While I agree with you in principle, and I side with you in not wanting a 1984-type-state, I really have a hard time seeing the danger in red light cameras. I concede that there is at least some merit to the slippery slope thing, just not sure it is right-on-the-money in this case.
I'd much prefer a red-light camera to an officer actually being placed at the intersection, probably most for fiscal sense. Barring the crazy exception here and there, you don't "need" a police officer to simply judge if somebody ran a red light. They ran the red, so they either pay the fine or explain why they chose (or were forced to) break the rules.
The Constitution is full of rights for the accused, and none for victims. Do you oppose the Constitution as well?
When somebody like OJ can walk after killing two people, with all the evidence against him, I'd say something's WRONG!
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.
Automatic law enforcement is a GREAT idea, no matter how you look at it. Traffic cameras are a perfect solution, 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 government surveillance.
I have NO problem with private property surveillance, and no problem with traffic "surveillance", especially if these fvcktards are getting bagged for running lights. If I felt my "rights" were being infringed, I'd squawk, but I certainly don't!
When somebody like OJ can walk after killing two people, with all the evidence against him, I'd say something's WRONG!
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.
Automatic law enforcement is a GREAT idea, no matter how you look at it. Traffic cameras are a perfect solution, 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 government surveillance.
I have NO problem with private property surveillance, and no problem with traffic "surveillance", especially if these fvcktards are getting bagged for running lights. If I felt my "rights" were being infringed, I'd squawk, but I certainly don't!
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,386
- 19,667
- 146
Yes, the LA Country prosecution team screwed the pooch. They REALLY screwed up when they moved the trial out of Santa Monica. Their list of mistakes only STARTS with that big one.
This does not mean we should scrap Constitutional protections for the accused.
Because you're myopic and cannot see the slippery slope ahead.
No incorrect... there is no such thing as driving a safe speed on an unsafe road... the only safe speed in slippery road conditions is not moving at all. In this particular case I was driving 25mph on a road with a 35mph limit. I was definitly taking the road conditions into account. In fact it's likely that my slow speed is WHY I got caught by the camera in the first place... had I been going faster, I probably would have easily cleared the intersection before getting a picture. Again my point remains the same... the loss of the human element is the problem here. Had there been a car in the intersection, I would be dealing with an emergency response type scenario caused by the rain... I would have stomped the brakes... maybe slide, maybe not... reality is at my speed I probably wouldnt have slid... but back to the previous scenario, going through the yellow was CLEARLY the correct choice, and any police officer who had witnessed this happen wouldn't have even blinked at me, and certainly wouldn't ticket me, unless someone ran over his dog or something earlier in the day.
-Max
Keep fighting the good fight, and save us from certain ruin at the hands of our corrupt government! :thumbsup:
More government... :roll:
It's enforcement of existing regulations. You know, the one where the light turns red, and like a chump, you stop, while the cretin driving beside you keeps going right on through?
It's enforcement of existing regulations. You know, the one where the light turns red, and like a chump, you stop, while the cretin driving beside you keeps going right on through?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,386
- 19,667
- 146
That's what cops are for. Not unblinking government surveillance that can track your every move. Adding cameras is the same as having a cop assigned to each individual, and following them round all day.
Adding cameras to watch citizens makes the government everywhere, all the time. It is the largest single act they can do to become "bigger."
I don't know about you, but I want LESS government in my life.
Scarpozzi
Lifer
- Jun 13, 2000
- 26,392
- 1,780
- 126
I hate it when I'm driving down the road hauling my boat, for instance...and I get put in a position where the light turns yellow (we have fast yellows around here) at the instant that it's too late for me to be able to stop. It's like, with all the weight of the boat behind my truck, I could lock up my brakes to stop if I needed to, but it's a lot easier to roll through the light.
I don't know if they would make an exception, but running a light in that circumstance, to me, is totally legit. Especially when it's safer for me, my boat, and the drivers behind me that may not have even seen the light change because of my rig.
As for the red lights that didn't "just change"... I agree that it's good practice to have the camera systems up. I just understand how no one likes big brother watching. They're talking about installing some cameras in a dangerous series of curves here that claim a few lives each year. They've changed the asphalt composition already to give cars more traction, but kids tend to speed in and out of the curves. It'll be interesting to see them start radaring people automatically.
I don't know if they would make an exception, but running a light in that circumstance, to me, is totally legit. Especially when it's safer for me, my boat, and the drivers behind me that may not have even seen the light change because of my rig.
As for the red lights that didn't "just change"... I agree that it's good practice to have the camera systems up. I just understand how no one likes big brother watching. They're talking about installing some cameras in a dangerous series of curves here that claim a few lives each year. They've changed the asphalt composition already to give cars more traction, but kids tend to speed in and out of the curves. It'll be interesting to see them start radaring people automatically.
The people who run the light right as it is turning red because they figure they can get through before the other light turns green are breaking the law, as well as being assholes.
They also aren't in much danger of doing any harm
Unless a.)Someone from the other direction jumps the gun on the green and runs through *their* red light or b.)ASSUMING that the red-light runner has BADLY blown the light, someone from the other direction isn't paying attention to the road and blindly pulls into the intersection on their green light without looking at traffic.
I'll admit - I've blown red lights before - not just "pink" (squeaking by during the yellow), but out and out not paying attention and all of a sudden "holy sh!t red light!"
4 times in 10 years and 100k miles of driving where I actually had the possibility of doing serious damage. As it so happens, I've never been in an accident, but in each of those 4 cases there was much more potential for a bad accident than any time anyone has ever run a "pink" light.
Believe me, it's *not* a pleasant experience to be hurtling towards a red light you know you can't stop for. It's certainly not planned, and any number of tickets would not serve to suddenly change that.
The primary purpose of red-light cameras is revenue generation. The primary appeal is to people who can't *stand* to see their neighbor do something they don't approve of, or wish that they could get away with themselves.
That doesn't even address the issues that stem from manipulation of red light times to increase paying offenders as seen in Florida and elsewhere.
They also aren't in much danger of doing any harm
Unless a.)Someone from the other direction jumps the gun on the green and runs through *their* red light or b.)ASSUMING that the red-light runner has BADLY blown the light, someone from the other direction isn't paying attention to the road and blindly pulls into the intersection on their green light without looking at traffic.
I'll admit - I've blown red lights before - not just "pink" (squeaking by during the yellow), but out and out not paying attention and all of a sudden "holy sh!t red light!"
4 times in 10 years and 100k miles of driving where I actually had the possibility of doing serious damage. As it so happens, I've never been in an accident, but in each of those 4 cases there was much more potential for a bad accident than any time anyone has ever run a "pink" light.
Believe me, it's *not* a pleasant experience to be hurtling towards a red light you know you can't stop for. It's certainly not planned, and any number of tickets would not serve to suddenly change that.
The primary purpose of red-light cameras is revenue generation. The primary appeal is to people who can't *stand* to see their neighbor do something they don't approve of, or wish that they could get away with themselves.
That doesn't even address the issues that stem from manipulation of red light times to increase paying offenders as seen in Florida and elsewhere.
Because sometimes they shorten the amber so they can give more tickets. Come on, they profit when you break the law. Of course there's a conflict of interest with all cops, but the red light cameras are more efficient and have no conscience.
Adding cameras is the same as having a cop assigned to each individual, and following them round all day.
Paranoid much?
with all the weight of the boat behind my truck, I could lock up my brakes to stop if I needed to, but it's a lot easier to roll through the light.
There ARE safe solutions for that...
...it's *not* a pleasant experience to be hurtling towards a red light you know you can't stop for.
Where did you learn how to drive?
Paranoid much?
with all the weight of the boat behind my truck, I could lock up my brakes to stop if I needed to, but it's a lot easier to roll through the light.
There ARE safe solutions for that...
...it's *not* a pleasant experience to be hurtling towards a red light you know you can't stop for.
Where did you learn how to drive?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,386
- 19,667
- 146
No, I have a knowledge of history and an understanding of how rights and freedoms are lost.
The slippery slope is hardly paranoia. It's a time proven fact as it shows itself over and over again.
How else would you describe government surveillance cameras? An unblinking eye that records your movements everyday, everywhere?
It is, in effect, a government agent following and recording your every move.
Read/watch 1984 again if you need a refresher.
Nevertheless, running a red light (even a malfunctioning one) is an offence, as you must obey a traffic signal. You should have turned around and found another route.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,386
- 19,667
- 146
There is a difference between someone filming me while I am on their private property. (I consent to their conditions by stepping onto their property) and the government watching my every move.
Too bad you cannot tell the difference.
And if I were you, I would seriously question your conservatism if you approve of the government filming your every move. It goes against everything classical conservatism is about which is: Less government and government intrusions into everyday life.
Mani
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
I know that the ACLU has oppposed them not only because of the privacy concerns about the camera itself, but what it opens the doors up to in the future. It starts with light cameras, then freeway cameras, then neighborhood cameras and you're just about to the point where your every move is recorded.
Ornery
Can we attach something to you and your wifes private bits to ensure that those are the only two that come into contact? After all, knowing what two people have come into contact would help solve a lot of rapes. You wouldn't mind something clamped on your johnson, would you?
Can we attach something to you and your wifes private bits to ensure that those are the only two that come into contact? After all, knowing what two people have come into contact would help solve a lot of rapes. You wouldn't mind something clamped on your johnson, would you?
- Mar 31, 2003
- 10,969
- 1,679
- 126
Are the roads we drive on (at the least the ones with traffic lights) private property? Why doesn't someone who thinks they aren't private property try to put ther personal stamp on it (maybe they can spray paint their initials on the road) and see how far that goes....
not sure how many time we need to say that red light cameras are only activitated when you run a red light...they are not 'monitoring' you as implied by some people in this thread...one more time just in case...red light cameras are not on 24/7....if you have a complaint against traffic cameras that are on 24/7, then start your own thread...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter