Enough people will whine and complain that its just a money grab, it causes people to rear-end one another, its nots really a big deal to worry about (I think out state constituion doesn't technically allow it) oh and I'm sure the police union will just love this idea since cameras can't really have discretion in who they ticket and instead people will say we should just build better infra that makes roads safer but then they will whine about it impacting businesses or parking or whatever so we can't do that, lets follow some other cities that are looking to ban pedestrians from using mobile phones while crossing the street, we can post up a BPD officer at major intersections.

Either that or we just stick with the status quo and send thoughts and prayers.

commonwealth constitution?

By cinnamngrl on Mon, 10/21/2019 - 1:40pm.

How does our constitution prevent traffic cameras?

Automated traffic enforcement is the answer to all of those "enforce the laws we have" people that resist infrastructure improvements. It is possible to learn from other states and transition to cameras sensibly. A month of warning notices can educate drivers to the difference between the traffic law and what they think the traffic law is.

INAL, so forgive my ignorance

By spin_o_rama on Mon, 10/21/2019 - 2:12pm.

But its just something I've seen in passing on a few Uhub threads and Twitter when it comes up specific to Massachusetts.

I thought there was a need to re-write or amend things due to something about being able to confront your accuser or something.

I would LOVE to have automated camera enforcement for the record, 100% behind this.

It's fine as-is

By BostonDog on Mon, 10/21/2019 - 2:19pm.

The constitutional arguments against cameras make no sense. If you can't use an automated method to track and issue fines, the electronic toll (EZpass) cameras should be banned too.

Not the issue

By SwirlyGrrl on Mon, 10/21/2019 - 6:49pm.

The tracking and money aren't the issue.

It is reportedly an issue of facing your accuser.

That's what I remember

By cinnamngrl on Mon, 10/21/2019 - 7:28pm.

But now they send you a copy of the picture with the ticket. You can appeal it, like any ticket. The state has to provide a witness that verifies the picture if you go to hearing. Indictments are based on CC tv constantly.

It’s the right to confront one’s accusers

By Waquiot on Mon, 10/21/2019 - 9:01pm.

The idea is that since a moving violation is the accusation that the law (some part of Massachusetts General Laws), those accused are allowed to contest the charges in a court of law. With no person laying the charges (as a police officer typically does) the right to defense is infringed upon.

One could see the interpretation of the law as a stretch, but that’s how it’s been interpreted.

Or traffic consequences.

By Mediacrity on Mon, 10/21/2019 - 10:34am.

Or traffic consequences.

NYC has traffic cameras all

By anon on Mon, 10/21/2019 - 2:33pm.

NYC has traffic cameras all over the place. I don't feel any safer crossing the street there -- quite the contrary in fact.

If someone won't stop when there's a pedestrian in front of their car, why would they stop because there might be a camera that would mail them a ticket a month later?

We need to get these

By Matt on Mon, 10/21/2019 - 10:40am.

We need to get these motorized weapons off our streets.

Pedestrian suffers life-threatening injuries in South End hit and run, police say

Comments

Support Universal Hub

In other South End news