I know people in Cleveland who were cited by the initial private company program...even though they were not speeding. In this case, they were behind a #'d police unit, that the camera also flashed for, but it was not speeding. The person had to take time off work to fight it in court. So, it still cost them money out of pocket. I would see it differently if one of our paid officers were reviewing the shots and making the ultimate decision on ticketing or not. Not to mention, it's an officer's job to cite, not a private company...and giving a private company enforcement rights is not in the public interest. Let's face it...they want to make money any way possible.
Another thing I don't like was in the Vindy:
http://www.vindy.com/news/2009/nov/06/youngstown-police-chief-seeks-traffic-cameras-near/"Additional cameras could help police solve serious crimes if they tape criminal activity, Hughes said. “We hope to utilize them at special events and hot spots” for crime, he said.
“We can gather intelligence on other crimes. It may record information about a murder or other serious crimes.”"
I disagree wth rolling cameras. Traffic cameras are meant to snap a shot, but leave public privacy in mind. It seems the chief wants to expand to rolling recordings citywide. If you start with one form, it makes it easier for people to be stupid and accept more loss of our civil rights. It just puts more of the idea of everyone being guilty of something. So much for any innocence before being judged guilty.
If they are put in areas with heavy crimes, what do you think is going to happen to them? Someone will put them out of commision just as quickly as they're put in.
The ones at Shields and West Blvd are traffic light control only.