These cameras are revenue enhancers for the cities. They are taxation under the guise of “safety”. You receive the citation from a private company in the mail eleven to twelve days after the the incident, and can’t even remember if you were out driving that day.
When a policeman pulls you over at the time of the incident, you know you screwed up, as well you know why, and that contributes to safety. Notification almost two weeks after the fact contributes to nothing but the coffers of the city.
Photo cameras are simply for the purpose of enhancing the bank account of the city, not for any other stated reason. The private company makes the BIG bucks, and the city makes the BIG bucks.
I’d rather know at the time I screwed up so I can know for a fact that I did, and without a doubt.
Yes one of those red light cameras tagged me several years ago alleging I didn’t stop at a red light prior to making a right turn costing us $500.00, and it was obvious to me that the camera could have been faulty in its capture, but the citation I received in the mail almost two weeks after the alleged incident told me it was going to cost me an additional $300.00 for court costs if I lost the case. Intimidation by threatening my bank account to dissuade me from going to court. After heated discussion (I wanted to take it to court) my wife paid the citation, and later we found for a few dollars we could have had a professional service (YES! Someone is making money at getting victims of these cameras out of paying these outrageous fines, and doing it inexpensively) get us off the hook with some manuevering of law we aren’t aware of.
These damned cameras are everywhere, and they are nothing but revenue enhancement for the cities.
The main thing is that their use introduces admiralty law, which is pre-Revolutionary (and therefore British Crown law) into traffic enforcement, thus changing the rules of criminal law to give camera-trap owner-jurisdictions easy convictions and accused parties no chance to defend, since theoretically the automobile is the offending entity, and of course it has no "rights" -- and (this is good) its owner has no "standing" (where'd we hear that one lately -- oh, yeah, in the Obozo eligibility cases), at least until he's handed the (stiff, and rising) fine.
He doesn't get to defend, but he does get to pay.
The use of admiralty law effectively abrogates the BoR, and the municipalities typically take their decisions without public input (except for occasional "popoff" sessions which are held to placate the unwashed).
This is even before we get into the technical and procedural issues.
In Cedar Rapids, there is no question that drivers are much more likely to stop for red lights and they’ve slowed down on I-380, especially where the cameras are located.
The real problem I have is when the city leaders tell us they’re all about safety and not about revenue.
If that were truly the case, they wouldn’t budget the revenues. Instead, they’d return the camera revenues to city taxpayers, such as by lowering property tax rates.
At least Cedar Rapids hasn’t (yet) stooped to BONDING FUTURE REVENUES (borrowing money by selling municipal bonds on the promise that the camera income will pay bondholders back). I heard Sioux City is doing that.
The public would be much better served by having cameras installed in the offices and homes of politicians who support this idiocy.