Blade editorial: Say no to COAST
I was surprised the Blade editorial staff took a position already, but the position taken doesn’t surprise me, Say ‘no’ to COAST. While we often blame things here on those who don’t live in the area and at times that line of thought has some merit as far as consideration, in this case though, the reason COAST came here is not because they solicited us. People from this area asked them to help, at least that’s the way I understood it.
Which would mean it’s not an outside group coming here to “interfere” it’s an outside group coming in to assist at the request of local residents. That’s a big difference…No matter which side of the red light camera light issue you are on.
Also missing from the Blade editorial is the revenue aspect, which since the red light cameras are not a criminal traffic offense, only a civil one, a person can run as many red lights at these intersections as they want, as long as they pay the fines.
I was wondering why TBT was getting more Blade coverage than COAST and now I understand why.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:58 amActually, Lisa, people can run as many red lights as they want and NOT pay the fine.
According to Maggie Thurber, she said at the Monday meeting that Toledo has not, as yet, sued anyone over non-payment of the fines.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:02 pmBut the blade just loves ACORN. I believe they are an out of state organization. But, they were registering every park bench in the state as a residence in order to get the messiah elected. Hey blade, the company in charge of the red light cameras is in another state. The publisher of your stupid, liberal rag lives in Pittsburgh. Shut up blade. Let the people speak. No wonder they are losing readers. How do we even know these cameras are timed and working correctly? There are a lot of questions associated with these cameras.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:09 pmAnother group similar to COAST is operating in Arizona. Their website is pretty good and informative on the issue. http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/
January 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pmCraig-The Unoriginal wrote:
I believe the important word is ‘yet’ … Toledo hasn’t filed any suit in Toledo Municipal Court to collect the fees they’ve imposed. Before a judgment can be issued, there needs to be a suit…
Oh – and I’ll be discussing the editorial and what’s missing tonight on WSPD’S Eye On Toledo at 6 p.m.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pmI noticed the article was not credited to an author. No doubt many editorials are simply listed as from “staff,” which is not surprising given the quality of the writing and logic. Like this gem.
“a person is much more likely to be killed or injured as the result of a red-light violation than any other driving situation at an intersection”
Sounds solid. But wait a minute. What “other driving situation at an intersection” is there? Right on red, failure to yield, or perhaps – slamming on your breaks unexpectedly from fear of the camera?! The statement is meant of course to convince the inattentive reader that red-light violations pose the greatest risk to all drivers.
This assertion, when thought about critically, has no weight, especially when exposed to the fact that many studies show an increase in accidents at camera equipped intersections in the long run.
The author also cites to Chief Navarre as stating violations at each intersection equipped with a camera have gone down. How is that calculated? Unless such intersection had been previously monitored by a police officer 24/7, who in turn issued a citation for every violation he or she saw (discretion be dammed) then the comparison is a fallacy.
My position on the red-light camera systems, their true purpose and problems, and their assault on due process and liberty has been expressed before. This short rant is more to the Blade authors’ lack of insight, critical thought and logic. My mistake for expecting such from a newspaper.
TAHL
January 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pmI never cease to be amazed an the Blade’s lack of quality, incorrect and partial quotes and total ineptitude when it comes to investigating the facts of a story.
Toledo’s local version of the National Enquirer!
January 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmI completely support COAST and plan to help them in this crusade.
Does anyone know the breakdown of how much money the city has collected from fines versus the company who installed and maintains them?
January 15th, 2009 at 10:22 pmJen, this older post from September 2008 shares that information:
Now there could be layoffs since the huge amount of money the City planned to generate, 2.5 million dollars now appears to “only” be 1.8 million dollars that will be taken in. There are plans to increase the fines in February according to this WTOL story and because so many of you are law abiding citizens as well as driving 5% less than you used to? Layoffs of City Workers will happen around October 1st.
How much higher will the fee go? Last February it was raised from $95.00 to $120.00. The City now gets 55% of the take and Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., of Culver City, California gets 45% of the take.
In 2007 the cameras generated $606,025
January 15th, 2009 at 10:25 pmMaggie Thurber did an excellent job dissecting the Blades editorial on COAST. Read it at
http://www.wspd.com/pages/eyeontoledo2.html
The podcast of last nights Eye On Toledo also addressed the Blades one-sided, inaccurate editorial, but the podcast has yet to be posted. Those are normally found at
January 16th, 2009 at 5:03 amhttp://www.wspd.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=eyeontoledo.xml
I think the consensus is 86 the red light cameras. I agree. . .horrible article, horrible news paper. . .have you seen their website? Compare it to any other newspaper’s website. It’s a big mess, poorly executed just like a typical blade article. . .Look at all the web ads its trashy!
Back to topic. . .Did Toledo put up any money to start up this program? There has to be a better way to generate 1.8 to 2.5 million than red light cameras. . .have the mayoral candidates chimed in on this? I am curious to see hear Opal Covey’s position.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:02 amAs one who has almost been clipped by people running red lights several times I am all for the red light cameras.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:29 pmPam wrote:
I always enjoy it when people don’t even bother hiding their disdain for democracy. Why do you think homeless people should not be allowed to vote?
January 16th, 2009 at 7:33 pmI think her point was less about who is voting and more about the Blade talking out both side of their mouth.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:56 pm