Missouri County Moves to Oust Red Light Cameras

Jan 31, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TheNewspaper

In October, Jefferson County, Missouri signed a contract with American Traffic Solutions allowing the Arizona-based company to issue red light camera tickets in return for a cut of the profits.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of20
For red light cameras

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 31, 2011
 
It will never pass. Deal with and move on your beating a dead horse.
For red light cameras

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 31, 2011
 
sorry left the word it out. my apologies

Since: Oct 10

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

I am pretty sure that when all 7 people who are voting on the amended traffic code are opposed to the systems, it is a pretty safe bet that they contract is indeed destined to be cancelled. Not sure why you think this is a dead horse. The Jefferson County Council is choosing safety and real measures that actually work for the roads in the County, not the scameras that monetize poor engineering design while profiting off of making my family less safe.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Probably another ATS troll tring to post things in their favor. Either that or someone that works for ATS that is made that Jefferson County has uncovered the truth behind all of their lies and is booting them out like the citizens want.

The Council was too scared in Arnold to allow a vote and find out what the citizens wanted forcing them to go to the state level. I think that if ATS loses Missouri then they might go out of business.
For red light cameras

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 31, 2011
 
ArnoldCC wrote:
Probably another ATS troll tring to post things in their favor. Either that or someone that works for ATS that is made that Jefferson County has uncovered the truth behind all of their lies and is booting them out like the citizens want.
The Council was too scared in Arnold to allow a vote and find out what the citizens wanted forcing them to go to the state level. I think that if ATS loses Missouri then they might go out of business.
First off I dont work for ATS and second I dont think that you have to resort in name calling. I ve seen your posts on other threads complaining about people calling names so why dont you take your advice sometimes. Third Do you really think that missouri is the only client for ATS. Do you know this for fact or is it just your opinion. I personally think that they work and no I dont have any data to support my facts but this is all my opinion. Just because the county council wants it doesnt mean its going to happen in the state house. Good Luck in your quest to get them banned but I hope they stay.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Yep, ATS troll. They're trying to discredit the person to bolster their position.
For red light cameras

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 31, 2011
 
why must you resort to name calling when i have every right to voice my opinion on here?? I don't lower myself to call you names why must you? You cant just disagree and state your opinion?

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 1, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It's not name calling, it is a reference. Look up troll in the dictionary. But then you already know that and are just playing dumb to try to make ourself look good. Hallmark sign of the ATS troll.
For red light cameras

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 1, 2011
 

Judged:

2

I reading some of the other topics on here and you seem to have problems with everybody calling names and then you have a problem with someones behavior on here and that this person or that person should not be a part of a group because his behavior towards you and others is bad. But what are you doing, lashing out and calling a me a troll and now calling me dumb because I dont agree with your opinion on this issue. maybe your behavior is in question also. just sayin

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 1, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. CRMG didn't call you dumb. She said you were playing dumb. You can use the 'just sayin' thing all you want, but you definitely need to learn to read for comprehension.

I agree that this is typical troll behavior that you will defend what you are being paid to defend at any cost, even degrading the citizens.

Why don't you go get a registered ID over on ArnoldTalk so we can verify who you are and that you are not a troll?
Teflon or Gum

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 1, 2011
 
These two sound like the start of a classic comedy skit, like who's on first!
brinstl

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 1, 2011
 

Judged:

1

I DO NOT SUPPORT the use of these cameras in Jefferson County! I'm a voter and taxpayer and I've made my position clear to my representative on the county council and state representatives.

Has anyone ever actually read the wording on these "Notice of Violations" sent out? A police officer swears the violation is based on probable cause! Really? Is this the same probable cause used to make an arrest or traffic stop? It says the officer has PC to believe the registered owner is the driver. How is that possible?

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 1, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

They can't even believe that because if there are two people on the title, they have no clue which one is driving. They just issue the ticket to the first person listed on the title. Some PC there.

Without a photo they have no clue who was driving.
brinstl

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 1, 2011
 
Precisely ArnoldCC! In any other scenario, simply getting the plate and establishing the registered owner would not qualify as probable cause for enforcement action. If the police are issuing these violations, and they are, then probable cause is a required component. Probable cause is not in levels or degrees...you have it or you don't. Reasonable suspicion suggests the registered owner and driver are the same, but that's less than the standard of probable cause.
brinstl

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 1, 2011
 
In other words, based on the information provided by these RLCs, can the officer reasonably suspect, or probably conclude, that the driver and registered owner are one and the same?

If not probably conclude, then probable cause does not exist!

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 1, 2011
 

Judged:

1

How can they? They issue the ticket to the first person listed on the title. If there are two people on the title then how can the assume that that was the person driving? There's no probable cause in that scenario, they are just tossing a coin to decide who to give the ticket to. They don't know unless there is a picture of the driver.

Matt, did the old government actually sign the contract with ATS? If so and the form of government changed, then wouldn't that void the contract since the government was in essense overthrown?
brinstl

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 1, 2011
 
And I assume that's why there have been no warrants issued for those registered owners who ignore these violations.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 1, 2011
 

Judged:

1

They can't issue warrants because they don't have a picture of the driver to prove that it was that person that broke the law. You are correct.

Since: Oct 10

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 1, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

ArnoldCC wrote:
Matt, did the old government actually sign the contract with ATS? If so and the form of government changed, then wouldn't that void the contract since the government was in essense overthrown?
Yes, they signed a contract: http://tinyurl.com/4q5wo3a , No, it does not void it. The former County Commissioners signed the document representing the County in good faith. The contract cannot be cancelled because the system or the basis for the governance changed, but if the County revokes the authorizing legislation and there is an affirmative prohibition placed on the systems in the County, that would then nullify the agreement under its terms.
G-man

Fenton, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 21, 2011
 
Everytime I hear about Arnold, Mo, I can't help but think about the Arnold police. Some police with not much interest in working hard, are really good about giving tickets to drivers when the back of their cars are caught in the intersection of a red traffic light, if drivers barely roll through a stop sign and if drivers are going a few miles over the speed limit.
Have you ever seen how excited they get when they team up on I-55 when involved in a radar trap?(Or should I say, "when they need to make extra money for Arnold")
This is not what I consider "serving & protecting" to be.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of20
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••