New Orleans Traffic Camera - Turning Right on Red

[TenTwo]

Originally Posted by Wolbrat

I find it amazing that the city can't get the crime cameras working well enough to solve murders happening in front of them but the traffic cameras can detect me going 35.5 mph a block away.

I think if you look at it from a big picture standpoint, these traffic camaras actually help. We, as citizens, are being conditioned to believe and understand that if we break the law, we will be caught even if no one is there to catch us. If the goal is to turn around crime in NOLA, this is exactly where I would start. I would not give a crap about collecting. I just want to be in your head. I want the level of criminal paranoia at an absolute high. Any money we collect is bonus.



signed,

Devil's Advocate

[Brennan77]

Originally Posted by TenTwo

I think if you look at it from a big picture standpoint, these traffic camaras actually help. We, as citizens, are being conditioned to believe and understand that if we break the law, we will be caught even if no one is there to catch us. If the goal is to turn around crime in NOLA, this is exactly where I would start. I would not give a crap about collecting. I just want to be in your head. I want the level of criminal paranoia at an absolute high. Any money we collect is bonus.



signed,

Devil's Advocate

The traffic cameras do nothing to deter crime. If you wanted to have a big brother effect with criminals, let's get the actual crime cameras functioning. It's not like I was on my way to execute a drive by, but thought twice about it because I got a letter saying I made an illegal right turn on red. These cameras only confirm that the city government (and community indirectly) do not care about the people in crime ridden neighborhoods. What we care about is collecting money from those that will pay it.

[GhostFace]

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/...amera_pro.html
New Orleans traffic camera program violates city charter, judge rules

WWL-TV is reporting that an Orleans Civil District Court judge has issued a preliminary injunction against New Orleans' traffic camera program.
Chris Granger / The Times-Picayune archiveOne of four red light traffic cameras at the intersection of Claiborne and Earhart avenues.
Judge Paulette Irons ruled Friday morning that the program violates the city's charter. She also ruled that tickets issued after her ruling would be null and void.
580Share

76 Comments



Plaintiffs successfully argued that the program violates the charter by placing it under the Department of Public Works instead of the police department.
This is not the first ruling against the program. In March Civil District Court judge Kern Reese ruled in favor of Metairie lawyer Joseph McMahon III, who received a ticket in October 2008 for not making a complete stop before turning right at a red light.
After a hearing officer found him guilty, McMahon filed suit. He argued, and Reese agreed, that neither his ticket nor the supporting photographs were valid because no actual, named person stipulated that he or she witnessed McMahon commit a violation or properly authenticated the photos.

[TenTwo]

Originally Posted by Brennan77

The traffic cameras do nothing to deter crime. If you wanted to have a big brother effect with criminals, let's get the actual crime cameras functioning. It's not like I was on my way to execute a drive by, but thought twice about it because I got a letter saying I made an illegal right turn on red. These cameras only confirm that the city government (and community indirectly) do not care about the people in crime ridden neighborhoods. What we care about is collecting money from those that will pay it.

So you're telling me that not stopping before making a right on red is not a crime? Or are you saying that these camara's do not make you think twice before executing a legal right on red? Cause you're telling me on of those things in your first sentence.

Since we don't get to pick and choose which laws we want to abide by, and most people understand this, I'll assume you meant the latter. And if you're telling me that you aren't more aware your right on red actions whenever this comes up in your daily driving, I don't believe you.

I have no problem with people getting angry over getting a ticket from a camera. It is extremely annoying and I've gotten them myself; that said, if you get caught speeding or doing a rolling stop through a stop sign/red light due to complacency, don't cry about it when you get caught. Just own up and pay your due...but don't complain that the police are enforcing the wrong laws because they caught you breaking the ones you choose to break.

Using traffic cameras is an obvious way to clear up police officers' time to focus on the more serious crimes, which totally debunks your wildly off base emotional response of "These cameras only confirm that the city government (and community indirectly) do not care about the people in crime ridden neighborhoods. What we care about is collecting money from those that will pay it."

[Brennan77]

Originally Posted by TenTwo

So you're telling me that not stopping before making a right on red is not a crime? Or are you saying that these camara's do not make you think twice before executing a legal right on red? Cause you're telling me on of those things in your first sentence.

Since we don't get to pick and choose which laws we want to abide by, and most people understand this, I'll assume you meant the latter. And if you're telling me that you aren't more aware your right on red actions whenever this comes up in your daily driving, I don't believe you.

I have no problem with people getting angry over getting a ticket from a camera. It is extremely annoying and I've gotten them myself; that said, if you get caught speeding or doing a rolling stop through a stop sign/red light due to complacency, don't cry about it when you get caught. Just own up and pay your due...but don't complain that the police are enforcing the wrong laws because they caught you breaking the ones you choose to break.

Using traffic cameras is an obvious way to clear up police officers' time to focus on the more serious crimes, which totally debunks your wildly off base emotional response of "These cameras only confirm that the city government (and community indirectly) do not care about the people in crime ridden neighborhoods. What we care about is collecting money from those that will pay it."

No, it's not a crime. Nor does the law say it is.

[Brennan77]

It's the double standard that bothers me. No one in their right mind thinks for a moment that these cameras are actually about safety. It's about money. If local officials put half the effort they have put into these cameras into basic services such as an efficient running DMV, I wouldn't feel so cheated. This is about money, plain and simple. The collection and managing authority is a company based in Arizona, for Pete's sake! (sorry pete) I consider myself a safe driver. I'm by no means trying to get away with breaking traffic laws. But I don't appreciate the manner in which the city government is taxing me. That's what I consider this to be: an underhanded, unethical tax.

[FullMonte]

Originally Posted by Brennan77

It's the double standard that bothers me. No one in their right mind thinks for a moment that these cameras are actually about safety. It's about money.

If anyone doubts this....check out this article:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3279.asp

After Judge Irons made her ruling the city appealed the decision...Was their appeal because they knew of a law that allowed it? Not quite..

"Without the nearly $15 million in expected revenue from this source for next year and the remaining $5 million in anticipated fines for 2010, this decision, if upheld, will impact essential city services and could result in layoffs and the closing of city facilities," City Attorney Nannette Jolivette-Brown said in a statement.

[TenTwo]

Originally Posted by Brennan77

No, it's not a crime. Nor does the law say it is.

Did you really just say that it is legal to run a red light?

[Det. Brees]

yes he did!

[tjharris]

Originally Posted by TenTwo

Using traffic cameras is an obvious way to clear up police officers' time to focus on the more serious crimes, which totally debunks your wildly off base emotional response of "These cameras only confirm that the city government (and community indirectly) do not care about the people in crime ridden neighborhoods. What we care about is collecting money from those that will pay it."

Do you expect NOPD to retrain there traffic cops to work homicide?
OR Do you think NOPD will lay off traffic cops?

[Brennan77]

Originally Posted by TenTwo

Did you really just say that it is legal to run a red light?

No. I said it's not a criminal act. It's a moving traffic violation. There's a big difference. And in the case of the traffic cameras, it magically becomes something else altogether as it's not an actual ticket and cannot be enforced against your driving record. Yet they do in fact want you to pay a fine. And FWIW, I have never been in an accident that I caused. I've had exactly one speeding ticket for going 9 over the speed limit. I'm not exactly a reckless driver. But I am passionate about principles. And this is wrong.


EDIT: This is a PERFECT example of what is wrong with politics and policy, especially in Louisiana. They aren't even trying to hide the fact that this is about money. When threatened, the politicians are not worried about the impending doom at the traffic lights. No, they are worried about the lost revenues which have already been budgeted.

[FullMonte]

Originally Posted by Brennan77

No. I said it's not a criminal act. It's a moving traffic violation. There's a big difference.

I'm not sure what the difference is. The dictionary defines a "crime" as:

an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

Running a redligh has been deemed injurious to the public welfare (as it can cause traffic accidents or injuries), and it is legally prohibited.

The fact that you don't typically face jail time or probation for doing it doesn't make it a non-criminal activity.

And in the case of the traffic cameras, it magically becomes something else altogether as it's not an actual ticket and cannot be enforced against your driving record.

So true, and that's the big problem with them. If the city wants to run the system, and treat it like any other ticket, I'm all for it.

[Brennan77]

Originally Posted by FullMonte

I'm not sure what the difference is. The dictionary defines a "crime" as:



Running a redligh has been deemed injurious to the public welfare (as it can cause traffic accidents or injuries), and it is legally prohibited.

The fact that you don't typically face jail time or probation for doing it doesn't make it a non-criminal activity.




So true, and that's the big problem with them. If the city wants to run the system, and treat it like any other ticket, I'm all for it.

I'm not an expert on the matter. It's my understanding that a moving violation is not handled by the criminal court. I guess it's semantics.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Brennan77

It's the double standard that bothers me. No one in their right mind thinks for a moment that these cameras are actually about safety. It's about money. If local officials put half the effort they have put into these cameras into basic services such as an efficient running DMV, I wouldn't feel so cheated. This is about money, plain and simple. The collection and managing authority is a company based in Arizona, for Pete's sake! (sorry pete) I consider myself a safe driver. I'm by no means trying to get away with breaking traffic laws. But I don't appreciate the manner in which the city government is taxing me. That's what I consider this to be: an underhanded, unethical tax.

It it was about safety, the fine for running a red lite would be $3500.

You wouldn't need cameras, and the problem would probably stop literally over night.

But it wouldn't generate revenue, because nobody would ever run a red light.

[Yatman]

Do the cameras in NO also photograph who's driving at the time of infraction?

If not—if it's just a tag photo—I don't understand how a car can be cited for something a driver did. And that driver might not be the car's owner.

If one can prove someone else was at the helm, does that negate the fine?