Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The city of Durham is looking to potentially start installing School Speed Zone Cameras and fine individuals $250 tickets. Sounds like a really bad idea and just a revenue generator with lots of possible problems and corruption. This has been tried all over the country and usually results in many problems. Here is a link to Senate Bill 269
Reminds me of the hub-bub around Fayetteville's red light cameras. Just look at it this way - if you don't speed through school zones, the city doesn't make any money. I do wonder where the money from the fines will go...in Fayetteville, $65 of each fine goes to the school system, $35 to the company that operates and maintains the cameras, which is probably pretty similar to what would happen in Durham.
Reminds me of the hub-bub around Fayetteville's red light cameras. Just look at it this way - if you don't speed through school zones, the city doesn't make any money. I do wonder where the money from the fines will go...in Fayetteville, $65 of each fine goes to the school system, $35 to the company that operates and maintains the cameras, which is probably pretty similar to what would happen in Durham.
As much as I hate people speeding in school zones and running red lights and think they need to be nailed with violations and fines, the larger due process part of this has always seemed questionable (like the red light cameras that used to be prevalent 15-20 years ago), in particular the delegation of law enforcement duties to a for profit-company that has a financial interest in hoping people violating traffic safety laws.
Considering the number of problems that have been identified with the cameras and the number of legal challenges that have been waged against this type of process (many successfully), it's curious why this is seen as a solution to an admittedly egregious violation when drivers are disregarding the safety of other motorists and pedestrians.
I'm not terribly surprised this would be coming from Durham, as they are one of a handful of NC jurisdictions frequently on the cutting edge of programs like this, sometimes in an innovative way that works well, but sometimes when it's dubious to be doing so.
As much as I hate people speeding in school zones and running red lights and think they need to be nailed with violations and fines, the larger due process part of this has always seemed questionable (like the red light cameras that used to be prevalent 15-20 years ago), in particular the delegation of law enforcement duties to a for profit-company that has a financial interest in hoping people violating traffic safety laws.
Considering the number of problems that have been identified with the cameras and the number of legal challenges that have been waged against this type of process (many successfully), it's curious why this is seen as a solution to an admittedly egregious violation when drivers are disregarding the safety of other motorists and pedestrians.
I'm not terribly surprised this would be coming from Durham, as they are one of a handful of NC jurisdictions frequently on the cutting edge of programs like this, sometimes in an innovative way that works well, but sometimes when it's dubious to be doing so.
Cities look at cameras as a way to have eyes everywhere they need without having to pay for the bodies, so to speak. It's supposed to be more cost effective and overall effective in reducing the number of incidents (red light crashing, speeding) which is generally does. Ultimately, the due process and law enforcement is the responsibility of the government agency commissioning the cameras, not the company maintaining them.
I can understand, though, why it might be time to look at some other alternatives. The cameras have had such a tumultuous track record, I agree that one may wonder why they keep coming back time and time again.
Nothing more than a revenue generator to leverage artificially low speed limits to increase the return on avg fine. Honestly for school zones, is what it is, I don't mind slowing down to an artificially low speed limit, just call it what it is, crooks. Don't lie to us about safety. The reality is school zone infractions often carry insurance points ($$$) that are much harder to reduce/eliminate, which benefits insurance companies short term and long term (more utilization of PFJ's, compound points, etc). You're just being squeezed tighter, as usual, that's all it is. However again, in a school zone, even for a habitual speeder, as long as there is notification with some visual conveying the fact that the speed limit is about to drop to an artificially low limit, and we are using speed cameras....whatever, can deal with it in a school zone, just another example of citizens being feasted on for profit in the name of "safety."
I don't understand why people can not slow down in the school zones. Every time I drive through a school zone with lights flashing I am passed by people who can not seem to slow down from the posted 45mph. North Carolina seems to have this problem worse than any other state I have lived in.
Under state law fines for redlight camera violations go straight to the public schools so the city won't get any cash. The bill was sponsored by a Democrat so we'll see if gets any traction in the legislature before it adjourns. Bills from Democrats aren't all going nowhere but they do have a higher hurdle than ones from Republicans.
1 - we are talking speed cameras not red light, just being specific. Do speed cameras fall under that as well?
2 - just googled to validate myself and found this re Charlotte. "Oh wait, we need to give the revenue to children, not for our own benefit politically? Ew. Forget it then." Safety, ha! Scumbags.
"The city quit using the cameras after the N.C. Court of Appeals ruled a decade ago that 90 percent of the revenue from the program must be given to the local board of education, which in Charlotte’s case would be Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
