Comments for Driving Us Crazy at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 54 out of 20 comments http://www.theind.com Wed, 22 May 2013 20:17:18 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12990 Every ONE of you breaks a traffic law every damn day you drive. How would you like to pay a DAILY ticket? With enough enforcement, you could triple the number of traffic tickets issued by the police. You could hire 10,000 cops, put a camera at every intersection, and the accident rate would plummet. If safety is what this is about, then put the cameras at EVERY intersection in town. At EVERY stop sign, too. Hire 1,000 more cops. If LCG isn't planning to do that by March of next year, then they just don't CARE about the safety of the citizens in Lafayette. I think EVERY one of you would agree that if we didn't have bars, we wouldn't have many accidents, either, because there'd be MUCH less drunk driving. So let's shut down every bar in Lafayette Parish, too. Let's put 2 cop cars in the parking lot of every bar, a drunk-check before you even leave the parking lot of a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol. And the bar/restaurant owner has to pay an annual $10,000 fee to mitigate the cost of enforcement. Why not? It's for all of our own good. It's for the safety of the community. Or how bout this one -- it's for the CHILDREN! If safety's what we all want, then LCG needs to get serious about safety and do what's ALREADY LEGAL for them to do. Why can't we have FIFTY speed vans all over town, then? Must be SOME reason that the council hasn't done all this. There must be SOME consequence to OVER-ENFORCMENT of a law. What do you think those consequences could possibly be? Or would you rather just look both ways before you enter an intersection? If everyone in town did that, the accident rate would plummet, too. You worried about people running red lights, then LOOK BOTH WAYS, like they taught in Driver's Ed. when you were a kid! It'd be MORE effective than cameras, it'd be cheaper, and you'd feel like you have more control over your environment than if you just left it up to the government to "ensure" your safety on the road. - ragin_cajun Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:38:45 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12986 Of course they work! Why would we think that enforcing our traffic laws would fail to make our streets safer? Cameras are far more efficient and effective at deterring reckless driving so the reduction in collisions will be far higher than when we just had cops doing the job. - Bill Young Mon, 06 Dec 2010 08:26:19 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12985 INDY . Is it true that the cameras in River Ranch are not wired to a power source, and is it true that it is illegal ( as a traffic violation ) to ride around the public streets in a GOLF CART with an alcohol drink in a red plastic cup, whether it be in main street Lafayette, or on the streets of River Ranch ? One other question, " Is it true that there is an order from CHIEF CRAFTY that Lafayette Police Units are not to tool around on the streets of River Ranch " UNLESS THE POLICE ARE REQUESTED, to enter the River Ranch perimeter, by a resident or a business ? I heard this from a River Ranch Restaurant Owner. - NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN Mon, 06 Dec 2010 08:23:17 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12938 It's great to see some supporters. Statistics don't lie. They really do save lives!!! - Susan M. Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:16:18 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12932 I absolutely agree that better driver education is essential to creating safer and more responsible drivers. My ultimate pet peeve is that people seem to forget they are operating two-ton pieces of machinery that become battle rams when in contact with other objects. As a young driver I had two wrecks, totaled my wagon twice. The first was my fault I rear ended someone who was stopping at a pedestrian crosswalk (not a signaled crosswalk at the time). I had looked at the radio for a second to change the station and before I knew had to slam on my breaks to stop. Well, I did not stop fast enough. Anyway the point is that as drivers we have probably all been guilty of not giving enough respect to the responsibility we have as drivers and in turn have put other drivers in danger (and pedestrians!!). I feel that the cameras have forced us via the want to avoid a ticket to pay more attention to the road. Although better education and awareness is where all drivers ed should start, the cameras or police presence on the road become the reminder of this. I have a hard time appreciating the arguments others make as opponents of the cameras because of my feelings that people are simply becoming increasingly unsafe on the roads. Furthermore I had mentioned police presence as a deterrent to bad driving... well sometimes the police are guilty of poor driving habits as well, including speeding. The cameras show no mercy to a state or city vehicle. - Seda Peterson Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:20:08 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12931 Great editorial. It's nice to see some support from the media for the cameras. I always feel safer at the intersections with them because they do help remind drivers to not blow through the light. - Harry Snyder Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:01:51 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12929 I'm with Walter on this one. I don't like getting a ticket an more than the next person but just because it is issued by a camera doesn't mean I violated traffic laws any less. Running red lights and speeding is ILLEGAL, no way around it. I support implementing the cameras to help our law enforcement enforce the law. Crying fowl because you don't want to take responsibility for your actions is not a winning argument. Drive responsibly. - With Walter Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:55:34 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12928 Here are a few links that may help some of you who haven’t done enough research on this issue to realize that it is unconstitutional, not with standing privacy. http://www.safespeedlafayette.com/pdf/redflex-class-action-lawsuit.pdf http://www.safespeedlafayette.com/statistics.php http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/corrupt100807.htm To answer Resident question. Accuser or witness is a "person" who has charge someone of wrong doing. I don’t believe that a camera can be a witness. If you do dispute the ticket it is with a judicator which is being paid by Redflex revenue which would constitute a conflict of interest. A policeman’s radar gun is calibrated at a required interval, I don’t know what the time span is, and he is the witness to the speeding. I would like to see people do more research before agreeing or disagreeing with an issue, or giving up their right without knowing. - HM Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:30:50 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12926 "So to all of you who think this is wrong partially because a private foreign company is involved - does that mean you feel it would be OK if a private American company was running everything?" No, any private company running this system and making money from traffic violations is wrong. If the city-parish were wholly administering this program, I would be perfectly fine with that. The money would stay within our parish, our private information would not be passed around, and policing would remain the duty of local government instead of a corporation. I can't understand why this issue is not brought up more. Why didn't Walter mention it? - Resident Fri, 03 Dec 2010 07:35:33 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12920 Anything to keep our streets and intersections safer! - debbie Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:31:00 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12917 The unconstitutionality of the cameras, if there be any, is not right to privacy and the 4th amendment. They're unconstitutional because they deprive the accused of the right to face their accuser in open court. A police officer has to show up in court if you fight a ticket. They have to describe where they clocked you, the road conditions, their training to run a speed trap, why the radar gun is actually clocking you and not the car next to you, why their observation of your speed agreed with the radar gun's reading. This is all difficult, requires training, and, I think, is impossible to automate. Let me explain better -- A police office with a radar gun is relying on more than just radar gun readings. They are also observing you driving, and estimating your speed and then verifying that estimate with the speed gun. Cops are well trained to do this. When they set up, they can estimate a vehicle's speed through observation without a radar gun with amazing accuracy. I don't have a problem with LCG enforcing the law. I don't have a problem with the cameras. I have a problem with them coming in here with a half-ass shoddy process that wouldn't fly in regular traffic court, passing an ordinance that makes it all a "civil" offense to get around it, and then telling everybody who doesn't like it "tough s*&t". If they want to do this, fine. Do it right. Train the safespeed attendants better, have them be real eyewitnesses that can testify in the ajudication process. Make the technology, and the process, good enough to stand up in traffic court so it can be used to enforce the actual STATE LAW. Submit data to LA DOTD about the SafeSpeed infractions so that it can be used in THEIR traffic studies, too. SafeSpeed is not the problem. It's the attitude, the arrogance, and the open defiance of the community and the law that LCG--Joey Durel in particular--has flaunted since this started that is the real problem. And another thing. One of the city councilmen got speed cameras taken out of his district?! That doesn't BOTHER you? Whether you like cameras or not, whether you like me or not, be honest with yourself and really THINK about that....what does that tell you about the attitude of YOUR government towards you and the law? How can we possibly say this is fair, even, equal application and enforcement of the law when it's only used in some council districts and not others? - ragin_cajun Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:25:46 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12916 Well written article, though I could do with out the profanity. I feel the same way even if I get pulled over by a cop, frustrated, irritated, defensive, but I would never seek to have the officers stop enforcing the law. Thanks for a well reasoned piece. - Preston R. Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:33:13 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12913 I too have noted the decrease in accidents at camera locations with increases at others - I'm more perturbed by the folks avoiding cameras cutting through my neighborhood (annoying speed bumps are probably in my future). That said, I too support the cameras since I think they do the job they were installed for. - Sandy Manning Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:02:45 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12911 ahhhahahaha - what a great article...i'm with you - we would definitely be sunk if the drivers manual said "speed up on yellow" - nunny Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:14:14 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12910 This is definitely the right attitude about these systems. Along with increased seat belt usage, tougher dui enforcement, and better engineered cars, these systems have helped reduce traffic fatalities to their lowest levels since the 1950's. - cubuffalo Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:02:51 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12909 So to all of you who think this is wrong partially because a private foreign company is involved - does that mean you feel it would be OK if a private American company was running everything? If not, then you need to remove the word "foreign" from your complaints now and forever. You're just trying to stir up people's emotions... - Huh? Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:47:12 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12908 A lot of good points here. I especially admire the writer for paying their ticket, no matter how begrudgingly. It's proof that for most drivers, the cameras are a simple way of reminding them of the laws that exist to keep roads safe. - Kris Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:28:38 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12907 Say what you want about the program (and I don't like it for the reasons stated earlier), but the idea it is unconstitutional because we are "private citizens" with a right to privacy is just plain wrong. You can't drive on a public roadway and expect to remain cloaked with "privacy." The Courts, both liberal justices and conservative justices, have long ago rejected such arguments. All the best, Soop - Soop. Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:23:48 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12905 I enjoyed reading Mr. Pierce's column and am in agreement with him on most points. As far as collisions increasing at intersections without cameras, I am not sure of Mr. Pierce's conclusion on why this is happening without more information. For one thing, over time there is more overall traffic. So if the number of collisions go up, it could be because there is simply more traffic volume. I have also read articles about other municipalities where the opposite occurred and collisions went down at the non-camera intersections as well as the intersections with cameras. - WalterT Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:14:47 +0100 http://www.theind.com/re/7386-driving-us-crazy#comment-12903 Thanks for the response. I certainly agree with points 2 and 3. However, is it entirely correct to say that you can't face your accuser? Just asking. Isn't there a way to dispute the ticket? Is the accuser technically the city-parish, or is it the private company? Regarding #4...let's say a policeman catches you speeding with a radar gun. Are they able to prove the apparatus is calibrated and functioning properly at the time of the picture? If not, then how is RedFlex different? I've experienced the blinding light in the eyes once from a speed van on Congress. Strangely, I did not receive a ticket in the mail. I would not have paid it anyway because I'm not going to support a private out-of-state company making money off of traffic violations. - Resident Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:11:05 +0100