Traffic cameras bring Ohio town to screeching halt

foxnews.com

8 points·electic··5 comments

They put similar cameras up in the Phoenix area.

In Arizona, there is a law that you have to be served with a ticket or it isn't valid; so when people received their tickets they just threw them away. Process servers would eventually come by to serve you but if you didn't answer the door they couldn't just leave them. Eventually serving the tickets became such a burden that they took the cameras down.

Wait, people are just angry that they can't speed? Even cheating by a few miles an hour drastically decreases the chances that someone you strike will survive (http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm). Maybe nobody walks there...

The fact that part of the fines goes either to the municipality that installed the things or their manufacturer puts them in a conflict of interest, and that is something that must be avoided at all costs. It's not enough that the law is clean, it must also appear clean.

Every lawyer does that. If you have ever called one about this conflict or that the very first question that they ask who you have a conflict with. If they have dealings with that person they will tell you that they cannot take your business. I don't understand why cities think they are exempt.

It's not enough that the law is clean, it must also appear clean.

I'm glad you specifically pointed that out.

Lessig makes a similar argument in Republic, Lost[1] where he urges people to change how they ask questions about seemingly illogical congressional decisions. Specifically

Not: Did the contributions and lobbying buy this apparently inconsistent result?

Instead: Do the contributions and lobbying make it harder to believe that this is a principled or consistent or sensible result?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic%2C_Lost

There are apps for this. Just saying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com