“Hey, Mr. Reliant K-Car, not so fast.”
Well, it was only a matter of time until this scam hit the fan. The facts remain, according to state law it is legal to make a right turn on a red light, as long as you stop and yield. City ordinance does not trump state law. And secondly, citations should be handed to ACTUAL people by an ACTUAL police officer. Do I think people who run redlights are jerkoffs? Sure. But the ACTUAL people who are running the lights are the ones that should get the ticket, and it should be an ACTUAL traffic offense, not some small claims court bullshit;
Democrat Peggy Gibson introduced the South Dakota bill after a constituent received a ticket that didn’t belong to her. That ticket was issued for an illegal right turn in August by the driver of a four-door sedan.
The $86 ticket was delivered to Kimberly Greer of Huron. Greer was surprised to see her name on a picture of the offending vehicle.
“I haven’t owned a car since 2000,” Greer said. “I have a Ford F-150 and a Ford Ranger.”
Sioux Falls officials told Greer she would need to contest the ticket to a Sioux Falls hearing officer. The car was hers, they said.
“I said, ‘If this is my car, I want to report it stolen,’ ” she said.
This is what I have been saying all along. Are we gonna let ‘Robots’ be law enforcement officers or are we gonna let ACTUAL trained officers determine when traffic offenses take place? I have also argued it would be cheaper to have an officer sit in a lawn chair at the intersection 24/7 then to have these silly cameras. Piss and moan all you want about how the cameras have been good thing, but last I checked we don’t live in freaking communist China, and we shouldn’t be treated as such.
Actually – your first paragraph is wrong.
According to statute 32-28-4:
This provision permitting a right turn after a stop when facing a steady red light alone or stop signal shall not be effective if any local ordinance prohibits such turn and if a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof.
http://www.legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=32-28-4
so in this specific case, the state has made an exception in THIS law allowing it to be overridden by local laws.
Anthony beat me to it – but yes L3wis your comment about turning right on red is just flat out wrong. Basically it is legal in South Dakota unless otherwise noted… and for the intersection that contains the red light cameras, there are a multitude of signs.
Your chosen title for this blog post is also inaccurate as the bill being proposed in the legislature has nothing to do with constitutionality. Gibson is merely trying to legislate them out of existence rather than claiming they are unconstitutional, because if they were no such bill would need to be written.
If our legislature decides to pass the bill that will be a decision we all have to live with, but it would not invalidate the thousands of citations cited prior to passage.
As to your comments about having an officer sit in a lawn chair being cheaper, that also ignores the actual facts. Other than the electricity to power the cameras they don’t really cost anything, and Redflex paid for their installation.
On the other hand to have officer coverage of that intersection 24/7 would require three full time officers for the three 8 hour shifts during the weekdays, and another 6 shifts for weekend coverage…so the total would be the equivalent of just over four full time police officers.
If you factor in the salary and benefits package as well as city insurance costs for four police officers you are going to be in the neighborhood of $400,000 to $500,000 right there. Now you need to add the cost of police crusiers and fuel, insurance, maintenance etc because nobody is going to stop for a cop sitting in a lawn chair…so add another $50k or so per year.
Based upon the numbers, this would require those officers to write 6,400 tickets a year just to break even (which is about 1,650 more tickets that were issued throughout 2009)… and honestly I’d say that is a conservative estimate because I’m sure I haven’t even considered many of the true costs.
On top of that if an officer is in the process of chasing down and citing one offender, there could be half a dozen others running the light while he is busy. The camera never takes coffee breaks, never has a bad day, never calls in sick, doesn’t stop for lunch, doesn’t play video games on it’s laptop when it should be watching traffic, and it doesn’t complain about the weather.
If you really look at the facts, those cameras probably cost about a tenth of what it would cost to put officers at that intersection. Instead, we can have officers actually out there patrolling our streets and making a difference instead of playing traffic cop all day. Makes sense to me.
As to your comments about having an officer sit in a lawn chair being cheaper, that also ignores the actual facts. Other than the electricity to power the cameras they don’t really cost anything, and Redflex paid for their installation.
Redflex also gets a hefty kickback from every citation issued.
This would be a a battle better fought in the courts. If the cameras are declared unconstitutional, people get their money back.
It’s being fought in court, two separate class actions. The city is losing and may have to refund some 10,000 tickets.
By the way, I want to grow up and get fired from NBC for a 45 million jackpot. It’s even better than school district super without children living out of the school district for a cool quarter million a year.
Ghost of Dude: Redflex also gets a hefty kickback from every citation issued.
True – I don’t agree with the contract and would have preferred the city self manage the cameras, but either way the cameras are much cheaper than hiring officers to sit there and watch traffic.
PG:city is losing and may have to refund some 10,000 tickets.
I’m not sure anyone can say either side is “losing”, but my interpretation thus far has been the unconstitutionality argument doesn’t hold water. I think we will have to wait for the final decision (and subsequent appeals) before we know for sure.
Blow through an automated toll booth and just wait and see how not unconstitutional your ticket becomes.
Red light camera reduce accidents, provide HUGE savings in government personnel (salaries, pensions, free up time for real crime investigations), and should yield a tax savings (or at least apply taxes for excessive policing personnel to more fruitful things).
Anthony, I stand corrected. But I still think they are unconstitutional because they are civil judgements not actual traffic violations.
Blow through an automated toll booth and just wait and see how not unconstitutional your ticket becomes.
If they can prove it was you who was driving, they can then give you a ticket. The problem with the red-light cameras is that they put the burdon of proof on the person being ticketed. The example in the argus is a perfect case study.
Red light camera reduce accidents, provide HUGE savings in government personnel (salaries, pensions, free up time for real crime investigations), and should yield a tax savings (or at least apply taxes for excessive policing personnel to more fruitful things).
All great until they are ultimately sued out of existance and all the revenue has to be returned.
l3wis: “But I still think they are unconstitutional because they are civil judgements not actual traffic violations.”
l3wis… that is precisely why they are NOT unconstitutional. In other states they were actually sending out traffic violations to the registered owner, and several of those states they were found to be unconstitutional.
I applying a civil judgement or fine to the registered owner of the vehicle is unconstitutional, then the tickets sent for tool booth running as well as parking tickets would also be unconstitutional. Not that someone probably hasn’t tried such an idiotic defense in court, but thus far (thankfully) it hasn’t worked.
This article is pretty interesting.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-17-red-light_N.htm
As for our cameras, my question is whether the reduction in accidents is because of the cameras or the elimination of right turns on red. I doubt the cameras are creating much of a change.
My main problem with the cameras on that corner is how they came into being. Yes, it was tragic that an Argus employee died at that location, but it was an isolated incident that could happen on any intersection (especially given the sorry state of our city’s drivers). The Argus took it upon themselves to make this their issue, and Redflex should send them a monthly royalty for this effort.
Scott –
If my foggy memory is correct, Right turns on red have been illegal on those particular intersections since I was going to High School at the old Washington.
But I could be wrong.
Scott- That has always been my contention. The person who ran over the Argus employee was most likely punished for the crime they committed, so why should the rest of us be treated like criminals?
John2 ‘Blow through an automated toll booth’
I worked for Illinois Tollway (Chicago) connecting toll booths with radio pictures. Police immediately stop you or Illinois plates get a notice in the mail with ‘time stamped plate and face’. If SF used 2 simultaneous cameras they may have a case. They’d rather spend millions of our taxpayer dollars on a case they can’t win. There’s a certain narcisist assistant city attorney practicing for ambulance chasing after he’s been fired.
Interestingly, I travelled Ill tollroads for 2 years without ever paying a toll. I have SD combat vet plates. I did get several tickets that were never pursued. Here; when I park at the courthouse, at a meter, or in a handicapped space I never get a ticket but others either side do.
There’s still a legal argument with ticketing on a SD state highway (both Minnesota Ave. & 10th St.). The city has no authority ticketing at this intersection.
Data for Illinois Tollway is public. I should provide it for present litigation. Also, there’s a major Illinois movement against Home-Rule that may have been decided.
A sculpture of a cop with a speed gun placed at that corner would do the trick. Or another sculpture of potato man with a speed gun instead of his bucket.
PG: There’s still a legal argument with ticketing on a SD state highway (both Minnesota Ave. & 10th St.). The city has no authority ticketing at this intersection.
Umm…no there is not a legal argument and yes the city has authority to ticket there. Contrary to claims made on The Dukes of Hazzard, in South Dakota there is such a thing as multi-jurisdictional roadways and as such city police can and do have the authority to write citations on state highways that pass within city limits.
And in case you are wondering – no they don’t have to stop chasing you if you leave city limits.
What if you jump over a river that has a bridge out while rustling leaves fly thru the air? Coo, Coo, Coo.
What if you launch the General skyward from behind the cameras and over the intersection completely? Is that in the statutes anywhere?
A sculpture of a cop with a speed gun placed at that corner would do the trick. Or another sculpture of potato man with a speed gun instead of his bucket.
If I was a sculptor, I would totally have a piece where a cop was sitting in a lawn chair with a speed gun and a beer. I’d donate it to the Argus if they agreed to find a place for it by that intersection.
Hell, one of my older and slightly senile neighbors used to sit in his driveway every once in a while with an ice chest full of beer and his wife’s hair dryer and pretend it was a speed gun. Our street is long and straight, so a lot of folks blow through at high speeds.
It was amazing how many cars actually slowed down.
Ha ha!