Have you ever been ticketed by a Traffic Signal camera

twice for speeding...my bad, I paid the fines and learned to slow down

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/NEWS16/71...

Toledo would raise the civil penalty on motorists who get caught in the flash of an automated red-light and speeding camera from $95 to $120, and increase the city's take of that fee from 25 percent to 54 percent, under a proposed agreement reviewed yesterday by city council...Toledo is moving ahead with the expansion of the program even as legal cases against the cameras move through the courts.

A closely watched case out of Akron now awaiting a ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether municipalities exceed their constitutional authority by imposing civil fines for what amounts to criminal conduct.

If the Ohio Supreme Court rules that these cameras are unconstitutional, how will it affect any agreement with Redflex the city signs? Would we still be obligated under the contract to install additional cameras? What about fines which have already been paid? Do we get a refund?

I question a lot about the red light cameras.

I always wonder what would happen if I attempt to stop but due to black ice I hydroplane past the little white line. I am able to stop and back up but not before the camera snaps my picture.

Now my intent was to follow the law but the camera doesn't know that. A cop witnessing it would.

So would I still have to pay the fine?

MikeyA

I hate them. I've never ran a redlight, but I'm scared every time I go through one of those intersections. I travel through the red light camera at Heatherdowns and Cass daily, and I finally figured out that I can count the number of time the "don't walk" symbol flashes before the light turns from green to yellow (it's 15 times btw). That's helped my worries about that intersection tremendously, but the less frequently travelled intersections are another story.

Minnessota's red light cameras were recently ruled unconstitutional, so maybe Ohio's will be as well.

I also don't think they really decrease accidents. In fact, according to http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1614.asp they may actually increase accidents. Of course, this was a very small sample size, but there may be some truth to it.

Ours was the only car in the intersection. The photo light flashed. I ribbed the heck out of my husband who was driving but he had the last laugh. Never got a ticket or a notice. It might have been the photo blocker plate cover. We have them on all the vehicles. There are mixed reports about their effectiveness. This is not a recommendation.

follow the law and not drive over the speed limit. Then it doesn't matter if they're there or not. I live near a dangerous intersection (with no light camera) and people constantly run that light putting others in danger.

All I read and hear is excuses and whining about privacy and rights. Would it kill you to just do what is right and follow traffic laws?

Would you steal from a store if it didn't have cameras? I suspect many would.

I wasn't paying attention like I should have been and was was caught speeding by the traffic camera on Douglas by the University. I sped and got caught. I paid the ticket because I was guilty.

I'm glad to hear some of you are afraid to break the law at these intersections. That way my kids and I are not in as much danger driving around idiots. Don't you complainers ever think about the safety of others? Are you in such a hurry that you have to put others at risk? If you would have followed the law consistently in the first place the cameras wouldn't be there! You had the freedom to follow the law...you didn't...so now you lose that freedom....period.

If people didn't break the law and steal from stores...would they put cameras in? No. Same logic.

Quit complaining....quit coming up with bizaree hypotheticals about what if you had to stop on ice in a snow storm, at night, on a Tuesday, with bald foriegn tires....

...

Kooz,
My problem with them is that these cameras were never put in place to decrease accidents. They were put in place to increase revenues. Despite what Chief Navarre says, this is all about revenue creation. The best proof of this is found in the cities that actually decrease the amount of time the light remains yellow.

There's also the issue of whether or not the number of accidents actually decreases. In fact, Washington DC found that the number of accidents actually went UP. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR200510...

Another issue is that safety doesn't come at the expense of civil rights. Just because something improves safety (which they probably don't anyway) doesn't mean that we should support them.

The problem i have with them is for example, the one in northwood, getting a ticket for going 2 miles over, well thats ridiculous. The cops wont even pull you over for that one. other than that they dont bother me. There should be one put in at Miami and oregon road, right there by the hotel. Waiting to turn on Miami, you have to wait 3 seconds after the light turns green to make sure soomeone isn't going to come barreling through. Semi's just getting off or on the highway especially.

I don't disagree with what you say. But, if the byproduct is less accidents, what's the problem. And again, if you are doing what you're supposed to be doing, obeying the law, you can be sure your money will not be a source of revenue for the city.

It just sounds like you guys are mad because it will be harder for you to break the law. Your overlooking the basic priniple that if you follow the law you don't have to worry about it. Its like you can't see through the forest to see the trees.

Prior to the red light cameras, running a red light rewarded the law breaker far more often than not. This is especially true of the left turn lane. Enter the red light camera, and people are up in arms over imagined civil liberties violations. I'm betting the vast majority of these scofflaws wouldn't know a civil liberty if it grabbed their oil pan while they were doing 90 on I-75.

I agree with Kooz. You people are angry because you can't run red lights with impunity anymore.

on Glendale just before S. Detroit. It's nice that cop had nothing better to do than to snarl up traffic to pull me over & see what I was up to with my sunroof open on a lovely late summer afternoon.

It was my first since 1995. I paid the thing but MAN did it piss me off. Then I had a cop friend tell me I should have gone to court because that would have probably been dropped. It would have been lovely to get down to court but I think the judge would have frowned on my newborn and 3 other tots trailing behind.

gotoledogo says, "I seriously got stopped for going 5mph over." The point is you were still over! If a driver killed your family and was drinking but was only .02 over the legal limit, would you let him get away with saying, "Man, I was only .02 over when I hit and kille those people."

You guys still don't seem to understand what LIMIT means in Speed LIMIT!

Guest Zero: First of all, is it really necessary to cuss just because someone disagrees with you? Second, what in the world makes you think you have FREEDOM to break the law. If people like you really cared about your supposed freedom, you would be responsible with it and wouldnt' have had to been subjected to limitations such as cameras or speed limits. You and those like you from yesteryear couldn't handle your freedom and respect that you have a responsibility with it.

about most of your points. But there is a difference in doing something that only affects YOU and doing something that affects OTHERS as well.

You don't want to wear a helmet? Fine. Because its only going to be YOUR head that splatters if you have an accident. There shouldn't be a helmet law.

You want to eat whatever you want? I agree. If you want to get fat and be saturated with cholestorel, be my guest. Because your eating only affects YOU.

However, when you're "excercising your freedom" by speeding/running red lights, now you are putting me and my family in danger. Now you are putting OTHERS at risk because of your misunderstanding of freedom. Freedom doesn't mean do what ever the hell you want regardless of how it affects others. Surely, our Founding Fathers realized we should be responsible and considerate enough to think of others. I mean, why just not murder someone then with this logic? After all if laws don't mean anything what the hell's the point?

As far as smoking ban. I do think its stupid and unnecessary. However, if I were a smoker excercising my freedom, I would be conscience of my surroundings and would make sure I wasn't annoying OTHERS with MY smoke. However, most people are not considerate of others. Also, smoke until your hearts content, but don't come looking for emotional or finacial help when you need cancer treatments either. I worked with a lady who always preached about personal rights and how bad big brother was. Then, her mother was diagnosed with lung cancer, she smoked for 50 years. Then, the lady complained about how the government didn't warn smokers thirty and forty years ago, she blamed Hollywood for glamorizing it, she blamed doctors for not catching the cancer earlier, she filed a lawsuit against ALL the tobacco makers. So, much for personal responsibilty.

I'm often amazed at how much I hear the words I and Me when discussing these types of topics. Maybe if ya'll would have been more considerate of others, they wouldn't have got all pissed of and made it illegal for you to do such things.

On your stellar driving record.

By the way. I fought in the first Gulf War. A couple years ago my brother won the Bronze Medal of Valor for his actions in Iraq. My Dad was a medic in Vietnmam and my Grandfather served 30 years in the Navy including extensive action in WWII.

However, I have never heard them say or ever give an inkling that they think they can break laws because they wore a uniform. Thanks for serving our country GuestZero.

You are responsible for controlling your car. No one else, just you, the driver. You must adjust for road conditions, traffic and bad drivers. Therefore, when you get your portrait taken while speeding or running a red light, you are responsible. Maybe you're negligent, maybe not, but it really doesn't matter.

As for the rest of the arguments, I know the government doesn't care about traffic fatalities. If it did, about half the people on the road today would be driving without a license. That's not the case. Frankly, I don't care about the motivation. What I care about is results, and what I see is that when the light turns green, the intersection is clear far more often than before we had the red light cameras at Secor and Monroe.

And, Kooz? Why do you keep citing guestzero, who hasn't posted anything?