Did I miss something???
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown Community
Forum Name: Middletown News, Info and Happenings
Forum Description: Discuss any Middletown Ohio area news story.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3687
Printed Date: May 15 2024 at 9:05am
Topic: Did I miss something???
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Subject: Did I miss something???
Date Posted: Feb 23 2011 at 1:10am
|
Did I miss something??? Were there some semi-secret city council meetings wherein votes were taken and ordinances passed that were not recorded, nor noted in the workbooks, nor reported in the local newspapers??? Or could my eyes have deceived me earlier this evening as I drove southbound on Breiel Boulevard approaching Central Avenue??? I saw the sign that has been there for as long as I can remember: REDUCED SPEED
35 AHEAD
Did I imagine the new sign on the same sign post that says: PHOTO ENFORCED
Does anyone else recall council authorizing this??? ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Replies:
Posted By: Chief Whatdahey
Date Posted: Feb 23 2011 at 1:19am
| I'm still trying to figure the genius behind changing the right lane of westbound Grand Ave appoaching S. Breiel Blvd to right turn only, rather than the logical straight OR turn right as it always was... but then again, look at the engineered ugliness on SR 122 between Towne and Union... I believe the answer to "photo enforced" has been there for awhile for the red light camera there. |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 23 2011 at 4:17am
|
Chief,
I'll take a closer look the next time I drive by that location, but I can't seem to recall the "PHOTO ENFORCED" sign being on the same signpost as the "REDUCED SPEED 35 AHEAD" sign. I could be wrong. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Feb 23 2011 at 6:55am
Camera boxes and signs still there. Thought they had always been there Mike. Intersection was deactivated a few years ago to move to a new location wasn't it? Didn't the city play "rotate the cameras to five new locations awhile back? Someone still needs to put a bag over the lenses like they did in Arizona a few years back.  Hate those dam cameras and I haven't been ticketed. By the way, I've heard of people not paying the $100. fine and getting away with it. Is that true? Heard something about the whole thing being unconstitutional.  Too much Big Brother in our lives.
|
Posted By: middletownscouter
Date Posted: Feb 23 2011 at 8:31am
|
I got one last summer for turning right on red from University onto First (thought that was still legal but I guess I didn't come to a complete stop before turning so whatever). The ticket was for $125. They charge a $25 late fee if you don't pay it within some small amount of time (30 days maybe, possibly less) and then if you still don't pay it goes to a collection agency (third party, not the city).
If you want to fight the ticket and have your day in court you are welcome to by putting down a $100 deposit first. The whole thing is a sham as far as I'm concerned but in the end my time and effort is worth more than the cost of the ticket so I just paid the dang thing. |
Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Feb 23 2011 at 9:41am
|
I was going down Verity pkwy.(73) and turn right on 14 ave. on red and the camerea flashed.This has been at least a month ago havent got a suprise in the mail.Didnt know that if you dont come to a complete stop you get flashed. |
Posted By: tomahawk35
Date Posted: Feb 23 2011 at 10:45pm
How can they even think about enforcing any such sham law when every day I get off of 75 south at 122 and there is a big sign at the red light stating no turn on red which everyone just keeps making the turn anyways and I have never seen a policeman in the area. The sign is not the one hanging off the traffic light,instead it is place on the right hand side which I interpret that it means the far right hand lane.
|
LMAO wrote:Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 24 2011 at 2:39am
|
Okay, first I must apologize for TWO things: Number one: I was not clear about the issue that I was raising. The issue is NOT “red light” photo enforcement. Whether we like it or not, that ordinance was duly passed by City Council a few years ago. The issue is what appears to be photo enforcement of SPEEDING!!! That is the issue I was raising in my initial post under this topic, and I was unclear in my initial effort to do so. I am sorry!!! Number two: My memory did fail me concerning exactly what the signs say. I apologize!!! Let me try to set the record straight right now. To the best of my recollection, for years there was a sign on southbound Breiel, as one approached Central that read: REDUCED SPEED 35 AHEAD Now, I cannot recall ever seeing a sign actually showing the speed limit NORTH of Central to be 35 mph. Now, the “reduced speed ahead” sign has apparently been replaced by TWO signs on a single sign post. The upper sign reads: SPEED LIMIT 35 Just below that sign, on the same post, is a sign reading: PHOTO ENFORCED
I guess this means that the speed limit on Breiel now changes from 45 to 35 somewhere along Breiel BEFORE you reach Central Avenue instead of as you cross Central, and that this “speed trap” type change is being (or will soon be) “photo enforced”!!! I cannot recall ever seeing an ordinance passed authorizing “photo enforcement” of speed violations. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: HomeTownGal
Date Posted: Feb 24 2011 at 2:39pm
| Tomahawk35: It appears they recently changed this on 75 south to 122 exit (noticed it this past weekend). The sign on the traffic light now indicates that curb lane may take a right on red. I agree...previously this was not indicated and many people would still make a right on red even though the sign on the light and the sign by the right-hand lane indicated no turn on red. They should probably also add the blurb to the right-hand lane sign that the curb lane may take a right turn on red. |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 6:21am
|
OK, folks. You seemed to be unconcerned when I first brought up this subject back in February. Perhaps some of you even thought ol’ Presta had been standing out in the cold too long (I assure you that was not the case) or was simply having another “senior moment” (always a possibility). Most of you seemed to think that I was simply confused about the signage at the photo-enforced red light locations, and thought that I should turn my car keys over to my wife. Well, I’ve been keeping a sharp eye out as I’ve driven around town lately. Now I grant you that I don’t drive by all of the red light camera locations, but all of the ones that I have passed by recently have slowly but surely had the signage replaced. Gone are the signs with the “red, yellow, green” traffic signal symbols over the “PHOTO ENFORCED” signs. In their place are “SPEED LIMIT XX” over the “PHOTO ENFORCED” signs. This has been true at every red light camera location that I have passed through. Again, I admit that I have not passed through them all. Now this can only mean one thing: City Hall, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that photo enforced speed traps would be a good method of “revenue enhancement” to support the overspending by our municipal government. And our city employees would dare not make these signage changes on their own, since they are aware that it will take an ordinance passed by City Council to enact photo-enforced speeding control. This means that the City Manager and at least FOUR members of City Council have met and agreed that they will proceed with this change!!! They NEVER would have began changing the signs without at least tacit approval from Council!!! Once again we have sneaky, behind-closed-door meetings where public business has been decided behind the backs of the citizenry without open discussion!!! And they wonder why we don’t trust them??? ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: middletownscouter
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 8:08am
| I think maybe before we go jumping into the deep end on this issue and start making accusations about policy changes and closed door meetings, we should verify that there actually was a change to something more than the signs. Has anyone yet gotten a speeding ticket in the mail from one of the camera stations? Has anyone contacted the police or city hall to ask if they've made a change? Or are we just letting our minds run wild on the internet? |
Posted By: Marianne
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 9:05am
You silly, silly man... you suggest that someone actually call to VERIFY something from the people who would know rather than speculating on a blog? Where's the fun in that? |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 9:15am
|
Silly me!!!
Now that I've thought about it, I sure that I'm wrong. I'm sure that the City just had so many people standing around with nothing to do that the City Manager had them order some new signs and spend the time and money going around replacing perfectly good signs, just to keep them busy instead of laying them off.
Yeah...that's it!!!
Also, no one could have been cited to date since council has not yet passed the ordinance. Please read my previous post!!! ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 9:21am
|
By the way, I'll wait here quietly, while one of you two comes up with a logical alternate explanation for the City going to the time, trouble and EXPENSE of changing these signs that is NOT a waste of time or money. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 11:07am
|
The issue with the cameras is really it is not about safety, it is about being a collection bureau for cheap fines and revenue. Recall the numerous references by Ms. G to 'increased revenue.' The absolute worst intersections in Middletown don't have the cameras, and where they should be. I was almost killed and would have been, at the intersetion of Marshall and 122 last evening, had I not been driving as a truck hauling AK coils went barreling through the red light at about 45 mph. Someone was killed there about 5 years ago by a truck hauling AK coils, but no traffic light. The other is Rosedale and Brehel, where countless speeders run through the light repeatedly, but no camera. A sham and hurts Middletown's image.
|
Posted By: Marianne
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 11:41am
Acclaro, Perhaps you should ask the MPD about the process by which the intersections are selected. It's my understanding that a pretty extensive amount of data is collected to make determinations about where to place cameras. If you have a concern about an intersection, have you contacted the MPD? |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: May 20 2011 at 4:08pm
|
This silly man is still waiting quietly for a logical alternate explanation for the City going to the time, trouble and EXPENSE of changing these signs that is NOT a waste of time or money.
PS to Marianne and Middletownscouter:
The telephone number for Middletown Police Department administration (non-emergency) is 425-7756.  ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: middletownscouter
Date Posted: May 23 2011 at 9:25am
| Good to know you know the number, you're the one doing all the ranting and raving, why don't you call them yourself. Or you know, you could just continue to be a jerk on the internet. That's much easier. |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: May 24 2011 at 7:31am
------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: May 24 2011 at 7:35am
|
Further, since I follow city affairs closely, I already know that no such ordinance has yet been passed. That was the whole point of my previous posts, if you would have bothered to try to comprehend them prior to taking potshots at me. So there is no need for me to call anyone. By the way, I'll let the readers judge which, if any, of the above posts most nearly meets the definition of "ranting and raving"!!!------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: May 24 2011 at 8:23am
|
Mr. P, Why you silly, silly man!!! If you haven't already noticed, our fair city regularly violates the law so there is no need to go to the trouble of following "procedure"! I'm sure that one day in the next millenium they'll get around to actually codifying this change; besides, as apathetic as the citizenry is, they won't challenge anything. I'm sure the deportation of naysayers will be next!!! Perhaps by then they can whittle the population down to that "quaint" 20,000 number that is more in tune with the "vision" our elected leaders have for our fair city. Just remember, everything is fine, full speed ahead, happy, happy, happy and anyone who says differently can just leave!!!
|
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 4:13am
|
It has been nearly a year since I’ve posted on this subject,
but in the interim I’ve noticed more signs going up around town reading “TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO
ENFORCED”. I think that anyone (except perhaps Marianne and Middletownscouter) who reads the article in today’s eJournal (here’s the link: http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/drivers-slowing-for-speed-cams-police-say-1338138.html - http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/drivers-slowing-for-speed-cams-police-say-1338138.html ) will agree that photo enforced speeding tickets are coming to Middletown. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 6:26am
|
Today's Journal...
Red-light camera citations on decline The cameras also helped bring in more than $800,000 in fines I LIKE THIS ONE FROM LES LANDEN...... “(Traffic lights) are designed to try to prevent traffic accidents, to enhance the safety of the community,” Middletown Law Director Les Landen said. “We are using technology as we use it in other areas of law enforcement in an attempt to enforce the law.” WHAT A LOAD OF HORSECRAP LANDEN. ENFORCING THE LAW......YOU MEAN LIKE THE CITY ORDINANCES AND SUCH.  YOU ENFORCE THE LAW (OR TWIST IT)WHEN IT IS CONVENIENT TO YOU AND THE CITY AND BENEFITS YOUR CAUSE. IN THIS CASE IT IS A REVENUE ENHANCER JUST AS JACKING UP THE WATER AND SEWER RATES AND ATTEMPTS TO JACK UP THE CITY INCOME TAX RATES ARE. YOU CAN'T GET REVENUE MONEY THE WAY ALL OTHER TOWNS GET IT- THROUGH JOB CREATION, SO YOU ATTEMPT TO BLEED EVERYONE IN THIS TOWN DRY BY INITIATING PROGRAMS LIKE THIS.
John C. Sennet, of Middletown, would like to see residents place the camera program on the ballot. “You’re guilty until proven innocent,” he said of the requirement to pay the fine before challenging it in court. “It would be nice for council to do what the people want, and if the majority of the people don’t want them, then let’s get rid of them.” AGREE MR. SENNET. |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 1:48pm
|
I was a member of the Citizens' Advisory Board to the police dept. when this concept was brought forth.
Initially I was opposed for the same "Big Brother" reasoning mentioned here, alongwith the structure of the appeals process.
As we continued to discuss this issue, I gradually changed my thinking because:
1. Speeding through red lights at congested intersections was all too common, and extremely dangerous.
2. Manpower was not going to be available to monitor the situation efficiently.
3. The potential positives of this program far out-weighed the negatives imo.
Since passage, violations have decreased, and also serious accidents at monitored intersections.
Violators are issued citations--have a fair appeals process(if you are not completely beyond the stop line, then you will be exonerated), and quire simply, the act of speeding through red lights is very dangerous to the drivers and innocents involved.
People are stopping at red lights, and accident #s have decreased.
A "win" situation for everyone.
Can speed violations also be given?
Very easily by simply flipping on a few switches and program changes.
Are these readings accurate?
I don't know.
Safer intersections and driving habits benefit everyone.
The lives saved could well be yours or acquantances or anyone.
Don't see the issue here.
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 2:40pm
|
Spiderjohn......"As we continued to discuss this issue, I gradually changed my thinking because:
1. Speeding through red lights at congested intersections was all too common, and extremely dangerous". "Initially I was opposed for the same "Big Brother" reasoning mentioned here" "Don't see the issue here" That is the issue. Too much government sticking it's nose in people's private lives just like the seat belt law, and, let's be honest here.....at least part of this program is to generate revenue for the city under the guise of safety. Again, JMO. Let's take a vote to see if the people really want this in their lives instead of having it crammed down our throats. IMO, the speeding through red lights could have been avoided by increasing the yellow light timing. The way the lights are set up now, the light is green and quickly turns red with no hint of yellow. Ya gotta give the car that is approaching at 45 mph a chance to clear the intersection at locations such as Breile and Roosevelt, Breile and Central and Grand and Breile. You can't have a designated speed limit of 45 on these boulevards and expect a car approaching the intersection at 45 to stop on a dime. Longer yellow light times would help the cars caught in the intersection.(or lower the speed limit to 35).It is knowing that as I approach an intersection at 45, that I am going to have a quick green to red scenario, that causes me to speed up to make it through. Either that or jam on the breaks to stop in time. Going through or jamming on the breaks are both dangerous situations. IMO, the city creates the dangerous situation of running the red lights by the fact that they have no time for caution at the intersection. Give the yellow a few more seconds at the traffic controller box. JMO |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 2:55pm
|
Don't agree with your logic Vet
and here is why:
Extending the yellow light timing may help somewhat, however lack of monitoring the situation will still lead to drivers speeding through red lights.
Revenue gained by citing dangerous driving activity is not really a negative. You are on camera committing an un-safe traffic violation endangering others.
If our govt. has to act in this manner in an attempt to control dangerous behavior, then what is the loss?
The hoped outcome is better/safer driving habits. Which in turn will save lives, injuries, personal properties and police presence.
If people aren't responsible enough to protect themselves(and eventually others), then this may be a good spot for govt. to become involved for the greater welfare of the majority who follow the laws and display safer driving habits.
Dirve in an un-safe dangerous manner, and it may cost you $$
If people don't stop these practices, their actions may cost them(and others)far more.
Very simple--drive responsibly = no problem
jmo
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 3:25pm
|
"Extending the yellow light timing may help somewhat, however lack of monitoring the situation will still lead to drivers speeding through red lights".
HOW? IF YOU EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE TIMING ON THE YELLOW LIGHT, YOU GIVE THE CAR THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE CAUGHT IN THE INTERSECTION ON A RED TIME TO CLEAR THE INTERSECTION BEFORE THE LIGHT CHANGED TO GREEN FOR THE OTHER TRAFFIC TO PROCEED. DOES IT MATTER WHETHER THE INTERSECTION IS MONITORED OR NOT? THE SITUATION IS GOING TO OCCUR MONITORED OR NOT. IT JUST SAVES THE CAR CAUGHT IN THE INTERSECTION FROM BEING BROADSIDED BY A QUICK GREEN LIGHT GOING THE OTHER WAY. MY POINT IS THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A NEED AT ALL FOR THESE CAMERAS IF THE LIGHTS WERE TIMED IN THE CORRECT MANNER. THE CAMERAS AREN'T GOING TO CORRECT THE UNSAFE SITUATION. THE LIGHT TIMING MIGHT. THE CAMERAS ARE JUST FOR MONEY PURPOSES. WHY DON'T WE SUGGEST A PILOT PROGRAM OF TRYING THE LONGER YELLOW LIGHT AT A PROBLEM INTERSECTION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND SEE IF THE NUMBERS DECREASE? (WOULD THE CHIEF ENTERTAIN THAT THOUGHT?) IF THEY DO, WOULDN'T THAT SUGGEST THAT THE TIMING WAS THE SOLUTION TO A SAFER INTERSECTION AND WE COULD DO AWAY WITH THE CAMERAS? OF COURSE, THAT WOULD CUT INTO THEIR REVENUE, WOULDN'T IT?
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 4:45pm
|
uhhh I don't see the traffic lights(and proper timing between signal changes) as being the issue here simply put(again)--it comes down to poor/un-safe driving habits and anything that can be done to deter such habits it is a "people problem" rather than a mechanical issue too many people don't do the right thing any more Vet. I also would like to see all violators cross-checked to see if they have active liability insurance
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 6:20pm
Fair enough spider. Nice discussion. Will agree to disagree.
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Mar 05 2012 at 8:42am
|
spiderjohn, I respectfully disagree with every point you have made. Firstly, the unattended (by actual officer ticketing) fine that is civil, goes to the owner of the auto, not the actual person behind the wheel, unless the driver is the owner. it is unconstitutional. Virtually every state or municipality that has them, does it for one reason: to generate revenue. It is NOT a safety issue. Just this week, the Supreme Court of Colorado is hearing and prepared to make a ruling on their unconstitutionality. Why are they bad in Middletown? Firstly, many use the spray substance that makes it impossible for a license plate to be identified by the camera, as it emits a hazy picture. I know factually many have used that substance which in turn, has led to lowered numbers of fines as well as decreased citations. The court also has had many challenges that they drop---so it cost the city time and money attempting to prosecute a civil offense that is actually a criminal misdemeanor. Thirdly, in Middletown, as the cameras are solely about revenue generation, not public safety, the absolute worse intersection for running traffic lights is been the intersection of Rosedale and Briehel. Speeders run through that light constantly. NOT one camera has been placed on that light in all the years the cameras exist, and I know for a fact, it is the most dangerous in Middletown for running red lights and speeding. yet, you'll NEVER see a police officer patrol nor cite an individual on that stretch, as so many MHS students are there driving north/south. It isn't big brother invading with cameras, rather, the unconstitutionality of being cited for a civil offense and hefty fine when big brother has no idea whom is even driving the auto. As for those in the intersection and driving through when yellow, which the court may throw out and reverse the actual citation, like a minor speeding offense, many times the individual will pay $125.00 even though not at fault, to save the 3-4 hrs awaiting a hearing, and losing time and 1/2 day of salary. That's the reality of the unconstitutional traffic lights that have nothing, nothing, to do with safety. Cameras do nothing to prevent hazards of speeding and running through lights. Individuals with bad habits will have bad habits, and cameras aren't a deterrent. Rather, when you see a police cruiser parked, awaiting to cite you for speeding and of course, running a red light, it snaps one out of the stupor behind the wheel, while texting, thinking about the girlfriend, boyfriend, or the evening party at PAC and what to wear, into the harsh reality, you are driving a multiple ton vehicle that can kill another, that can kill you. That's what officers sitting on the side of the road do, and not cameras. Although admittedly, they make it easier for policemen to more easily sit down and guard SunCoke while being built, or sitting at Kohl's, knowing the camera is doing your job, albeit ineffectively and in violation of due process. As for cross checking for Proof of Insurance/ Liability, any and all municipalities, cities, villages in Ohio, ask to have a copy of insurance over any citation. If Proof is not provided, that leads to a suspension for 90 days or greater in Ohio automatically, until proof has been shown. If you secure it afterward, your license will still be suspended, sometimes for a year. Cameras have no bearing on that enforcement, and the same occurs when a camera citation is submitted. provide proof of insurance, or your license are suspended. I add, this practice in Ohio on Proof Of Insurance has been in practice for at least 15 years. In Ohio, virtually all traffic cameras are programmed appropriately with a 5 second counter from yellow light to red light, ample time to get through a yellow light without a ticket. What's the true solution for Middletown? Remove all traffic ameras, and have police officers do their job, park by intersections, and notice driving behaviors change by seeing a real officer on the watch, than a camera. The cameras actually make it more unsafe, because there is rarely the risk of being monitored by an officer, so habits don't change. That's the negative aspect that far outweighs the revenue generation for Middletown policemen having to do nothing to monitor intersections. |
Posted By: jag123
Date Posted: Mar 05 2012 at 11:15am
| Spider: I agree with you totally. I was in the same Police Board meeting when this was discussed. As far as taking traffic lights out and having officers inforce speeding by writing tickets; the problem with that is we don't have enough officers and they are busy with crime which is a little more important that running traffic lights. JMO |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Mar 05 2012 at 11:59am
| I'm just a humble man, but in my opinion, the very problem with Committees, is the outcome is assured by those that tell the Committees what outcome they desire. Too many crimes committed to have officers sit by the roads and control traffic? I see more police officers sitting at the Goodwill, Kohl's, Target, Lowe's Kroger's. Meijer's, than any intersection. Crime is not a reason to avoid due diligence on watching for bad driving. The other day, I saw a Camaro and Porsche driving 70 mph down Rosedale by the Arboretum in a Grand Prix, crossing over University, then back down, laps. How about a few officers parked at the Arboretum to avoid the cross Middletown run. |