Friday 26th May 2006

US state to ban scameras?

Ohio looks set to banish speed cameras

---

We're not in Ohio any more

A US state could be about to ban speed cameras.

It seems that Ohio's state Senate committee has passed legislation that would, effectively, both ban speed cameras and impose severe restrictions on the use of red light cameras.

The new law, if passed by the whole state Senate, states that there must be a police officer present to witness the alleged violation before any legal action can be brought against a driver. What's more camera operators won't get any cut of the penalty fines raised by their fell devices. And the bill bans the use of photos as a means of establishing guilt, a change that will boost the cost of issuing tickets considerably, because the police would have to do it instead.

• More here

[droptheclutch]

and the chance of that happening here?

[MarkoTVR]

"Our survey said........UHHH URRRRRRRR!"

[r988]

droptheclutch said:

and the chance of that happening here?

-67%

[wackydo]

So the big questions is, "Why is this happening in the USA?"

What is it that legislators there seem to understand that is not understood in the UK?

[zumbruk]

They're already banned (or at least, not used) in several other States. In California, the State Supreme Court decided that they violated the State Constitution on provision of evidence. In Texas, they proved not to be very resistant to high velocity rifle fire.

[dean_ratpac]

zumbruk said:

In Texas, they proved not to be very resistant to high velocity rifle fire

[smeggy]

wackydo said:

So the big questions is, "Why is this happening in the USA?" What is it that legislators there seem to understand that is not understood in the UK?

The UK government were sold a duffer by the technology suppliers over a decade ago. Since then people have been highlighting the flaws in the arguments used for the justification of the policy (RTTM, bias on selection) but our government are keen to save face by refusing to accept they were fooled by the flawed arguments, hence their policy continues. US states don't yet have these cameras but they are already up to speed (hehe) with the flaws within the arguments for, hence they are free to reject it.

[rodney59]

r988 said:

droptheclutch said: and the chance of that happening here? -67%

Is that a scamera pratnership stat?

[stace3610]

wackydo said:

So the big questions is, "Why is this happening in the USA?" What is it that legislators there seem to understand that is not understood in the UK?

Probably for the same reason that London has 30,000 CCTV cameras and New York has 30 (which the police have to keep moving around). The Yanks don't like being snooped on; something to do with "constitutional rights" ...

Stace.

[OllyOllyOlly]

I read some time ago that the government do not actually know how the technology works in the camera. It is so secretive that they just took it based on experiments.

Or, in other words, for plausible deniability they "didn't know that they don't work properly".

[antispeed]

after reading the full version, it is not a case of if but when will the powers in charge get the message, that cameras are screwed!

[daytona600]

stace3610 said:

wackydo said: So the big questions is, "Why is this happening in the USA?" What is it that legislators there seem to understand that is not understood in the UK? Probably for the same reason that London has 30,000 CCTV cameras and New York has 30 (which the police have to keep moving around). The Yanks don't like being snooped on; something to do with "constitutional rights" ... Stace.

Simply not true. I work in the CCTV industry. One word - Patriot Act!

[J111]

daytona600 said:

Simply not true. I work in the CCTV industry. One word - Patriot Act!

The belief arises from the number of camera units the NYPD has. You could equally say that London has 45 CCTV cameras (or whatever) by only counting the police operated mobile CCTV units, rather than those operated by LT, local councils, security companies etc.

[Gentelman]

daytona600 said:

stace3610 said: wackydo said: So the big questions is, "Why is this happening in the USA?" What is it that legislators there seem to understand that is not understood in the UK? Probably for the same reason that London has 30,000 CCTV cameras and New York has 30 (which the police have to keep moving around). The Yanks don't like being snooped on; something to do with "constitutional rights" ... Stace. Simply not true. I work in the CCTV industry. One word - Patriot Act!

Maybe, but the patriot act does not trump the Constitution, no matter what some people would like. Sometimes states use the rules about presentation of evidence, sometimes the rules about being able to face one's accuser. The U.S. Supreme court long ago decided, however, that cases where there is a strong public safety issue supercede those rights, as long as what they do (such as drunken-driving or drug search roadblocks) are applied equally to everyone. For speed cameras or red-light cameras, some states may require proof that the stretch of road they cover already has a high rate of accidents directly related to speed or people running the lights.

[Trevparr]

It drives you mad in The UK-It's getting worse-There's a programme on BBC 2 I think tonight about CCTV cameras ETC.-What next-They gonna have cameras in our Loos at home so they can watch us and charge us a Crap Tax!!!-Good old Ohio.

[Sgt^Roc]

daytona600 said:

stace3610 said: wackydo said: So the big questions is, "Why is this happening in the USA?" What is it that legislators there seem to understand that is not understood in the UK? Probably for the same reason that London has 30,000 CCTV cameras and New York has 30 (which the police have to keep moving around). The Yanks don't like being snooped on; something to do with "constitutional rights" ... Stace. Simply not true. I work in the CCTV industry. One word - Patriot Act!

You work the industry so yo is gonna support it, CCTV grows with violence if this Labour government was doing its job you would not have a job mate

[ferrari355gtb]

Would you vote for a political party who's main aim was to rid speed cameras ?

They'd have my vote.

[vonhosen]

ferrari355gtb said:

Would you vote for a political party who's main aim was to rid speed cameras ? They'd have my vote.

Would that really be the sole criteria for your vote ?
Even if they were the only party willing to do that & you didn't agree with their other policies, they'd still get your vote ?

[Scraggles]

would be a vote winner if they left the red light cameras and ditched the majority of the others, got no problems with them if signposted and clearly visible on accident black spots, but not the ones stuck behind bridges, trees and traffic signs

[TIPPER]

Scraggles said:

would be a vote winner if they left the red light cameras and ditched the majority of the others, got no problems with them if signposted and clearly visible on accident black spots, but not the ones stuck behind bridges, trees and traffic signs

Ding.

Witnessed the worst piece of driving I've seen in 30 years behind the wheel during the week - two kids racing each other through traffic. Both braked hard for the speed camera - so that's alright then ? Snapshot Management - literally .