Speed Trap Poll

[observeradmin]

What do you think?

[Jamie Carracher]

I don't know about cameras, but we could sure use some radar on Lake. People really pick up the speed over there.

[Brad Babcock]

I realize that the city needs revenue, and the safety forces (Police , Fire) are paid form that revenue. It is also true that the roads may be safer with stricter enforcement of traffic laws. There is something that makes me very uncomfortable when safety and revenue are referred-to in a single breath. But of course the cameras will be targeted toward pass-through traffic. "Don't worry Lakewood drivers we're not looking at you."
When the red-light cameras went in in Cleveland, my reaction was "There is one more reason not to drive in Cleveland". I'm a fairly responsible driver, but I'm not convinced that the cameras make the roads any safer. I would have to see some statistics that do not come from the company that sells or operates the cameras. Is there a reduction in T-bones at the intersection but an increase in rear-enders just short of the intersection?
The law can be a blunt instrument, and should be tempered by human judgment at every oportunity. As an example, if a driver is following a van through an intersection with a red-light cameras, and a car backs-out of a driveway in front of the van. The van stops-short leaving the following car trapped in the intersection to be duly photographed and ticketed. What would a live Policeman do?
One can say that the car should not be following so closely, but it is the nature of traffic that if a person leaves a proper gap in front of them they will be cut-off repeatedly. Ever try to change lanes while back-pedaling through traffic? It simply does not work.
How big a safety factor are the red-light / speeding issues in places where the cameras would be used? Is there more danger from people speeding down side streets? Will more people take to speeding-down residential streets to avoid the cameras? Will this make Lakewood safer? Are there other things that would make Lakewood streets safer? Less obstructed views at intersections? Better regulated street parking so people can see to back out of their driveways?

[Stephen Gross]

Ok, first off I will say that we *cannot* think of traffic cameras as a viable economic development tactic. Traffic cameras sole purpose must be to enforce traffic laws and improve public safety. If we start thinking about traffic cameras as instruments for raising revenue, then we fundamentally misunderstand why we have traffic laws to begin with. We cannot use safety laws as an excuse to raise funds.

Having said that, let's look at the (legitimate) motivating plan for traffic cameras: improving public safety. This is indeed a noble goal, and I'm happy to investigate ways to support it.

But while we're on the subject, can we consider other ways of improving traffic safety? It is not immediately clearly that traffic cameras are either the most effective technique or, for that matter, the most economically efficient.

Take a look at TrafficCalming.org for a comprehensive list of techniques for slowing traffic flow and making it safer. I think that many of them could be applied to Lakewood. We could change light patterns (make the yellow last longer), put in curb-necks, raise cross-walks, allow parking on some streets, and so on.

--Steve (grossreport.blogspot.com)

[dl meckes]

Ok, first off I will say that we *cannot* think of traffic cameras as a viable economic development tactic.

That would be about as stupid as taxing smokers to fund the Arts.

[Dr. Larry Keller]

I am opposed to cameras for controlling traffic. We are becoming too accustomed to surveillance in general. Privacy is rapidly disappearing under the weight of security and revenue.

On a more practical level, I have been ticketed via cameras in Cleveland for $100 for going 46 MPH. Seems there is lots of revenue in them lenses. However, my opposition is not based on personal experience. I don't oppose police forces because of tickets and I don't support cameras because of effectiveness for revenue.

Good to see Ted Koppel speaking out on civil liberties. We live in critical times and seem more bent on emotion and revenue than on thought and strategy.