Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 157

Thread: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

  1. #131
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    Then the question becomes, "do you hold yourself to the same standard?"

    We all agree that those who deliberately break the law should be ticketed.

    But in this case of RLC, the actual offender, the actual driver IS NOT ticketed. Strike one.
    Nope. There's plenty of precedence. A ticket received because of a red-light camera violation does not count against one's driving record. It's in the same status as illegal parking, parking in a fire zone, parking in a no-parking zone, parking in a handicapped spot. Who knows who parked it there? The law doesn't care. The owner of the car pays the ticket or suffers the consequences.

    It is documented that RLC may reduce 90 degree collisions, but that they increase rearend collisions. Strike two.
    Misleading. Rear-end collisions are far less costly than 90-degree collisions and cause far less injury.

    It is documented that RLC is NOT about safety, but rather about revenue at all costs including cheating. Strike three.
    Your opinion. And nope. These red-light cameras are installed at high-risk intersections, as they should be. The fact that they're catching drivers going through red lights is not evidence it's about revenue. The revenue it generates is a wonderful perk for catching jerks that run reds. 22% of all traffic accidents happen because people run red lights. That's something worth targeting, in my opinion.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #132
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,432

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Nope. There's plenty of precedence. A ticket received because of a red-light camera violation does not count against one's driving record. It's in the same status as illegal parking, parking in a fire zone, parking in a no-parking zone, parking in a handicapped spot. Who knows who parked it there? The law doesn't care. The owner of the car pays the ticket or suffers the consequences.

    Misleading. Rear-end collisions are far less costly than 90-degree collisions and cause far less injury.

    Your opinion. And nope. These red-light cameras are installed at high-risk intersections, as they should be. The fact that they're catching drivers going through red lights is not evidence it's about revenue. The revenue it generates is a wonderful perk for catching jerks that run reds. 22% of all traffic accidents happen because people run red lights. That's something worth targeting, in my opinion.
    You're arguing against yourself. On the one hand you say running red lights are dangerous and it's about safety, then you proceed to completely nullify your own safety argument by admitting that it's equitable to a parking ticket, then you further nullify your safety argument by admitting that it's about revenue. Oy vey, M, what the deuce?

    Please explain how the driver of the car learns a lesson if the driver of the car doesn't get the ticket?

    You're an "end justifies the means" type of person and you're ok with legal safeguards against wrongful prosecution being tossed aside for an illusion of safety... and even more repugnant, expedient methods of generating money. Your protests regarding safety are hollow when combined with the totality of your comments on the matter.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  3. #133
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    You're arguing against yourself. On the one hand you say running red lights are dangerous and it's about safety, then you proceed to completely nullify your own safety argument by admitting that it's equitable to a parking ticket, then you further nullify your safety argument by admitting that it's about revenue. Oy vey, M, what the deuce?
    Oh, please, Radcen. It's about safety. I most certainly did not "nullify" my own safety argument by virtue of the fact that it's the equivalent of a parking ticket and realizing that it produces revenue as an added perk. Nice try, though.

    Please explain how the driver of the car learns a lesson if the driver of the car doesn't get the ticket?
    in my opinion, in the very few instances where the owner is NOT the driver? He learns a couple of valuable lessons: #1, whether or not he has a real friend who ponies up for his violation; and #2, that loaning one's car to anyone is a risky proposition. It was a red-light camera ticket. Could have been hitting a kid on a bike.

    You're an "end justifies the means" type of person and you're ok with legal safeguards against wrongful prosecution being tossed aside for an illusion of safety... and even more repugnant, expedient methods of generating money. Your protests regarding safety are hollow when combined with the totality of your comments on the matter.
    Sorry, that's just silly. Is getting a parking ticket circumventing our justice system? Is getting a ticket for parking in a handicapped spot circumventing our justice system? The answer is no.

    You guys really ought to learn about your rights after you GET a red-light camera ticket before you start spouting off. Save your hyperbole for something more important.

    Watch for stale greens. Learn how to drive safely. And appreciate that law enforcement is trying to protect you, your family and kids from jerks that don't.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  4. #134
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,432

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Oh, please, Radcen. It's about safety. I most certainly did not "nullify" my own safety argument by virtue of the fact that it's the equivalent of a parking ticket and realizing that it produces revenue as an added perk. Nice try, though.



    in my opinion, in the very few instances where the owner is NOT the driver? He learns a couple of valuable lessons: #1, whether or not he has a real friend who ponies up for his violation; and #2, that loaning one's car to anyone is a risky proposition. It was a red-light camera ticket. Could have been hitting a kid on a bike.



    Sorry, that's just silly. Is getting a parking ticket circumventing our justice system? Is getting a ticket for parking in a handicapped spot circumventing our justice system? The answer is no.

    You guys really ought to learn about your rights after you GET a red-light camera ticket before you start spouting off. Save your hyperbole for something more important.

    Watch for stale greens. Learn how to drive safely. And appreciate that law enforcement is trying to protect you, your family and kids from jerks that don't.
    You can spin it however you want, and you can point out all the little insignificant potential side-issues and distractions you want, but the fact remains that actual guilt is unimportant to you. You are willing... I would almost say eager... to randomly assign guilt to people who aren't even doing anything wrong. Shoot, on so many issues you prattle on about personal responsibility, but on other issues like this you're willing to toss aside personal responsibility in the name of expediency. Expediency is not justice. Citing Joe for the actions of Frank doesn't teach Frank squat.

    If the owner of the vehicle is in the passenger seat and the driver gets a speeding ticket, do we cite the owner? No, we don't. Why? Because it's not right or fair. The owner was not the one who was committing the offense, and we know and recognize that. If the owner of the vehicle loans their vehicle to a friend, and the friend gets a speeding ticket from a flesh-and-blood police officer, do we cite the owner? No, we do not. Why? Because it's not right or fair. The owner was not the committing the offense, and we know and recognize that. Do you believe that the vehicle owner should be cited in these situations as well? You do if you're consistent. If not, why not? What's the difference?

    It's not a hard concept to grasp: loaning a vehicle to an otherwise currently legally licensed driver is not a crime.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  5. #135
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    You can spin it however you want, and you can point out all the little insignificant potential side-issues and distractions you want, but the fact remains that actual guilt is unimportant to you. You are willing... I would almost say eager... to randomly assign guilt to people who aren't even doing anything wrong. Shoot, on so many issues you prattle on about personal responsibility, but on other issues like this you're willing to toss aside personal responsibility in the name of expediency. Expediency is not justice. Citing Joe for the actions of Frank doesn't teach Frank squat.

    If the owner of the vehicle is in the passenger seat and the driver gets a speeding ticket, do we cite the owner? No, we don't. Why? Because it's not right or fair. The owner was not the one who was committing the offense, and we know and recognize that. If the owner of the vehicle loans their vehicle to a friend, and the friend gets a speeding ticket from a flesh-and-blood police officer, do we cite the owner? No, we do not. Why? Because it's not right or fair. The owner was not the committing the offense, and we know and recognize that. Do you believe that the vehicle owner should be cited in these situations as well? You do if you're consistent. If not, why not? What's the difference?

    It's not a hard concept to grasp: loaning a vehicle to an otherwise currently legally licensed driver is not a crime.
    It's also not hard to grasp that it's your responsibility to collect the ticket money from the guy you loaned the car to.

    We're never going to agree. You may have the last word.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  6. #136
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,432

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    It's also not hard to grasp that it's your responsibility to collect the ticket money from the guy you loaned the car to.

    We're never going to agree. You may have the last word.
    Normally, I would say that collecting the money doesn't address the safety issue, but you've been so utterly inconsistent on this issue I really have nowhere else to go. No matter what is said, the target will move. Some posts you claim safety, other posts you claim money, this post you complete ignored the direct question regarding similar circumstances (Do you believe that the vehicle owner should be cited in these situations as well?), so I have no choice but to conclude that the answer is too inconvenient.

    When you cite the owner, you're potentially letting the driver off the hook. Not just monetarily, but regarding their driving record as well, which is supposed to be the real punishment, as it then can lead to license suspension and/or increased insurance rates. I will never understand why... for someone who seems to pride them self on being so hard on wrong-doers... you're so eager to be so soft on the actual driver in this case. Unless the money is the bigger factor.

    No, wait, it's safety.

    Hold on...

    ...oh, never mind.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  7. #137
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,432

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    If red light running caught by camera can be considered a minor violation, and does not count toward your driving record, why should red light running when caught by a flesh-and-blood officer have a higher penalty?

    The crime is the same. The potential for catastrophe is the same.

    Could this be considered unequal treatment under the law?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    Just another example that shows liberals approve of scamming people when it = revenue to Big Government

    This is why Big Government must be opposed at every step. It's not held to any standard or ever held accountable, no matter the level of corruption.

  9. #139
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Unlike others, apparently, I have no problem with profit.
    It is dishonest profit (and in some cases outright fraud). I'd hope you have a problem with profit gained dishonestly.
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  10. #140
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    Re: No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I don't know what the criteria is for installation, but I'm assuming it has to do with number of accidents and tickets issued at particular intersections. For instance, in the accident I referenced about the truck and the teen? A red-light camera was installed shortly after the teen died.

    From the article:

    “CDOT was unable to substantiate its claims that the City chose to install red light cameras at intersections with the highest angle crash rates in order to increase safety,” the IG said. “Neither do we know, from the information provided by CDOT, why cameras in locations with no recent angle crashes have not been relocated, nor what the City’s rationale is for the continued operation of any individual camera at any individual location.”

    The IG also found it “troubling” that the CDOT could not provide any documentation as to how they chose intersections to place red light cameras and why cameras remain at intersections that have reported no accidents.
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •