-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Iowa's Supreme Court Hears Dispute Over $75 Speeding Ticket
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
Walter White Walker
Member
I hope she wins. Screw those cameras.
WaterAstro
Member
I hope she loses and everyone in the world isn't allowed to drive anymore.
Lil'DigiOp
Member
I mean that's a damn valid point actually....
Is it lawful for the police to contract a part of their job to a private company!?
What stops them from hiring other companies to do full traffic stops and issue tickets?
Is it lawful for the police to contract a part of their job to a private company!?
What stops them from hiring other companies to do full traffic stops and issue tickets?
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
The cameras here are bullshit.
Skellig Gra
Member
I never thought of it that way but damn if that isnt some stone cold truth she is spitting.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
I fear that the court will decide that is ok, which seems like a horrible thing.
So, if I am reading this right, she has three main arguments
* The police can not outsource their powers to non-government entities
* The system favors certain vehicles over other, which violates equal protection
* A city does not have the authority to levy local fines on federally owned roads
* The police can not outsource their powers to non-government entities
* The system favors certain vehicles over other, which violates equal protection
* A city does not have the authority to levy local fines on federally owned roads
Princess Carl
Member
whyamihere
Banned
This would be a great Good Wife episode.
I feel like she is right on all three points but this affects the state's budget so I am sure she will lose anyways.
Yeah, sounds like she has a case here.
shnurgleton
Member
Interesting. Would like a national reconsideration of privatization in the world of law enforcement too.
B_Spooky13
Member
I get this reference lol
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Like, sure, the police have a private corp run the cameras. In all fairness, this is just a person who's found a clever way to excuse their speeding.
Oh man, now I'm picturing this and I really want it.
The really screwed up thing with these outsourced traffic camera systems is that the private companies get a share of the ticket revenue, so on some level they are incentivized to find ways to maximize tickets, and they're far less accountable to the public.
Fewer paying Cedar Rapids traffic camera tickets
Fewer paying Cedar Rapids traffic camera tickets
another one that she could bring up
a right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action.
I think that slippery slope argument runs in both directions. It seems horribly inefficient to never allow police to contract out work, particularly when related to technology. For instance, if the police need to recover data on a damaged hard drive, it seems much better that they should contract this work out to a licensed third party rather than employing their own technicians and operating their own clean rooms.
She has a really nuanced case, but I feel like her assertion that she wasn't speeding will kill it. Does the difference between 13 over and 11 over matter when you're way over already, or did the company exclusively have a right to ticket anyone 12 over? Unless she has documented evidence of her recording a speed of less than 12 over at the time, she shouldn't have a case for wrongful ticketing which would prevent her from having standing to file the lawsuit. But since the case has made it this far, it must have merit. Hopefully she wins, these privatized solutions are scummy and rife with corruption
Red light cameras are much more problematic than speeding cameras because they change driver behavior in a way that is unpredictable and unsafe, leading to lots of rear-end collisions that put everyone involved at more risk than they would be if there were no cameras there. While speeding tickets might be more annoying and frivolous, they don't actively cause harm like many red light cameras do.
Red light cameras are much more problematic than speeding cameras because they change driver behavior in a way that is unpredictable and unsafe, leading to lots of rear-end collisions that put everyone involved at more risk than they would be if there were no cameras there. While speeding tickets might be more annoying and frivolous, they don't actively cause harm like many red light cameras do.
StarCreator
Member
Speed cameras cause the same sort of problems red light cameras do when they're not well hidden. The same type of driver that slams their brakes for a traffic intersection with a red light camera is also going to slam their brakes for a speed camera.
I would buy that a speed camera is less likely to cause a collision, but many areas I've seen speed cameras implemented have has greater traffic build up in that area to the point that the camera rarely ever fires because everyone is stopped or going half the speed limit.
Leatherface
Member
I'm all about fuck those cameras! I'm rooting for you Maria Leaf!
I disagree about the speed cameras not causing harm. I have seen very similar behavior from drivers when dealing with them. I drove through the 10, I forget where, but in one city speed cameras were clearly set up in known areas because the drivers kept speeding like crazy, then slamming on their brakes as they approached the cameras, and then speeding again once past them. It was weird and dangerous.
Also, to your first point, if the camera doesn't have multiple time stamped shots showing distance traveled over time, thereby establishing an idea for the speed she was going, what is it really showing? Even if it did that, previous cases have been brought up where there were "bugs" in the system that falsely triggered the cameras. A red light camera was found to be ticketing half a second earlier than it was supposed to. And as others have brought up, who do you even argue with in all this? It's not as if defendants have access to the source code at the time of the ticket to point out any possible flaws in the system.
Whole thing's such a mess....
streetsahead123
Banned
Im a lifelong Iowan and these cameras suck and are EVERYWHERE in the bigger cities
Without any understanding of the relevant laws, all three of those strike me as entirely reasonable objections. The first one is frankly scary as hell as it's another tendril of the for-profit policing system that extends right through to private prisons. Fuck those cameras on those grounds alone.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this assertion. What is more unpredictable and unsafe? A driver slamming on their brakes for a red light or a driver blowing through a red light? Cross traffic expects that their green light means go and there is a much bigger danger of side swiping if someone runs a red light. Even if someone slams on their brakes for a red light, the car behind them should already be coming to a stop because the light was yellow or already red. There is no good excuse for running a red light. It's horribly unsafe.
FrankCanada97
Roughly the size of a baaaaaarge
Studies have shown that speed cameras are effective in reducing accidents on roadways. They shouldn't be handled by private companies though.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1418848&page=1
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1418848&page=1
ThreePiMatt
Member
The interstate highways are no longer federally owned, they're owned and maintained by the state they are built in, so her last point doesn't really hold water. Don't really disagree with the first two points, however.
Why do Americans hate speed cameras? Because they don't allow you to violate the speeding limits that were clearly put into place for a reason?
I do wonder what the role of this private company is though. Is it just there to provide the technology and infrastructure? Or are they the ones sending the speeding tickets? We can't expect the police to R&D their own technology all the time, many things are off-handed to private companies and as long as they are under proper government control there shouldn't be a problem. If they are acting on sole behaviour she might have a case though. Maybe it doesn't give tickets to those other types of vehicles because of the difficulty of scanning the plates? That should get fixed though, that I can agree with.
And going 13 mph over and claiming you weren't speeding seems a bit silly. Even taking into account measurements errors you would still be going at least 10mph over. That's way too much for a 55 zone.
I do wonder what the role of this private company is though. Is it just there to provide the technology and infrastructure? Or are they the ones sending the speeding tickets? We can't expect the police to R&D their own technology all the time, many things are off-handed to private companies and as long as they are under proper government control there shouldn't be a problem. If they are acting on sole behaviour she might have a case though. Maybe it doesn't give tickets to those other types of vehicles because of the difficulty of scanning the plates? That should get fixed though, that I can agree with.
And going 13 mph over and claiming you weren't speeding seems a bit silly. Even taking into account measurements errors you would still be going at least 10mph over. That's way too much for a 55 zone.
StarCreator
Member
The company owns and operates the cameras and receives a portion of all ticket fine revenue in return.
My mother works for the DOT of her state and is responsible for speedchecks. Often, speeds are set against her professional advice and 25+ years of experience due to local politics, including the desire for more local revenue from speed traps.
It's bullshit and she hates it.
I think it's more that the speeding laws have traditionally been enforced in arbitrary and inconsistent ways.
Personally I think that if they're going to have cameras they need to have them everywhere, otherwise it is just a trap for people who are unaware of the cameras' existence because on most roadways this speeding laws are not enforced in any consistent way.
StarCreator
Member
Yeah, nearly every speed camera installation where I live was accompanied by the speed limit dropping 10-15mph inexplicably. It took nearly ten years of construction to add lanes to fix bumper to bumper traffic every morning, and the speed camera brought all the traffic back overnight.
Lil'DigiOp
Member
Yeah somebody got a deal with the city and got their ass scratched
Squirrel Killer
Member
The reason they were initially set at 55 mph was due to the 1970's fuel crisis and kept there because they became a revenue source.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I've found a kindred spirit
this
Small town america lives and thrives by its absurd ticket revenue purely for this reason. It's also why cops in the US drive nearly invisible cars to help obscure them vs their european counterparts.
Actually on the road essentially no one drives the speed "limit" because it's entirely unenforceable. I've even been road raged by a cop before for only going ten over on a freeway in the middle lane, lol
Wafflecakes
Member
Eh... the 55 is pretty irrelevant overall.
The freeway I live next to has a speed limit of 80, and people just go 95.
Yeah, these actually sound like reasonable arguments.
She might not win, but it'll be interesting either way.
StarCreator
Member
This is not the norm everywhere in the US. In Maryland we only just got our first speed limit of 70 in the last 2 or 3 years, and it's still only on a 20 or so mile stretch of I-70. Everything else is 55 with the occasional 65.
Basileus777
Member
Speed cameras are indeed arbitrary and a bullshit way to raise revenue that has nothing to do with public safety.
That reason is to raise money. In the US speed limits aren't actually the maximum safe driving speed for a given road, but arbitrary numbers chosen to raise revenue. Just driving with the flow of traffic will have you speeding on many roads because the actual limit is just a number no one follows.
Similar threads
- Locked