speed at times. I got a LOT of tickets in my life. Was I speeding ? Yes. You just need to know that road markings, signs, lights etc. are not opinions or put there just to piss folks off. Its the law of the land.
Often I will ask myself going down the road mindlessly just enjoying the day "whats the speed limit here, right now". Quite often I really don't know, I am just following the traffic or thinking about getting to my destination. Its hard on a bike because we are in a different performance level and for the most part enjoying the ride. When we as a group "zip" cars, split lanes, pass in no passing zones etc we foster a bad image to the public and police and get the press that is deserved.
I'm all for having a little fun and laying a bit to it once in a while but if I get caught then its on me not the system.
If your going down a strange freeway and you see the locals putting the binders on or you are closing fast, think about it. Why are the slowing.... speed camera, cop in front or along the road. If for nothing else it jogs there memory to slow down.
Some folks what to max there fun level out and forego having any fun for the rest of there life. If they are lucky they "pass on", hurting no one else if they are not, then there is a life of grief, wheel chairs and bed pans.
Ride to stay alive there's a lot to enjoy tommorrow.
P.S. Think I seen a test of the speed cameras once and at about 220 mph it can't catch you. Shutter speed must be slower........ Let me know if it works or how much it cost you. :)
(popcorn) (popcorn)
Quote from: movenon on July 21, 2011, 07:49:58 PM
Ok, I am for the speed cameras. I have seen the difference before and after. They do work. If they didn't, speeders wouldn't be complaining. Do I speed ? Yes of course. Even cops speed at times. I got a LOT of tickets in my life. Was I speeding ? Yes. You just need to know that road markings, signs, lights etc. are not opinions or put there just to piss folks off. Its the law of the land.
Often I will ask myself going down the road mindlessly just enjoying the day "whats the speed limit here, right now". Quite often I really don't know, I am just following the traffic or thinking about getting to my destination. Its hard on a bike because we are in a different performance level and for the most part enjoying the ride. When we as a group "zip" cars, split lanes, pass in no passing zones etc we foster a bad image to the public and police and get the press that is deserved.
I'm all for having a little fun and laying a bit to it once in a while but if I get caught then its on me not the system.
If your going down a strange freeway and you see the locals putting the binders on or you are closing fast, think about it. Why are the slowing.... speed camera, cop in front or along the road. If for nothing else it jogs there memory to slow down.
Some folks what to max there fun level out and forego having any fun for the rest of there life. If they are lucky they "pass on", hurting no one else if they are not, then there is a life of grief, wheel chairs and bed pans.
Ride to stay alive there's a lot to enjoy tommorrow.
P.S. Think I seen a test of the speed cameras once and at about 220 mph it can't catch you. Shutter speed must be slower........ Let me know if it works or how much it cost you. :)
Buy me my MTT Jet Bike and i'll try it out. :good2:
Neil (NJona86FJ),
You make some interesting points, but one thing that must be pointed out is that the roads are NOT owned by the govenment. they are owned by you and me, the public who pay taxes, levis, and speeding fines to finance them. If I'm exceeding the speed limit by 3kph (about 2mph), that doesn't mean I'm speding. When the speed limit changes 8 times in a 4km zone, then that has got to be intended to entrap you. And the speed cameras are rarely set up in "black spots", most all of them are on major roads that will net the greatest number of fines/victims.
Cheers,
Arnie
Do speed cameras work?
Yes, of course they do.
They work extremely well at giving tickets to people for exceeding an arbitrary speed limit.
Nothing more, nothing less.
They do not reduce the road toll.
They cannot.
Good point Arnie, and Klavdy, and Arnie as you know the vic gumbiment is a bit savage with the 'ol speed cameras.... so i have heard , havnt been down there yet, the QLD mobile speed cameras are a bit sneaky...( was always on the look out for white vans... chuckles...) I guess it s just a case of like what movenon says.... ride to the traffic and conditions, and be alert ( your country needs more lerts.... sorry.... :crazy:) and if you are going to ....ummm... be naughty... do it somewhere in the boonies. :hi: (popcorn)
Lol as far as these cameras go and their earning big bucks for the man - I don t know if we here at South Africa have a really stupid camera system or what but I have been photographed by these machines a number of times doing well above the speed limit (was testing a theory) and from what I have found these cameras only take shots of the front of the car and as we all know motorcycles only have a number plate at the back. So my conlcusion: either the cameras suck or the admin sucks. either way I never have to worry about speeding tickets :yahoo:
our city went to great expense to install "red light" cameras using a third party..... to catch people running red lights.
they were required to install signs alerting people to the fact that the upcoming intersections had red light cameras.
Needless to say the instances of people actually running those red lights dropped dramatically and after two years they removed the cameras.
no speed cameras ... yet.
doesnt matter to me i have my fun up in the mtns where there are barely lines painted on the roads and the only things taking pictures are the wildlife :good2:
KOokaloo!
In 2005, the City of Minneapolis, MN installed a "Photo Cop" system to catch people running red lights at selected intersections throughout the city. When activated, the system photographed the license number of the offending vehicle and "promptly" issued a $142.00 fine to the owner of the vehicle.
I can't recall the specifics (as it happend about (5) years ago), but as I recall, a prominent local attorney received one of these citations for a vehicle he owned but could not have been driving on the day in question as he was not in the state at that time. A lawsuit was brought against the state regarding this system, citing violations of certain traffic laws and civil rights violations (something about innocent until proven guilty, blah blah blah). The long and short of this is that in 2007 The Minnesota Supreme Court determined that this policy violated certain traffic laws and ordered the city to cease and desist. As a consolation for illegally receiving fines from approximately 25,000 drivers over about a (1) year span, the City and County decided to remove the violation from the records of those who signed the citations and paid their fines.
Sadly, as this is the United States, many of the drivers who blindly paid the fines began a class action lawsuit to recover the fines from The City of Minneapolis, as they felt the city was not entitled to those monies in the first place. They did eventually win, but the only group who came out ahead on that deal was the attorneys, of course. The saddest part of this whole deal to me, a resident and taxpayer, is that over $1 million was spent on this system, which wasn't completely automated. The reality is that the city used union police officers (on overtime) to monitor the cameras and manually copy the tag numbers to the computer which issued the citations. Additional labor cost for the year that the cameras were in use: $500,000.
Personally, I'm indifferent about whether local law enforcement chooses to use cameras to catch speeders or persons violating other traffic laws. It's not realistic to think that you are only breaking the law if you get caught: the reality is that if you exceed the posted limit (arbitrary though it may be), you are still breaking the law and subject to whatever the standard fine/penalty is for the municipality. It's a simple equation to me, but I religiously ride at the posted speed, I don't tailgate, and I signal all of my turns. It isn't a question of whether I (personally) am a nuisance on the road; rather, it's that I don't wish to suffer the penalties, and whether I'm in my car or on my bike I try to drive courteously and with respect to those around me.
Of course, that's not to say that I haven't amassed a certain number of moving violations over the last 25 years, but I was uber-guilty every time and I paid the fine without complaint. Even the $400 ticket in Wisconsin in 1989 for driving at over twice the posted speed limit (the officer couldn't prove how fast I was going as he claimed to be "pacing" me from about 1/2 mile back in the dead of night on a county road).
My $3.29.
My town tried putting redlight cameras in to catch those who go through lights a pinch late.
Oddly, they didn't last long. It seems that when they're repeatedly found with .308 holes in them, the local magistrate decided to cut their losses and stop bothering.
My only problem with traffic law enforcement is that it's a stupid waste of manpower for something that really doesn't cost the public that much. I do understand that routine checks like for speeding and such are how people are frequently caught doing other, greater crimes, but really I consider it to be small potatoes sort of things. Any cop with a daughter needs to read up on sexually related crimes and then really think about which laws they need to be working to police.
Andy makes a good point. West of me there is a large chain of lakes referred to as "Lake Minnetonka." It is surrounded by a number of small communities which, up until about 40 years ago, were considered merely vacation destinations. As most of these small towns lack law enforcement beyond the local County Sherrif's Department, they decided a number of years ago to form The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD).
Interestingly, this "Police Department" is entirely self sufficient as they generate a great enough income from traffic violations to cover the costs of Officer's wages, equipment, and administrative costs. The primary reason that law enforcement pursues traffic violations is that it is a steady form of income, and similarly to any other type of "business," Police depatrments need to show some degree of progressive growth annually in order to show that they matter. For that reason (I believe), you will continue to see new and more offensive forms of policing which doesn't include actual community involvement by law enforcement officers.
SLMPD's brand new pad...
(http://www.southlakepd.com/graphics/tour/tour1.jpg)
(http://www.southlakepd.com/graphics/tour/tour2.jpg)
Perhaps IT personnel are cheaper by comparison...?
Now here's an AMAZING twist in this story....
NSW (Australia) is REMOVING 38 of their 141 speed cameras claiming they are not helping safety !!
Read all about it here:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/-/article/9922051/quarter-of-speed-cameras-turned-off/ (http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/-/article/9922051/quarter-of-speed-cameras-turned-off/)
Cheers,
Arnie
And abolishing the RTA!
Yay!
However,Victoria is assured by their State Govt that all is in order, the safety cameras are correct (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/speed-camera-confidence-stays-high-20110727-1i0cq.html).
A sorry speed camera story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld)
Marcus Einfeld got exactly what he deserved. The only thing sorry about the whole event is that he was stupid enough to try and get out of a minor traffic infringement by committing perjury. Not what you'd expect from a high ranking judge.
Arnie
Quote from: waricle on July 29, 2011, 06:16:33 AM
A sorry speed camera story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld)
Here's another scumbag, (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3543.asp)
Richard Retting Cashes in on Lifetime of Traffic Camera Advocacy
Father of the red light camera in America converts advocacy into personal revenue.
Richard RettingThe one man most responsible for the spread of red light cameras in the United States is now enjoying the fruit of his labor. Richard A. Retting was New York City's deputy assistant commissioner for traffic safety programs as the Big Apple considered becoming the first in the US to operate intersection cameras. Planning for the program began in 1983 and continued through 1991 when then-Mayor David Dinkins activated the system. For this achievement, Retting was dubbed the father of the red light camera in America, and today he is earning money directly from the systems that have followed New York's lead.
Brekford Corporation is a Maryland-based firm that sells police car equipment, including video and surveillance systems. In December, the company decided to take on market leaders American Traffic Solutions and Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia in offering red light cameras and speed cameras to this existing client base. Brekford hired Retting to be a partner focusing on the automated ticketing business line.
"Brekford's automated photo enforcement program was implemented during December 2010, and the company is starting to see a fresh stream of revenues from this newly introduced program," CEO C.B. Brechin said in a February statement. "Brekford has been awarded automatic traffic enforcement contracts by several municipalities during the past several months and the implementation of these contracts we anticipate will bring added revenues and profitability to the company beginning this quarter."
So far, the company has so far lined up contracts with five Maryland towns: Fairmount Heights, Landover Hills, Laurel, Morningside and Salisbury. Revenues from the photo enforcement division grew from $100,000 in the start-up year to an expected $8 million by the end of this year. For 2012, the company forecasts $15 million as it lines up contracts in other East Coast states. If the firm is successful, Retting can expect to be well compensated.
That is the reward for Retting's eighteen years spent advocating red light camera and speed cameras for the insurance industry's lobbying arm, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). To this day, reference is made to Retting's 1999 IIHS study on the effectiveness of red light cameras in Oxnard, California -- the first study of its kind in this country (view study, 1mb PDF). This work and a follow-up study in 2001 was criticized by a 2001 congressional report and an independent analysis appearing in a peer-reviewed journal in 2008 (read analysis). Retting's conclusions and comments on the topic have since appeared in thousands of news articles and influenced every city that has a program.
In a November article for the Institute of Transportation Engineers journal, Retting provided his lessons learned from the use of photo enforcement over the past two decades. Out of thirty-two footnotes, Retting cited himself ten times, highlighting his central role in the debate. Retting also works at Sam Schwartz Engineering, a consulting firm, where he offered the following advice to cities with red light camera programs: "Appearance of a revenue motive negatively affects public attitudes toward automated traffic enforcement."
Retting seems to have an obvious "conflict of interest" if he's still in a position to influence the purchase and installation of these automated revenue systems.
I find it very difficult to get worked up over the Red Light cameras. In fact, I think they are a "good thing". Every so often when I get to an intersection with the light just changing, and I go through - its very scary to look in the mirror and see 2 more cars come through.
Before I stop hard at a changing light, I look in the mirror. I really don't want to be a hood ornament.
Cheers,
Arnie
:dash1: for the record.... 139 km/h in a 90 zone will get you a 710 dollar fine.... :dash1: :dash1:
In Ontario, 50kms over the speed limit will get you an immediate roadside 7 day licence suspension, 7 day car impound and a $2,000 fine at the officers discretion.(No innocent until proven guilty) You also receive a summons for a court date and a possible $8,000 fine in addition.
Talk about revenue generation!
Quote from: Arnie on July 29, 2011, 10:07:56 PM
Retting seems to have an obvious "conflict of interest" if he's still in a position to influence the purchase and installation of these automated revenue systems.
I find it very difficult to get worked up over the Red Light cameras. In fact, I think they are a "good thing". Every so often when I get to an intersection with the light just changing, and I go through - its very scary to look in the mirror and see 2 more cars come through.
Before I stop hard at a changing light, I look in the mirror. I really don't want to be a hood ornament.
Cheers,
Arnie
Red light cameras don't bother me nearly as bad as speed limit cameras. Red lights are cut and dry - if the light is red you damn well better stop.. Speed limits are arbitrary and vary between locals. A 55 in one town might be a 40 in the next. If you miss the signage you could get nailed. Also there's potential easy revenue source with camera enforced speed traps. And with pricks like this Retting character out there you know that it's happening.
Of course red light cameras are probably just the gateway drug for the speed limit cams.
banned commercial the new kawasaki ninja (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Jpcy2GZ1Q#)
What speed cameras can cause innocent people....
CraigO