I got a ticket from one of these when I lived in St. Louis, got ruled unconstitutional a few months later and they had to mail me my money back LOL
5 Likes
Alright, so at the risk of getting dogpiled here (and possibly deviating a bit too far off topic), let’s go over the alternatives.
-
Traffic calming measures. This is a great long-term solution that I fully support, but I do not anticipate that it will be a cheap or quick one, especially when NCDOT is involved. And, considering that this is a signed route, I expect a lot of pushback from them.
-
Police enforcement. This is the traditional approach. Up until fairly recently, I think I’d be in the same boat as you and say that this is preferable over traffic cameras, but my views on that have changed for two reasons. First, police already have way too much on their plates. We’ve historically handed off any and every emergency that doesn’t involve fire or injury to police, to the point that many officers are often thrown into situations that they’re barely trained to handle (think, for example, mental health crises). This can prove dangerous for both the officer and the person(s) in need of assistance, which leads me to my second point: I’ve grown to question whether or not it’s wise to have armed individuals handling routine traffic violations. There’s a lot of different things I could say about that, but I don’t want this to get super political and end up getting the thread locked. Do with that what you will.
-
Traffic cameras. These are much easier and cheaper to implement than traffic calming measures. They don’t use up anyone’s time (such as a police officer, who is then freed up to deal with more important matters, thus saving the department money and resources). Conceptually, they’re really not any different from red light cameras, which Americans seem to complain about a lot less. The fines are typically lower and less arbitrary (and I assume they’re easier to contest). In my opinion, this is the most logical, feasible option.
The issue here, and the reason that a lot of Americans (myself included, until recently) hate traffic cameras, is because we like to speed. Speed limits are seen as suggestive and primarily serve the purpose of keeping you, the driver, safe. I rarely meet people who think that they are bad drivers; in fact, most folks seem to think they are the best driver on the road. As such, the concept of safety becomes defined by their own parameters. If I think I’m the best driver on the road, then I can go ten over safely and without issue… and that’s how we end up with 35,000+ traffic fatalities per year in the US.
I don’t think we realize how much of a difference an extra 10 MPH makes, not only in the instance of a driver hitting another object, but also (and especially) in the instance of a driver hitting a pedestrian. And here is where I circle back to the topic at hand: Five Points gets a decent amount of foot traffic. Every time I see a movie at the Rialto, even if I drive there, I’m probably going to walk to Lilly’s or Crafty or Lonerider before or after the show. A distracted driver jumping the curb here could mean life or death depending on how fast they’re going and how quickly they can stop, as seen here (worth noting this data is from AAA, one of the largest auto lobbying groups in the world):
So my argument? Americans really need to start taking speeding a bit more seriously. And, to be clear, I understand that engineering is partially to blame for this. I live off of Duraleigh; that road is built for much higher speeds than the posted limit of 45 MPH. I have found myself speeding there many times without even realizing it. But traffic calming measures aren’t coming to Duraleigh any time remotely soon, so, until then, we need to find ways to reduce speeding. And if I get a ticket from a red light camera, your response would probably be “dude, just don’t blow red lights, you’re endangering everyone when you do that.” So you can imagine what I might say to someone who gets a ticket from a speed camera.
18 Likes
I’m actually also super against the red-light cameras in Raleigh, partially for my reasoning mentioned above - but actually mostly because of who gets the money. Private companies install those red-light cameras and pay the city a small upfront payment, or a VERY SMALL percentage of each ticket. The rest? Goes straight into the pockets of said private company that installed them. It’s a racket and complete BS.
1 Like
You’re not wrong. And I do like to speed. I was told in Massachusetts 9 over on streets and 14 over on highways normally wouldn’t result in getting pulled over. I’ve brought that with me here and haven’t had any issues. Everyone has some version of this in their heads, and I’m fine if the general understanding or law (or speed camera) was set to something standard, even if it’s 2 mph over the limit. But there’s also a lot of people who think lowering speed limits is the solution to any perceived safety concern. Which is why there’s so many 20, 25, and 35 mph limits in places that probably could be higher, except people expect drivers to speed over those limits. So those would have to be adjusted, which I doubt would happen.
The main issue I have, to Tedy’s point, is that the Bill of Rights says (twice) that no one shall be deprived of their property without due process of law. Is a camera taking a picture considered evidence or due process? I think most would argue it is just evidence, and mailing people a fine without due process seems unconstitutional.
4 Likes
However, not to detract from your points - they are valid. I agree that speeding calming measures would be beneficial, especially to this area. I just do not like the idea of a camera “catching” me going a mere 6 MPH over (oftentimes by mistake, or not even realizing it like you mentioned) and sending me a bill with zero human intervention. It opens the floodgates for Big Brother to watch and monitor everything we do.
This I can understand completely; far too often a simple traffic stop ends in unnecessary death of innocent individuals, even more often of a particular skin color, with zero repercussion for the cop that dealt the ultimate punishment for minor traffic violations. (I initially said “unarmed” instead of innocent, but we have even seen an armed individual who was legally within his right to carry a firearm, who straight up told the officer he had a gun and would provide his carry-license, and was murdered by the cop anyway, with his child in the backseat). This is definitely a more difficult subject to approach. I just don’t know that throwing up a few cameras and mailing people bills is the best answer. Perhaps if they only punished those going 10 or more over, I wouldn’t be so soured on this. But 6 over is a BS money grab, no doubt.
2 Likes
BINGO. This is it right here.
2 Likes
Your ability to appeal the fine is due process. The photo is evidence - usually very good evidence, sometime bad, but evidence nevertheless. The automatic red light ticketing system already includes a system to contest the ticket.
3 Likes
First of all, cheers to both of you for solid, reasonable discourse. Nuance can be hard to come by these days.
Second, to the point of evidence and due process… if a police officer catches me speeding, it’s likely because they were using a radar gun. A camera uses the same tech. In one instance, it’s my word versus the officer; in the other, it’s my word versus a computer. In both cases (at least, this used to be the case), you can ask how long it’s been since the radar was recalibrated as a part of the contest. So is there much of a difference in terms of evidence?
2 Likes
Fair enough! I guess it’s just another nail in the coffin before robots rule the world 
They’ll probably do a better job than most of the humans have been doing… 
If there’s a reasonable way to appeal the tickets, then fine. If it’s just, nope we say you’re responsible because we have the picture of your car, then that’s not the same thing.
2 Likes
I don’t have a problem with redlight and speed cameras, as long as it’s clearly posted that speed limits and traffic lights are enforced by camera. To be a deterrent , people have to know about it, rather then getting caught because they are sneakily installed in an effort to drive revenue.
The motive needs to be to increase safety, not to increase revenue.
10 Likes
It is extremely easy to not drive 6 mph over the speed limit. If you knew a police officer will be there you can damn well be sure you would be able to stick within 6mph of the speed limit every time.
On interstates or major highways or whatever, OK, I don’t have that much of a problem with drivers, when conditions permit, going (essentially) the design speed of the highway rather than the posted speed limit. The risk equation is balanced. A driver who misjudges the risk is at least as likely to die themselves in a wreck, as they are to kill somebody else, and that serves an incentive to operate more-or-less safely.
But when pedestrians are present (like Five Points or Dawson) what makes drivers feel safe enough, like they won’t die, could easily still be risking the lives of those on foot. The risk equation is unbalanced. Pedestrians and patrons of sidewalk cafes will die, possibly in large numbers under the right conditions. The driver will suffer, mostly, property damage in terms of a slightly damaged, (or, at absolute worst, totalled) car, which will be covered by insurance anyway, and a slap on the wrist in terms of a few points on their license. And, hopefully, a troubled conscience, which means that the individual driver may change their ways- but none of that adds up to a preventative measure that will change behavior and save lives on a societal level.
Speed cameras force drivers to internalize some of that risk. It’s needed, because of how unbalanced the risk is.
Of course they don’t want to, they’re happy with the status quo because it benefits them.
I see griping about where the money goes or miscalibrated speed cameras, or “poor me I forgot to not drive too fast” or whatever other excuses as sour grapes, disingenuously trying to avoid shouldering any additional burden for the consequences of operating an automobile in a manner unsafe to others.
Let’s get some speed cameras installed. Yesterday!
I also believe in posted speed limits being close to the design speeds of streets, not this 85 percentile BS. And in many cases this means that roads should be redesigned with slower design speeds, especially in places where pedestrians are present. But until we can do that, speed cameras are a good way to enforce proper behavior and manage the risk to non-motorist road users.
7 Likes
Fair enough. But truth be told, if most money from the tickets will be going to a private company that installs the cameras, I have to question that they are being installed simply for safety purposes. If ticket money went towards funding public services, or road improvements, then OK by me.
1 Like
I contested a ticket once. I was behind a box truck, couldn’t see the light on Mcdowell st. The picture showed my plate, but clearly a very large box truck in front of me. The ticket said to send in $50 and fill out the back, so I did that. The ticket was for $50 btw. Anyways, so I did that and never heard a word from them. $50 wasn’t enough to make a stink over.
I get another one, I will fill out the back and not send any money.
1 Like
Regarding the East End project, earlier today spoke to the owner of the car repair place on the corner. He is relocating. I did not find out if he’s selling to the developer or what he’s doing with the property.
12 Likes
That first one looks particularly exciting at the moment. Thanks for keeping us updated!!
These are going to be some great historical photos once this is completed. I went by there about a month ago and got out of my car and snooped around the perimeter fence. It’s really going to be quite something when finished.
6 Likes
