Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Speed and Red Light Camera Scam

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    It's amazing how all of a sudden lights turn yellow.

    I guess they do that so the light doesn't all of a sudden turn red.
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

    Comment


    • #32
      I still don't have a problem with it. When the camera takes the pic, you have already committed a questionable act, on a public road, with no unreasonable expectation of privacy. Send them the bill.
      It is better to try and fail, then quit and succeed.

      Comment


      • #33
        These cameras are watching the intersection for people running red lights; not every street corner and back alley like people here are ranting about. This has nothing to do with the "Big Brother" watching everyone's every move thing, this is far from it. It is watching the intersection and ONLY the intersection when the light is red, Not the entire block! If you run the light, you have broken the law, even if you do it to avoid being rear ended like mentioned on the last page. If so, as rare as something like that should be, tell the judge and you'll probably get it dropped (as wierd as it is to say "I ran the red light to avoid a dangerous situation", kind of ironic). I agree, having cameras on every sidewalk and alley would probably creep me out and I wouldn't like it, but these are far from that, and I wish every intersection in this town had one, because there are a lot of jerks that get away with that crap. You can probably tell I am a little biased because nothing ****es me off more than idiot and @ssholes on the road. They should all be banned!

        I'll refrain from disecting each individual post here and writting an essay about why everyone else is wrong but me , hint hint.

        Comment


        • #34
          Dalmatian90

          ...and only taking pictures and recording those offenders.

          And anyone else minding their own business (legally or illegally) that happens to get in the picture.

          If that same camera taking a picture of someone either running a red light, simply not being able to stop at a red light or being rear ended at a red light also caught somebody that was positively identifiable jay walking, should the jay walker be sent a ticket as well?

          The fact these cameras are triggered by an illegal event,

          The case can clearly be made they are also triggered by an unavoidable event (unless it is legally prefered that they stop and take it in the tail pipe), thus punishing a driver with a fine for making the potentially life saving choice and not to let a semi or other following vehicle drive up his butt.

          ...makes such arguements of privacy extremely weak.

          Then we are not allowed any privacy. Under that logic, your own home can no longer be private, the construction of your very own home is regulated by the government (local, state of federal) in some form or fashion: government licensed contractors, government regulated building materials, government supplied utilities, government supplied protection (cops and FD), sits or has access to a government regulated roadway.

          Again where do we draw the line on this intrusion?

          If we simply say if you do nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, we're not splitting a fine hair. If we hold that position then it is logical that camera use is allowed anywhere. after all, what ar we worried about, we're not doing anything wrong.

          preserves the privacy of the CONTENTS of the car -- as opposed to having a police officer stop you and a minimum conduct a search for what's in obvious view.

          So? "If the driver isn't carrying anything illegal, he has nothing to worry about if a cop has a little look around and should be willing to let him do so." Right?

          The privacy of origin and destination is still preserved.

          That would depend on the number, location and actual operating triggers of other cameras. A 'progressive' city that cares about the safety of its citizens can put might decide to put these up at every regulated intersection.

          While the frequency of fines may increase with these cameras,

          Not the fines that bother me.

          the drivers actually enjoy a greater degree of privacy from having the intimidation of a police officer asking them..., etc.

          The license of the owner and plates of the vehicle is run before the ticket is mailed.

          You don't have to say squat to the cop. It ain't none of his business what you're doing there. When they ask "what are you doing here?" Don't tell him.

          And a reasonable arguement can be made that by allowing your property to be misused, you are at least in part liable for that misuse.

          No disagreement here, if it can be proven in court that the vehicle owner knew that Bob was going out and running red lights. Is it the gun manufacturers fault that Oswald shot Kennedy?

          Is this a photo of your vehicle going through a red light?
          "Yes."

          Well, that concludes the confronting the witness part of the trial.

          Any "confronting the witness" is done in court, not the field.


          Not so fast. Who saw the driver? If the photo isn't good enough to ID the driver then there is no witness as to who is the guilty party. All it saw was an inanimate object operated by someone that didn't stop for a red light for some unknown reason.

          truck197 is absolutely correct (the Constitution, Amendment VI) I have the right to, among a few other things "...To be confronted with the witnesses..."

          nomad1085

          ...you have way too much time on your hands. Typical.

          What's your point?

          What's typical about it?

          Because I don't agree with you that these cameras are great and that only two kinds of people would be against them?

          Are you that arrogant to believe that only two types of people can believe differently than you?

          Or do you simply need to believe it must have taken hours instead of seconds for a dumb old country boy from Texas to dismantle your "only two types of people theory," your "what's the difference theory," and your "usual jerks theory?"

          This has nothing to do with the "Big Brother" watching everyone's every move thing, this is far from it.

          You might like to believe that, but it is close to it.

          Consider other 'things' we were told wouldn't intrude on our rights - 30 years ago we were told environmental regs would never impede on a private property owners rights. Today I can't cut down a mesquite tree or fill in a mud hole on my property without the threat of a fine. All because of some bird (the tree) and the stupid wetlands act (mud hole).

          ADA did the same thing.

          I agree, having cameras on every sidewalk and alley would probably creep me out and I wouldn't like it, but these are far from that,

          But if it improves public safety and gets jerks that get away with crap off the street, what's your problem with it?

          ...nothing ****es me off more than idiot and @ssholes on the road.

          Well, they're second on my list, what gets me most is idiots that elect communists, dang, I mean democrats to public office, that think the government is the savior of all things and teh solution to all of our problems. After all, we are inept, incapable and stupid people and can't do anything without the governments interference. The little man can't get a break because of evil mean big business and rich people to public office.

          They should all be banned!

          Hey, I agree for selfish reasons, but disagree for overall freedom issues.

          I'll refrain from disecting each individual post here

          I wonder if you could...

          and writting an essay about why everyone else is wrong but me,

          I've never said (on this issue) everyone else is wrong but me. I am, just like you, expressing my opinion on the subject, making an arguement for my side of the issue. If you don't like it, I don't care. I have the priveledge (not right or freedom of speech and some that post here think they have) to post here just like you do. If your opinion is different than mine, that's fine. I'll read it and see if you can make a good arguement and give me enough reason to reconsider mine (you haven't).

          Never the less, the very same thing you acuse me of you yourself did when you did stated that anyone that complains about redlight cameras:

          "...have one of two problems, or both:

          1. You probably complain about everything else having to do with authority

          2. You are a jerk and like running red lights"


          Now to be fair to you, I may be a jerk. But I don't like running red lights and do not have a problem with the proper exercise of authority (meaning within Constitutional bounds).

          hint hint.

          Didn't take it. Thank God it's a free country (for now) huh? You can simply skip over views that don't agree with yours.

          [ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: mongofire_99 ]
          It's only my opinion. I do not speak for any group or organization I belong to or associate with or people I know - especially my employer. If you like it, we can share it, you don't have to give me credit. If you don't, we are allowed to disagree too (but be ready to be challenged, you may be on to something I'm not). That's what makes America great!

          Comment


          • #35
            Hey here is another advantage of these cameras...I have seen them capture accidents that occurred at intersections and aid in determining the cause.

            To comment on firenresq77's post (as well as some other similar posts supporting both opinions on the subject), it is hard to argue what if's. There are as many what if's as there are grain of sand on the beach. Like I said before, that is why you have the option to dispute the ticket in court.

            I think we are beginning to read into this too much. I believe the original question was about the 'scam' to raise revenue from these cameras and about the safety issues relating to them.
            Keep Safe!

            Comment


            • #36
              or being rear ended at a red light also caught somebody that was positively identifiable jay walking

              Interesting. Do people walk around in Texas wearing license plates? How do you positively identify an individual jay walking from a photo? For that matter, what are they doing walking through an intersection with traffic in it?


              The case can clearly be made they are also triggered by an unavoidable event, thus punishing a driver with a fine for making teh correct choice and not to let a semi drive up his butt.

              Which indeed, if such Semi was following too closely, it also went through the light. Which would've also been captured on film. Providing some awful strong supporting evidence if one say looks at the time or your photo and then shows a Photo of said Semi passing through a second or two later.

              Then we are not allowed any privacy. The construction of your very own home is regulated by the government
              The construction, yes.
              For that matter, anything in plain view is fair game -- whether it's a marijuana plant growing on the back deck or a license plate on the outside of your car.

              Again where do we draw the line on this intrusion?

              The sixth amendment is pretty clear on establishing the absolute limits -- your secure IN your person, houses, papers, and effects. What you do in public, well there's no protection for that.

              So? If the driver isn't doing anything wrong or carrying anything illegal, he has nothing to worry about if a cop has a little look around and should be willing to let him do so. Right?
              If your not doing anything illegal in the first place, you shouldn't have to worry about the cameras.

              No disagreement here, if it can be proven in court that the vehicle owner knew that Bob was going out and running red lights. Is it the gun manufacturers fault that Oswald shot Kennedy?

              Mixing up stuff here Mongo.
              Was the manufacturer at fault? Certainly not -- as long as the design was lawful.
              Was the distrubutor (which may also be the same firm as the manufacturer) at fault? Possibly, if they knowingly distribute to persons who do not comply with regulations.
              Was the retail seller at fault? Possibly, if he knew the gun would be used for an illegal activity.
              Would an owner be at fault? Possibly, if you failed to keep the guns reasonably secure, or if you loaned it to someone you knew intended to use it illegally or who wasn't a responsible and competent individual to be entrusted with such power.

              In the Oswald case, he bought a surplus gun and none of the sellers knew the intent. However, the law was changed under GCA '64 to all but eliminate the source (foreign surplus military rifles) of Oswald's weapon.

              In no case are we talking about Ford being issued a ticket for a Ford product running a red light. But we are looking at the end Owner possibly being liable for allowing his property to be misused.

              Oops, not so fast. Who saw the driver? If the phot isn't good enough to ID the driver then there is no witness as to who is the guilty party.
              Which is why the owner is responsible for allowing misuse of his property.

              All it saw was an inanimate object operated by someone that didn't stop for a red light for some unknown reason.

              All I see is a knowingly dangerous machine whose owner failed to exercise due caution to prevent it's misuse.
              IACOJ Canine Officer
              20/50

              Comment


              • #37
                nomad1085 you'll get pleasure in this, no psychoanalysis of other postings, just one simple question:

                For those of us that favor these cameras because if you ain't doing nothing wrong, you got nothing to fret over, is it safe to say that you would have no problems with law enforcment using toll tag type devices for doling out tickets for red light running, speeding and other moving violations?

                Each tag has a unique identification number.

                Electronic speed trap locations are too easy to set up on the side of the road, just put out two boxes to collect the signals and process the math.

                Stop sign or red light violation stations would similarly be easy to set up. When there is no stop interval from the time you enter the range of the reader, it knows you didn't stop.

                These tags are cheap, when you register your vehicle, you get a tag or they could put a chip in your sticker.

                Each vehicle would be positively identified.

                It would practically eliminate traffic cops, freeing them up for more important things.

                This system would be cheap (using existing phone and electrical lines), easy to set up and effective.

                And it meets the all important criteria of "if you ain't doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about."

                What do you guys think?

                If you support red light cameras, but not this, why?
                It's only my opinion. I do not speak for any group or organization I belong to or associate with or people I know - especially my employer. If you like it, we can share it, you don't have to give me credit. If you don't, we are allowed to disagree too (but be ready to be challenged, you may be on to something I'm not). That's what makes America great!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Oh for chrissakes Mongo, go roll your tinfoil hat a little tighter.
                  It is better to try and fail, then quit and succeed.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    mongo -

                    Excellent post, as usual, asking some excellent questions. This is what I was trying to bring out in my earlier post (using absurdity to illustrate reality).

                    The "if I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about" people have not thought out this thing to the degree that you have. Let's see how many get behind your id-tag idea. After all, if they're not doing anything wrong, why should they worry?
                    "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

                    Joe Black

                    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Mongo...I see a flaw with your tag system. The powers that be (ie, the politicians) would have to set up a new bureaucracy to program the electronic systems, sort out the information, collect the fines, etc. Of course they will hire the best and the brightest (hey, I donated big $$$ to your campaign and my kid needs a job!) This in turn would cause more bureaucracy.

                      Part of the problem with the enforcement of traffic laws is the way the states give out driver's licenses. In some states, all you have to do to get a learner's permit is take a random ten question test and score a 70 to get your permit. Driver's education consists of a combination of classroom and driving time with an "instructor"...usually someone who's only credentials is that they have a driver's license!

                      The road test consists of showing how to use hand signals (a tradition from the days of the Model T ), pulling out into traffic using your turn signals, parallel parking, backing up in a straight line and performing a 3 point turn.

                      Accomplish this without screwing up and you get a license.

                      Here's an idea!

                      What they should be teaching in Driver's Ed and performing in the road tests are skid control, threshhold braking, emergency lane changes and accident avoidance. A driver should actually learn what the vehicle is capable of and push it to the edge of the envelope, so they can learn his/her limitations.

                      If this can be accomplished, the American driver will be better educated, there will be less accidents and less injuries and deaths from mva's, which in turn would reduce the rates for car and health insurance and so on...

                      If we can get the drunks and the junks off the roads...driving may be a little safer.

                      [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Captain Gonzo ]
                      ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
                      Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Gonz -

                        No disrespect, Cap, but you missed mongo's point entirely. Bureaucracy is of no concern to the "safety at all costs" crowd. Hell, they THRIVE on it. They would love to add another layer of bureacrats to the already civil-service saturated government. All the better to "protect" us from the 'drunks and junks', as you put it.

                        However, mongo has already pointed out that his system would free up traffic cops to do other duties. Boy, if that isn't bang for your buck, I don't know what is. That would pay for the extra level of bureacrats in a year or less, I'd bet. As I already pointed out, though, even if mongo's idea didn't save money, and actually INCREASED the size of government, very few of the "safety at all costs" crowd would balk.

                        Those that would support red-light cameras simply because "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't have anything to worry about" will likely not answer the provocative and evocative questions asked by mongo's proposal - how far are YOU willing to go to ensure that everything is safe, all the time? How much of your privacy and freedom are you willing to give up to ensure that everyone is a responsible driver (or else)? Are you willing to be tagged every time you don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, change lanes at an intersection, go 27 in a 25 MPH zone, cross the double yellow lines (even for a second, even for an evasive maneuver), or linger just a little too long in the passing lane? How about when you park in a no-parking zone 'just for a second' to use the ATM?

                        THOSE are the central questions, and as usual no one is answering them.

                        Understand, Cap, I'm not talking necessarily about your point of view. You argue well, and your points make me think, as do those of Dalmation90. But let's wait and see how many people are willing to take the "safety at all costs" argument to its logical conclusion.
                        "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

                        Joe Black

                        The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          If the "safety at all costs" mentality were around in the days of the Neanderthals, they would have never left the caves...

                          Hmmm me think too dangerous go out for hunt, Thag get eaten by bear or stomped by mammoth!

                          With human nature, there is no way to keep everybody 100% safe from any kind of harm 100% of the time. Everybody is guilty of some form of traffic infraction at one time or another like the things that Bucks mentions in his post. Mongo's proposed *** (automotive surveillance system...sorry, I couldn't resist the acronym!) sounds like it could have come from George Orwell's 1984. It would take "Big Brother" to a new extreme. There are some things that can be done to make the roads and vehicle safer, but you cannot legislate human nature (but God knows someone's trying!)

                          We are already under surveillance...every time we go into a bank, department store, hell, even in the local Qwik E Mart. If you work in Corporate America...you're being watched. If your local TV station has traffic reports with live shots of traffic jams on the roads leading into the city, you could be on the screen. Spy satellites are flying all around the planet...so let them know you're here..look up and smile or give them the flying fickle finger of fate once in a while!

                          [ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Captain Gonzo ]
                          ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
                          Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Gonz -

                            Understood, Cap. But you have to wonder, where does it end? Red light cameras are good, since "I don't run red lights, so it doesn't bother me".

                            For the person that abides by all traffic laws except the speed limit, is THAT where it ends? For that person, red light cameras, GPS tracking (without a speed component) would be fine, right? Or how about the person who doesn't run red lights, but parks in handicapped parking spaces just to "run in for a second"?

                            I guess what I'm trying to say is that when people begin to give up their privacy, there is no logical or easily definable place for it to stop. If it's OK to snap pictures of people running red (or yellow) lights, then it's OK to have a system to tag people who go even one MPH over the speed limit. After all, it's all in the name of safety, right? The same argument could be used for both. What makes red light cameras OK, but not speed tracking devices? Because more people speed than run red lights? That's hypocritical.

                            So where does it end, "I'm not worried - I don't run red lights" people? At the point where you're comfortable, or the point where I'm comfortable?

                            "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
                            "Let's roll." - Todd Beamer, one of a group of American soldiers who handed the terrorists their first defeat.

                            Joe Black

                            The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone (but you can borrow them )and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated (but then again, they just may not be thinking clearly).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              SFD-129-3

                              Feel free to answer the question. As you said in a previous post:

                              "...you have already committed a questionable act, on a public road, with no unreasonable expectation of privacy."

                              Do you support tattle tags on your personal vehicle? In your very own words regarding red light cameras "I still don't have a problem with it." Would you have a problem with tags?

                              BucksEng91

                              This is what I was trying to bring out in my earlier post

                              Yep and you did a fine job.

                              Let's see how many get behind your id-tag idea.

                              My guess is ZERO.

                              After all, if they're not doing anything wrong, why should they worry?

                              I don't know and they won't tell us...

                              Captain Gonzo

                              I see a flaw with your tag system. (And then to keep this short you went on to discuss added bureaucracy)

                              Thanks Cap, but I thought that out too. Here's how it should work:

                              The computer immediately generates ticket with the date and the offense, the fine or court date on a postage due, certified return receipt postcard and puts it in the outgoing mail. That way, the alleged offender is also shamed into obeying that law because all the people at the post office and soon everybody else will read the postcard and know he's a first time or habitual moving violator. An option would be just to deduct the fine from a bank account or charge to a credit card.

                              But you are correct in that there will have to be an incredible amount of bureaucracy involved.

                              Here's an idea!

                              Cap, I'm not so sure I can get behind letting a 16yo push a vehicle to the edge so he can know his limitations as that would subtley encourage him to do it on the open roadway.

                              But!

                              Aside from that (and let me ponder it for a few days) I think your idea is a great one, sound, educating, and makes extremely good sense.

                              The *** acronym is a good one, I wish I had thought of it.

                              Safety at all costs is pure BS and government intervention in its finest form (next to the redistribution of wages - some call that paying taxes) in its finest. We used to have a poster of an OSHA approved cowboy, what a hoot, here it is on line: http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/cowboy.htm

                              As Bucks pointed out, the government thrives on public willingness to accept these things because they are in our 'best interest.' And nobody knows what's best for you and me but the liberals in government.

                              Mongo's proposed ***...

                              OK, I hate to bust a bubble, but its not my proposal and it's already in place in several cities around the nation. If you have a toll road that has toll tags, it's there. It may not be used for moving violations (yet), but the technology is there to do so, just some math wiz math playing around reviewing the logs decides "hey, Gonzo went through this toll plaza at 1545 and through the one 15 miles down the road at 1600. That's 88fps, but the speed limit is 80.67fps on the tollway. Cha-ching! We can fire all those tollway cops and increase our salary with the savings from that and the increase in revenue from the more frequent fines. (And no, I don't listen to Art Bell or look out my window for black helicopters, I have chicken wire not tinfoil in all my hats, tinfoil only works in the movies and to protect you from space alien death rays and since I don't believe in space aliens...)

                              Then again why worry if you're doing nothing wrong...

                              As far as being under survellience when we go in to a store, bank, etc... The big difference here is they are private companies. We have the choice of whether or not we wish to be on their camera by choosing to or not to do business with them. Now, I agree the arguement could be made that you have a choice to be on the red light camera too, but the concept is entirely different and it doesn't change my position on them.

                              I guess what I'm trying to say is that when people begin to give up their privacy, there is no logical or easily definable place for it to stop.

                              ...

                              So where does it end, "I'm not worried - I don't run red lights" people? At the point where you're comfortable, or the point where I'm comfortable?


                              Excellent Bucks!
                              It's only my opinion. I do not speak for any group or organization I belong to or associate with or people I know - especially my employer. If you like it, we can share it, you don't have to give me credit. If you don't, we are allowed to disagree too (but be ready to be challenged, you may be on to something I'm not). That's what makes America great!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Ah, Mongo, I actually do have a few tags floating around. One is my LICENSE PLATE. Another is my DRIVERS LICENCE NUMBER. Didn't you get a SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER when you were born? Use an atm card? Thats pretty unique. All of these are unique indicators of a person.
                                Shouldn't you be out peeling stickers off road sign so the UN troops can't find their way? Hows the ak-47 stockpile coming?

                                tool.
                                It is better to try and fail, then quit and succeed.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X