Abolish Traffic Enforcement Cameras

[year2late]

If they were simply mounting a GoPro on the light that might be cheap, but many of those fancy intersection cameras cost more than your typical police vehicle ($50,000+).

Cool thing about a police car though, it is multifunctional and can be used for any number of things. . . aside from issuing citations at an intersection.

Yup, and I would rather the officers be out there catching criminals and stopping crime rather than handing out citations.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Easy way to avoid tickets given because of traffic cameras. Don't break the law.

Now there is a novel idea......

 

[MaggieD]

Are you aware that traffic enforcement cameras are designed primarily to steal people's money rather than enhance safety?

Did you know that the yellow on many intersections on major highways is set at the minimum legal limit of three seconds--inadequate most of the time?

Did you know that cameras cause more accidents than they prevent?

Would you like to abolish any of these?

Do you have many cameras in your neighborhood?

Have you received any (or many) tickets from cameras?

Here's Maggie going through a solid red. How does one argue with that? Paying my $100 this morning. I'm the grey car in the left turn lane. First one I ever got.

The City of Chicago put up nine speed cameras, all near parks and schools. For the first 45 days, drivers were issued warning citations only. There were 222,843 warning tickets given out which, if monetized, would have resulted in $13.3 million in fines. There's a 4 mph grace. They're going live right now, and the city is installing 41 more, all near schools and parks.

Of course, I'm unhappy to have gotten a ticket; but, being a healthy conservative, a bit neurotic and easy to train, I don't mind. What's fair is fair.

Edit: Took me two minutes to pay . . . they took PayPal. How's that for convenience? :lol:

 

[DaveFagan]

Are you aware that traffic enforcement cameras are designed primarily to steal people's money rather than enhance safety?

Did you know that the yellow on many intersections on major highways is set at the minimum legal limit of three seconds--inadequate most of the time?

Did you know that cameras cause more accidents than they prevent?

Would you like to abolish any of these?

Do you have many cameras in your neighborhood?

Have you received any (or many) tickets from cameras?

If we have the cameras, we no longer need as many police officers. For every camera installed, lay off one police officer. I'm pretty sure this would cure the problem.

 

[aberrant85]

So 99.99 of red light runners get off? There are not enough officers to enforce or even make a dent.

I have no issue with police being used to fight crime rather than enforcing traffic law violators.

When I got mine, I saw the video and saw I was guilty. Paid the fine and became more aware of my surroundings and driving habits.

A coworker of mine went to court to try to get off....the video was reviewed and the judge brought her up to the desk with the video and said "you are coming to me when you know I can watch the video and you are on the cell phone while running the red light?" She paid her fine and left.:doh:lamo

From my experience the practice is heavily abused and violates our code of "innocence until proven guilty." There's a busy intersection near my home that flashes an extremely bright flash whenever a car going through a yellow still has a bit of its tail sticking in the intersection, or even if you turn right on a red.

For a citizen to have to go down to court to correct a piece of machinery's error sounds like excess burden on the citizen.

 

[roguenuke]

I think the cameras are a good idea.

I wouldn't be opposed to increasing the yellow light time, but I think that too should be studied to see if it makes a difference. Like others have said and even I have experienced, many motorists have come to believe that yellow light means go faster, not slow down to stop, as it should.

And it seems that a lot of the complaints about red light cameras is really hypocritical. Any time there is an increase in any type of accidents at lights with red light cameras it is automatically latched onto by opponents of the cameras saying "it must be because of the cameras", but then when there is a decrease in accidents, those same opponents say "but we don't know if that is due to the cameras".

Accident rate rises at intersections with red-light cameras, N.J. study shows | NJ.com

Newark says accidents down 64 percent at intersections with red light cameras | NJ.com

Plus, the one denouncing red light cameras show only the amount of accidents that happened at those areas, but fail to show whether there was a change in other factors at those intersections, including perhaps an increase in cars going through them, which would certainly increase amount of accidents. And it would be hard to judge cost of accidents without a lot more information. The economy from year-to-year alone could affect the cost of accidents in one year to another.

And the one in the Newark story is right, we don't what else might have changed, but that goes for both those who are for red light cameras and those who are against them. This is why these things need to be thoroughly accounted for in that study.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Are you aware that traffic enforcement cameras are designed primarily to steal people's money rather than enhance safety?

Did you know that the yellow on many intersections on major highways is set at the minimum legal limit of three seconds--inadequate most of the time?

Did you know that cameras cause more accidents than they prevent?

Would you like to abolish any of these?

Do you have many cameras in your neighborhood?

Have you received any (or many) tickets from cameras?

Do you know that Ron Paul backs up all of his claims with stats/sources? You should do the same if you want to call yourself "ronpaulvoter"

 

[Goshin]

The government does not need to be running surveillance on its citizenry, period.


If they want to see what we're doing in traffic, then let them get out there with us in a vehicle and take their chances with the rest of us.


We have little enough privacy left as it is. Liberty is more important than safety.

 

[Goshin]

Easy way to avoid tickets given because of traffic cameras. Don't break the law.

The government agency whose job it is to keep up with how many laws there are can no longer give an accurate count, just an estimate... in the tens of thousands.


A Yale prof says everyone is a felon, because there are so many felonies and so many are no longer "common sense" items that probably everyone has committed one at some point without knowing it.



I have a problem with that.

 

[Starbuck]

I think cameras are a good idea, they do make roads safer. However, the one caveat I have is all revenue they generate should go back into road safety.

Like I've said, I marginally agree with the use of stoplight cameras. Especially where the majority of the revenue for these cameras does go towards increased road safety.

However, I am totally opposed to speed limit cameras and do still feel that any cameras represent a slippery slope.

So in practice stoplight cameras are marginally acceptable, but in principle they are not.

 

[Starbuck]

Yup, and I would rather the officers be out there catching criminals and stopping crime rather than handing out citations.

So you are saying that dangerous traffic violations are not criminal?

If that is the case, why should someone have to pay in excess of $400 when they fail to completely stop at an intersection?

 

[Starbuck]

Edit: Took me two minutes to pay . . . they took PayPal. How's that for convenience? :lol:

That isn't too bad, you're still out the money though.

For us they send us regular traffic tickets, but those are easy enough to pay online.

 

[Redress]

The government does not need to be running surveillance on its citizenry, period.


If they want to see what we're doing in traffic, then let them get out there with us in a vehicle and take their chances with the rest of us.


We have little enough privacy left as it is. Liberty is more important than safety.

Did you know that when police watch you from their cars, they are running surveillance on the citizenry? This is why libertarians are the butt of jokes.

 

[Kobie]

Way too complicated. We must abolish the law and do away with cameras.

Why do you hate America?

 

[Goshin]

Did you know that when police watch you from their cars, they are running surveillance on the citizenry? This is why libertarians are the butt of jokes.

The number of police, and their impact on the average person's life, is limited.


The number of cameras is potentially unlimited. Given modern computer analysis and data storage, the ability to flag any video or stillshot with a person or action of interest in it, the capacity for public surveillance cameras to impact the life of the citizenry is immense.... as in, worse than merely Orwellian.


There's the diff.

 

[Redress]

The number of police, and their impact on the average person's life, is limited.


The number of cameras is potentially unlimited. Given modern computer analysis and data storage, the ability to flag any video or stillshot with a person or action of interest in it, the capacity for public surveillance cameras to impact the life of the citizenry is immense.... as in, worse than merely Orwellian.


There's the diff.

But the number of camera's at intersections is quite limited, which is what we are talking about. Not everything is a conspiracy by the ebil gubment to keep you down man.

 

[Goshin]

But the number of camera's at intersections is quite limited, which is what we are talking about. Not everything is a conspiracy by the ebil gubment to keep you down man.

Limiting the scope of discussion to limit the scope of debate... nope, not today.


There are cameras at intersections. There are cameras every few miles on the Interstates. There are police cameras downtown.

I'm talking about ALL of them, whether you are or not.


Bad enough we have so many government agents and agencies poking their noses into everything. Worse when they can do so remotely via masses of cameras and computer analysis of same.


That kind of surveillance state (and unless something is done to stop it, it will just get more and more universal) is not conducive to liberty.

 

[Redress]

Limiting the scope of discussion to limit the scope of debate... nope, not today.


There are cameras at intersections. There are cameras every few miles on the Interstates. There are police cameras downtown.

I'm talking about ALL of them, whether you are or not.


Bad enough we have so many government agents and agencies poking their noses into everything. Worse when they can do so remotely via masses of cameras and computer analysis of same.


That kind of surveillance state (and unless something is done to stop it, it will just get more and more universal) is not conducive to liberty.

Yeah, because god knows we would not want to have safe roads. So much better to pay more for a bunch of police and have them watching instead of having cameras do it cheaper and better.

 

[Goshin]

Yeah, because god knows we would not want to have safe roads. So much better to pay more for a bunch of police and have them watching instead of having cameras do it cheaper and better.

Nope. We have plenty of police. Too many, if anything.

 

[Redress]

Nope. We have plenty of police. Too many, if anything.

So you want less safe roads in the name of not having any one see your car. That's rational....

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

So why don't more fishermen end up with lead poisoning from sinkers?

Good question but wouldnt your observation be a bit subjective? It is true that lead isnt absorbed through skin contact (unless it is a organic lead called tetraethyl lead). But even then lead leaves a residue on your fingers when you touch it (See this link: http://www.aps.anl.gov/Safety_and_Training/Notices/aps_safey_notice_lead.pdf). If you do not wash off the lead on your fingers and eat or rub your eye you will move from skin exposure to the types of exposure that is associated with lead poisoning.

Lead poisoning has long term effects, for example once poisoned the lead hangs out in bones and teeth for many years.

But then I am not suggesting banning lead bullets or lead fishing weights. I would suggest avoiding their use but I am not a supporter of government bans on anything. Especially something as readily available as a metal (or plant lol). Other heavy metals pose big risks as well but with proper precautions in handling there isnt really a problem. The key is to educate people that may come in contact with heavy metals and explain the risks involved and how to avoid them. Biting lead weights for example is stupid even if the person has been doing it for years doesnt mean that they are not being poisoned.

 

[clownboy]

Are you aware that traffic enforcement cameras are designed primarily to steal people's money rather than enhance safety?

No, and they aren't.

Did you know that the yellow on many intersections on major highways is set at the minimum legal limit of three seconds--inadequate most of the time?

So? How about stopping on yellow then? Instead of being a nimrod and trying to make it through.

Did you know that cameras cause more accidents than they prevent?

No, and I highly doubt it.

Would you like to abolish any of these?

Maybe, but not for the specious reasons you seem to want to.

Do you have many cameras in your neighborhood?

Yep, at every stop light. Not to mention the ones they put along side the roadway to catch speeders. I love those last, just wish they monitored for sound too and gave out $1000 tickets to music blasters - especially those insipid idiots with jacked up bass.

Have you received any (or many) tickets from cameras?

Never, but then I'm a safe driver.

 

[Van Basten]

How about no?

 

[Goshin]

So you want less safe roads in the name of not having any one see your car. That's rational....

Straw man, red herring, whatever.... "let's exaggerate Goshin's argument far beyond anything he said to a ridiculous extreme nobody wants, as a way to make him look stupid even though he never said that."


Ok. I don't have time for that kind of nonsense.

 

[Starbuck]

But the number of camera's at intersections is quite limited, which is what we are talking about. Not everything is a conspiracy by the ebil gubment to keep you down man.

I've always been a big believer in the 'spirit of the law' rather than the 'letter of the law.'

When a police officer is sitting out at the intersection s/he will enforce traffic violations as they are seen by a person and likely avoid issuing them at a time when there is no danger from someone merely pausing at a stoplight.

A camera on the other hand will have someone waiting at an empty intersection in the middle of the night, for no real reason.