Safe Speed Forums

State supreme court clears the way for groundbreaking Nov vote on those obnoxious red-light cameras and speed cameras -- ruling provides 2 benefits
From: Nicholas Sherwood, BanCams.com -- Alex Rion, WA State Campaign for Liberty -- Tim Eyman, initiative co-sponsors of Mukilteo Initiative No. 2 -- Let The People Decide on Red-Light Cameras in Mukilteo

Yesterday, the state supreme court rejected the plea of Arizona's red-light camera company to prevent Mukilteo voters from voting on our initiative in November. The two sentence ruling gave the voters two huge victories:

1) They rejected the request for expedited review -- since yesterday was the day the county started printing ballots and voters pamphlets, then that guarantees that voters in Mukilteo will see Mukilteo Initiative No. 2 on the November ballot.

2) They will hear the case later -- this means they will eventually make a definitive ruling on whether local voters have the right to vote on local initiatives. The state supreme court has been adamant, issuing two unanimous 9-0 rulings that when it comes to state initiatives, that the voters have a right to vote and no legal roadblocks are allowed to block a vote on state initiatives. But the courts, especially the lower courts, have issued a mixed bag of decisions when it comes to local initiatives, sometimes preventing local initiatives that turn in enough signatures to not be voted on (remember King County's CAO referendums blocked from a public vote?). By agreeing to hear the case, the High Court has given themselves the opportunity to make clear that local voters have the same right to vote on local initiatives as state voters do on state initiatives.

Yesterday's state supreme court ruling clears the way for a groundbreaking November vote on those obnoxious red-light cameras and speed cameras.

WHY THIS IS A BIG DEAL: It'll be the first time in Washington that a city has ever allowed its citizens to vote on whether they want red-light cameras and speed cameras (over 20 cities have them and more are being added every year). If they're rejected by Mukilteo voters in November, it'll have statewide implications for new cities thinking of putting them up, expansion of cameras in existing cities and it'll encourage efforts by activists forcing public votes on cameras in other cities, and will likely spur the Legislature to address the cities' Big Brother, profit-making scheme.

WHAT MUKILTEO INITIATIVE NO. 2 DOES:

* Reverses the decision by the Mukilteo City Council to install red-light cameras and speed cameras

* Requires a majority vote of the people for the city to conduct for-profit cameras surveillance on the citizenry with red-light cameras and speed cameras.

* Removes the profit-motive for cameras by limiting the fines to the cost of the least expensive parking ticket in Mukilteo (Everett Herald reports that'd be $20)

Here's the Everett Herald's news story on it.

For more information, go to http://www.BanCams.com -- and please consider a donation to help us pay the legal bills we incurred earning this excellent ruling.

Even the best democracy would not have referenda on technical issues.

Even the best democracy would not have referenda on technical issues.

Technical?

Surely the question of whether speed cameras and red light cameras improve road safety and what is an appropriate speed limit is a technical issue. There have been vehement arguments on these forums against letting local councils have any input to these decisions: that the decisions should be made by proper (not self styled) road safet experts such as traffic police.

Surely the question of whether speed cameras and red light cameras improve road safety and what is an appropriate speed limit is a technical issue.

Yes but not only technical IMO because you could equally make the right decisions based on empirical evidence, (we have enough of that), which is something a non-technical common sense guy could gather and use.

Please don't take this as a jibe , but wouldn't you consider making a decision based on empirical evidence to be a technical decision, because it needs some knowledge of statistics - RTTM and so on? And I distrust common sense as it is so often at odds with the facts. It is common sense that the slower you drive the fewer accidents you will have; but few on these forums would agree with that.

...wouldn't you consider making a decision based on empirical evidence to be a technical decision, because it needs some knowledge of statistics - RTTM and so on? And I distrust common sense as it is so often at odds with the facts.

And I distrust common sense as it is so often at odds with the facts.

But this is where 'they' say "yes but you don't know if there's a child who is going to materialise out of thin air or leap in front of you like a springbok in camouflage from the tree which is 20 feet away from that open road with no parked cars in full daylight".

[. I was just thinking in terms of, let’s say, me who isn’t a natural scholar or mental heavyweight but I think I could take on the role of looking at what has and hasn’t worked while someone like you can do the esoteric number crunching.

I’m not sure common sense isn’t often better than ‘the facts’, not they way they are used, bent and twisted in today’s world at least.
The facts say I will kill a child at 40mph

Sorry, Tone, if I gave the false impression that I was being superior and condescending. You undervalue yourself.

Tthose aren't what Mr Gradgrind would call facts - they are just opinions. And that is what I fear about referenda. They tend to be decided on pre-existing opinions rather than on a carefully study of the facts.

Better add a few smilies

* Didn't Google or use a dictionary; so if that's a first - I claim it!!!