Cops are installing traffic cameras on streets to send speeders tickets in the mail

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
They've been doing this for years now. If you don't want to get busted, don't break the law.

People like to complain about this sort of thing, but what is the complaint? "They didn't have to have a cop there to catch me so its no fair, I should be able to get away with stuff if they cant catch me in person."

We are moving towards a society where an oppressive government can make any law it wants and they'll be able to monitor your behavior at all times. Trust me, you do *something* wrong. And they'll get you for it.

This is not about safety, this is about revenue.

So you're saying speeding on residential sidestreets isn't a safety issue?

What is the alternative to ticketing the living hell out of people?

Speed bumps. Islands. Those work quite well in all the residential areas in my state. When is the last time you saw a ricer speed over a 6" bump with their lowered Civic?

That's a great idea, but how do you propose to pay for these additions? In my state (Washington) a gigantic portion of income from traffic tickets goes directly to fund road projects. To pay for this you can ticket more people who speed, or raise taxes on everybody.

I know which one I prefer!

 

[Koenigsegg]

In England it's been shown that areas with speed cameras have seen death rates increase, while areas without them have not seen this increase.

Going a little bit over the speed limit while watching the road is MUCH less dangerous than keeping your attention on your speedometer every 5 seconds making sure you're not going over the speed limit instead of watching the road.

With the idea of speed cameras around people will be much more conscious of making sure their speed is under the limit rather than they're driving safe. This will cause people to even drive under several mph under the speed limit just so they don't risk going 1mph over what the posted limit is, and combine this with people who are going 10-15mph over, you have a very dangerous situation.

A very terrible idea in my view. Anyone that thinks these measures are put in for safety rather than to generate money is delusional.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
They've been doing this for years now. If you don't want to get busted, don't break the law.

People like to complain about this sort of thing, but what is the complaint? "They didn't have to have a cop there to catch me so its no fair, I should be able to get away with stuff if they cant catch me in person."

Amendment VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
They've been doing this for years now. If you don't want to get busted, don't break the law.

People like to complain about this sort of thing, but what is the complaint? "They didn't have to have a cop there to catch me so its no fair, I should be able to get away with stuff if they cant catch me in person."

We are moving towards a society where an oppressive government can make any law it wants and they'll be able to monitor your behavior at all times. Trust me, you do *something* wrong. And they'll get you for it.

This is not about safety, this is about revenue.

So you're saying speeding on residential sidestreets isn't a safety issue?

What is the alternative to ticketing the living hell out of people?

Speed bumps. Islands. Those work quite well in all the residential areas in my state. When is the last time you saw a ricer speed over a 6" bump with their lowered Civic?

That's a great idea, but how do you propose to pay for these additions? In my state (Washington) a gigantic portion of income from traffic tickets goes directly to fund road projects. To pay for this you can ticket more people who speed, or raise taxes on everybody.

I know which one I prefer!

Concrete is cheap. How much for each of these cameras, and how many will need to be installed to be effective?

And you can't defeat a speed bump with a $30 can of reflective clear coat.

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
They've been doing this for years now. If you don't want to get busted, don't break the law.

People like to complain about this sort of thing, but what is the complaint? "They didn't have to have a cop there to catch me so its no fair, I should be able to get away with stuff if they cant catch me in person."

Amendment VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Doesn't say the witness can't be a machine. And they have the right to challenge the technology behind the camera if they believe it was illegitimate.

People have beaten these tickets due to poorly designed or malfunctioning cameras before.

That's no different than beating a ticket due to a cop misreading his radar gun.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

So you're saying speeding on residential sidestreets isn't a safety issue?

What is the alternative to ticketing the living hell out of people?

Of course speeding on residential sidestreets is a safety issue. But their motives for these cameras are not driven by safety, they're driven by revenue. The cities are bothered by the fact that there is valuable revenue being unharvested.

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

So you're saying speeding on residential sidestreets isn't a safety issue?

What is the alternative to ticketing the living hell out of people?

Of course speeding on residential sidestreets is a safety issue. But their motives for these cameras are not driven by safety, they're driven by revenue. The cities are bothered by the fact that there is valuable revenue being unharvested.

Again, increased revenue from speeders vs. increased taxes from everybody.

They are going to get the money one way or another. I'd rather it be from the guilty than the innocent.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
Doesn't say the witness can't be a machine. And they have the right to challenge the technology behind the camera if they believe it was illegitimate.

People have beaten these tickets due to poorly designed or malfunctioning cameras before.

That's no different than beating a ticket due to a cop misreading his radar gun.

No, it is different. A machine being operated by an officer of the law is different than an automated machine operating on its own. That is law.


More to the point, these machines are for revenue generation only and do virtually nothing to improve traffic safety. The premise that "speed kills" is long ago debunked. Congestion, poor traffic management, and poor skilled/inattentive drivers are what causes accidents.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

So you're saying speeding on residential sidestreets isn't a safety issue?

What is the alternative to ticketing the living hell out of people?

Of course speeding on residential sidestreets is a safety issue. But their motives for these cameras are not driven by safety, they're driven by revenue. The cities are bothered by the fact that there is valuable revenue being unharvested.

Again, increased revenue from speeders vs. increased taxes from everybody.

They are going to get the money one way or another. I'd rather it be from the guilty than the innocent.

False Dilemma

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
Doesn't say the witness can't be a machine. And they have the right to challenge the technology behind the camera if they believe it was illegitimate.

People have beaten these tickets due to poorly designed or malfunctioning cameras before.

That's no different than beating a ticket due to a cop misreading his radar gun.

No, it is different. A machine being operated by an officer of the law is different than an automated machine operating on its own. That is law.


More to the point, these machines are for revenue generation only and do virtually nothing to improve traffic safety. The premise that "speed kills" is long ago debunked. Congestion, poor traffic management, and poor skilled/inattentive drivers are what causes accidents.

But the 6th Amendment doesn't exclude video or photographic evidence because it was not taken by a person. The extent to which video and photographic evidence is used today is proof enough of that.

As far as improving safety, speed is not directly responsible for accidents, no. But it does decrease the margin of error when something happens, and inexperienced or distracted (read: Cellphone yakking fvcktards who should be concentrating on driving.) drivers could very well have an accident because they do not have good reaction times or defensive driving skills.

Speed also increases the likelyhood of a fatality when an accident does occur.

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

So you're saying speeding on residential sidestreets isn't a safety issue?

What is the alternative to ticketing the living hell out of people?

Of course speeding on residential sidestreets is a safety issue. But their motives for these cameras are not driven by safety, they're driven by revenue. The cities are bothered by the fact that there is valuable revenue being unharvested.

Again, increased revenue from speeders vs. increased taxes from everybody.

They are going to get the money one way or another. I'd rather it be from the guilty than the innocent.

False Dilemma

Those aren't the only options, just the two most likely.

 

[Koenigsegg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
They've been doing this for years now. If you don't want to get busted, don't break the law.

People like to complain about this sort of thing, but what is the complaint? "They didn't have to have a cop there to catch me so its no fair, I should be able to get away with stuff if they cant catch me in person."

Amendment VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

A few decades ago they moved car violations out of the whole misdemeanor (or criminal prosecutions) category where people got a right to a jury trial, and moved them into an infraction category where all this no longer applies..

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: Koenigsegg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
They've been doing this for years now. If you don't want to get busted, don't break the law.

People like to complain about this sort of thing, but what is the complaint? "They didn't have to have a cop there to catch me so its no fair, I should be able to get away with stuff if they cant catch me in person."

Amendment VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

A few decades ago they moved car violations out of the whole misdemeanor category where people got a right to a jury trial, and moved them into an infraction category where all this no longer applies..

Also true. As it isn't a "criminal prosecution." But even in criminal prosecution, automatically obtained footage of a crime is admissable provided it was obtained without breaking the "unlawful search and seizure" law. Which is of course not applicable since driving on a public street does not guarantee you privacy, even in your own car.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
But the 6th Amendment doesn't exclude video or photographic evidence because it was not taken by a person. The extent to which video and photographic evidence is used today is proof enough of that.

As far as improving safety, speed is not directly responsible for accidents, no. But it does decrease the margin of error when something happens, and inexperienced or distracted (read: Cellphone yakking fvcktards who should be concentrating on driving.) drivers could very well have an accident because they do not have good reaction times or defensive driving skills.

Speed also increases the likelyhood of a fatality when an accident does occur.

The Constitution does not tell the government what it cannot do, it tells it what it can do. If something is not included or mentioned in the Constitution, that means that is something that the government cannot do. That is Basic Constitutional Law 098.
However, video and photographic evidence in these cases is not what is being excluded. Argue the point, not a runaround, eh? Do not make a point against something obviously other than my argument and then think you beat my arguement. That is strawman, and I don't think any of the better debaters here tolerate it well. What is being excluded is evidence collected without the certification of a human witness, and that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. An accused person has the specific right to confront their accusers. Now, the evidence might be a photograph, but the accuser is still the person who took the picture, now is it not? In the case of an automated machine, who is that person? No one.

About speed... the Autobahn, with no speed limits, has a lower fatality rate than does the US freeway system. Hmm...

 

[ScottFern]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Get with the program, guys. A $30 can of spray can save you a $300 ticket.

It's a no brainer if you live in a city with red light or speeding cameras.

Hmm, I might have to look into this if it really works. I unfortunately live in the Chicagoland area.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
If you don't want to get busted, don't break the law.

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

So you're saying speeding on residential sidestreets isn't a safety issue?

What is the alternative to ticketing the living hell out of people?

Of course speeding on residential sidestreets is a safety issue. But their motives for these cameras are not driven by safety, they're driven by revenue. The cities are bothered by the fact that there is valuable revenue being unharvested.

Again, increased revenue from speeders vs. increased taxes from everybody.

They are going to get the money one way or another. I'd rather it be from the guilty than the innocent.

False Dilemma

Those aren't the only options, just the two most likely.

Likely in what fashion? Do tell. Now you're making the false premise that "They are going to get the money one way or another," i.e. that taxes must go up, without explanation, and using that to justify your position with a lovely bit of Tyranny of the Majority soften by Prejudicial Language.

I bow to your amazing command of faulty logic!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
If you don't want to get busted, don't break the law.

:thumbsup:

"If you don't want to go to the gas chamber, don't be a Jew."

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
But the 6th Amendment doesn't exclude video or photographic evidence because it was not taken by a person. The extent to which video and photographic evidence is used today is proof enough of that.

As far as improving safety, speed is not directly responsible for accidents, no. But it does decrease the margin of error when something happens, and inexperienced or distracted (read: Cellphone yakking fvcktards who should be concentrating on driving.) drivers could very well have an accident because they do not have good reaction times or defensive driving skills.

Speed also increases the likelyhood of a fatality when an accident does occur.

The Constitution does not tell the government what it cannot do, it tells it what it can do. If something is not included or mentioned in the Constitution, that means that is something that the government cannot do.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

That looks to me as it is telling what CANNOT be done.

That is Basic Constitutional Law 098.
However, video and photographic evidence in these cases is not what is being excluded. Argue the point, not a runaround, eh? Do not make a point against something obviously other than my argument and then think you beat my arguement. That is strawman,

Frankly with the quality of poster on ATOT you're lucky that I'm not simply calling your post "gay" and running off.

and I don't think any of the better debaters here tolerate it well. What is being excluded is evidence collected without the certification of a human witness, and that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. An accused person has the specific right to confront their accusers. Now, the evidence might be a photograph, but the accuser is still the person who took the picture, now is it not? In the case of an automated machine, who is that person? No one.

Then what are you suggesting? That there has to be a human witness to traffic infraction in order to ticket someone for it?

About speed... the Autobahn, with no speed limits, has a lower fatality rate than does the US freeway system. Hmm...

Because they don't have American drivers.

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
If you don't want to get busted, don't break the law.

:thumbsup:

"If you don't want to go to the gas chamber, don't be a Jew."

That's so inflammatory I don't even know what to say.

 

[Mo0o]

*Disgruntled murmur and mention of personal rights, further complaints of false accusations, followed by eventual inaction and acceptance*

 

[kranky]

People complain that cops should be out catching "real criminals" than writing tickets to meet a quota. Now cops can do that, but people still aren't happy.

The increased revenue justification makes no sense to me. If people don't speed, then there aren't any tickets, right? And if people slow down because they might get a robotized ticket, then everyone's happy, aren't they? Well, except the speeders, I suppose.

 

[SLCentral]

This all reminds me of that one Curb Your Enthusiasm episode.

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: SLCentral
This all reminds me of that one Curb Your Enthusiasm episode.

Were they comparing ticketing speeders to genocide like our friend Vic here seems to like to do?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
But the 6th Amendment doesn't exclude video or photographic evidence because it was not taken by a person. The extent to which video and photographic evidence is used today is proof enough of that.

As far as improving safety, speed is not directly responsible for accidents, no. But it does decrease the margin of error when something happens, and inexperienced or distracted (read: Cellphone yakking fvcktards who should be concentrating on driving.) drivers could very well have an accident because they do not have good reaction times or defensive driving skills.

Speed also increases the likelyhood of a fatality when an accident does occur.

The Constitution does not tell the government what it cannot do, it tells it what it can do. If something is not included or mentioned in the Constitution, that means that is something that the government cannot do.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

That looks to me as it is telling what CANNOT be done.

That is Basic Constitutional Law 098.
However, video and photographic evidence in these cases is not what is being excluded. Argue the point, not a runaround, eh? Do not make a point against something obviously other than my argument and then think you beat my arguement. That is strawman,

Frankly with the quality of poster on ATOT you're lucky that I'm not simply calling your post "gay" and running off.

and I don't think any of the better debaters here tolerate it well. What is being excluded is evidence collected without the certification of a human witness, and that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. An accused person has the specific right to confront their accusers. Now, the evidence might be a photograph, but the accuser is still the person who took the picture, now is it not? In the case of an automated machine, who is that person? No one.

Then what are you suggesting? That there has to be a human witness to traffic infraction in order to ticket someone for it?

About speed... the Autobahn, with no speed limits, has a lower fatality rate than does the US freeway system. Hmm...

Because they don't have American drivers.

Don't nest quotes. It makes me nasty. You have been warned. I'm serious. I've been nice this far.

The power of the government in the Constitution are enumerated. This means that if something is not specifically mentioned, then it is power that the government does not have. I thought I made that clear enough. Obviously not for you. The Constitution was specifically intended to be a literal document, not this "living document" bullsh!t you hear about now.

As to the rest of your post, you may as well just call my post "gay" and run away as the quality of your argument is about on that par.