The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.
Just come right out and say it. You want red light/speeding cameras on Lakewood's major roads.
I take either Lake or Clifton home from downtown every day. I travel the distance from 117 to Webb then head south to Detroit. Drivers are crazy fast on both of those roads. Over the past two-years, I've seen police running radar from the streets just off Lake maybe five times during the afternoon rush.
I say ticket them all.
I suggest citizens do their part. I live on Lake and I drive down Lake at 35 mph or even slower hoping to piss off enough people that they use the 7 lane Clifton BLVD orthe business routes of Detroit and Warren.
I am not suggesting that people get vigilante or impede traffic etc...since someone will probably bring that up...but regardless...TAKE BACK THE STREETS!!
A cop on Lake ticketing people driving over 35mph in the morning and evening rush would more than pay for a new officer or two.....
Jim,
I will try to answer but please keep in mind that these are based in part from when I was still there. Most of what I say is still accurate, but I simply wanted to make sure it is known that I am retired and in no way am I speaking for the city or the police dept.
Can an intern write tickets.? No, it must be a sworn officer and the violation must be witnessed by a sworn officer. (This is where I am not sure how the cameras work. It may be civil in nature and then there are no points on your license but I don't know. Perhaps an attorney here can help) The biggest reason for this is that many mundane traffic stops escalate into other crimes. The party becomes violent, has no license, is driving a stolen car, or is carrying a gun. I am sure that you can see where it is necesssary to have a sworn, trained officer making the stop.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by interns. Cleveland Hts. has a 2nd level officer who is paid less and can do some tasks. We do not. This has many union complications. In the Hts., those officers serve at the whim of the administration. They have no civil service protection and can be hired or fired without protection. This can be somewhat scary as it creates a situation where allegiance can be split. In Lakewood, as in most cities, an officer must take a competitive exam and with the civil service protection an officer can refuse an illegal order without fear of losing their job. I'm sure you can see where one of these officers who stop a drunk that says he is a friend of the chief has to wonder if making the arrest will cost him his job. I AM NOT SAYING THAT HAPPENS IN THE HTS. I am only mentioning where that perception could be out there.
Can other tasks be done by civilians? Yes. In many cases they are. The property room is now run by a retiree at a substansial discount. Civilians handle dispatching and jailer duties. Both of those tasks used to be completed by sworn officers. Auxilary officers. (Which we never seem to have enough of) do vacation house checks. This is where a resident calls in that they are going on vacation. When that is done an officer used to check on the house while they were gone. This is a task now being done by volunteers. ***As a side note, if you or anyone is interested in becoming an auxil., contact the PD and they will get you in touch with whoever is running it now.
Trust me when I tell you that if a task can be done by a civilian instead of a sworn officer, Chief Malley will look into it. The increase in calls for service that I referred to is after tasks that could be switched have been switched. Without those changes even less time would be available.
I understand your feeling about River getting our speeders but their officers have the time that we had twenty years ago.
Kevin Galvin wrote:I understand your feeling about River getting our speeders but their officers have the time that we had twenty years ago.
Kevin
Again thank you for the clarification. I really appreciate the insight you offer, and we all understand that the police department is run very well by Chief Malley. You are merely helping us work through topics.
The city needs more attention and I am not sure we can afford it. I am looking at all avenues that 1) reduce need for extra funds, 2) find those needed funds without taxing us.
While some think I have fallen off the deep end, I think as the discussion unfolds we will see some patterns and some needs emerge. Maybe not.
David/John
I am very interested in streets being safe, but for now I am just looking at the purse. Theirs not ours.
.
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system." Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it." His Holiness The Dalai Lama
In CLeveland, a camera citation is a civil, not criminal matter. Hence no police presence required, also no points.....
Don't think they'd work on 90...but they sure would at Lake and the Clifton Bridge.....W117 and Clifton......Lake and Nicholson....
I don't believe they cost Cleveland a dime......company put them in and gets a split. One of the big objections to Cleveland's use was that it was penalizing all those people flooding into downtown for work or play. Well, we don't have that issue.....they're just passing through.
Maybe we should explore the camera issue....make some money, not take any law enforcement time...and nail the exburbanites who merely pass through. Seems like a win/win/win.
Yes cameras can be installed on highways. Scottsdale, Arizona has them on Loop 101. The road is a nightmare, excessive speeding is a major problem. Here is a link to the cities website explaining their program.
We generate say, 600K in Bay/River/Westlake speeding tickets (A camera at Lake and the bridge is going to target who?)
Why not? I'm not proposing Lakewood citizen get shaken down.....I'd target this for the flow through....although admittedly, some of that is Lakewoodites.
How many cops can you hire for 300K (and then you can leverage them in new traps on I 90).
We need a poll.....and I don't know how to post one.
"Would you favor installation of Speeding/red light cameras targeting pass through commuters if it would cost the city nothing and generate thousands in additional city revenues?"
As to Lake/Clifton/Webb area the Lakewood Police tend to be catching the No Left turns from Clifton to Webb in the mornings usually once or twice a week. How many they get there I am not sure, but I would guess at least a half dozen or more.
As a former east-sider who got nailed by Cleveland's traffic cameras three times (and that's $100/incident!), I'm very much against the traffic cameras. Of course, part of it is because it's a bit deceptive; Cleveland was all about "this is for public safety." Yeah, well when the results came back, only a small portion of the tickets were from people blowing through red lights; most were speeders. And the cameras were set up almost universally on routes that suburbanite commuters took.
So it was a money-making operation, pure and simple. But it also stunk because I got nailed on Prospect Avenue ... Carnegie westbound was closed west of E. 55th, and traffic moved to Prospect. So I continued each morning on Prospect, going the same speed I was going on Carnegie, 35mph. Yet, at that particular intersection, the speed limit was 25mph. Not that I would have noticed, because the speed sign was actually BEHIND a tree. I found out when I got my tickets. A MONTH after the actual incident. So I had no way of knowing that it was an actual speed trap for 30 days. I lucked out though, I only got 3 tickets. Of course, some people got dozens (and remember, this is at $100 a ticket), because like me, their tickets arrived a MONTH after the incident, and they didn't know it was a speed trap. At least when an actual officer is there, you learn INSTANTLY that it's a speed trap. And Cleveland even admitted as such recently, as they moved the speed limit sign away from the tree, and agreed to cancel the tickets that were issued while the sign was behind the tree. Too late for me, though; I was a good citizen and paid my tickets promptly.
I also think I lucked out because I was also taking Cedar for awhile to avoid high traffic on Prospect, and lo and behold, there were NO speeding cameras on Cedar. But that may have also been because most commuters don't take Cedar into Cleveland in the morning. No, if you look to see where the cameras are, they're solely where commuters go.
Of course, cities look at these cameras as a nice source of revenue, and the companies that install them make it seem even easier, because they do the installation for free, maintain the cameras for free, and do all the dirty work. A police officer just has to look at the electronic files and make the final determination if the law was broken. My, it just seems so easy to make money, doesn't it? ... BUT, those companies take a BIG piece of the pie, so while the cameras will bring in revenue, they may not bring in the amount that was initially promised. For example, a story in the July 14 Toledo Blade noted that red-light cameras in Toledo resulted in $1.1 million dollars worth of tickets in 2004. Guess how much Toledo actually got? $279,000. The camera company got $800,000+. No wonder they offer to install them for free!
And in some cases, the cameras that work at red-light intersections can often cause more traffic accidents, as people will slam on their brakes when the lights turn yellow, and the cars behind hit them.
Every city is strapped for revenue, and this looks like a sure-fire get-rich-quick scheme ... after all, it costs the city nothing, only takes one police officer at a desk instead of having a whole slew of them out on the road, and is just so easy (though some cities have found that the increased ticket amounts are actually forcing them to have more staff look at the violations and deal with the paperwork).
But where does it end? Do we have cameras mounted above parking meters, so that as soon as the meter is up, it takes a picture of your car? How about cameras at intersections that can catch jaywalkers? Better yet, if we're targeting out-of-towners, let's put cameras up above all Lakewood taverns, and then we can get pictures of out-of-towners, and cite them for something.
Sure, it can be a minor cash cow for a city that needs money, but I think there's a bigger cost here. If the idea of these cameras on Clifton is to catch commuters, do we send mail to all Lakewood residents, warn them of these cameras, and advise them to take alternate routes? I just get a creepy "Big Brother" feeling when I see those cameras.
At least Jim's idea is openly honest: to make money. I'd rather have a city say that then cloak it with trying to increase safety. Because at the end, it's all about the money.
If we do have such a system in Lakewood, then we really need to make it better than Cleveland; post signs, and issue tickets in a TIMELY manner (much like a real police officer on the spot would do). And let me know where they are, so I can avoid those roads completely. Will it slow me down? Only in those areas (much like I slow down only for that 25 feet on Clifton at West 108/106). Because the cameras don't change peoples' behavior, they only do it right there.
c. dawson wrote:For example, a story in the July 14 Toledo Blade noted that red-light cameras in Toledo resulted in $1.1 million dollars worth of tickets in 2004. Guess how much Toledo actually got? $279,000. The camera company got $800,000+. ...
c. dawson
Good post, good points. But if you did not get points or insurance notified you came out ahead in the deal.
But the clipped info above makes me wonder...
What if we had Lakewood Schools install and maintain the cameras?
Kill two funding problems with one stone.
.
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system." Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it." His Holiness The Dalai Lama
I just got a notice from Columbus "parking violations bureau" citing me for a parking violation ($50.00 fine)....but nobody in any any car I own or is regesitered to me was anywhere near Columbus on the day in question...and especially not at 7:20 am.
