Cameras on bypass to be tested to nab law breakers

I really don't understand why we have to have camera's on the bypass. If i understand correctly the bypass was suppose to be used as a means of getting around the town without going thru town for the sake of red lights and people, now we have this so-called bypass that has 9 red lights from greican to chevolet car dealersship which is about 4 miles and 9 red lights, now on top of that we now have to deal with 3 camers'a that big brother will take your picture of your car and license plate and mail you a ticket right to your front door via U. S. mail. I am a law biding citizen but dyersburg you are getting really sad to have to go after these law breakers, when you in all reality have more drug violators and other harden criminals in this town than you can shake a stick at, Dyersburg you want to go after something go after new jobs and bigger paychecks, look at Blytheville Ark. they have better jobs and bigger paychecks(more than double the saliers), so while we are paying 8.00 an hour and putting up camera's to take more money away from us, other little towns around our region are running off and leaving us, while we just dry up and die, way to go Dyersburg this is what we call a town on the move.

I feel that these cameras are worth the possible problems if they catch folks running red lights. I am on the by-pass everyday, I really have not noticed an inordinate number of speeders here. That area is just too congested to lend itself to speeding. The following is from the Columbus Dispatch, there may be some legal problems with these cameras:

Columbus' Ohio's red-light cameras are now in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court, which will decide whether cities are allowed to use the traffic cameras to catch offenders. The case before the court is from Akron and involves cameras used to catch speeders rather than red-light runners.

But the issue is the same: Can cities assess civil penalties -- fines -- for violations that are criminal offenses?

An Akron lawyer, Warner Mendenhall, says the cities have overstepped their home-rule authority.

His wife, Kelly, received a speeding ticket in the mail after one of Akron's four cameras snapped her car going too fast in a school zone two weeks after the cameras started operating there, in fall 2005.

As with the system Columbus set up for red-light violators, Akron sends a notice to the vehicle owner. The owner is fined but does not receive points on his or her driver's license.

"The state, in the revised code, has made it clear they want uniform traffic regulations," Mendenhall said, not laws that vary from city to city.

Akron's system decriminalizes speeding and forces the vehicle owner, who might not have been the driver, to pay the fine, he said, which he believes also conflicts with state law.

"Why the heck should the owners be responsible for the driver's behavior?" Mendenhall said yesterday from his Akron office.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in April that cameras in Minneapolis were unconstitutional. The court said they violated the uniformity of state traffic laws by ticketing owners who might not have known that their cars were involved.

Stephen Fallis, the Akron assistant city attorney arguing the case, said the city's laws do not conflict with the state's traffic laws and, in fact, complement the criminal law by giving the city the authority to enforce the law when no officer is present.

But during the hearing before the court Tuesday, Justice Paul E. Pfeifer said there is a slight difference because, under the Akron law, the vehicle commits the violation.

Fallis said the owner is responsible. Pfeifer said, "But it's the violation of the vehicle that is getting the civil penalty. It's not the violation of a particular person."

Akron has four cameras that it moves from school to school daily to catch speeders.

Columbus filed a brief with the high court on Akron's behalf, saying that state law allows cities to create civil penalties in traffic cases.

Lawyers argued the Akron case before the Supreme Court after U. S. District Judge David Dowd in Akron asked the court for an opinion on the home-rule issue; Mendenhall's case is in Dowd's court.

Fallis expects the high court to issue an advisory opinion in three to six months. The case will then go back to Dowd.

Columbus turned on red-light cameras on March 7, 2006, and officials say they've helped reduce accidents at intersections. Critics say they're simply a moneymaking device for the city and the camera manufacturer, Redflex Traffic Systems.

Columbus has collected $371,000 in fines to date. Redflex initially received 75 percent of the fine money. The city's share increases to 55 percent once 3,000 tickets are issued. Last year, the city issued 9,455 tickets.

Columbus has 12 cameras at 10 intersections. The city plans to install cameras at eight more intersections.

Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton and Springfield also have traffic cameras.

Speed cameras can't detect tailgating, bad driving, drink driving or drug driving.

Dyersburg has no need for traffic cameras. Traffic is the last thing this poor city needs to be concerned about. There must be a kick back to someone for putting these in.

The city would do better to focus on all the drug activity; gang activity; robberies; shootings and corruption in the city.

While other areas of the city receive no money the police department has unlimited funds and I agree with Tennessee9 - there ARE kickbacks involved in many of the things going on in this area.

There are more police vehicles than there are policemen requiring insurance and tags even though they sit still in parking lots and drive-ways. I don't know of any criminal who would be so dumb they can't see they are empty - that is wasted money.

Focusing on traffic instead of the real problems in the city are an example of wasted city funds and poor focus on spending our funds.

Why can't the people of the city vote on large expenditures like this?