Home | Advertise Online | Archives | Coupons | Marketplace | Newszap Media Kit | Site Feedback | Subscriptions

 Home
 Search       Members   Calendar   Help   Home 
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 
> Delaware Public Forums > State of Delaware Public Issues Forum > New bill would allow cameras to catch speeders -- Proposal would set up monitors around work, school

New bill would allow cameras to catch speeders -- Proposal would set up monitors around work, school
 
 New Topic   Reply   Print 
AuthorPost
Okie
Member


Joined: Wed Jul 1st, 2009
Location: Newark, Delaware USA
Posts: 17
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 03:02 pm
 Quote  Reply 
This will be one of few times I agree with the majority of opinions here at newszap. The revenue squeeze may be coincidental or causal for the passage of this bill. I don't know the legislatures motives or care about them that much. Cameras used to monitor the public's activities are an encroachment on civil liberties.  It really is that simple. I don't think the state of Delaware is on the road to becoming Oceanea anytime soon, but our repeated willingness to give up liberties in the name of security (or in this case 'safety') should be a cause for concern.

10sne1
Member


Joined: Sun Feb 22nd, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 10
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 06:56 pm
 Quote  Reply 
The speed-camera law is the proverbial "foot in the door" piece of legislation if ever there was one.  First, it's just a "pilot program" - and only in work/school zones.  Then they'll quietly change the law to allow them in other "dangerous" areas.  Then they'll change it again to allow them anywhere they can produce revenue.  And I'd venture a bet that each time it's changed, the fine will go up too.

Does anyone remember how they got the seat belt law passed?  They PROMISED it would only be a secondary offense (i.e., you can't get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt) and further PROMISED that they would NEVER change it to a primary offense.  Within a couple of years, they changed it to a primary offense.  Can you say "Click It or Ticket" boys and girls?....

Hartlyboy
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 3rd, 2005
Location:  Kenton, Delaware USA
Posts: 3557
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 10:10 pm
 Quote  Reply 
Safety, yeah that's the ticket. Not about squeezing more revenue at all. No, it's not. Not at all...

TruthwillOut
Member


Joined: Tue Mar 17th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 560
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 08:53 pm
 Quote  Reply 
The redlight tickets are different too

If the camera gets you its a civil offense if a Cop gives you the ticket its supposed to be a criminal offense.

Its either one or the other and it aint ever criminal as an element of a crime is damage

Bixby
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 25th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 2354
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 06:43 pm
 Quote  Reply 
When speed cameras, much like the red-light cameras, first appeared on the scene, they were promoted as a means of generating revenue and not the advancement of public safety. There was much public outcry against them, so much so that the Arizona state treasurer campaigned against them as “levying a tax without the approval of 2/3 of the legislature.”  He was overridden by then Governor, Janet Napolitano. At the direction of Governor Napolitano (D), the budget included an amendment creating a $165 "civil penalty" that would apply to tickets issued by up to 200 speed cameras deployed on freeways throughout the state. The program was designed to generate $165 million in annual revenue and help bring the state's books into balance. Martin singled out this provision, which was adopted without debate in the legislature, as "a tax increase without a 2/3 vote". Article 9, Section 22 of the Arizona state constitution requires a super-majority vote on legislation that creates a net increase in state revenue from "any new state fee or assessment" or tax.

There is also a "problem" here in Delaware. The punishment for a traffic-camera ticket differs from the punishment for a ticket written by the DSP.  In fact, it's less. That the fine and fees for a photo ticket total $50, whereas a misdemeanor-speeding ticket written on the same stretch of road by a DSP officer would result in a fee and fine totaling much more and points against the driver's license. That does not equate to equal justice under the law. I would presume that most people would just be paying the ticket to get it out of the way and opting for the lesser penalties, ergo the measure is nothing more than a revenue raiser.

There was a case last month (May, 2009) in Springfield Illinois.  It was so successful that Speed cameras will not be coming to Illinois roads anytime soon. The state Senate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal that would have allowed using cameras to automatically measure speed in school, park and hospital zones and issue tickets to speeders. The plan failed with 13 senators voting in favor and 35 voting against it. Proponents tried to convince fellow lawmakers that speed cameras would improve road safety. Unlike Delaware, the state legislators, even though facing a budget crisis, opted to weigh in on the side of the people.

"This is not Big Brother watching you. This is about safety in these particular zones and that's all this bill is about," said Terry Link (D) the sponsor of the plan. But during debate on the Senate floor several lawmakers openly mocked Link's safety claims and countered that the cameras were only about making money.

"The sponsor was given this bill by the people who only want to gouge the people of the state of Illinois. Gouge! Rob! Stickup! Get their hands in your wallet! Get both hands in your purse and take more of your money! It's not about the safety of the children".

"State Sen. Dan Duffy, a Lake Barrington Republican, said all camera enforcement is unconstitutional and that in addition to voting against speed cameras he plans to push for the removal of existing red light cameras in Illinois. (Information and quotations from the website of Illinois State Senator Dan Duffy)

It seems that the Delaware legislature does not share the same concerns as their Illinois or Arizona counterparts, budget crisis notwithstanding.

Lavitakus
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jan 14th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 1311
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 06:18 pm
 Quote  Reply 
tspong wrote: What do you think?

From the Delaware State News:


New bill would allow cameras to catch speeders



 

I think it's a crock. Just one more way off double dipping at the expense of citizens.

Just what defines a "work area"?

tspong
Member
 

Joined: Fri Aug 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3357
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 04:41 pm
 Quote  Reply 
What do you think?

From the Delaware State News:

New bill would allow cameras to catch speeders


Proposal would set up monitors around work, school zones


By Lydia Woolever


Delaware State News


DOVER — With less than 24 hours left in the General Assembly’s session, new bills continue to be added to this year’s agenda in hopes of getting them through before the legislative year ends tonight. However, the pressing budget and ticking clock may overshadow the passing of these last-minute additions.


One such bill is House Bill 197, which proposes a new way to promote safety on Delaware roads.


HB 197 would establish a two-year pilot program to authorize any Delaware police agency to initiate camera and video enforcement of speed limits within a quarter mile of any work or school zone.


The new system would be similar to the red-light cameras currently utilized nationwide. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Gerald L. Brady, D-Wilmington, was inspired by this technology as a Wilmington city councilman in 1999.


"It is the exact same technology as E-Z-Pass, which is the measurement of rate, distance and speed," he said. "It is all web film about distance, range, motion and speed.


"The reason for this was to validate the program as an effective technology in the most critical zones," Rep. Brady said. "A school zone’s number-one priority is the safety of children, and in work zones, the number-one priority is the safety of workers."


According to the 2009 AAA Public Opinion Poll in Delaware, 66 percent of drivers supported the use of speed cameras in school zones and 47 percent supported their installation in work zones.


"The objective is really not the open road, but it’s in the areas that are very congested and you cannot traditionally maintain or manage and effectively enforce the speed zone," Rep. Brady said. "It’s difficult for the patrol officers to establish a full cycle of application because you have to set up, catch the person, check the speed, follow the person, pull them over, and then, you’ve created congestion in an area that’s already maximized."


Work zones are typically compressed or condensed areas, as well, limited by certain physical barriers, making them equally crucial to the bill, Rep. Brady said.


"These cameras alleviate any additional infrastructure or equipment that you would have to employ in order to traditionally catch someone speeding," he said.


The speed monitoring systems authorized under the pilot program would produce recorded images of motor vehicles traveling at least 11 miles per hour above the posted speed limit.


"It is fast but it allows for diminished criticism," Rep. Brady said. "It sends the message that we even allowed 11 miles over — we had the bar up high and they were still in excess of that."


Violations would be subject to a civil assessment not to exceed $50. They would not be subject to points or to be made a part of a person’s driving records. Procedures for issuing, contesting and paying a notice of violation would be the same as for traffic light signal violations.


The bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. John L. Mitchell Jr., D-Elsmere, sees the pilot as an additional resource for law enforcement.


"Right now with our economy, we don’t have enough police officers out there, but we also have to be mindful of the safety of the motorists on the roadway," he said. "This is a resource I think can be used in order to monitor unsafe traffic and speeds for police officers who can’t actually be there."


The bill’s sponsors were in correspondence with multiple police and traffic agencies throughout the state regarding the program. These agencies include the Delaware State Police and DelDOT.


Rep. Brady said that if the pilot is approved and goes well, he would like to expand the bill to include major highways and other roadways.


"Once we complete the pilot program of one year, we would then come back to the General Assembly and expand based on those statistics that, indeed, this has validated and authenticated itself," he said.


"It’s a matter of safety for all parties concerned — the motorist, the law enforcement officers, the school children, parents and workers. It’s a safe technology."


 Current time is 12:27 am



Click here to read our Policies & Disclaimers.
Click here to go to the Newszap.com home page

Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
Page processed in 0.2136 seconds (28% database + 72% PHP). 18 queries executed.