I knew about red light cameras, but.....

[Tonik]

Yes, there are signs in Cleveland and when they move them they announce them in the local press. There is also a website somewhere that lists current locations.  And yea they law as changed to require a cop on location while in use....that gets them around the home rule law in Ohio.  It has the votes...they are just lying low until the election is over and will pass it all and sign it late in the year.  Same thing with the changes to CCW laws....after the election.

 

I have that info from a very reliable source.

[mello dude]

 

 - I mind that the CAMERA COMPANIES get a lot of the money, and the city gets almost nothing.  Law enforcement isn't supposed to be for private profit...

That is the aspect I despise the most. Being a civil complaint, it makes the camera company party to each violation. Now how the hell by any law, can a private company charge individuals for a traffic violation? That just pisses me off. 

 

(I want that gig)

Edited June 18, 2014 by mello dude

[just_some_dude]

The whole idea of citing someone for speeding is unconstitutional to begin with.

 

Beyond that, here is something I read on the good old Internet (could be real, could be fake) that some guy supposedly sent for his red light citation and supposedly the case was dropped (searched and found it here: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/effectively-beat-red-light-camera-ticket/):

 

To Whom it May Concern,

I received a letter claiming I committed a violation of a speeding law in the District of Columbia on 04/21/2012. As per the instructions, I am writing to plead ‘not guilty’ to this charge. Although this option is said to result in this matter going to court; it is my suggestion that the charges simply be dropped. This suggestion comes out of respect for tax payers, and my request that their hard earned money not be wasted in such proceedings. As there is no evidence of my involvement with this alleged ‘crime’, as well as the fact that I am not granted my 6th amendment right to face my ‘accuser’ (a camera); I see no way the government could prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I also see find no legal requirement for me to implicate someone else in this process, as it is the government’s responsibility to prove a person’s guilt. It is also my 5th amendment right to remain silent on the matter.

 

If it is the government’s decision to move forward in this matter, I would request copies of any evidence the prosecution may have of my involvement in the “offense”; as well as, all maintenance records for the camera(s) involved.

Sincerely,

Nathan Cox
United States Army Veteran

[baptizo]

The camera's aren't enforcing anything but are simply the lazy way to collect revenue, i.e., the government's way of doing business and promoting of tyranny of the purse (regardless of who gets the most $$$ out of it).  

[DAC]

How about just good old neighborhood self-enforcement? No revenue aspect needed.

Edited June 18, 2014 by DAC

[JackFlash]

How about just good old neighborhood self-enforcement?

 

I like the idea of the neighborhood getting together

and ripping the camera's down and destroying them.

 

.

[DAC]

Had something else in memory from the 60s and 70s. The dads on the street had quite effective ways of keeping order. No cameras were needed. Infractions were met with initially gentle, then increasingly more firm, uh, interactions.

[ScubaCinci]

This reminds me of that chain email that went around with a man that received a ticket along with an image of him speeding so he sent in an picture of the fine payment to which they promptly mailed him a picture of handcuffs. He paid the fine.