• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Traffic Cameras Worldwide Go Haywire

Well considering yellow means slow down, not go faster, maybe they should have been slowing down to begin with, then the brake slam wouldn't have been necessary. Blaming traffic cameras for bad driving practices is not a very good defense.

Also, which accident do you think is more fatal, a hit from behind as that car is slowing down (after all the guy in front of them was just about to run a red light), or being slammed into from the side from cross traffic as that car is speeding up because you just ran a red light. Not to mention, running a red light also puts pedestrians in danger.

Many of the municipalities, in Missouri, that implemented the red light cameras shortened the yellow lights from 10 seconds to 3-5 seconds. This caused accidents to rise. The legislature did the best they could by presenting a workable solution with the 15 second yellow light and the 50 feet within the traffic light law. Rear end accidents can be as fatal as from the side. Pedestrians are supposed to be aware of their environment just like motorists are.
 
So I take that as no you do not have any data to back up your assertation.
Again, this is basic human instinct. What exactly do you want?

If someone is accustomed to there being no camera at an intersection so they take less care knowing there isnt anything there to catch them but then they see a camera that was just installed out of the corner of their eye and slam on the brakes to avoid tripping the camera. As time goes by, people make mental notes of which intersections have cameras and accidents may decrease.

It's circumstantial but entirely reasonable.
 
Again, this is basic human instinct. What exactly do you want?

If someone is accustomed to there being no camera at an intersection so they take less care knowing there isnt anything there to catch them but then they see a camera that was just installed out of the corner of their eye and slam on the brakes to avoid tripping the camera. As time goes by, people make mental notes of which intersections have cameras and accidents may decrease.

It's circumstantial but entirely reasonable.

I want you to back up your position with data to prove that to be true.
 
I want you to back up your position with data to prove that to be true.
As I said, this is a circumstantial theory, but it IS based on basic human psychology and behavior. Can you show statistics that counter the theory?

We would need to see that the number of accidents does not decrease appreciably after a camera is installed. Can you provide that information?
 
As I said, this is a circumstantial theory, but it IS based on basic human psychology and behavior. Can you show statistics that counter the theory?

We would need to see that the number of accidents does not decrease appreciably after a camera is installed. Can you provide that information?

I don't need to provide counter-statistics since you offered your opinion and no proof. The onus is on you to present proof before I can.
 
Many of the municipalities, in Missouri, that implemented the red light cameras shortened the yellow lights from 10 seconds to 3-5 seconds. This caused accidents to rise. The legislature did the best they could by presenting a workable solution with the 15 second yellow light and the 50 feet within the traffic light law. Rear end accidents can be as fatal as from the side. Pedestrians are supposed to be aware of their environment just like motorists are.

How many is "many"? How many accidents have the cameras actually caused, vice just plain bad driving practices? Now if the yellow light is not long enough for a person to actually completely stop safely, then the problem is the timing of the yellow light, not the camera itself. The problem would exist with or without the camera.

And, yes a pedestrian should be aware of their environment. However, humans are prone to mistakes. If you see a walk signal, you expect traffic to be stopped, not still coming at you because some idiot thought they could make a yellow light that had turned red 2 seconds earlier, the same way that the other drivers expect the cross traffic to be stopped when they get a green light. Also, car drivers need to understand that a car does a lot more damage to a person than the person will do to the car.

How about a comparison between rear end accidents in which the person in back is slowing down (or at least should be) compared to side accidents when both cars are most likely speeding up (the one with the red light because he was trying to make the yellow and failed, and the one with the green, because he expects to have a clear green)? Which do you really believe has the highest chance of a fatality? These are the specific scenarios we are dealing with in traffic light accidents, unless there is some freak extra event.
 
How many is "many"? How many accidents have the cameras actually caused, vice just plain bad driving practices? Now if the yellow light is not long enough for a person to actually completely stop safely, then the problem is the timing of the yellow light, not the camera itself. The problem would exist with or without the camera.

And, yes a pedestrian should be aware of their environment. However, humans are prone to mistakes. If you see a walk signal, you expect traffic to be stopped, not still coming at you because some idiot thought they could make a yellow light that had turned red 2 seconds earlier, the same way that the other drivers expect the cross traffic to be stopped when they get a green light. Also, car drivers need to understand that a car does a lot more damage to a person than the person will do to the car.

How about a comparison between rear end accidents in which the person in back is slowing down (or at least should be) compared to side accidents when both cars are most likely speeding up (the one with the red light because he was trying to make the yellow and failed, and the one with the green, because he expects to have a clear green)? Which do you really believe has the highest chance of a fatality? These are the specific scenarios we are dealing with in traffic light accidents, unless there is some freak extra event.

Almost all of the municipalities did this in order to increase revenue from red light cameras. The proof is that accidents rose dramatically after the red light cameras were put into place. The problem was that the municipalities decreased the timer in conjunction with the installation of the red light cameras. The problem didn't exist before the cameras were installed.

It doesn't matter since you are supposed to be responsible to look after your safety.

I believe there is a miscommunication here, since in Missouri the traffic light for the other street remains red for 5 seconds to give the cars that were within 50 feet of a traffic light that turned yellow then red. The additional 5 seconds is when the all of the lights are red.
 
I don't need to provide counter-statistics since you offered your opinion and no proof. The onus is on you to present proof before I can.
Stop screwing around. I have a perfectly valid theory and the proof your demanding is akin to asking for proof that a person will jump out of the way if something is thrown at them. I can only guess that you are doing this to stall the debate.
 
Stop screwing around. I have a perfectly valid theory and the proof your demanding is akin to asking for proof that a person will jump out of the way if something is thrown at them. I can only guess that you are doing this to stall the debate.

The only person that is stalling is you. I asked for proof to back up your opinion and you have yet to produce it.
 
Stop screwing around. I have a perfectly valid theory and the proof your demanding is akin to asking for proof that a person will jump out of the way if something is thrown at them. I can only guess that you are doing this to stall the debate.

Gonna side with Patriot on this one. (wtf is that twice in one day?) You have a theory, yes, but the question is whether this actually leads to more accidents depending on the service time of the camera. You need data to show that.
 
Gonna side with Patriot on this one. (wtf is that twice in one day?) You have a theory, yes, but the question is whether this actually leads to more accidents. You need data to show that.

Did hell freeze over? :lamo
 
Gonna side with Patriot on this one. (wtf is that twice in one day?) You have a theory, yes, but the question is whether this actually leads to more accidents depending on the service time of the camera. You need data to show that.
Again, I agree it's a point supported by circumstantial evidence, but a valid one none the less.

I dont understand what proof would possibly suffice. People's tendency to get used to routine is basic knowledge that I would expect almost anyone with any real degree of intelligence to know. I'm not against offering proof but I'm confused as to what would suffice.
 
I eagerly await the day when someone invents an automatic car that drives more reliably than a human operator. It would be nice to see someone stick it to the greedy city officials who injure and kill people by tweaking speed limits and traffic lights, and sporadically enforcing their parasitic traffic laws.

Can’t pull anybody over or issue them a ticket if their cars automatically go the speed limit, stay within the lines, maintain a proper safe distance from other cars and avoid hitting things. Maybe when it becomes widespread enough, we'd see speed limits dictated by the physics of driving a car, instead of being dictated by greedy ****s willing to ignore the accidents caused by speed variance when they lower the interstate speed limits to 55 within city boundaries. (**** you, Akron)


So many overly medicated old people and drunken celebrities out there, I’m surprised an entrepreneur hasn’t realized he could make a fortune selling them self-driving cars. Not like we don’t have the technology, hell, a pocket calculator from 1980 would probably be a safer driver than my grandpa.

Gonna side with Patriot on this one. (wtf is that twice in one day?) You have a theory, yes, but the question is whether this actually leads to more accidents depending on the service time of the camera. You need data to show that.

Why are you guys pouncing on this hypothesis like it’s Serious Business? It sounds plausible enough that there is an increase in traffic accidents when cameras are first installed, followed by a decrease in accidents as everyone gets used to them.
 
The organisation who sets up the camera and develops the photo (though I'd guess they're all digital these days) are said to be viewing the scene of the crime by proxy. Think of it as a webcam with an incredibly long delay/lag. It can't count as heresay, because it's documented and photographically proven; heresay is unprovable (by the heresayer, at least).

It only proves that I was at the intersection or that I was driving through the zone covered by the camera. It does NOT prove I was running a red light or that I was speeding.
 
They do bring the photos to court, but since the state is relying upon an inanimate object to report breaking the law then the defendent must be able to face his accusor. Can you cross examine an inanimate object? Can the inanimate object prove that you were behind the wheel at the time the pictures were taken? The answer to both of those questions is no. The guy doing the processing isn't trained in law nor in forensic science and wasn't there when the pictures were taken. The article has plenty of examples of where the processors show a lack of knowledge of the law and processed tickets against innocent people.

Wait. Come again? So if a camera catches someone mugging a guy and the police accuse the guy of mugging and bring the video surveillence, he goes free? Don't some of the cameras record the driver as well?
 
Wait. Come again? So if a camera catches someone mugging a guy and the police accuse the guy of mugging and bring the video surveillence, he goes free? Don't some of the cameras record the driver as well?

Only if the police do not do a proper investigation and gather corraborating evidence. With the variations in vehicle height it's hard for a camera mounted to a light to be able to see a driver. Also, atmospheric conditions and the windshield make identification next to impossible.
 
It only proves that I was at the intersection or that I was driving through the zone covered by the camera. It does NOT prove I was running a red light or that I was speeding.

Umm no, it only proves that your car was at the intersection. It doesn't prove that you were behind the wheel.
 
Speed cameras in California, Florida and Australia are not living up to their image of providing infallible evidence of traffic crimes. To the contrary, officials must find clever excuses to cover for the mistakes that are uncovered with increasing frequency.

In Hallandale, Florida, the private firm American Traffic Solutions mailed a $125 ticket to Phil Kodroff accusing his car of "running a red light" at the intersection of Federal Highway and Hallandale Beach Boulevard on May 22. The Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel reported that Kodroff's vehicle committed this crime at the speed of 0 MPH.

Link

Another reason to dislike traffic cameras. I dislike traffic cameras because it gives the government another inch towards surveillance cameras in every public space, not just big cities. There is also the fact that a cop pulling you over for speeding, taking 10-30 minutes of your day with passerbys gawking will have more of an impact than just a ticket mailed.
 
Wait. Come again? So if a camera catches someone mugging a guy and the police accuse the guy of mugging and bring the video surveillence, he goes free? Don't some of the cameras record the driver as well?

All documentary evidence (including videos) need to be "authenticated." Someone has to get on the stand and say "I can vouch that this accurately represents the situation at the time based on the following factors..." And usually you also have a witness who was there who can say "Yes, that shows what I described, there's me, and that's what I saw."

A video of an incident by itself can provide evidence once it is admitted (such as for a robbery). Even then, it is just one piece of evidence, to which a person could argue that it's not him, but someone who looks similar, and so on.

To convict someone by a picture -- which does not necessarily show criminal activity -- and which may not necessarily show who was driving -- is what is being questioned here. There is no one there who can say "that's him" or "I observed the incident and he was definitely driving."
 
well, if your not driving the car, whoever was has to own up to it, its simple as that.

Yeah, but (a) cars do not commit crimes and cannot be charged and (b) everyone has the right to remain silent, so now what do you do?
 
well, if your not driving the car, whoever was has to own up to it, its simple as that.

No, it's up to the government to prove that you were behind the wheel. You have no obligation to incriminate yourself under the Fifth Amendment. This means that the police should be investigating these tickets to meet the judicial requirements for court cases and they don't. The government does not have proof that you were actually driving your car when you got a red light ticket because the police do not investigate them. The only proof it has is that your car was on the street at a red light light and it ran it.
 
Back
Top Bottom