Wentzville May Turn To Speed Cameras In Residential Neighborhoods

Nov 5, 2010 Full story: KTVI - Fox2Now.com 28

A state airliner filled with Cubans and travelers from Europe and Latin America crashed and burst into flames in a mountainous area after declaring an emergency and losing contact with air traffic controllers.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
what

Warrenton, MO

#1 Nov 6, 2010
what a joke.
Concerned Residents

Wentzville, MO

#2 Nov 7, 2010
This is just another Lambi idea that has absolutely no merit to it other than the city wanting to get more revenue. Call your aldermen and let them know to vote "no" on this issue.
Get Educated

Wentzville, MO

#3 Nov 11, 2010
We were at the Home Owners Association meeting the other night and the city gave a presentation on the Mobile Speed Camera. What we found to be so amazing is that the city is using tactics to try and persuade residents that this is really needed in our subdivisions. They say it is not revenue-driven---we disagree. We agree with concerned residents, call your aldermen and tell them you are not in favor of this camera.
NoProblem

New York, NY

#4 Nov 12, 2010
If you don't speed, what is the problem? I would love to see these in my neighborhood. It would make for much safer streets. And if it helps pay the bills at City Hall, that is better than having my taxes go up. Let the people breaking the law pay instead.
Facts

Wentzville, MO

#5 Nov 12, 2010
NoProblem wrote:
If you don't speed, what is the problem? I would love to see these in my neighborhood. It would make for much safer streets. And if it helps pay the bills at City Hall, that is better than having my taxes go up. Let the people breaking the law pay instead.
I agree, speeders need to pay---they already do. This machine will NOT make for safer streets. Why? Will it detect people who are impaired, but not speeding? NO. What's the difference of having one car with a camera detect speeding and one car with a patrolman detect speeding? No difference. You mentioned "these" as if the city will have more than one car. Wrong. It's just one car with a camera.
And so

Saint Peters, MO

#6 Nov 12, 2010
So what is the down side? That they can free up a cop to be elsewhere? That they will catch speeders, or encourage people to slow down so they don't get caught? Not seeing any down side to those that aren't speeding. It won't catch every violation, but if it catches some, that is better than nothing.
Facts

Wentzville, MO

#7 Nov 13, 2010
And so wrote:
So what is the down side? That they can free up a cop to be elsewhere? That they will catch speeders, or encourage people to slow down so they don't get caught? Not seeing any down side to those that aren't speeding. It won't catch every violation, but if it catches some, that is better than nothing.
That's it? That's all you've got? Isn't that what a patrol officer also does when doing their jobs and which also encourages people to slow down when s/he's doing their job. The city wants to free up ONE cop, and the camera will NOT catch any impaired drivers!!! It's the residents who will pay twice as much with a camera, than when they get stopped by a cop, because we, the taxpayers, are paying for this additional cost. Should offenders pay the consequences? Absolutely. As I said before, the speeding camera will NOT detect an impaired driver who, by the way, may NOT be speeding.
Neutrals

Wentzville, MO

#8 Nov 13, 2010
We'd like to see Wentzville provide a survey to all residents about this and then they will know for sure how we feel about having a camera.
Hit the Brakes

Saint Peters, MO

#9 Nov 14, 2010
Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said before, the speeding camera will NOT detect an impaired driver who, by the way, may NOT be speeding.
Is someone claiming this will catch impaired drivers? If so, then they are being less than honest. I always assumed these would catch speeders, and I'm ok with that. Don't speed and it won't cost you anything, wince I assme the camera will pay for itself.
what

Foristell, MO

#10 Nov 14, 2010
i'm all about getting speeders to slow down, but here you have a camera that will generate $$, and thats it. i bet the court will not assess points just as they do like the red light cameras.

one of the news channels stated that there are four officers assigned to traffic in our police department. I always see motorcycle cops sitting on hwy 61 when i am going to work in the morning. why are they running speed traps in the neighborhoods instead of sitting on the highway. I always see motorcycle cops sitting on hwy 61 when i am going to work in the morning.
Slow Down

Jersey City, NJ

#11 Nov 15, 2010
If you want to make this just about money, then keeping cops on the highways makes sense. Plenty of speeders to catch, and probably well over the speed limit, so the fines may be higher. But the real risk is in the neighborhods, where speeders are more likely to hit a child or a walker/jogger. I think you need enforcement in both areas.
obey the law

Warrenton, MO

#12 Nov 16, 2010
So if you are obeying the law, these speed cameras will not effect you. I see speeders in my neighborhood and can't wait for these cameras to arrive. I applaud the chief for his efforts to keep our neighborhoods safe. From what I read in the paper, these cameras will not cost the city any money, the company installing them will receive a set amount for each ticket presented and we get an extra set of eyes in our neighborhoods.
Trap This

Jersey City, NJ

#13 Nov 16, 2010
what wrote:
...why are they running speed traps in the neighborhoods instead of sitting on the highway...
How exactly do you define a speed trap? Do you define that as anywhere there are cops writing tickets? I don't. To me, a speed trap is somewhere specifically designed to "trick" people into speeding and then setting up strict enforcement. For example, having the speed limit drop from 65 to 35 with no warning - just the sign when the limit actually drops - and then having a cop writing tickets for everyone who doesn't hit the brakes fast enough. That is a trap. But requiring people to drive the speed limit in areas where the limits are well marked and probably well known is not a trap.
Difference

Wentzville, MO

#14 Nov 16, 2010
Can someone explain to me the difference between having a car with a camera sitting on the street, and a car with a policeman sitting in it? It's my understanding that the city will have only one car with a camera. Is it really cost prohibitive to do that when a cop in a car will do the same thing? And, if there are kids playing in the streets then shame on the parents. Sorry, I just don't get it.
obey the law

Warrenton, MO

#15 Nov 16, 2010
Difference wrote:
Can someone explain to me the difference between having a car with a camera sitting on the street, and a car with a policeman sitting in it? It's my understanding that the city will have only one car with a camera. Is it really cost prohibitive to do that when a cop in a car will do the same thing? And, if there are kids playing in the streets then shame on the parents. Sorry, I just don't get it.
To have a police car with a camera versus having a police care with a police officer will save the cost of a police officer's salary and if it is there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the savings will be significant. Some of the police cars sit occassionally and this is a magnificent way to get it's money worth. Smart thinking on the part of the police department and city council.
Answers

Wentzville, MO

#16 Nov 17, 2010
Will the speed camera car be able to stop people under the influence? Or who have warrants? Or minors under the possession of alcohol? I don't think so. The above people sound like the Lambi's who are pushing this measure.
Say What

Saint Peters, MO

#17 Nov 17, 2010
Answers, you seem bent on driving at any speed you please. Otherwise, your argument makes absolutely no sense. By your standard, if we can't catch every criminal, whe should just stop trying. I will gladly concede that equipment designed to identify speeders is NOT also designed to catch drunk drivers, drug dealers, pornographers, terrorists, illegal aliens, or tax cheats. From what I can tell, however, the equipment IS designed to catch cars that are exceeding the speed limit. If you think those laws should be enforced (or obeyed), like I do, you shouldn't have a problem with the use of this kind of equipment. If you think that speed limits should not be enforced, then you obviously would be opposed to using speed cameras. Put as simply as I can, if the equipment prevents some speeding, and is at least as cost effective as a manned vehicle, then I think it is a great idea. If it doesn't work, or costs much more per ticket than a cop in a car, then it doesn't make sense to me.
Answers

Wentzville, MO

#18 Nov 18, 2010
Say What wrote:
Answers, you seem bent on driving at any speed you please. Otherwise, your argument makes absolutely no sense. By your standard, if we can't catch every criminal, whe should just stop trying. I will gladly concede that equipment designed to identify speeders is NOT also designed to catch drunk drivers, drug dealers, pornographers, terrorists, illegal aliens, or tax cheats. From what I can tell, however, the equipment IS designed to catch cars that are exceeding the speed limit. If you think those laws should be enforced (or obeyed), like I do, you shouldn't have a problem with the use of this kind of equipment. If you think that speed limits should not be enforced, then you obviously would be opposed to using speed cameras. Put as simply as I can, if the equipment prevents some speeding, and is at least as cost effective as a manned vehicle, then I think it is a great idea. If it doesn't work, or costs much more per ticket than a cop in a car, then it doesn't make sense to me.
If you don't think that offenders will pay twice as much for the tickets given by the mobile camera, then you don't have a clue. The city MUST raise the cost of these tickets in order to pay the company that provides the car and camera. I suggest you contact your alderman to verify this. This is all about the money. Do I think the speeders need to suffer the consequences? You betcha. But not at the expense of a third party (the company is all about making the almighty dollar)!!!!
Trap This

Warren, NJ

#19 Nov 18, 2010
Answers wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't think that offenders will pay twice as much for the tickets given by the mobile camera, then you don't have a clue. The city MUST raise the cost of these tickets in order to pay the company that provides the car and camera. I suggest you contact your alderman to verify this. This is all about the money. Do I think the speeders need to suffer the consequences? You betcha. But not at the expense of a third party (the company is all about making the almighty dollar)!!!!
Sounds good to me. The more they charge, the more inclined people may be to slow down. Obviously the fines aren't high enough now, or you wouldn't have any speeders to catch. So, jack 'em up!
Answers

Wentzville, MO

#20 Nov 18, 2010
To trap this: You make a great point. I think the city should raise the amount of fines on speeders given by the cops---not by a machine!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wentzville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wentzville Bluffs 14 hr NativeWentzvillonian 11
St. Louis RV and Bus Sat RV Buyer Word of ... 1
Too many Wentzville city employees Fri ply 3
Our Chief of Police is a thief? Fri Lsl242 1
Tree triming Oct 17 Woodsman 1
New vibrator store opening Oct 17 Ima Wet 2
Legalize pot Oct 17 gemer 23
Wentzville Dating
Find my Match

Wentzville Jobs

Wentzville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Wentzville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Wentzville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]