Â
Yesterday a group of who watch Sioux Falls city government closely had lunch to compare notes and fellowship. We all kind of have our pet areas we watch.
Â
I found out yesterday that the Event Center Task force still meets, and they have put NOTHING on hold. They still intend to push the legislature for a tax increase in 2010 to help build the Event Center. They also have decided on a location. They want to tear down Howard Wood and build it there, it is believed that Darin Daby from the School Board is on board with the idea.
Â
Anyhoo . . .
Â
The discussion switched gears to the red light cameras (something I am opposed to) when one guy in our group mentioned he challenged his ticket since he was a member of a national motorists club (they also oppose the cameras to). It all started after he got his ticket and contacted them. They provided him with a form so he could see if the cameras and lights were timed correctly, they were not. Something he brought up in his hearing. Also in his hearing the city engineer could not answer the timing question and the reason they gave why the cameras were put in was because of a lady being killed in that intersection. His response to them made total sense, “So the rest of us citizens are being punished for what one person did?†You can thank the Argus Leader for their media blitz about the death (she was an employee). Though her death is tragic, and no disrespect is meant by me saying this, he is correct in his response. The person who was responsible for her death had their day in court and received punishment for the crime, so why are the rest of us being punished for it? After he told us the story, a fellow city-watcher was invited over to tell us about his class-action against the city for his ticket. He is the first person out of 19,000 tickets issued to sue the city over his ticket, and he has a good chance of winning.
Â
Here’s some ‘Fun Facts’ about the camera that the public has NO clue about
Â
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Most motorist clubs oppose the cameras because they are deceptive. There is several lawsuits across the country challenging the cameras. The states usually lose and take the camera’s down. In Michigan they were forced to give the money to education, and once the state realized they were not getting a cut anymore, they took them down.
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â South Dakota State law states you can turn right on red as long as you stop first and yield. The city has NO authority to dictate that at any intersection.
–         The camera’s are timed to the nano-second and take the picture of the offender before they are supposed to. Motorist clubs have proven when cameras are timed this way, it caused the city to collect 50% more tickets and actually causes 50% more accidents. I guess people have seen city workers timing the cameras in the middle of the night (1 AM – 2 AM). If they are not doing anything deceptive, why do they do it in the dark of night?
–         If you get a camera ticket at the intersection it is a ‘civil’ offense, not a ‘criminal’ offense, because for it in order to be criminal, a police officer has to write the ticket. If you don’t pay the ticket the worst that will happen is the city will sue you in small claims court and have a judgement against your credit. This is wrong, because the city should not be able to disrupt your credit because of a traffic violation.
–Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The independent counsel has a direct conflict of interest because they are hand selected by the city and they negotiate a fee they receive on every ticket that is paid. They basically are receiving a commission for everyone they get to pay the ticket.
If you are interested in joining the class-action, email me and I will give you the name of the lawyer representing it. Fb.art@sio.midco.net
These things are being taken down all over the country.
Just wait until someone blows through the light wearing a Dave Munson mask and photocopies of his license plates on their car while giving the camera the finger. We may see a change in policy.
I wondered why there were so many black helicopters flying over Sioux Falls yesterday!
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
I also forgot to include that motorist club studies have shown that commerce is lower in areas of towns that have the cameras because people avoid the intersections. Maybe that’s why the Argus’s subscriptions are down . . . I’m just saying.
Here are some other interesting facts about our very own red light camera.
A traffic study was conducted on our city’s major arteries in 2002. That study did various reports on many controlled intersections throghout the city. What the city did to make it look like this was a “needed” venture was raise the yellow times at the camera intersection from 3 to 3.5 seconds. Speed limits, accepted speed limits, and yellow times play a very important role in intersection safety. If the city had not raised the yellow times at 10th and Minnesota, that red light camera would be flashing all the time like a strobe light in the old Mocamba Club.
To understand what the city did and why, this is mandatory reading.
http://www.siouxfalls.org/Police/Patrol_Traffic/Red_light/docs/Analysis
The city of Sioux Falls is well aware of the safety improvements made by increasing the yellow times at the posted 30 mph 10th & Minnesota from 3 to 3.5 seconds. With that knowledge, why did the city not raise its yellow times from 3 to 3.5 seconds at all other 30 mph controlled intersections? Why did the city then LOWER yellow times from 4 to 3.5 and 3.6 seconds along the 35 & 40 mph 41st street?
Because they are crooked?
I love honesty l3wis. Exactly the answer I have been looking for in regards to big brother at 10th & Minnestoa for the past 5 years.
Short…yet to the point.
THANK YOU.
Wanna a good show – tune in online at 4 PM today on the city website and watch the info meeting. They are going to have the code enforcement audit report (remember the flow chart?) I expect a good grilling from Kermit.
The lights are all over real civilized nations with real senses of civic and personal responsibility. Frankly, I’d be happy if they were properly set and fired a Blackwater death ray into cars running the lights.
You make a great point, they are NOT civically responsible when they are ill-timed and giving tickets to people who are not guilty. It’s not a crime to drive thru a yellow light. I would be all for a cop sitting there a couple times a week handing out tickets to people actually violating the law, I just have a problem with a robot giving me a ticket.
Poly43 is that you?
I understand the frustration about the lights, but honestly if people aren’t running red lights they have nothing to be concerned about.
Frankly I wish they would put one up on the intersection of 41st and Louise while they are at it. I get a little tired of having to wait at a green light because three or four cars felt it was within their right to follow the leader through the intersection. If a nasty little fine is what it takes for people to respect the gigantic red glaring light above their heads, then bring it on.
Maybe I could be convinced if they were actually sending fines to innocent people on a regular basis, but the simple truth is they catch guilty people breaking the law and they work.
I understand the frustration about the lights, but honestly if people aren’t running red lights they have nothing to be concerned about.
The problem is that innocent people are being ticketed, and the cameras do no real good for public safety – quite the opposite.
Put a cop at the intersection one random day of every week, and you’ll see far fewer violations. You’ll also see far fewer accidents.
GoD is right. If something is criminal, it’s criminal. A Police officer should be writing the tickets. Not only is it safer and makes it a criminal offense it stops the debate about constitutionality and what is ‘criminal’ and what is ‘civil’, I agree, I hate red light runners. I try to look both ways before entering an intersection because of it. But with the cameras, there is room for abuse by the city.
The problem is that innocent people are being ticketed, and the cameras do no real good for public safety – quite the opposite.
Innocent people? The way I understand it, not only is there photographic evidence showing a red light and the position of the vehicle, but there is also several seconds of video that can show in real time exactly what happened.
I fail to see how innocent people are being ticketed here. I’m not suggesting the system is 100% foolproof, but surely the evidence could be examined and the ticket tossed out if there is doubt. The only people I have heard of fighting their tickets aren’t innocent, but they have excuses such as “I wasn’t driving”. I still fail to see how that makes them innocent.
As far as public safety, I think it is a wash both ways. People who are anti-red light camera cite statistics showing an increase in accidents in those intersectons, and those who are pro red light camera site the fact that fewer pedestrians are injured etc.
I’m not sure I have ever seen what I could consider an unbiased report on the matter, but I can tell you from the people I know and for myself personally I am extra aware of that light and that intersection. If I note the countdown timer on the walk signal is single digits I determine if I can make the intersection or not – even before the light turns yellow. I also have noted that people are much less likely to block that intersection during peak traffic times like they used to, and I attribute that to the cameras as they don’t want to get slapped with a hefty fine.
If anyone remembers their history you would know they used to put a motorcycle cop at that intersection on a regular basis (back when there was a Sinclair on the one corner) and they wrote a lot of tickets. However, when the cop isn’t there people continue to run red lights – just look at any other intersection in town (especially those near the mall) and you can witness it for yourself.
It simply isn’t cost effective to staff police officers at every intersection hoping people will take note of him and not run a light, because human nature dictates people only abide by the law if they know they might get caught, and thus when the cop is gone – so are the good driving habits.
Talk about safety all you wish, but I haven’t seen anyone killed since the cameras went up nor have I heard of an increase in accidents at that intersection.
Sorry, I would prefer a law officer hand me a ticket, not a robot.
“I wasn’t drivingâ€. I still fail to see how that makes them innocent?”
Uh, because they weren’t driving . . .
“It simply isn’t cost effective to staff police officers at every intersection hoping people will take note of him and not run a light”
Actually it is cheaper than the cameras.
“Talk about safety all you wish, but I haven’t seen anyone killed since the cameras went up nor have I heard of an increase in accidents at that intersection.”
And that’s just it. It was ONE accident and the Argus Leader crying about it that caused this. It is like I said in the post. Why should the rest of us be put under scruntiny for what one person did? Ever heard of civil liberties? The red light cameras assume everyone driving thru the intersection is guilty until proven innocent, that isn’t how due process works.
So if you are in favor of them staying up, would you be for the revenue going towards the schools or towards a charity like the food pantry? Why not?
>>> “I wasn’t drivingâ€. I still fail to see how that makes them innocent?â€
Uh, because they weren’t driving . . .<<>>>“It simply isn’t cost effective to staff police officers at every intersection hoping people will take note of him and not run a lightâ€
Actually it is cheaper than the cameras.<<<>>> “Talk about safety all you wish, but I haven’t seen anyone killed since the cameras went up nor have I heard of an increase in accidents at that intersection.â€
And that’s just it. It was ONE accident and the Argus Leader crying about it that caused this. It is like I said in the post. Why should the rest of us be put under scruntiny for what one person did? Ever heard of civil liberties? The red light cameras assume everyone driving thru the intersection is guilty until proven innocent, that isn’t how due process works.<<<>>> So if you are in favor of them staying up, would you be for the revenue going towards the schools or towards a charity like the food pantry? Why not? <<<<
I wouldn’t have a problem with that revenue going towards an education fund, but I’m not naive enough to believe it would make a difference. If we earmark funds towards education, you know our politicians would find a way to take money out of education somewhere else, so at the end of the day it is a moot point.
I would not condone diverting the funds towards a charity however, because that would be impossible to manage without someone crying foul about how charity A gets the money while charity B does not.
The easiest and most logical use for the revenue would be to put it in the general fund, because in theory the amount of tickets should continue to decrease and thus nobody would be dependent upon others making mistakes as their source of revenue.
Apparently my attempt to quote your post and include my responses failed on an epic level…let me try this again.
Actually it is cheaper than the cameras.
Where are you getting your information to make this claim? From what I understand the cameras were part of a contract and didn’t cost the city a dime, so provided they continue to let that AZ company maintain them the only thing the city pays for is the electricity to run the things.
Now think about what it takes to have a cop at that intersection for the same 24 hour period. First of all it takes a salary, it takes benefits, it takes a vehicle, it takes gas, insurance, etc, etc. All of that and you only have the intersection covered for one shift a day. It takes three officers to cover it for 24 hours, and that doesn’t even include the weekend shifts (unless you wish to pay each of them 16 hours a of overtime every week).
Thus, with cameras it might cost a few hundred dollars of electricity a year. With officers it would cost hundreds of thousands. I fail to see how officers would be “cheaper”.
And that’s just it. It was ONE accident and the Argus Leader crying about it that caused this. It is like I said in the post. Why should the rest of us be put under scruntiny for what one person did? Ever heard of civil liberties? The red light cameras assume everyone driving thru the intersection is guilty until proven innocent, that isn’t how due process works.
Actually there have been a few vehicle-pedestrian accidents at that location, but the one where a woman died is what set off the powderkeg. I’ll admit the Argus focused on this because it was one of theirs, and that is likely why that intersection was selected.
However the way I understood it, if the cameras were found to be effective they would potentially be installed elsewhere (41st and Louise anyone?).
As to your comment about civil liberties or due process, that is insane. The cameras don’t take pictures of everyone, they only take pictures of those who set off the camera due to a violation. To suggest they feel everyone is guilty is like suggesting everyone who withdraws money from an ATM is a thief because the little CCTV camera is recording their every move.
Besides, the way I understand it even after the cameras snap a picture, it still takes a human to verify a violation exists. Then after all of that a person can still appeal the ticket and have their day in court, so how exactly is this a violation of civil liberties?
I don’t recall a clause in the Constitution that said people couldn’t be photographed.
Lets just all admit the real reason people don’t like these cameras. It isn’t about cost effectiveness, it isn’t about human vs. machine, it isn’t about safety, and it isn’t about civil liberties. The real reason people don’t like them is because they feel big brother is always watching.
Face it, if they came out next week and said they were putting up speed trap cameras you would have the same excuses why they are a bad idea, but if you boil it down it all comes back to the big brother argument. We as humans simply want some flexibility and we get uncomfortable knowing our every move is being watched, recorded, and scrutinized.
I even struggle with it personally, but I am convinced the cameras do more good than harm, and that is why I don’t have a problem with them. I’m not sure they will save any lives, but if they force people to be a little more respectful of what a yellow light means and prevents people from running lights because they are in a hurry – then as far as I’m concerned they are working as designed.
Did you know they CAN install an additional camera that takes a picture of the driver, but they won’t because than that would create more work in prosecution? It’s easier to prosecute the vehicle instead of the person.
Due process is simple, you are innocent until proven guilty, and if the camera’s are not taking pictures of the offender how are they proving anyone is guilty?
Did you know they CAN install an additional camera that takes a picture of the driver, but they won’t because than that would create more work in prosecution? It’s easier to prosecute the vehicle instead of the person.
It boils down to the law. The reason red light cameras have been removed in some areas is because they were sending tickets to people that were impacting driving records, but if someone wears a mask or pulls their hair in front of their face or is bending down to read some Cheetos they dropped on the passenger seat, a picture wouldn’t be sufficient “evidence”.
In this case, they opted to make them civil penalties against the owner of the vehicle rather than a driving penalty, so why bother with capturing the face of the driver? That just confuses issues and requires people to be experts so they can compare a photograph to a real person.
Due process is simple, you are innocent until proven guilty, and if the camera’s are not taking pictures of the offender how are they proving anyone is guilty?
It isn’t a criminal issue so there is no true “guilt” (in respect to a driver) involved in the eyes of the law. There is a civil penalty (a fine) against the vehicle in the same exact way you get parking tickets.
Are you suggesting we require parking enforcement officers wait by cars that are parked illegally so they can snap a photo of the driver when they get back in?
Why not – you seem to be asking for the same thing for the red light cameras?
Article in the 3/2/09 USA Today: Reflex is the camera company, 220 contracts in 22 states. It was 26 states. They boast Sioux Falls as smallest market. Per net detective, management at Reflex is questionable. Arizona was 100% for cameras but that’s changing. Camerafraud.com can’t print petitions fast enough.
If anyone has out of state plates, run the light with 4 moon sides smiling so it can be posted here.
Pingback: The buck stops where? » South DaCola