Red Light Camera Systems

[flamingelephant]

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix
I'm really against cameras for any kind of traffic infringement, as I'd prefer to have a human being to talk to and explain why I broke a law before I have to spend a day in court.

My father has been pulled over for running a red light one occasion because he was being tailgated, and upon explaining that to the officer (who also saw how closely he was being followed) he was let go. I've had to do the same thing on a couple occasions for the same reason - never been pulled over for it, but I prefer not having to worry about what might show up in the mail in a week because I did what I had to in order to avoid an accident.

nothing to stop you from pleading not guilty and giving that reason in court with a camera photo

 

[LordMorpheus]

fvck 'em. Its a step towards constant observation and absolute enforcement of the law


Honestly, can you imagine living in a world where you couldn't step out of line in the slightest without getting a ticket in the mail?

Also. 4AM. No car in sight. Are you gonna sit through a 5 minute red?

 

[frankgomez75]

What if the lights are broken.... flashing red? Can the camera tell the difference?

 

[SilentZero]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
fvck 'em. Its a step towards constant observation and absolute enforcement of the law


Honestly, can you imagine living in a world where you couldn't step out of line in the slightest without getting a ticket in the mail?

Also. 4AM. No car in sight. Are you gonna sit through a 5 minute red?

Well put! I completely agree. Big brother needs to take a break.

 

[AntiEverything]

Would everyone who backs red light cameras also agree to having transmitters put on roadways which indicate the allowable speed, and then sensors would be required in all cars which monitor for the proper speed and report you when you exceed it?

 

[Ornery]

I oppose cameras monitoring us for breaking the law.

Caught on Tape!

Oklahoma's Own Video Vigilante

Do red light cameras violate motorists' privacy?

• No. Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules -- to obey traffic signals, for example. Neither the law nor common sense suggests drivers shouldn't be observed on the road or have their violations documented. In addition, red light camera systems can be designed to photograph only a vehicle's rear license plate -- not vehicle occupants, depending on local law. Only the vehicles driven by motorists who are violating the law are photographed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I oppose cameras monitoring us for breaking the law.

Caught on Tape!

Oklahoma's Own Video Vigilante

Do red light cameras violate motorists' privacy?

• No. Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules -- to obey traffic signals, for example. Neither the law nor common sense suggests drivers shouldn't be observed on the road or have their violations documented. In addition, red light camera systems can be designed to photograph only a vehicle's rear license plate -- not vehicle occupants, depending on local law. Only the vehicles driven by motorists who are violating the law are photographed.

You're not saying anything that hasn't been said already.

I still oppose any and all government cameras designed to observe citizens. It is a slope far too slippery to chance.

 

[Lucky]

"A few years ago, Red Light Running wasn't that big of an issue...you would have the occasional driver doing this...now, it is the norm for 2 or 3 drivers to run it because they know they have a few seconds before the other traffic starts to come through the green light... "

I'd love to see some stats (hell, even from the US gov't!) that show red light running is up in the last "few years".

 

[YBS1]

Didn't read the whole thread, didn't care if someone had already stated it. They suck because they are automated enforcement, and automated systems don't have any degree of "judgement call". If you have no objections to this then you certainly shouldn't have any objections to the government mandating systems being installed in all cars that would automatically ticket a driver for any instance of him exceeding the speed limit. [sarcasm] I like Big Brother looking over my shoulder, how about you? [/sarcasm]

 

[Ornery]

Gee, where have I heard THAT before? :roll:

Scofflaws deserve to be caught & fined. Just breaks my heart to see them suffer so.

Since the liberal bleeding hearts are more concerned with criminal's rights, than justice for victims, I'll take the side of law abiding citizens. A picture's worth a thousand words, and we'd be STUPID not to take advantage of that.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: YBS1
Didn't read the whole thread, didn't care if someone had already stated it. They suck because they are automated enforcement, and automated systems don't have any degree of "judgement call". If you have no objections to this then you certainly shouldn't have any objections to the government mandating systems being installed in all car that would automatically ticket a driver for any instance of him exceeding the speed limit. [sarcasm]I like Big Brother looking over my shoulder, how about you?[/sarcasm]

Excellent point.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Gee, where have I heard THAT before? :roll:

Scofflaws deserve to be caught & fined. Just breaks my heart to see them suffer so.

Since the liberal bleeding hearts are more concerned with criminal's rights, than justice for victims, I'll take the side of law abiding citizens. A picture's worth a thousand words, and we'd be STUPID not to take advantage of that.

WTF are you getting the idea that I'm "liberal?"

You should know better.

I'm against government nannyism. Cameras are the height of government nannyism. You cannot be truly nannied unless you're constantly watched.

Look through this thread. MOST of the people so vocal against government cameras lean right, or libertarian.

Don't start acting like Dave, please!

 

[Ornery]

ACLU Opposes Proposal For Red Light Traffic Cameras

If the shoe fits...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ornery
ACLU Opposes Proposal For Red Light Traffic Cameras

If the shoe fits...

Even the ACLU get's it right once in a while.

Automatically opposing anything they stand for is simplistic and myopic. Think for yourself.

Think about the points I've made. Do you REALLY want your government watching your every move?

 

[Amused]

By the way, try this search on google:

"red light cameras" +republican +oppose

And see for yourself how many, MANY folks on the right oppose the idea.

 

[Ornery]

I'm for it, because it solidly (with photo proof) busts scofflaws without predudice or discrimination. For some reason, I'm frequently at odds with the ACLU...

 

[YBS1]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Gee, where have I heard THAT before? :roll:

Scofflaws deserve to be caught & fined. Just breaks my heart to see them suffer so.

Since the liberal bleeding hearts are more concerned with criminal's rights, than justice for victims, I'll take the side of law abiding citizens. A picture's worth a thousand words, and we'd be STUPID not to take advantage of that.

You're statements are automatically assuming there is going to be a "victim" for every instance caught on camera. If I was to fire a gun at a practice target, there is a possibility I could miss, the bullet could ricochet off a hard object and strike and kill someone. Should I be charged for murder because the possibility exists? I've never been ticketed for running a red light or stop sign in my life, because well...I don't run red lights or stop signs unless by accident. That doesn't change my opinion that monitoring citizens by automation is just wrong. Have you ever driven above the posted speed limit by even one mph? If so, then you're a criminal (your words not mine), and a hypocrite.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Ornery
ACLU Opposes Proposal For Red Light Traffic Cameras

If the shoe fits...

Even the ACLU get's it right once in a while.

Automatically opposing anything they stand for is simplistic and myopic. Think for yourself.

Think about the points I've made. Do you REALLY want your government watching your every move?

If i'm not mistaken these cameras are STILL cameras. If i'm wrong please correct me.

A still camera with a motion detector that is activated when the light is red that takes a picture zoomed in of the driver and a zoom on the licence plate. The ones I have seen have also had a wide angle shot of the intersection and the vehicle behind the car in the wrong.

 

[Doboji]

Case in point of why it's bad. There's a red light camera at half street in DC on South Capital Street as you come off a ramp. In my case it was pouring rain at 4AM in the morning. I come around the bend and there sure enough is the yellow light. Now I'm thinking either I can A) slam on the brakes and perhaps slide into the middle of the intersection, or into the barrier walls a couple of feet on either side of me, or b) I could try to make the yellow, there was noone anywhere at any of the other lights or in the intersection.

I got my picture taken... I will be forced now to pay a fine for making the safer decision. Red light camera's are stupid. They're just an easier way to collect city funds, and they eat less donuts.

Camera's cannot possibly gather the same level of information that a human observer can. And since when do we want to live ina society with absolute traffic enforcement... in our country with the insane amount of laws on the books, we're setting ourselves up for a tyrannical society. Consider the fact that most laws prohibit sex in any but the missionary position. Imagine if these laws were enforced absolutely

-Max

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I'm for it, because it solidly (with photo proof) busts scofflaws without predudice or discrimination. For some reason, I'm frequently at odds with the ACLU...

Check out the fight in Texas over these Cameras. The fight against the use of these cameras is lead by a Republican, and supported by a majority of Republicans.

And I don't care how right wing you are, if you support the Constitution at all, you will actually AGREE with the majority of the ACLU's actions. You seem to focus on the outrageous minority, and judge them on that.

Don't get me wrong, I think the ACLU has been hijacked by socialist fools and is totally dishonest when it comes to the second amendment, but the core of their fight is still freedom over oppression. And state cameras are oppression any way you look at it.

Law and order should NEVER come at the cost of our freedom and rights.

Unblinking government eyes are on obvious loss of freedom and rights and a LARGE step towards total nannism.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Doboji
Case in point of why it's bad. There's a red light camera at half street in DC on South Capital Street as you come off a ramp. In my case it was pouring rain at 4AM in the morning. I come around the bend and there sure enough is the yellow light. Now I'm thinking either I can A) slam on the brakes and perhaps slide into the middle of the intersection, or into the barrier walls a couple of feet on either side of me, or b) I could try to make the yellow, there was noone anywhere at any of the other lights or in the intersection.

I got my picture taken... I will be forced now to pay a fine for making the safer decision. Red light camera's are stupid. They're just an easier way to collect city funds, and they eat less donuts.
-Max

Maybe it shouldn't have been the safer decision?
Drive for the road conditions? Very wet = drive slower than you normally would.
What if instead of a red light at a junction, there had been an accident and a car across your lane? Then you would have had a choice of hitting the barrier, or hitting the car.
You weren't driving with the road conditions in mind, it led to you breaking the law.
Sorry buddy, but that one's on your head.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: YBS1

You're statements are automatically assuming there is going to be a "victim" for every instance caught on camera. If I was to fire a gun at a practice target, there is a possibility I could miss, the bullet could ricochet off a hard object and strike and kill someone. Should I be charged for murder because the possibility exists? I've never been ticketed for running a red light or stop sign in my life, because well...I don't run red lights or stop signs unless by accident. That doesn't change my opinion that monitoring citizens by automation is just wrong. Have you ever driven above the posted speed limit by even one mph? If so, then you're a criminal (your words not mine), and a hypocrite.

A truly lame rant.

My TRUE statements are that:

• The ACLU is more concerned with criminal's rights, than justice for victims.
• Scofflaws can and should be busted using photo proof from red light cameras.
• I'm on the opposite side of the ACLU in this argument.

The camera doesn't discriminate. If I ran a light, I'd get a ticket, same as everyone else.


Unblinking government eyes...

"Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules -- to obey traffic signals, for example. Neither the law nor common sense suggests drivers shouldn't be observed on the road or have their violations documented." - Text

 

[Vich]

Originally posted by: desk
as long as they don't ticket me for turning on red when the sign says not to, im cool with it.

you mean when the signs says that u can or there is no sign?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: YBS1

You're statements are automatically assuming there is going to be a "victim" for every instance caught on camera. If I was to fire a gun at a practice target, there is a possibility I could miss, the bullet could ricochet off a hard object and strike and kill someone. Should I be charged for murder because the possibility exists? I've never been ticketed for running a red light or stop sign in my life, because well...I don't run red lights or stop signs unless by accident. That doesn't change my opinion that monitoring citizens by automation is just wrong. Have you ever driven above the posted speed limit by even one mph? If so, then you're a criminal (your words not mine), and a hypocrite.

A truly lame rant.

My TRUE statements are that:

• The ACLU is more concerned with criminal's rights, than justice for victims.
• Scofflaws can and should be busted using photo proof from red light cameras.
• I'm on the opposite side of the ACLU in this argument.

The camera doesn't discriminate. If I ran a light, I'd get a ticket, same as everyone else.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is full of rights for the accused, and none for victims. Do you oppose the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well?

Automatic law enforcement is a VERY bad idea, no matter how you look at it. Unblinking government eyes is a very scary idea, no matter how you look at it.

Opposing government cameras is not supporting the rights of accused or criminals. It is protecting the freedom and rights of ALL from constant government surveillance.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Unblinking government eyes...

"Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules -- to obey traffic signals, for example. Neither the law nor common sense suggests drivers shouldn't be observed on the road or have their violations documented." - Text

I have no opposition to patroling public roads. I do have opposition to cameras following my every move and unblinking eyes knowing everything I do.