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

  • mongofire_99
    replied
    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 ]

    Leave a comment:


  • nomad1085
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SFD-129-3
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dalmatian90
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • firenresq77
    replied
    How about this scenario......

    It's raining. Speed limit is 45mph. You are doing 40, however you have an idiot tailgating you. You have your 6 month old child with you and you can tell the driver behind you has a small child with them. You are approaching the intersection (equipped with a red light camera) and all of a sudden, the light turns yellow. You know that you are close to the intersection, but could probably stop, but the driver behind you will end up rear-ending you, possibly injuring yourself, your child,the child in the car behind you and the driver behind you. What do you do?

    I know I'd run the light, for SAFETY's sake. But it would **** me off that I got stuck with a ticket because some idiot behind me was in a hurry....

    Leave a comment:


  • BucksEng91
    replied
    nomad -

    You have nothing to add to the discussion. Typical.

    Leave a comment:


  • nomad1085
    replied
    Mongo, you have way too much time on your hands. Typical.

    Leave a comment:


  • jizumper-5
    replied
    OK now after reading the executive summary about the 'scam' in question, I think there is a problem if a yellow is shortened to increase people going through red light, the ways the lights were picked, etc. It seems that in the case of the light at N Harbor Dr. and Grape, an adjustment was made and there was a decrease in offenses.

    I still have no problem with these cameras catching people running reds, even if you get a ticket you can still go to court to refute it. I am not sure what your odds are with that.

    On the issue of revenue vs. safety, my opinion...(taking the report at face value) bad decision.

    Bucks,
    I did find humor in your responses. I was just hoping other would not take this off on a tangent an rune a good topic. I do see you point and accept you opinion.

    Hey you can't please everyone, right. That is the good thing about living here, everyone has the right to their opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • BucksEng91
    replied
    Dalmation90 -

    I like the dog, and I like the number (station 90 is one of our sister stations...and I do mean "sister" )

    Anyway, your point is well taken about the "passive" nature of the cameras. HOWEVER, any of the scenarios I wrote about could easily be modified to accomodate such a feature - in fact, the one about speed detection on the interstate implicitly HAS this feature. You don't get a nice big ticket unless you do 56 MPH (or more) for a second or two. You think that's constitutional, or appropriate, because of the 'passiveness'? One could argue that the detection feature is certainly not "passive". A camera that randomly takes shots of the intersection would be "passive".

    I tend to think as Mongo does, that it's one more way to seperate your dollars from your wallet. And Mongo's Franklin quote sums it up nicely. Hey - maybe we don't, as a nation, deserve freedom anymore. We certainly don't get very upset when it's incrementally taken from us. It's just one more sign of what George Carlin has called the "pussification" of America.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dalmatian90
    replied
    1. 'Scam' refers to the shortening of the duration of the yellow light, causing more people to run run the red light, get a ticket, and then have to pay. (What some might call a hidden tax on drivers)
    Has the light been made so short that drivers driving at the speed limit have insufficient time to stop before the light goes to red? Then yes, it is a scam.

    If however drivers at the speed limit still have sufficient time to react and stop, then it isn't a scam. If the light cycles are faster, but still allow a vehicle operated by an attentive driver at the legal speed limit or at a speed safe for conditions (i.e. drive slower in rain to allow for longer braking distance), there's nothing wrong with it, especially if the intent is too allow traffic waiting for a green light to wait less time.


    The difference is that by the governing law of the land (the Constitution, Amendment VI) I have the right to, among a few other things "...To be confronted with the witnesses against [me];" this is not possible in an automated, assume the defandants guilt type situation.

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

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

    Doesn't matter whether the Cop is giving you a ticket in person, or by looking at the ticket. Any "confronting the witness" is done in court, not the field.

    4. Back to the original intent of the first post, what you, as public safety officials think. I think that the shortening of yellow lights has probably caused as many accidents as some claim the cameras have prevented. Imagine a good driver, doing everthig right who has to slam on thebrakes to avoid entering an intersection. Now he is rear-ended and all of us get to jump on our trucks and go do what we signed up for.

    Again, if they've shortened it so a driver paying attention and driving at a speed safe for conditions can't stop in time, then there is a lawsuit against the municipality/state waiting to happen.

    If it's just that it's shorter than the driver assumed it would be, well that's not paying attention and you know what happens when you assume.

    5.No one has refuted the point that the overwhelming majority of accidents are caused by drivers, and can not be prevented by an unblinking eye.

    Huh, well then we can all greatly reduce our expenditures on Highway Patrols and turn them into Highway Responders -- going only to events after an accident occurs.

    Absent of law enforcement on the highways, do we believe most people would follow the speed limit, or would they simply go as fast as they personally feel comfortable with?

    It is the possibility of being caught and being fined that keeps people driving at or near the speed limit.

    Drivers are responsible for their actions, however cameras & cops reinforce good behaivor and punish bad behavior.

    Change the behavior of the driver in a positive fashion, and you'll reduce the accidents their involved in.

    Leave a comment:


  • paulp
    replied
    I agree with Dalmation90. I live in Victoria and we have had these cameras for almost 20 years. I do alot of miles and have never recieved a ticket by camera. Approach each intersection at a safe speed you can stop at. If it turns yellow then stop. Only continue on if it is unsafe to stop. ie You have stuffed up, miscalculated. If everybody stopped at more yellow and red lights fewer emergency vehicles would get cleaned up at these intersections. Technically its the rapid de-exceleration which kills but the slower you go the less damage. Some people do get lots of photos they either need to change teir driving habits or smile alot!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dalmatian90
    replied
    Well Mongo, the laws do vary a bit. Here's Connecticut's:

    14-299
    2) Yellow: Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter, when vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the intersection unless so close to the intersection that a stop cannot be made in safety


    If you can safely stop, you must stop on yellow in CT. The doing it safely though does give considerable discretion to the driver.

    My position on this is picking a very fine hair, and one that does border on my normal views of personal responsibility and civil rights.

    However, the cameras are acting very fairly and consistently in carrying out the first line of justice -- by targeting people whose vehicles have violated a very specific law; and only taking pictures and recording those offenders.

    The fact these cameras are triggered by an illegal event, on a public roadway maintained by the State, presumably by someone who already has received a license to drive from the State, using a vehicle (presumably) registered with the State makes such arguements of privacy extremely weak.

    However, the interaction of the Camera taking the photo indeed 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.

    Unless someone conducted a string of violations in an area with a plethora of triggered cameras, the data gathered from any location on a single car would be insufficient to draw conclusions what is being done with that vehicle -- other than going through a red light at this moment in time. The privacy of origin and destination is still preserved.

    While the frequency of fines may increase with these cameras, the drivers actually enjoy a greater degree of privacy from having the intimidation of a police officer asking them what there up to, looking in there car, running their driver's license, etc.

    Yes, it does nag me a little that even the identity of the driver remains anonymous, and the owner is responsible. 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.

    Matt
    (Somebody pass me the microscope...these hairs are getting awful fine to split )

    Leave a comment:


  • toneloc177
    replied
    accidents, and to be bluntly, sh*t happens!

    yes, i did get caught by one of these camera 'regulated' intersections. And the traffic light . . . was 20 feet from one of the sh*tiest pj's in queens, nyc. one of the guys in my company used to be a cab driver, and even told me how when he was in that area, he'd blow through the light because he feared being attacked, and had heard similar stories of being being car jacked or attacked. that of which he spoke of was some 8 - 10 yrs ago. the projects ain't changed one bit, with the exception of the 'people' that live there (less shootings and stabbings).

    when i went through the 'red light' which takes a few different views of the rear of your veh., it has a close up of your plate, and a general shot of the intersection, and also has on the photo, the time the light was red when you went through it (me was about .75 sec.'s - in the rain). had a cop pulled me over, i with about 75% certainty, could have gotten nothing with the exception of a 'stern talkin to'. "Hey officer, it was raining, i didn't want to slam on my brakes, . . . blah blah blah . . ."

    getting back to what was said about 'there being a marked rmp on the street corner, and how that would deter crime / 'bad guys' from miss behaving, what world have you been spending time in, and can you find me a nice house that's for sale?

    people (for the most part) are gonna do what ever the hell they want to do, when ever the hell they want to do it! the only ones that don't, are the people who fear reprocussions for their actions, and subsequently restrain themselves.

    not to bash or bark at anyone here, so some of us never got a moving violation, great, wonderful, good for you. ever been pulled over and talked your way out of getting one? maybe you have a better line of bullsh*t than the rest of us, but it doesn't mean your 'driver ed' material.

    anyway, so i got a red light photo ticket ($50-), atleast I didn't get any points on my license.

    Leave a comment:


  • truck197
    replied
    For Clarification:
    1. 'Scam' refers to the shortening of the duration of the yellow light, causing more people to run run the red light, get a ticket, and then have to pay. (What some might call a hidden tax on drivers)
    2. As disapointing as it might be, I have never recieved a moving violation, and I only have issues with the abuse or misuse of authority.
    3.To quote
    "They wouldn't run the light if they saw a marked unit sitting there watching. Now there is a camera instead of a marked unit. Whats the difference?"
    The difference is that by the governing law of the land (the Constitution, Amendment VI) I have the right to, among a few other things "...To be confronted with the witnesses against [me];" this is not possible in an automated, assume the defandants guilt type situation.
    4. Back to the original intent of the first post, what you, as public safety officials think. I think that the shortening of yellow lights has probably caused as many accidents as some claim the cameras have prevented. Imagine a good driver, doing everthig right who has to slam on thebrakes to avoid entering an intersection. Now he is rear-ended and all of us get to jump on our trucks and go do what we signed up for.
    5.No one has refuted the point that the overwhelming majority of accidents are caused by drivers, and can not be prevented by an unblinking eye.
    Once again thank you for your opinions and interest,
    Jeff

    [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: truck197 ]

    Leave a comment:


  • thefyreman
    replied
    If you guys would take the time to check out the link that truck197 posted, you'd see that the scam he's referring to is local municipalities rigging the light to "short yellow" cycle in order to INCREASE the number of cars going through the red light, thus getting more money from more fines! If that's the case, I'd really be upset at the jurisdiction using that method of red-light enforcement. HOWEVER, I try to drive at or within reason of (<5mph over) the posted limit, and I have yet found ANY intersection that has a yellow light that is so short that I had to run the red light! I say, if the intersection isn't rigged to falsely trap people running red lights, let the cameras catch the guilty and make 'em pay.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X