ohdaho Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Not really worried on my bike since theres no way in hell those cams are going to be able to take pics of my plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSparky Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Not really worried on my bike since theres no way in hell those cams are going to be able to take pics of my plate.I usually don't like the whole hidden plate thing... But this is clearly enough reason for me to move mine. Dammit that seriously blows. I'm all up in the area. And on 35 everyday, but not where that camera is, luckily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienpi Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 They need a facial shot. Otherwise there's no way to prove it was you riding/driving.Who is going to be administering these "facial shots?" Seems a little extreme, but anything for the war on terror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I thought Dayton was a bunch of old blue hairs trying to get to their favorite frozen yogart stand. By the way, from what I have read, facial identification of the driver is NOT part of Ohio law for red light or speed cameras. Maybe California? Otherwise I'll get a President Obama mask, pull / cover my license plate and go speed around Dayton for a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSVDon Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 If the court can't see your face, how can they confirm it was you driving and speeding. This isn't a problem with real cops because they obviously come up and talk to you. If there's no good mug shot, there's no proof. This is why those cameras face both forward and back, that way you get your mug taken and the license plate at the same time. Bang, proof. That won't work so well with a tinted visor. Haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 If the court can't see your face, how can they confirm it was you driving and speeding. This isn't a problem with real cops because they obviously come up and talk to you. If there's no good mug shot, there's no proof. This is why those cameras face both forward and back, that way you get your mug taken and the license plate at the same time. Bang, proof. That won't work so well with a tinted visor. HahaObviously you still think your innocent until proven guilty. How quaint. Your car/bike, so the burden of proof in on you to prove it wasn't you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunseeker270 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 There is a fool-proof way to beat these cameras.... Don't run red lights. Every city throws a fit when these are installed and afterwards, nothing! It's basically a sin-tax. Easy way to generate money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienpi Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I suspect this system of speed/red-light cameras is the beginnings of a network for highway surveillance. This will be excellent for tracking all of the terrorists on our highways.http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2537.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Dammit that seriously blows. I'm all up in the area. And on 35 everyday, but not where that camera is, luckily. I used google maps and zoomed in to find them as well. Otherwise I'll get a President Obama mask, pull / cover my license plate and go speed around Dayton for a day. There is a fool-proof way to beat these cameras.... Don't run red lights. This is about the speed cameras man, not the red light cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunseeker270 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I used google maps and zoomed in to find them as well.This is about the speed cameras man, not the red light cameras.Whatever. Same applies. Don't speed. At least they warn you and tell you where they are placed (unlike a cruiser in a random location). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 As long as they don't install them on the dirt paths in SE Ohio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Whatever. Same applies. Don't speed. At least they warn you and tell you where they are placed (unlike a cruiser in a random location). speed limits are kept artificially low to generate revenue... so why should i obey an unjust law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorifto240 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) speed limits are kept artificially low to generate revenue... so why should i obey an unjust law?They have shown that as speed limits increase, the number of accidents does as well. There is a point to keeping speed limits low.From the article, this seems like a legitimate attempt to reduce accidents. It doesn't seem to be like speed cameras in Japan or England, where they're placed on freeways with the express purpose of generating revenue.Although I do wonder how they'll calculate the speed. There's nothing to stop them from using the algorithm that would yield the most "speeders" and then generate the most money for the city and the company. With no citizen watch group involved as a check and balance, this has the potential to be abused very easily.***To clear up the facial recognition/license plate issue. The ticket doesn't count as points against your license or insurance. It's merely a citation, because the cameras can't get a clear enough photo to make a positive ID every time. At least that's how WTTE and WSYX News explained the red light cameras, if I remember correctly. Edited February 11, 2011 by dorifto240 clarification Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mello dude Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) check out where the cameras are actually located too - the camera company stands to make a tidy sum from this.They're not dummies. The city may have final say as to where the cameras are located, but the camera company is always going to push for 3/4 of the way down a hill. big brother and capitalism; a match made in heaven? The thing that really gets me on this is that a for profit company is making money on a setup for people speeding. (- Hey I want that deal.) It just seems wrong and is a setup for a future law suit. If Dayton purchased the camera's and had a maintenence agreement that would be different, but with the current situation you have the camera company getting a kickback from a governent entity. That just doesnt set right by me. Any attorney want to take this one on? Edited February 11, 2011 by mello dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Whatever. Same applies. Don't speed. At least they warn you and tell you where they are placed (unlike a cruiser in a random location).I don't always stare at my speedometer in town; too much shit happening all around to be constantly looking at it. I normally always do 38 in 35, 44 in 40, etc. When I see the signs I will definitely be right at the posted limit, but this isn't the argument. The problem is that they shouldn't do stuff like this. One of the reasons they do things like this is because people just lay down and accept it because they believe everything the law does is correct; you for an example, because you're sticking up for it, like a follower. I'm not fighting with you, so don't take it that way, I'm just stating my opinion to you.The ticket doesn't count as points against your license or insurance. It's merely a citation, because the cameras can't get a clear enough photo to make a positive ID every time. At least that's how WTTE and WSYX News explained the red light cameras, if I remember correctly.That's a plus, because insurance and shit is the worst if it wasn't like this. I will probably never get one of these tickets, but I find them to be another way we citizens just sit back and take a fist up our asses and told to deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSVDon Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 They have shown that as speed limits increase, the number of accidents does as well. There is a point to keeping speed limits low.Where's the data to prove that? Does this mean all highways are deathtraps due to their higher speed limits? Maybe we should go back to the 55 mph rule?I love this article, especially the last line. Nothing like trying to veil a revenue maker as a safety program. Remember kids, it's for your own safety. Just like gun control, the illegality of marijuana, and all those other bad bad things out there. Speeding is terrorism as well you know!http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/14/20100714arizona-speed-cameras-stop-thursday14-ON.htmlHopefully Ohio isn't filled with more lemmings than AZ otherwise those cameras will be up for a long time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunseeker270 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I don't necessarily agree with it but you have to see them for what they are. Money generators for a hurting city. I grew up in Kettering and Dayton is a shell of it's former self. They are civil because the ORC says a uniformed officer must enforce traffic laws. If a "Follower" means that I stick up for it than that's not true. If that means that I will slow down in these posted areas like I do when I see a cruiser, than I am a follower. I refuse to put my hard earned money in a city coffer just to get somewhere quicker. Hopefully they get voted down after contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 More speeding means safer highways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 They have shown that as speed limits increase, the number of accidents does as well. There is a point to keeping speed limits low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorifto240 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Where's the data to prove that? Does this mean all highways are deathtraps due to their higher speed limits? Maybe we should go back to the 55 mph rule?Not deathtraps, but your odds of surviving a 55mph crash are greater than 65mph. And the odds of survival increase the slower you go. When was the last time two cars caused major damage to each other at 15mph?It's a corollary factor of course, accidents occur for a variety of reasons.Strictly speaking, speed doesn't kill. But it does enhance the likelihood of an accident when combined with other factors; like road condition, traffic congestion, distracted driving, cell phones, alcohol. etc etc etc.The problem isn't you or I or any good driver speeding, the problem is all the bad drivers speeding.I'll see your image, and raise you one from the same site:Looks interesting: average speed distribution, accumulation of speed, injury risk.Except if you read elsewhere on the site when they critique government speed studies, it says:They do not say how the average speed is measured. Almost certainly it will be done at certain specific points on the road by laying two temporary sensor tapes across the road. Since no road, even a motorway, has an identical spread of hazards along its entire length then a valid test of speed changes vs accidents can only be made within a very short distance of the test sensors themselves and not on the entire road.So where did their average speed data come from? And what is the actual speed that most drivers drive at? If you look at the accumulated speed and crash risk, there is a direct corollary between increasing speed and getting into an accident.The other side of the curve can be explained as well. Slower speeds tend to occur on higher trafficked roads. More cars means a chance for more accidents.Data:http://www.theautoinsurance.com/highway-speed-limits-the-rise-of-driving-accidents-in-america_2010-11-11/http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ods/stats/2006speedstudy.pdf Edited February 11, 2011 by dorifto240 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cattmouch33 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 thanks for the heads up. Don't drive by any of these normally but nice to know that they're coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 They are civil because the ORC says a uniformed officer must enforce traffic laws. plus there's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. They can hold you liable for a civil penalty with only "more likely than not" evidence. I think it's safe to say that it's "more likely than not" that the owner was driving the vehicle photographed, but it's certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Innocent until proven guilty. They should have to PROVE all alligations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohdaho Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I support the speed cameras in town. Speed cameras on a highway are pretty retarded though.Some of you guys fail at research design though. Highways vs city streets are completely different samples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Innocent until proven guilty. They should have to PROVE all alligationsonly for criminal offenses. In a civil case, there is no such thing as "guilty;" only "liable" or "negligent."If you're traveling faster than the posted speed limit, you are "negligent per-se." The speed limit is what defines reasonable behavior. Exceeding it by any amount, for any reason is automatically negligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.