Boycott Elmwood Place? (legally, versus, safe)

[CinciFan]

^ Seriously. Elmwoods finances are a mess. They will really be screwed if they have to pay back the money they collected.

Normally I would say that traffic cameras can be one way to improve safety, but in Elmwoods case, it was purely for money. They went to St. Bernard last year trying to merge the villages, and St. Bernard wisely refused. I suspect that now that Elmwoods main source of revenue has been ruled illegal, they will ask St. Bernard to merge again.

[NDXUFan]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

If you don't feel the speed laws pertain to you, chances are there are other laws that you feel you don't have to follow and perhaps the residents there would prefer you not come.

But really, if you are opposed to the speeding cameras, remember the businesses are not the ones who put them out there. If you boycott them, you are directing your opposition at the wrong people.

As a former police officer, there has to be a limit to government interference. Once you start down that road, where does it end? The other issue is that in the past, these tickets were sent to a Mayor's Court. In most cases, the mayor had no legal experience and training. As an RB grad, I have driven thru Elmwood, many times, multiple times. Really, any speed 35 and under is reasonable, in my view. In fact, many people who are charged with making laws, are really clueless, to a certain point in what is dangerous and what is not. Speed limits need to be and should be made with the safety of the public and children in residence areas in mind, not raising revenue for outrageous government salaries. If you are curious, most police officers in Ohio are not making outrageous salaries.

[CinciFan]

^Woo hoo! A fellow RB grad!

Anyways, I agree. Elmwood has their priorities way out of whack, and it doesn't help that they don't bring in much revenue.

It's sad really. That business district could be really great all fixed up.

[progmac]

Originally Posted by natininja

Obviously, the way these cameras are programmed can be overzealous. That seems to have been the case in Elmwood Place. But they can also be effective in getting people to drive safer and legally. Police can't be everywhere, but that doesn't mean people should get away with breaking laws when they aren't around to enforce them. To say they are nothing more than a money-making scheme overlooks the very real impact of poor driver behavior on lives and communities.

Elmwood Place certainly needs more people coming through and patronizing businesses. Having people speeding through is unlikely to do that. Having people driving through at a reasonable speed, a speed at which they can notice the businesses along the road they might wish to patronize, is much more effective at drawing people in. It also creates a safer environment for business patrons, many of whom will have to cross the street as a pedestrian at some point in their visit to the neighborhood.

IMO, there are better ways (through road design) to get people to slow down, but there probably aren't better ways to get people to obey red lights. Good on the town for making a few shekels off people behaving dangerously and putting others' lives at risk. Though I definitely don't support overly strict programming of cameras.

the thing about speed limits is that they aren't really about safety

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by progmac

the thing about speed limits is that they aren't really about safety

No, they are just posted to harrass motorists and pad the financial coffers of jurisdictions by writing tickerts. What a crock of BS, they are all about safety. To have any meaning they must be enforced. to be enforced there must be some sort of penalty for the violators or they simply will ignore them. I am all in favor of stiffening the penalty for speeding to include some period of license revocation rather than a fine. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Those incapable of abiding by the rules should have that privilege taken away.

[progmac]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

No, they are just posted to harrass motorists and pad the financial coffers of jurisdictions by writing tickerts. What a crock of BS, they are all about safety. To have any meaning they must be enforced. to be enforced there must be some sort of penalty for the violators or they simply will ignore them. I am all in favor of stiffening the penalty for speeding to include some period of license revocation rather than a fine. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Those incapable of abiding by the rules should have that privilege taken away.

if speed limits were about safety, they wouldn't change on the same stretch of road with the same character based on what jurisdiction you're in. they wouldn't change when you cross state lines.

[Cincyhopeful]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

No, they are just posted to harrass motorists and pad the financial coffers of jurisdictions by writing tickerts. What a crock of BS, they are all about safety. To have any meaning they must be enforced. to be enforced there must be some sort of penalty for the violators or they simply will ignore them. I am all in favor of stiffening the penalty for speeding to include some period of license revocation rather than a fine. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Those incapable of abiding by the rules should have that privilege taken away.

Many speed limits are set arbitrarily with little to no actual research or proof that it will have a positive effect on the traffic and safety of the area. For example much of the Cincinnati, OH highways are 55MPH while in KY you see numerous 65 and 70MPH highways.
Also driving in the USA is pretty much a requirement. Very little of our massive country is reachable without a car and Cincinnati is far from pedestrian friendly. Tickets may have originally been about enforcing law and order but not they are viewed as a revenue source.

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by Cincyhopeful

Many speed limits are set arbitrarily with little to no actual research or proof that it will have a positive effect on the traffic and safety of the area. For example much of the Cincinnati, OH highways are 55MPH while in KY you see numerous 65 and 70MPH highways.
Also driving in the USA is pretty much a requirement. Very little of our massive country is reachable without a car and Cincinnati is far from pedestrian friendly. Tickets may have originally been about enforcing law and order but not they are viewed as a revenue source.

Yes, isn't it interesting how perceptions have changed over the years.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

No, they are just posted to harrass motorists and pad the financial coffers of jurisdictions by writing tickerts. What a crock of BS, they are all about safety.

Then why can I now legally drive 70mph on the very same roads where the speed limit used to be 55mph? It was safe and legal to drive 75mph on the Ohio Turnpike in 1973. Why is it unsafe to drive that speed now?

Traffic fines have nothing to do with safety. It they did, the penalty for speedling would be $1000+. The way to fix this highway robbery is to take the money out of the equation.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by progmac

if speed limits were about safety, they wouldn't change on the same stretch of road with the same character based on what jurisdiction you're in. they wouldn't change when you cross state lines.

Interstates were built to the same standards, but notice how speed limits vary from state-to-state for revenue generation purposes?