Wednesday 1st June 2005

Ohio 'bans' cameras

New laws mean a police officer must be present

---

Ohio 'bans' cameras

In the USA, the Ohio State House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively banning the use of unmanned speed cameras and red light cameras.

Not here unfortunately, but the new Ohio legislation will only allow the devices to be used when a police officer is present to witness the offence and issue the citation to the driver. This follows a number of examples of erroneous automated fines and an increase in accidents (particularly rear-end accidents) at some junctions.

ASBO hits the roads

On a related note, QuoteA insurance reckoned that UK police may be willing to haul bad drivers into court and serve them with an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order). An ASBO is a Civil Order and as such doesn't require the burden of proof required to secure a Criminal Conviction. Breaking the terms of an ASBO however is a criminal offence and it is hoped that this may lead to less lane-hogging, tail-gating, verbal abuse and general carelessness on the roads.

The company did not provide any evidence for its assertions.

[fire99]

Lets hope 1 state leads to 50 states and then for once we follow something good in the USA and we do the same!

[puggit]

Much more in this PH thread here

[Shackyb]

Lets be realisitic... As much as we'd love England to follow suit... we're a long way off such a governmental epiphany.

Following a country into war is one thing... but c'mon, taking their lead and banning speed cameras??? Why thats just ridiculous!!! ;-)

>> Edited by Shackyb on Wednesday 1st June 12:54

[annodomini2]

article said:

ASBO hits the roads On a related note, QuoteA insurance reckoned that UK police may be willing to haul bad drivers into court and serve them with an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order). An ASBO is a Civil Order and as such doesn't require the burden of proof required to secure a Criminal Conviction. Breaking the terms of an ASBO however is a criminal offence and it is hoped that this may lead to less lane-hogging, tail-gating, verbal abuse and general carelessness on the roads. The company did not provide any evidence for its assertions.

Even the government admits it cannot prove dangerous driving, isn't this another example for the anti-scamera groups.

[paulvallen]

Do we have police to catch these wrongdoers? I thought we had sold them all and bought speed cameras...

[Mudflap]

Any negative publicity regarding these Scameras has just got to be a good thing. We need to keep up a constant negative reaction towards their use.
Another one for the file.

[Gentelman]

Actually its the red light cameras that have gotten more people up in arms in the states. That raises whole arguments like why they can allow drunk-driver roadblocks when they don't have reasonable suspicion (or is it probable cause, I forget which one has the higher burden of proof) because there's an urgent public safety issue that overrides the Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures...or at least that's what the Supreme Court says. I just hope there's no challenges to this new Ohio law to put the cameras back.

[Hoover33]

ASBOS for un enforcable traffic offences.....

Surely this is not what ASBOS were for........ all going to far if you ask me.

[havoc]

Hoover33 said:

ASBOS for un enforcable traffic offences..... Surely this is not what ASBOS were for........ all going to far if you ask me.

I agree - this is, IMHO, worrying. Who's to say the police will use it for tailgating, lane-hogging etc.?!? What happens when a sports-car driver enjoys a "spirited" exit from a roundabout in view of an unmarked car...they give chase, pull him over and he gets hauled up for an ASBO.

Because if you give police and magistrates those powers, that's what will happen.
If you have a loud exhaust, a tail-happy car, even if you've switched the TC off (OK, Tiv owners, I know you think that's a 70's kids cartoon, but...!! ) and leave some rubber on the road.
Even just revving the engine high (Speed-6, VTEC lumps, tuned K-series, M-Power engines...) could be considered anti-social driving. All it takes is an over-zealous copper and a sympathetic (read gullible) magistrate.

[alexf]

ASBOs are an attempt at legitimizing imprisonment without fair trial. Motorists are obvious victims for ASBOs, and those protesting about the government's existing road policies are doubly so.

We should be very worried about ASBOs, and they should also serve as a reminder that when the government says "yes this gives us excessive powers, but we promise not to abuse them" they are lying.

From Statewatch's ASBOWatch section ( www.statewatch.org/asbo/ASBOwatch.html ):

statewatch said:

Why should we be concerned about ASBOs? ASBOs criminalise non-criminal behaviour. Their use is being actively promoted to all local authorities throughout England and Wales by the Home Office which has now begun to deploy "ASBO ambassadors" to speed up their adoption. For the authorities with whom the ASBO has already found favour, it has not taken long for them to push the parameters for which it was originally intended. This stems largely from the vagueness of the government's definition of what constitutes "anti-social behaviour" (see above). From an original remit of tackling low-level nuisance behaviour such as vandalism and abusive neighbours, local authorities and police forces have found ASBOs to be a hugely effective tool for quashing many other challenges to authority. Here environmental and political protesters, in particular, have found themselves subject to temporary orders and other powers introduced under the Anti-social Behaviour Act. Protesting now appears to be both an anti-social and potentially criminal act. As is sarcasm for an 87 year-old great-grandfather in Liverpool, taken to court for breaching the ASBO banning him from shouting, swearing or making sarcastic comments to his neighbours.

Statewatch is generous in accepting the government line that ASBOs were originally intended to combat troublesome Youths - actually the Youths were simply the easy victim for the initial phase - the fact that they are not likely to be defended by People Of Influence means that they could be used to set the precedent of the (ab)use of these new powers.

If we don't protest against a law which takes away our right to protest, we have little hope.


>> Edited by alexf on Thursday 2nd June 18:04

[havoc]

Oh sh!t, too late. Where's my passport?!?

[Only half in jest...this government is SERIOUSLY worrying me now, and I bet I don't know all of it. These are the people who want to abolish the Lords as they currently stand!]