/p/
Toledo Talk forums search sign-up login

Congrats. We were $1,700,000 "safer" in July.

Thanks to the new red light revenue cameras.
http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/08/18/Speed-cameras-aid-Toledo-coffers.html

I have never received a camera ticket. But I still don't think that they are something that enhances the safety or quality of life in a community. I suppose if there is an intersection that is so inherently dangerous due to the design or other unusual circumstances, after re-timing the lights I could accept cameras as a last resort.

Specific historical T-Bone accidents notwithstanding, and having been addressed above; to have them nearly everywhere, and even on straightaways, it screams hidden tax and aggressive, adversarial enforcement. Although I have never received one of these tickets, I would not be inclined to visit, pass through, or remain in a community which has made this choice to place the financial burden of their poor choices on the backs of the citizens under a thin veneer of safety and a true nature as a strategic revenue producing endeavor.

Under their accompanying veneer, each of these steps, such as cameras, trash fees, predatory and selective enforcement of the city code, are substitutes for competent administrative and fiscal management.

And the beat goes on: just this last week a Water Division crew spent over an hour strolling around our yards talking on the cell phone and 15 seconds spray painting "OUPS" in the street, and a worker from Transportation spent 45 minutes replacing a perfectly good "Yield" sign with an identical (in every way) "Yield" sign on the same used pole.
I feel "safer" every day. Do you?

It's time to cut my losses.

created by justread on Aug 18, 2012 at 12:45:41 pm     Local-Politics     Comments: 94

source      versions

Comments ... #

The original cameras were installed under the guise of "safety" but Bell dropped that pretense entirely with this latest round:http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2012/01/24/City-wants-to-add-11-red-light-cameras-1.html

"each of these steps, such as cameras, trash fees, predatory and selective enforcement of the city code, are substitutes for competent administrative and fiscal management."
I couldn't agree more.

posted by idinspired on Aug 18, 2012 at 01:15:12 pm     #  

Damn, missed a space in there:
http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2012/01/24/City-wants-to-add-11-red-light-cameras-1.html

posted by idinspired on Aug 18, 2012 at 01:16:06 pm     #  

There is no enforcement for your first red light ticket. It makes no sense to pay it. Not sure about the speed cameras.

posted by Star56 on Aug 18, 2012 at 01:49:27 pm     #  

I live right by a few of the lights and have gotten hit 3 times. 1 time for a red light on the trail, and twice for right on reds without full stops. Nowadays I simply avoid those intersections if possible. What is funny is that if you examine the actual law regarding the right on red violations, it is written so poorly that they could actually cite you for a right on red violation even if you came to a full stop, so better not set off those camera triggers people!

posted by MarcMc on Aug 18, 2012 at 02:57:04 pm     #   1 person liked this

...and the population sits idly by as every movement they make is monitored, every step is recorded for assurances their intent is pure or "ordinary", every transaction duly noted in a government database to satisfy questions whether they have ordered too much of a "dangerous" product or if they have moved money around in a "suspicious" manner....

I'm no tinfoil helmet conspiracy theorist--but how much more electronic monitoring will the citizens of this nation take in a country that is founded on principles of personal freedom? Really? Especially in the case of these cameras which simply are for the production of revenue and only tangentally deal with "safety" (really starting to hate that word, used in "it's for your safety" by officials).

How much longer before a group of people (where are you "Occupiers") just make a pact to mob these cameras and bring them down every time they are erected? It truly eats at me everytime I hear our (or other) police chief say that the plan to attack crime is "more cameras". How prescient was Orwell?

Really--how much more will the people take? Cynical me says "a lot more" (see New York City). But we will see...

posted by oldhometown on Aug 18, 2012 at 03:06:02 pm     #  

Yet, cameras did not prevent armed robbers from attacking Mr. Abu-Karsh. Cameras didn't prevent a man from running down another man at a gas station on Secor. Cameras at Moody Manor did not prevent a baby from being killed... on and on.
The current city administration has proposed more cameras in one year than than every other administration in the history of the city. It's in the triple digits. All for safety.

posted by justread on Aug 18, 2012 at 03:21:48 pm     #  

BTW.. they are the first administration to invite a television production company to film us during our contact with TPD. Why? Because one of our white shirt officers attended a conference and thought it would be cool.
They do not respect us.

posted by justread on Aug 18, 2012 at 03:23:31 pm     #  

I'm surprised nobody's piped up on this thread yet to lecture us on the fact that if we just don't run the red lights or speed, we have nothing to worry about.

posted by dell_diva on Aug 18, 2012 at 03:55:48 pm     #  

^and we are all so damn important that we have to use our smart/cell phones too

posted by justareviewer on Aug 18, 2012 at 04:19:13 pm     #  

Thread swerve.

posted by justread on Aug 18, 2012 at 04:23:31 pm     #  

I remember when Orwell's book, 1984, was first out and we all thought the ideas in that book would never happen. They have happened big time and "big brother" is out of control.

Has Toledo become the speed trap of the north?

posted by jackie on Aug 18, 2012 at 05:09:52 pm     #   2 people liked this

Meanwhile, at EVERY OTHER INTERSECTION IN TOLEDO THAT DOESN'T HAVE A CAMERA, people are speeding through red lights like crazy. Because they know where the cameras are and that the cops are NOT going to be watching for this, let alone there being any cops on patrol.

Just one of my many moneymaking ideas for Toledo: Put up a "NO LEFT TURN" sign on the north side of Central opposite the exit from Costco by the gas station, park a cruiser right there as if the cop's eating lunch from somewhere nearby, and pull over every dumbass who turns left out of Costco for failure to obey a traffic control device.

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 18, 2012 at 06:02:05 pm     #  

So I'm sitting in my kitchen sauteing a little piece of salmon and I hear my wife yell from the other office... "Oh my God, I actually agree with something Anonymous Coward wrote!"

The date is August 18th, 2012. 6:44pm.

posted by Danneskjold on Aug 18, 2012 at 06:45:17 pm     #   1 person liked this

Costco posted the stop sign there as "no left turn" and puts up cones sometimes, and people still left turn there. WTF.

I'd also like to see the cops stake out some sports on Monroe Street like this. Hell, there's a few spots on Reynolds and Central that'd be good too. And don't forget my complaint about brake lights (by law you have to have two working)! Park a cop near an intersection and have him watch the brake lights and start citing people! Too many idiots out there with two brake lights out, and too many other idiots not paying attention who are going to rear-end the idiot with non-functioning brake lights!

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 18, 2012 at 10:21:21 pm     #  

Seriously, cops, stop with the "traffic blitz" at Ottawa River or patrolling I-75 and start popping people for speeding or running red lights on city streets, and start pulling them over for "light-out" stuff too. Fuck the DUI checkpoints that the drunks avoid. Take that overtime and get a pile of cops to hang out 4 blocks from the bars at last call on the weekend, pull anyone who goes past you with a light out over, and see how many DUIs you catch. If TPD and City of Toledo are actually SERIOUS about safety (which is why they claim they need the cameras), then they should be doing this stuff.

I want to hear on the news and in the Blah that TPD will be out pulling over anyone they see whose car has lights out, no muffler, is unsafe to drive, etc. If you can't change your farking light bulb or get a replacement taillight, you deserve what you get.

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 18, 2012 at 10:31:50 pm     #  

Danneskjold posted at 06:45:17 PM on Aug 18, 2012:

So I'm sitting in my kitchen sauteing a little piece of salmon and I hear my wife yell from the other office... "Oh my God, I actually agree with something Anonymous Coward wrote!"

The date is August 18th, 2012. 6:44pm.

Yeah, I heard Satan felt a draft.

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 18, 2012 at 10:32:30 pm     #  

Imagine this, the voters in Houston voted down their red light tax cameras!

http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/1314226282-Houston-Puts-The-Red-Light-On-Red-Light-Cameras.html

posted by MrGlass419 on Aug 18, 2012 at 11:29:46 pm     #  

Toledoans are too lazy to put it to the vote.

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 18, 2012 at 11:51:53 pm     #   1 person liked this

I will say, tho, after 5 of us getting caught once each by the camera at Lemoyne and Woodville, we DO remember to slow down there. :D

posted by nana on Aug 19, 2012 at 11:43:11 am     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 11:51:53 PM on Aug 18, 2012:

Toledoans are too lazy to put it to the vote.

I was part of a group who hit the streets to try and collect signatures to get them taken down, nobody gave a damn. Go the "it will never happen to me" from 90% of the people.

posted by dbw8906 on Aug 20, 2012 at 06:06:55 am     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 10:32:30 PM on Aug 18, 2012:
Danneskjold posted at 06:45:17 PM on Aug 18, 2012:

So I'm sitting in my kitchen sauteing a little piece of salmon and I hear my wife yell from the other office... "Oh my God, I actually agree with something Anonymous Coward wrote!"

The date is August 18th, 2012. 6:44pm.

Yeah, I heard Satan felt a draft.

Yeah, but it was his A/C. Not his AC.

posted by justread on Aug 20, 2012 at 06:50:59 am     #  

Speed and red light cameras are a way for Toledo to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working class.

That is 1.7 million the poor and working class don't have to spend in the casino now.

posted by toledoramblingman on Aug 20, 2012 at 08:58:52 am     #  

That is 1.7 million the poor and working class don't have to spend in the casino now.

Umm...gambling is also a "tax" on the poor and working class. Willingly paid too...

But don't take my word for it--here's Toledo's newest talk show star (1470AM) Dave Ramsey:

Dave Ramsey: Gambling Offers False Hope

Rich people and smart people would be in the line if the Lotto was a real wealth-building tool, but the truth is that the Lotto is a rip-off instituted by our government.

"But Dave, our state says the money is going to scholarships!" That may be partially true, but guess who's getting the scholarships statistically? Kids in middle-class and upper-class ZIP codes— so poor people are sending middle class kids to school. How stupid is that?

"But Dave, someone has to win!" Did you know the divorce rate among Lotto winners is four-fold the national average? Also, 65% of Lotto winners are bankrupt within 15 years. Scary, isn't it? I sure don't want that, and I bet you don't either.

Gambling is a tax on the poor and people who can't do math. Don't get mad at me for saying that. This is not a moral position; it is a mathematical, statistical fact. Studies show that the ZIP codes that spend four times what anyone else does on lottery tickets are those in lower-income parts of town.

posted by oldhometown on Aug 20, 2012 at 11:13:10 am     #  

I don't make enough money to gamble any of it away!

It's just hard for me to give money away for "nothing".

posted by dbw8906 on Aug 20, 2012 at 11:18:32 am     #  

I confess - I enjoy gambling. I do it within reason though.

If I go out for an evening, I'm going to end up spending money regardless of what I choose to do. Whether I spend it on a nice dinner and a movie, an evening at a casino, buying tickets to attend an event...either way, I'm spending money to amuse myself for an evening. If I happen to come close to breaking even, then I'm content.

posted by mom2 on Aug 20, 2012 at 11:28:35 am     #  

"Seriously, cops, stop with the "traffic blitz" at Ottawa River or patrolling I-75 and start popping......"

I've voiced my opinion on this issue numerous times here. It's a f---ing joke. Adding insult to injury, those of us who live under the flight path of the planes they use have to listen to those gd things repeatedly flying over......and over.....and over.....

posted by Foodie on Aug 20, 2012 at 04:17:20 pm     #  

Albuquerque NM also voted to removed their red light cameras last year. Perhaps we in Toledo will do the same.

I'll sign your petition dbw. I never saw a petition against these cameras.

posted by jackie on Aug 20, 2012 at 05:10:57 pm     #  

We gave it a run in 2010 but were meet with a wall of apathy.

http://wedemandavote.com/toledo/

posted by dbw8906 on Aug 20, 2012 at 06:56:50 pm     #  

I just don't get it. I'm really not all that dumb, really; but the whole big brother thing just doesn't seem like a legitimate concern. I got nailed going up douglas ave by UT for doing 49 in a 40 - 1st ticket I had received in about 15 years. Rushing to a meeting in west toledo from south toledo (no good path in my opinion). But when I got the ticket, I thought damn, you got me. I deserve it.
I just don't see this as an over reach by government; I see it as using technology to keep people from driving like morons ( a phenomenon I witness daily).
Why am I wrong about this?

posted by Progress22 on Aug 20, 2012 at 08:52:41 pm     #   1 person liked this

Slippery slope?

posted by justread on Aug 20, 2012 at 09:16:17 pm     #  

All of the points made throughout the thread?

posted by justread on Aug 20, 2012 at 09:16:50 pm     #  

Progress22 posted at 08:52:41 PM on Aug 20, 2012:

I just don't get it. I'm really not all that dumb, really; but the whole big brother thing just doesn't seem like a legitimate concern. I got nailed going up douglas ave by UT for doing 49 in a 40 - 1st ticket I had received in about 15 years. Rushing to a meeting in west toledo from south toledo (no good path in my opinion). But when I got the ticket, I thought damn, you got me. I deserve it.
I just don't see this as an over reach by government; I see it as using technology to keep people from driving like morons ( a phenomenon I witness daily).

Why am I wrong about this?

The cameras were pitched as "FOR SAFETY AND THE LITTLE KIDDIES!" and are now a blatant revenue grab.

Meanwhile, all over Toledo, at any intersection NOT featuring cameras, the number of people blowing through red lights seems to be on the rise (anecdotal evidence, true) and the only time people STOP speeding is right before the cameras... then it's hammer-down time.

The damn things also record CONTINUOUSLY and there's NOTHING that is stopping them from doing automated license plate checks and keeping the video FOREVER. For all we know they are ALREADY doing this shit and it just hasn't got out yet.

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 20, 2012 at 10:55:34 pm     #  

Just for you AC, I made sure I got this from the World Socialist website.

The irony of Marxists up in arms over "illegal surveillence" is overwhelming; yet, their point and description of the current situation is pretty well spot on.

Obama Administration Expands Illegal Surveillance of Americans

Last Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder enacted guidelines that further expand the US government’s asserted powers to collect and store private information, without a warrant, concerning individuals who are not suspected of any crime.

The guidelines constitute a further step by the Obama administration to expand and entrench unconstitutional spying operations on the American people by all levels of government that were spearheaded by the Bush administration.

In the period since September 11, 2001, the US government has secretly compiled vast databases containing private information on the American public. These databases include telephone conversations, the contents of personal emails, visited web sites, Google searches, text messages, credit card transactions, mobile phone GPS location data, travel itineraries, Facebook activity, medical records, traffic tickets, surveillance camera footage and online purchases. The vast quantities of information that are being collected and stored by the US government far exceed what was gathered by the most infamous police states of the last century.

Holder’s guidelines permit intelligence officials to secretly use these databases to profile and track Americans who have no connection to terrorism—alleged or otherwise—for up to five years. The previous guidelines, issued in 2008 by Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey, were understood to limit the retention of such information to 180 days.

posted by oldhometown on Aug 21, 2012 at 11:29:43 am     #   1 person liked this

Actually, considering all the other surveillance that's going on from the feds, maybe Progress is right--what's a few red light cameras, really.......

posted by oldhometown on Aug 21, 2012 at 11:30:37 am     #  

First, oht, I don't think there's much irony in Marxists not liking surveillance. If you're thinking of the USSR, that is pretty far removed from what Marx was talking about.

Anyway, the point of my post: really, guys? We're getting this fired up about some red light cameras catching people who are running red lights? There are real issues in the world - why is THIS the thing people choose to get so passionate about?

posted by Johio83 on Aug 21, 2012 at 11:45:53 am     #  

Johio83 posted at 11:45:53 AM on Aug 21, 2012:

First, oht, I don't think there's much irony in Marxists not liking surveillance. If you're thinking of the USSR, that is pretty far removed from what Marx was talking about.

Anyway, the point of my post: really, guys? We're getting this fired up about some red light cameras catching people who are running red lights? There are real issues in the world - why is THIS the thing people choose to get so passionate about?

Because it allows the moral and upright to sit on their thrown and yell "well if you are doing nothing wrong what do your naturally given, Constitutionally granted rights matter!" It allows the "good guys" to bend the law while pointing the finger at the bad guy.

posted by dbw8906 on Aug 21, 2012 at 11:51:59 am     #  

But we aren't talking about the government exploiting some loophole to make people slip up, forcing them to pay penalties they didn't know they'd committed - we're talking about running red lights. If fewer people run red lights because of these, I'm all for it!

posted by Johio83 on Aug 21, 2012 at 12:34:13 pm     #  

If you're thinking of the USSR, that is pretty far removed from what Marx was talking about.

We are talking about theory versus governance.

Please find me a Marxist regime that did not have secret police, "files", and warnings that the population was being watched all the time for "offenses". None of these were part of Marx's philosophy either, yet each government that implemented Marx's vision used these tools to impose the philosophy. So, yeah, that socialists are decrying surveillance, while consistent with the pure Marx philosophy of superstructure/substructure ordering of society, is laughable when seeing how Marxists actually run governments.

Marxist-Leninist governments (U.S.S.R. is gone, but we still have Vietnam, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Laos), as you are aware, make no pretensions about citizen "freedoms"--they have none. Whereas our freedoms here in the United States are described in the Constitution and, more specifically, in the Bill of Rights--a document that is supposed to limit the intrusion of government upon private persons. This whole area of camera (and other) surveillance for a more "secure" or "safe" society needs to be pushed back. Not banned, but some clear boundaries need to be set because right now I feel like government is taking all it can get and will be loathe to give it up.

posted by oldhometown on Aug 21, 2012 at 12:55:19 pm     #  

Johio83 posted at 12:34:13 PM on Aug 21, 2012:

But we aren't talking about the government exploiting some loophole to make people slip up, forcing them to pay penalties they didn't know they'd committed - we're talking about running red lights. If fewer people run red lights because of these, I'm all for it!

So you would be for a lot of things if the ends justifies the means.

posted by Linecrosser on Aug 21, 2012 at 03:51:36 pm     #  

Who are you, Rush Limbaugh? I would be for a lot of things if the ends justifies the means, because I said I'm fine with a camera that snaps pictures of cars that run red lights? How often do you jump to extreme conclusions?

posted by Johio83 on Aug 21, 2012 at 05:08:17 pm     #  

John83,

When is the last time you read 1984?

The means never justify the end. Your vision of what the end should be are far different than mine. I am sick of government intrusions in my life, but you're fine with them because you don't speed.

I hate wearing a seat belt and wouldn't if the auto manufacturers didn't put such an annoying reminder system in my vehicle.

I hate businesses not being allowed to permit smoking in their business.

I hate having to prepay for gas, because they assume that I'm going to steal the gas I put in my car.

I hate being monitored and watched electronically because I might break a law.

Finally I hate it when people don't stand up for themselves and foolishly support a restrictive government policy because they are only concerned with themselves.

I'm not all about hate though, I also have pity for some. I saw an ad for Progressive Insurance's SNAPSHOT policy.

I pity the idiots who register for that program. The fools are looking to save money and never stop to think that the little device records ALL data about their driving; giving Progressive the ability to deny a claim because the driver was speeding, didn't stop completely, underestimated the miles they drive annually, etc.

posted by jimavolt on Aug 21, 2012 at 07:53:25 pm     #   4 people liked this

Jim, with respect:
I've read 1984 and it bears no resemblance to our current society
Not wearing your seat belt is to understanding physics what playing the lottery is to understanding statistics - good luck.
Smoking in public places is rude, anachronistic and well, un-evolved.
Who prepays for gas? Damn, get a credit card and don't bother wasting your time inside a gas station ever again in your life.
Someone else may break a law and you might be a victim; might you want evidence then?
Finally, I support responsible government policy because I am concerned with the safety and security of others.

posted by Progress22 on Aug 21, 2012 at 09:19:51 pm     #  

"Smoking in public places is rude, anachronistic and well, un-evolved."

Progress22, that's not what jimavolt said, so your comment is misplaced. He spoke of businesses not public places. Those businesses are only "public" when you choose to enter those places. I don't want to turn this thread into the smoking ban crap, so I'll end this with the usual thought that cannot be refuted: Smoking ban supporters are feeble.

And this oxymoron statement is spectacular:

"... responsible government policy ..."

So you're not a fan of Thoreau and Civil Disobience, which starts with:

"I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

More responsible government policy means we'll never attain Thoreau's goal, which means we're not evolving. We're digressing.

"Not wearing your seat belt is to understanding physics what playing the lottery is to understanding statistics - good luck."

Why is it legal to ride motorcycles and bicycles and to do so in some states without wearing a helmet?

Where's the responsible government policy that outlaws motorcycles and bicycles to protect humans from themselves? Physics says that a collision between an automobile and a motorcycle or bicycle tends to favor the former, unless the automobile is a Smart Car.

Who gets to define what is responsible government policy?

Why not lock down every automobile engine so that the top speed is only 45 mph or less? If we have speed limits, why do auto manufacturers produce vehicles with these wonderful engines that can easily exceed our speed limits? Safety, security, physics, and responsible policy means the top speed of automobiles should be restricted.

A nonsensical idea today about safety is tomorrow's responsible government policy. Poor Thoreau.

posted by jr on Aug 21, 2012 at 11:43:09 pm     #   2 people liked this

Jimavolt, if you read your auto owner's manual, it probably includes how to disable the annoying seat belt reminder sounds.

I disabled it from my car. I don't exactly remember how, and I'm sure each car is different, but it entailed something with tapping a pedal a few times with the ignition turned on.

The speeding cameras probably will slow down plenty of speeders. However, red light cameras seem to decrease safety with drivers suddenly braking at the worst moments.

posted by 6th_Floor on Aug 22, 2012 at 12:25:32 am     #  

Jimavolt - Maybe you should do some research on the Progressive Snapshot device before being so quick to call some of us idiots.

It does NOT monitor your speed.

Progressive cannot/will not deny a claim because of it. Nor will they raise your insurance rates because of it.

You don't keep it in your car forever. You plug it in for a short amount of time, where it records your driving times (do you drive during high-risk times, for instance), if you make a lot of sudden stops, and how many total hours per day you drive. It cannot monitor your speed and use it against you because it does not have the ability to know what the speed limit is where you are driving. If you are going 70 mph, it has no way of knowing if you are doing so legally (like driving on the expressway) or illegally (through a 20 mph school zone). After your short Snapshot period, you mail it back to Progressive. If it determines that you are a less than desirable driver, your rates stay the same. If you are a good driver, you get a nice discount.

I typically agree with your comments on here but jesus, take off your tinfoil hat.

posted by dell_diva on Aug 22, 2012 at 05:46:01 am     #  

dell_diva posted at 05:46:01 AM on Aug 22, 2012:

Jimavolt - Maybe you should do some research on the Progressive Snapshot device before being so quick to call some of us idiots.

It does NOT monitor your speed.

Progressive cannot/will not deny a claim because of it. Nor will they raise your insurance rates because of it.

You don't keep it in your car forever. You plug it in for a short amount of time, where it records your driving times (do you drive during high-risk times, for instance), if you make a lot of sudden stops, and how many total hours per day you drive. It cannot monitor your speed and use it against you because it does not have the ability to know what the speed limit is where you are driving. If you are going 70 mph, it has no way of knowing if you are doing so legally (like driving on the expressway) or illegally (through a 20 mph school zone). After your short Snapshot period, you mail it back to Progressive. If it determines that you are a less than desirable driver, your rates stay the same. If you are a good driver, you get a nice discount.

I typically agree with your comments on here but jesus, take off your tinfoil hat.

If you are not an "idiot," then don't opt yourself in to his comment and choose to be offended. Decide that it didn't apply to you and move on.

On topic, I think that it is niave to think that data, especially this kind of data is not retained and used by this company (and others.)

I simply don't trust an insurance company to ONLY use data mined from drivers for the driver's benefit and no other. It is completely inconsistent with my experience.

And I don't have a tinfoil hat or a propensity to take the Lord's name in vain.

posted by justread on Aug 22, 2012 at 07:28:03 am     #   1 person liked this

"John83,
When is the last time you read 1984?
The means never justify the end."

(First, Johio is Joe + Ohio, a nickname I picked up while living in Florida. I was the Joe from Ohio, so Johio... you get the picture)

And as I was trying to say in my previous post, saying that I always support the ends justifying the means simply because I don't have a problem with a red light camera stopping people from running a red light is a bit of a stretch. I really don't see it as a government intrusion. If they said they wanted to put a monitor in my car, which they would come check on a monthly basis, to see if I'd exceeded 65 mph at any point, then yes, that would absolutely be government intrusion. A camera that flashes when I run through a red light? I'm 100% ok with that.

posted by Johio83 on Aug 22, 2012 at 08:38:08 am     #  

justread posted at 07:28:03 AM on Aug 22, 2012:
dell_diva posted at 05:46:01 AM on Aug 22, 2012:

Jimavolt - Maybe you should do some research on the Progressive Snapshot device before being so quick to call some of us idiots.

It does NOT monitor your speed.

Progressive cannot/will not deny a claim because of it. Nor will they raise your insurance rates because of it.

You don't keep it in your car forever. You plug it in for a short amount of time, where it records your driving times (do you drive during high-risk times, for instance), if you make a lot of sudden stops, and how many total hours per day you drive. It cannot monitor your speed and use it against you because it does not have the ability to know what the speed limit is where you are driving. If you are going 70 mph, it has no way of knowing if you are doing so legally (like driving on the expressway) or illegally (through a 20 mph school zone). After your short Snapshot period, you mail it back to Progressive. If it determines that you are a less than desirable driver, your rates stay the same. If you are a good driver, you get a nice discount.

I typically agree with your comments on here but jesus, take off your tinfoil hat.

If you are not an "idiot," then don't opt yourself in to his comment and choose to be offended. Decide that it didn't apply to you and move on.

On topic, I think that it is niave to think that data, especially this kind of data is not retained and used by this company (and others.)

I simply don't trust an insurance company to ONLY use data mined from drivers for the driver's benefit and no other. It is completely inconsistent with my experience.

And I don't have a tinfoil hat or a propensity to take the Lord's name in vain.

I agree, if you think they are not fully data mining you must have just fallen off the turnip truck.

You pay them your hard earned money for insurance coverage, your driving habits are none of their business.

posted by dbw8906 on Aug 22, 2012 at 09:07:41 am     #  

"You pay them your hard earned money for insurance coverage, your driving habits are none of their business."

Wow, talk about falling off the turnip truck. This might be the dumbest thing I've heard.

posted by dell_diva on Aug 22, 2012 at 10:28:45 am     #  

I am kind of perplexed by that comment as well.

posted by mom2 on Aug 22, 2012 at 10:38:28 am     #  

I'm not against red light cameras as much as speed cameras. They were put in specifically for revenue without a mention of public safety.

Today I ran errands in my end of town. From Alexis and Jackman, up Laskey to Telegraph and back Alexis to Jackman I saw NO speed limit signs in all that time. How is someone not familiar with this area to know what the correct speed limit is?

posted by jackie on Aug 22, 2012 at 02:43:50 pm     #  

jackie posted at 02:43:50 PM on Aug 22, 2012:

I'm not against red light cameras as much as speed cameras. They were put in specifically for revenue without a mention of public safety.

Today I ran errands in my end of town. From Alexis and Jackman, up Laskey to Telegraph and back Alexis to Jackman I saw NO speed limit signs in all that time. How is someone not familiar with this area to know what the correct speed limit is?

It is written right on the ticket, silly.

posted by justread on Aug 22, 2012 at 03:13:55 pm     #  

Ha!

posted by upso on Aug 22, 2012 at 03:34:23 pm     #  

I find it humorous that so many people equate Red Light Cameras with 1984. I have to wonder is those people have actually read the book. Just because a camera is involve doesn't mean it is analogous the their use by the Party and the Thought Police. Are you folks advocating the repeal of the laws that make running stop signs illegal?

I am not arguing for or against the use of red light or any other kind of law enforcement cameras. I am simply pointing out that your analogy is a poor one at best.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Aug 22, 2012 at 03:56:02 pm     #  

justread

You just made my day!

posted by jackie on Aug 22, 2012 at 03:58:37 pm     #  

jackie posted at 02:43:50 PM on Aug 22, 2012:

I'm not against red light cameras as much as speed cameras. They were put in specifically for revenue without a mention of public safety.

Today I ran errands in my end of town. From Alexis and Jackman, up Laskey to Telegraph and back Alexis to Jackman I saw NO speed limit signs in all that time. How is someone not familiar with this area to know what the correct speed limit is?

BY KNOWING THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OHIO, LIKE YOU LEARNED BACK IN DRIVER'S ED, DUH!

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 22, 2012 at 05:56:14 pm     #  

The black box in a vehicle picks up a lot more than times you drive and if you brake hard. To believe that the insurance company is not learning everything it can about your driving is naive.

I just re-read 1984, and if you don't believe it's happening, then you ought to read it too. Should the government be able to watch me - hell no.

The government is authorized to do many things by the constitution, checking my speed by a camera as I drive through an intersection is not one of them.

posted by jimavolt on Aug 22, 2012 at 07:55:35 pm     #   1 person liked this

Devil's advocate here...

So it's not fair for the government to use automated means to catch people breaking the law at traffic stops, but what about the government using automated mean to catch bank crooks, embezzlers and drug traffickers?

posted by SensorG on Aug 22, 2012 at 08:16:22 pm     #  

The city should layoff some of the day shift police, or move them to night shift, since the cameras provide adequate coverage for ticketing traffic violations.

posted by 6th_Floor on Aug 22, 2012 at 08:25:51 pm     #   2 people liked this

Jim:

The events in 1984 may very well be underway, but equating the use of cameras to record a traffic violation to their use as a means to police speech and thought is ridiculous. I see many examples of "thought policing", but none of them are related to red light cameras. Usually it manifests in mass media outlets, arguing for or against every political opinion possible.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Aug 22, 2012 at 08:43:12 pm     #  

jackie posted at 03:58:37 PM on Aug 22, 2012:

justread

You just made my day!

Glad to hear it. I second guessed the "silly" but hoped that you'd read it as I heard it in my head. :)

posted by justread on Aug 22, 2012 at 09:22:52 pm     #  

MoreThanRhetoric posted at 03:56:02 PM on Aug 22, 2012:

I find it humorous that so many people equate Red Light Cameras with 1984. I have to wonder is those people have actually read the book. Just because a camera is involve doesn't mean it is analogous the their use by the Party and the Thought Police. Are you folks advocating the repeal of the laws that make running stop signs illegal?

I am not arguing for or against the use of red light or any other kind of law enforcement cameras. I am simply pointing out that your analogy is a poor one at best.

Certainly that comment is a little less than more than rhetoric.

I've read the book.

And I also understand the colloquial usage of the comparison.

Now, the suggestion that people who use and understand the colloquial reference to "1984" as a loose shorthand comparison to an intrusive and controlling government would for some reason be in favor of repealing the laws against running stop signs is difficult to comprehend.

Perhaps even humorous.

posted by justread on Aug 22, 2012 at 09:30:05 pm     #  

Point out more poor analogies. That one was fun.

posted by justread on Aug 22, 2012 at 09:31:23 pm     #  

Well, let's play. As you know, the underlying problem folks are relating from 1984 was the constant spying on the populace to make sure they weren't plotting against the Party. The use of red light cameras has no relevance in that context. They are, however, very relevant to citing people who run a red light. The folks citing 1984 say that red light cameras have to go. Since they are only used in the citing of drivers for traffic violations, they seem to believe that the traffic laws are akin to the illegitimate thought laws in the book.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Aug 22, 2012 at 09:39:32 pm     #  

Incidentally, how is the use of a camera to cite red light violations any more intrusive than a human officer doing the same thing?

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Aug 22, 2012 at 09:42:02 pm     #  

I believe that most people didn't read it. Most people are parroting a colloquial use that has become a shorthand comparison to the intrusive and controlling government that they assume is the subject of the book. (and more or less is)
My argument is that there is the book, and then there is the cultural adaptation of the book. I think that the latter seems more prevalent than the former. I don't think that they are making an intentional statement that traffic laws are akin to the thought police. I think that they are doing precisely what George Orwell did in 1949. Projecting a future with less freedom.

They are make a politically satirical suggestion that a dystopian society can result if that society is not vigilant against deception, surveillance and historical manipulation of an authoritarian state.
Other terms that have been picked up in our language since 1949, often used out of SPECIFIC context of 1984 include: Big Brother, Thoughtcrime, Doublethink, Newspeak, and Memory Hole.

I am comfortable with the comparisons of a city full of enforcement cameras to "1984." After all, if the steady erosion of privacy, freedom and individual rights continues, by "2047" we'll have thought police and the Ministry of Truth.

It's a slippery slope.

posted by justread on Aug 22, 2012 at 09:57:47 pm     #   1 person liked this

MoreThanRhetoric posted at 09:42:02 PM on Aug 22, 2012:

Incidentally, how is the use of a camera to cite red light violations any more intrusive than a human officer doing the same thing?

Some humans view another human as less intrusive than a camera connected to a mainframe down at the Ministry of Enforcement.

posted by justread on Aug 22, 2012 at 10:04:14 pm     #  

MoreThanRhetoric posted at 09:42:02 PM on Aug 22, 2012:

Incidentally, how is the use of a camera to cite red light violations any more intrusive than a human officer doing the same thing?

One cop sitting in a patrol car that is watching traffic, sees someone run a red light, pulls them over, and issues a citation puts one entry for an offender in a database.

One camera taking full-motion video of an intersection 24/7 (the cameras DO NOT just take two snapshots, does anyone remember the news story from when there was the motorcycle procession that got cited where riders blocked the intersections and the brouhaha that resulted in the citations being dismissed and the cops saying "if you want to do something like this again, TELL US and we'll provide an escort" that had FULL MOTION VIDEO downloaded from the camears?), that has the potential to record EVERY vehicle, EVERY plate, and possibly even EVERY face it can see and run ALL of those through automated plate-recognition and face-recognition software and record "Joe Blow drove a brown Corolla, plate FCK1984, southbound on State St at the intersection with Church St at 2:45:21pm, and then drove back through northbound 30 minutes later" in a database for all eternity, that doesn't concern you? Not even in the context of "2 people were found dead in a home on State Street 5 blocks north of Church, witnesses report seeing a brown car parked out front of the home some time around 3pm"?

Oh yeah, the above is EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T RUN A RED LIGHT OR SPEED THROUGH THE INTERSECTION.

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 22, 2012 at 10:51:52 pm     #  

justread posted at 10:04:14 PM on Aug 22, 2012:
MoreThanRhetoric posted at 09:42:02 PM on Aug 22, 2012:

Incidentally, how is the use of a camera to cite red light violations any more intrusive than a human officer doing the same thing?

Some humans view another human as less intrusive than a camera connected to a mainframe down at the Ministry of Enforcement.

It isn't that the camera is connected to a mainframe at the Ministry of Enforcement, Security, and Silly Walks.

It's that there is no accountability or oversight as to exactly what the camera records, who gets the recordings, what they use them for, and how long they retain the recordings.

You think they just take two snapshots of the offending vehicle and issue a citation.

What's REALLY happening is not what you think is happening.

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 22, 2012 at 10:57:46 pm     #   1 person liked this

Oh this should piss EVERYONE off:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/license-plates-scanned-at-border-data-shared-with-car-insurance-group/

Law & Disorder / Civilization & Discontents
License plates scanned at border, data shared with car insurance group
National Insurance Crime Bureau, though, says it's only interested in stolen cars.

by Cyrus Farivar - Aug 22 2012, 4:36pm EDT

Government
Privacy

25
American authorities are capturing license plate data daily on hundreds of thousands of border crossings.
Francis Raymond

As public scrutiny continues to mount against the use of license plate readers (LPRs) across the country, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has now released government documents showing that such data, which includes precise GPS location, date, and timestamps, in addition to the plate in question, are shared with an auto insurance umbrella organization.

The documents, published on Tuesday as the result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, include a six-page memorandum of understanding (MOU) from 2005 between the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) and the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency.

The NICB is a nonprofit organization funded by hundreds of American auto insurance corporations around the country, which "partners with insurers and law enforcement agencies to facilitate the identification, detection, and prosecution of insurance criminals."

So yeah, not only does Progressive (boogety boogety!) know what you're doing when you drive around with their Snapshot device (voluntarily!), the GOVERNMENT is handing over your driving habits to ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES for no good reason!

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 22, 2012 at 11:11:58 pm     #  

But if you are doing nothing wrong why can't they record all your comings and goings, place a warrant-less wiretaps on your phone, and roam through your browsing history and twitter account right? Our wonderful freedom loving government would never hold a man indefinably, without trial, against his own will, and not accuse him of a crime. But Obama said NDAA would NEVER be used against Americans. To my knowledge this man broke no laws, except future crime? I guess the Ministry of Love must have their way with him.

I mean the Feds love watching porn why not setup a DHS camera in your bedroom. you could be a reality star.

posted by dbw8906 on Aug 23, 2012 at 07:07:54 am     #  

Yeah. I see those camera set-ups on the trunk lid of some TPD cars. Of course, by the time I see them, they have scanned, recorded, parsed, and logged my vehicle.

posted by justread on Aug 23, 2012 at 07:09:19 am     #  

Camera in your bedroom? Wasn't Rush Limbaugh demanding that a few months ago?

posted by SensorG on Aug 23, 2012 at 07:43:56 am     #   1 person liked this

More drones, please, of all sizes. They're cooler than cameras at intersections, and they can perform more law enforcement duties. Create some small drones that operate like big dragonflies, and let them hover over the area, controlled by a TPD nerve center downtown.

Once we get accustomed to traffic enforcement cameras, it will be easier for us to accept drones.

July 2012 - Talking Points Memo - Maple Seed Drones Will Swarm The Future

Imagine a cheap, tiny, hovering aerial drone capable of being launched with the flick of a person’s wrist and able to provide manipulable 360-degree surveillance views.

It’s real, it’s inspired by maple seeds, and the company behind it, Lockheed Martin, envisions a future in which swarms of the new drones can be deployed at a fraction of the cost and with greater capabilities than drones being used today by the military and other agencies.

In June, Lockheed Martin released a video demo of the drone’s capabilities, and it is clearly impressive, launched by hand and piloted using a tablet computer, which also displays the drone’s live surveillance feed.

Borgia said that the drone, or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), was designed to be deployed in confined settings, such as urban environments or even inside buildings, where it could be piloted into different rooms and hover outside of windows, collecting surveillance footage with ease.

Lockheed Martin began work on the Samarai in 2007 under a Defense Department program called “nano air,” designed to produce “an extremely small, ultra lightweight air vehicle system.”


June 2012 - CBS - The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police

The Air Force guidelines permit using drones domestically to assist law enforcement in “investigating or preventing clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, international narcotics activities , or international terrorist activities.” More vague is language that also allows military cooperation with local law enforcement for the purposes of “preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.”


June 2012 - ABC - Popularity of drones raising privacy concerns

"So, with the aircraft, you can put that aircraft up at 400 or 500 feet, be able to scan the area for other individuals and again, contain it more visibly from the air than you could from the ground," explains Vanguard Industries CEO Mike Buscher.

That's raising big concerns about privacy and how the government is using drones to watch all of us. People, when they step outside their door, could end up being tracked 24-7 by these cameras," Trevor Timm with Electronic Frontier Foundation says. He thinks it's getting too easy for government agencies to spy on us with drones.

The [EFF] sued, demanding to know who has applied for a drone license. They won, so the federal government turned over a list of 60 government agencies who want to use them. On the list were a few dozen law enforcement agencies across the country. "The FAA actually estimates that by 2020 there may be as many as 30,000 drones flying in U.S. skies," Timm says.


February 2012 - RT.com - US opens skies for drones

Earlier this week the US Congress passed a bill that would send aviation in America to the next generation. Therefore making unmanned drone sightings more prevalent in the US. The bill grants military, commercial and private unmanned aerial vehicles amplified access to US airspace.

In an article by Forbes, the use of these unmanned drones would make it easy for companies like Google to ditch the street view and easily transition “Google street drone view.”

The American Civil Liberties Union doesn’t see a real need for unmanned drones to hover around all over the US. “Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.”

The ACLU went on to say that Congress needs to address these privacy concerns with rules that will protect the American people. “We don’t want to wonder, every time we step out our front door, whether some eye in the sky is watching our every move,” the ACLU added.


December 2011 - LA Times - Police employ Predator drone spy planes on home front

"I am for the use of drones," said Howard Safir, former head of operations for the U.S. Marshals Service and former New York City police commissioner.

But privacy advocates say drones help police snoop on citizens in ways that push current law to the breaking point.

"Any time you have a tool like that in the hands of law enforcement that makes it easier to do surveillance, they will do more of it," said Ryan Calo, director for privacy and robotics at the Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society.

We need to marginalize those radical, tinfoil hat groups like the EFF and ACLU, so that we can have more cameras in the sky for our own safety and security.

posted by jr on Aug 23, 2012 at 08:38:09 am     #   2 people liked this

the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has now released government documents showing that such data, which includes precise GPS location, date, and timestamps, in addition to the plate in question, are shared with an auto insurance umbrella organization.

Add it to the overwhelming wave of things our government is doing that piss regular Americans off. But the operational mode is "do it, let 'em try to sue us later". Of course, by the time the lawsuits come to fruition, we're 5 years down the road and how much data has been collected?

They have no right to do this. It's bad enough airports are a Fourth Amendment-free zone, now you're asking me to OK this same philosophy...that I should be watched by a government recording camera all the time because it catches "lawbreakers"? A private entity can put up all the cameras they want--banks, jewelry stores, etc. I accept that as their right on private property. The government recording and housing this data without evidence of crime on my part--driving data and other data--bothers me tremendously. A jewelry store is not compiling data on other parts of my life. The government... whether it is deemed legal or not ...can link my driving habits to my financial records to my tax records to my passport usage to...well, almost anything.

When the activities of J. Edgar Hoover (FBI director who kept "files" on everyone in political or social power) were made public, people were outraged. On this board, we have people seemingly defending this as a way to catch criminals. That it doesn't matter because they want to be "safer". What a difference 40 years has made. Scary, actually.

Maybe George Carlin was right. Americans will sign over every right they have [under the Constitution]...just give 'em all a little toy that makes a whirling noise or something as payment.

As for those making Orwellian comparisons, they are still apt in the case of these cameras. As AC has noted, the cameras simply do not "shut off" if you are not breaking the law.

Wikipedia: Nineteen Eighty-Four

Moreover, Nineteen Eighty-Four popularised the adjective Orwellian, which describes official deception ["these cameras are just for speed/red light lawbreakers; we NEVER keep recordings of other traffic and couldn't possibly search license plates of passing cars"] , secret surveillance [yeah, nothing like that is going on here right now with these cameras] , and manipulation of the past by a totalitarian or authoritarian state [we don't have the authoritarian state yet, but at least some of us are vigilant...until we need to become "re-educated"].

posted by oldhometown on Aug 23, 2012 at 08:44:45 am     #  

Godwin's Law is a tongue-in-cheek argumentative theory - given a long enough period of time, when two people are in a debate or argument, one will eventually compare the other's view to something Hitler said or did. I think Godwin's Law may need an Orwellian cousin for debates like this one!

posted by Johio83 on Aug 23, 2012 at 09:01:31 am     #  

Johio83, you agree with the idea that once we get accustomed to traffic enforcement cameras, it will be easier for us to accept drones.

If law enforcement cameras at intersections are good, then more cameras are better, right?

The motorists who drive the Trail will learn to slow down at the intersections with cameras, but they will speed between the intersections, which is dangerous and against the law.

A team of small drones could be randomly positioned over the Trail between the intersections to catch speeders. The drones could nab speeders on Sylvania Ave, Central Ave, Reynolds Rd, 475 construction area, anywhere. Just move them around.

We'll never know what roads the drones will be positioned over, which could cause motorists to drive slower all the time, everywhere.

This is about making our roads safer, especially for the children, so we need more sophisticated surveillance, and the drones will provide that.

The small drones could survey homeowners' backyards, searching for city violations. If homeowners are breaking city laws, regulations, and ordinances, then I want those homeowners fined. That's more money for city government, and it will make our town safer and nicer looking.

posted by jr on Aug 23, 2012 at 09:34:35 am     #  

jr posted at 09:34:35 AM on Aug 23, 2012:

Johio83, you agree with the idea that once we get accustomed to traffic enforcement cameras, it will be easier for us to accept drones.

If law enforcement cameras at intersections are good, then more cameras are better, right?

The motorists who drive the Trail will learn to slow down at the intersections with cameras, but they will speed between the intersections, which is dangerous and against the law.

A team of small drones could be randomly positioned over the Trail between the intersections to catch speeders. The drones could nab speeders on Sylvania Ave, Central Ave, Reynolds Rd, 475 construction area, anywhere. Just move them around.

We'll never know what roads the drones will be positioned over, which could cause motorists to drive slower all the time, everywhere.

This is about making our roads safer, especially for the children, so we need more sophisticated surveillance, and the drones will provide that.

The small drones could survey homeowners' backyards, searching for city violations. If homeowners are breaking city laws, regulations, and ordinances, then I want those homeowners fined. That's more money for city government, and it will make our town safer and nicer looking.

The drones can be equipped with sensors to detect bomb-making materials. WE CAN FIND POTENTIAL TERRORISTS BEFORE THEY STRIKE!

The drones can peer into windows of private homes, with IR cameras to get past the curtains, no less, and keep an eye out for child molestation or abuse. SEE! IT'S TO KEEP THE CHILDREN SAFE!

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 23, 2012 at 10:16:57 am     #  

I think Godwin's Law may need an Orwellian cousin for debates like this one!

<sigh>

Thanks for dismissing everyone who thinks 24/7 surveillance of citizen activity as a bunch of Luddites.

posted by oldhometown on Aug 23, 2012 at 10:36:53 am     #  

"Johio83, you agree with the idea that once we get accustomed to traffic enforcement cameras, it will be easier for us to accept drones."

I'm not sure if that's a question or a statement, but either way, no, these are totally different things. Condoning a traffic camera that catches people running red lights is in no way, shape, or form the same idea as a camera watching you in your back yard. As I stated earlier on this board, people need to stop jumping to conclusions, and making connections in other people's arguments that aren't there.

posted by Johio83 on Aug 23, 2012 at 10:47:53 am     #  

"Condoning a traffic camera that catches people running red lights is in no way, shape, or form the same idea as a camera watching you in your back yard."

Bullshit. If it's about safety, security, revenue, and enforcing the law, then cameras should be permitted to watch us more closely. Johio83, you are supporting selective law enforcement. If you obey all laws and ordinances, then you have nothing to worry about when a camera surveys you while you lounge in your backyard.


I'm glad the city is listening to the citizenry.

June 2010 comment

Why has Toledo settled for the half-ass approach of installing only a few dozen cameras since 2001? Why doesn't Toledo add dozens or even hundreds of more traffic cameras? We know it's not about safety. It's purely a money grab, so add more. More cameras equal more revenue for the city. Put the burden of funding the city on the backs of bad drivers.

posted by jr on Aug 23, 2012 at 12:28:48 pm     #  

No, one is a public roadway, the other is my private property. A camera watching an intersection is not the same thing as a camera in my home. If you still claim to not see the difference, then we really can't continue this debate.

posted by Johio83 on Aug 23, 2012 at 12:46:37 pm     #  

BY KNOWING THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OHIO, LIKE YOU LEARNED BACK IN DRIVER'S ED, DUH!

AC

When I went to school there was no driver's ed. Our parents taught us to drive out in the country. And we passed the test, with parallel parking, and had our license. And that day is the last time I ever tried to parallel park.

posted by jackie on Aug 23, 2012 at 12:51:27 pm     #  

^ Also, not every person driving on the roads here has an Ohio drivers license or took drivers ed in Ohio.

posted by mom2 on Aug 23, 2012 at 01:02:18 pm     #  

Johio83, explain "private property."

Are you aware of Toledo government's Property Maintenance initiative? Some excerpts:

All of us have a different idea of what a good neighbor is. Some believe a good neighbor is one you can call on for help or to watch your house when you're out of town. One thing that everyone can agree on is a nuisance free property. There are certain basic standards of living that maintain property values, prevent disputes among neighbors, and allow residents to enjoy their homes and neighborhoods. The people of the City of Toledo, through their elected representatives, have enacted these standards into law and they are contained in the Toledo Municipal Code.

If you see a violation in your neighborhood and want to report it, contact Nuisance Abatement/Demolition's at 419-936-2020.

Nuisance Abatement/Demolition responds to complaints concerning:

  • Housing-general exterior repairs and painting
  • Nuisance-external eyesores
  • Zoning-junkyards, illegally parked autos on private property, fences
  • Unfit - interior living conditions considered unfit for human living
  • Rooming Houses-check for permits, sanitary conditions
  • Boards-ups-order board-up of open buildings

Permits are required for all new construction, additions, alterations and demolitions.

Homeowners are required to obtain a permit for all fences no matter what the value is.

Building permits are required for all sheds and garages if the size is larger than 199 sq. feet or the value of materials and labor is $750 or greater.

That involves humans reporting on matters concerning your private property. This job could be done more efficiently with drones, software, and an image database.

Johio83, why do you need permits from government to build on your private property? It appears the government is already monitoring your private property.

If you add a fence to your private property without the proper permit, then you are violating city code, and you need penalized. With the drone imaging system, more lawbreakers will be detected, more revenue for the city will be collected, and the city will look nicer. All wins.

posted by jr on Aug 23, 2012 at 01:21:43 pm     #  

Was listening on WJR last week the MDOT has made some changes to the traffic lights supposedly to increase traffic flow but could potentially cause more accidents, it involves flashing yellow lights, so if you up in Michigan be careful. From what I gather coming upon a flashing yellow light or turn arrow you might assume that the cross traffic has a flashing red but they might have a green and have the right of way. That to me doesn't seem right and sounds like a recipe for accidents.

posted by Linecrosser on Aug 24, 2012 at 10:21:51 am     #  

Among the things I learned in driver's ed lo those many years ago:

A flashing yellow means to slow down/yield then proceed with caution only if their is no oncoming traffic or is too far away to affect you.

I'm in MI quite often and don't find the traffic signals confusing.

posted by Foodie on Aug 24, 2012 at 01:11:54 pm     #  

LC, unless they've changed the way they do things, a flashing yellow never has green for cross-traffic, and likewise, flashing lights never involve greens. It'll either be flashing reds all the way around, or flashing reds for one street and flashing yellow for the crossing street. In that case, it means for the flashing yellow cars to proceed (with caution), and for the flashing red side to treat it like a stop sign, with cross traffic maintaining right-of-way.

posted by Johio83 on Aug 24, 2012 at 01:54:38 pm     #   1 person liked this

Johio83 posted at 01:54:38 PM on Aug 24, 2012:

LC, unless they've changed the way they do things, a flashing yellow never has green for cross-traffic, and likewise, flashing lights never involve greens. It'll either be flashing reds all the way around, or flashing reds for one street and flashing yellow for the crossing street. In that case, it means for the flashing yellow cars to proceed (with caution), and for the flashing red side to treat it like a stop sign, with cross traffic maintaining right-of-way.

THIS.

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9620_10694-157538--,00.html

Flashing Yellow Arrow Left-Turn Signal

Remember: a flashing yellow arrow = turn with caution.

You may have begun to notice a new style of left-turn signal on Michigan's roads. Placed OVER the left-turn lane at a signalized intersection, this new signal display includes a flashing yellow arrow.

In coming years, this type of signal will replace all flashing red left-turn signals.

How will it work?
In most locations, the flashing yellow arrow will be part of a four-arrow signal. In areas where this is not possible, the bottom of a three-arrow signal will display either the flashing yellow arrow or a steady green arrow.

Signal phases:

Red: STOP.

Flashing yellow arrow: Left turns permitted. Yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians. [Oncoming traffic has a green light.]

Green arrow: Safe to turn left. [Oncoming traffic must stop.]

Steady yellow arrow: The left-turn signal is about to change to red; prepare to stop, or prepare to complete your left turn if you are within the intersection.

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 24, 2012 at 02:03:33 pm     #  

Johio83 posted at 01:54:38 PM on Aug 24, 2012:

LC, unless they've changed the way they do things, a flashing yellow never has green for cross-traffic, and likewise, flashing lights never involve greens. It'll either be flashing reds all the way around, or flashing reds for one street and flashing yellow for the crossing street. In that case, it means for the flashing yellow cars to proceed (with caution), and for the flashing red side to treat it like a stop sign, with cross traffic maintaining right-of-way.

As I think I stated in my post MDOT has made some changes.

posted by Linecrosser on Aug 24, 2012 at 02:27:35 pm     #  

Wow, that is a pretty significant change. At first, I thought we were discussing the country road style, where it's just a single light hanging and lights flashing on all sides. Didn't realize this was something at standard lights for busy intersections.

posted by Johio83 on Aug 24, 2012 at 02:38:36 pm     #  

I thought all traffic regulations in Michigan were just a suggestion and not to be taken seriously.

posted by jr on Aug 24, 2012 at 05:15:25 pm     #  

jr posted at 05:15:25 PM on Aug 24, 2012:

I thought all traffic regulations in Michigan were just a suggestion and not to be taken seriously.

The flashing yellow arrow will be arriving in Toledo at some point. Just you watch.

posted by anonymouscoward on Aug 24, 2012 at 09:32:48 pm     #  

Login or create an account to post a comment.