• 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!

Speed Cameras

Are Speed Cameras legal, effective, and used to promote public safety?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 9 64.3%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Quit speeding and then complaining about getting a ticket (says my sister)

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Total voters
    14
Cally said:
Wrong again. I guess for some people, it's habit forming. Here is what I said:

"Several weeks ago, my car was photographed supposedly speeding on a highway while passing a tractor trailer. I was traveling behind another car whose license plate was blocked because of the angle of the camera as both of our vehicles passed the truck. I was able to access the video through a website called “photonotice.com” Unfortunately, I found the ticket only recently in a pile of junk mail, and I did not have the time to schedule a court date. I attempted to call customer service to explain my situation, but in mid conversation, the phone call was conveniently disconnected. I ended up paying the fine which was $50 for speeding 68mph in a 55mph speed zone."

The other car was passing at the front end of a twenty feet tractor trailer while I was following it and had not even made it half way past the truck. The angle of the camera would have photographed my vehicle rather than the other one. Also, just because the speed was recorded as such doesn't mean it was accurate. I wouldn't be the first person to question that.

I may have been speeding.. it's certainly possible. But the point that several people are not getting is the due process. Now, apparently police officers are not needed and citing people for violations is automated. I find that to be disturbing.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you weren't doing 68 in a 55 and tailgating the vehicle in front of you?

In a way, I agree with you. I think only police officers should be able to issue tickets.
 
radcen said:
Is expecting proper due process really that unreasonable?
Click to expand...

No, it's not. As I said, a couple of times now. Do you want me to write it in blood? :roll:
 
countryboy said:
Okay, so you weren't doing 68 in a 55 and tailgating the vehicle in front of you?

In a way, I agree with you. I think only police officers should be able to issue tickets.
Click to expand...
That touches on something I was just about to add. There's the double-standard hypocrisy here, too. A speeding ticket issued by a live cop gets you points on your record (if convicted). A speeding ticket issued by a camera does not. Why not? Why the difference?

In my world, speeding is speeding is speeding. The camera-caught offense isn't any less dangerous than the cop-cited offense. So, why the disparity?

If I speed on Road A or Road B, and one has a camera and one has a cop, I'm still speeding. Theoretically, the punishment for me should be the same for both. Equal treatment under the law and all that.

Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I don't think so. I expect the same ethical consistency from my law enforcement down the line. Either prove my guilt and and make the punishment include a ding on my driving record for all tickets, or make all tickets a civil infraction and leave my driving record alone for all tickets. Pick one. Don't cherry-pick whatever is most convenient for you (LE). Our so-called justice system is supposed to be about right and wrong, not a matter of situational convenience.

countryboy said:
No, it's not. As I said, a couple of times now. Do you want me to write it in blood? :roll:
Click to expand...
Just 5 more times.
 
radcen said:
That touches on something I was just about to add. There's the double-standard hypocrisy here, too. A speeding ticket issued by a live cop gets you points on your record (if convicted). A speeding ticket issued by a camera does not. Why not? Why the difference?

In my world, speeding is speeding is speeding. The camera-caught offense isn't any less dangerous than the cop-cited offense. So, why the disparity?

If I speed on Road A or Road B, and one has a camera and one has a cop, I'm still speeding. Theoretically, the punishment for me should be the same for both. Equal treatment under the law and all that.

Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I don't think so. I expect the same ethical consistency from my law enforcement down the line. Either prove my guilt and and make the punishment include a ding on my driving record for all tickets, or make all tickets a civil infraction and leave my driving record alone for all tickets. Pick one. Don't cherry-pick whatever is most convenient for you (LE). Our so-called justice system is supposed to be about right and wrong, not a matter of situational convenience.


Just 5 more times.
Click to expand...

Lol.....
 
countryboy said:
Okay, so you weren't doing 68 in a 55 and tailgating the vehicle in front of you?

In a way, I agree with you. I think only police officers should be able to issue tickets.
Click to expand...

If it were my choice, I would suspend his license for following at an unsafe distance at freeway speeds. Reckless driving. It's people like that who cause deadly accidents.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If it were my choice, I would suspend his license for following at an unsafe distance at freeway speeds. Reckless driving. It's people like that who cause deadly accidents.
Click to expand...

lol what the hell? How do you come to such a stupid conclusion-- nowhere is it indicated that I was following at an unsafe distance.
 
Cally said:
lol what the hell? How do you come to such a stupid conclusion-- nowhere is it indicated that I was following at an unsafe distance.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Sorry, I went back and read post 1. The visual I had was off.

Were you using the 2 second rule?

Anyway, I lost all sympathy for you from the start when I read this:

Unfortunately, I found the ticket only recently in a pile of junk mail
Click to expand...
I see you have a real concern for any legal notifications if you are going to put 1st class mail in a pile with your standard mail.

I'm a speed demon myself. I have been ticked by photo radar. However, I never follow people too close, and it amazes me how careless such people are. Things happen very fast at 60+ MPH, and I'm often doing 80. Nothing bothers me more than someone following close at 40+ MPH. I have been know to hit my brake hard to scare the crap out of them. Teach them a lesson about their ability to respond.

Whoop-t-do...

A traffic ticket.

I paid the fine and went on with my life instead of being all bent out of shape over it.

I notice you never claimed you weren't speeding... What speed would you have been going if another car wasn't in front of you? My guess, about 75 like I would be!
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Sorry, I went back and read post 1. The visual I had was off.

Were you using the 2 second rule?

Anyway, I lost all sympathy for you from the start when I read this:
Click to expand...

So? Mail gets mixed up sometimes. You're making no sense.


I see you have a real concern for any legal notifications if you are going to put 1st class mail in a pile with your standard mail.
Click to expand...

Again. The notice came in a normal sized envelope. Easily overlooked.

I'm a speed demon myself. I have been ticked by photo radar. However, I never follow people too close, and it amazes me how careless such people are. Things happen very fast at 60+ MPH, and I'm often doing 80. Nothing bothers me more than someone following close at 40+ MPH. I have been know to hit my brake hard to scare the crap out of them. Teach them a lesson about their ability to respond.

Whoop-t-do...
Click to expand...

:shock: And MY license should be suspended? Holy crap- I don't find this level of hypocrisy in a church.


A traffic ticket.

I paid the fine and went on with my life instead of being all bent out of shape over it.
Click to expand...

I paid the stupid fine to protect my credit. Someone posted a link suggesting they can't damage it. Even if that is the case, I still don't trust them. I've worked hard to build my credit to let something so dumb screw it up.

I notice you never claimed you weren't speeding... What speed would you have been going if another car wasn't in front of you? My guess, about 75 like I would be!
Click to expand...

The ticket was supposedly issued back in mid December. It would be dishonest of me to claim for certain that I wasn't. However, the video did not show me following anyone too closely. I don't drive like that.
 
Cally said:
The ticket was supposedly issued back in mid December. It would be dishonest of me to claim for certain that I wasn't. However, the video did not show me following anyone too closely. I don't drive like that.
Click to expand...

Why are you fixating on that?

I just recently said: "Sorry, I went back and read post 1. The visual I had was off."
 
CLAX1911 said:
Oh so you do have something to hide? If you didn't you wouldn't need privacy.

See how ridiculous your statement can become?
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon. I make a clear distinction here. What privacy do we have when out in public? The idea of being in public negates privacy, does it not? People are about, they observe others. We make phone calls that can be overheard by others, we talk in public.
Of course I don't have anything to hide, but my home is my home, and yes, privacy is expected. I am no legal expert, but doesn't the law stipulate as much?
Cameras are a two edges sword of course, but they are not just a negative. For me, the positive outweighs the negative.
 
Lovebug said:
Oh c'mon. I make a clear distinction here. What privacy do we have when out in public?
Click to expand...
Not my point. You have no need for privacy if you have nothing to hide.

I'm only applying your logic to point out its flaw.

The idea of being in public negates privacy, does it not? People are about, they observe others. We make phone calls that can be overheard by others, we talk in public.
Click to expand...
See above.
Of course I don't have anything to hide, but my home is my home, and yes, privacy is expected.
Click to expand...
Why? What is the significance of that artificial barrier you arbitrarily picked? Who cares if it's your home. It exists in public.

Argue logically why your barrier isn't arbitrary.

I am no legal expert, but doesn't the law stipulate as much?
Click to expand...
It also stipulates that you cannot be convicted of a crime that cannot be proven that you committed. No traffic camera is capable of determining the operator of a vehicle's identity. So apparently what the law stipulates is really rather meaningless. It also stipulates that you have the right to face your accuser. An inanimate object can't really accuse you of anything.

You don't have to be an expert in law to take five to ten minutes to actually read the constitution, it isn't that long. Do yourself a favor.
Cameras are a two edges sword of course, but they are not just a negative. For me, the positive outweighs the negative.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see a positive. I'd happily listen to an explanation of said positives.
 
One thing I've noticed in speed camera debates over the years...

There's a certain segment that approves of them (fair enough), speak on assumptions of guilt, just pay it, makes the roads safer, and so on. These people will have a counter argument against to pretty much everything, except one. Bring up the lack of proper due process and to a person they almost all slide right on by and won't even try to address the point. Why is that?

Is it because, deep down, these staunch and upright law-and-order citizens cannot justify the double-standard because they know it would expose their own hypocrisy?
 
radcen said:
One thing I've noticed in speed camera debates over the years...

There's a certain segment that approves of them (fair enough), speak on assumptions of guilt, just pay it, makes the roads safer, and so on. These people will have a counter argument against to pretty much everything, except one. Bring up the lack of proper due process and to a person they almost all slide right on by and won't even try to address the point. Why is that?

Is it because, deep down, these staunch and upright law-and-order citizens cannot justify the double-standard because they know it would expose their own hypocrisy?
Click to expand...
I don't like cameras for catching speeders, but I'm OK with red light cameras and video surveillance of public areas. Still, if a community approves of such things, what can one say? If you don't like what the elected officials are doing, vote them out.
 
Cameras at red lights are also a problem. It has been proven that the time given for yellow lights is purposely shortened. I have seen people literally slam on their brakes to stop for a red light that has a camera. It's a hazard.

Lord of Planar said:
Why are you fixating on that?

I just recently said: "Sorry, I went back and read post 1. The visual I had was off."
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
CLAX1911 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Does this really need to be explained?

I'm not even going to bother, except to paraphrase what Lovebug said. Privacy is assumed and a right on ones own property. Not in public.

If you don't get that, you never will.
 
Cally said:
Cameras at red lights are also a problem. It has been proven that the time given for yellow lights is purposely shortened. I have seen people literally slam on their brakes to stop for a red light that has a camera. It's a hazard.
Click to expand...

What about the ones that are not shortened?

You can find examples of anything in life. When you apply them to all, that is not helping anything.

Too many people will just slow down and roll through stop signs and make right turns without stopping. Pedestrians get hit this was, because when you have two moving objects, often, the post between the windshield and side widow is in alignment, and blocking a person from seeing pedestrians.

My ex wife was hit like this some years ago. The is permanently injured. She had the "walk" and the driver, not making a complete stop, never saw her in time.

Sometime, rules of the road have reasons. I am all for cameras at stop signs and lights. there are too many people on the road who shouldn't have a drivers license.

Accident...

What a meaningless term. It is rarely an accident, and most often someones disregard for safety, out of ignorance, or impudence.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What about the ones that are not shortened?

You can find examples of anything in life. When you apply them to all, that is not helping anything.

Too many people will just slow down and roll through stop signs and make right turns without stopping. Pedestrians get hit this was, because when you have two moving objects, often, the post between the windshield and side widow is in alignment, and blocking a person from seeing pedestrians.

My ex wife was hit like this some years ago. The is permanently injured. She had the "walk" and the driver, not making a complete stop, never saw her in time.

Sometime, rules of the road have reasons. I am all for cameras at stop signs and lights. there are too many people on the road who shouldn't have a drivers license.

Accident...

What a meaningless term. It is rarely an accident, and most often someones disregard for safety, out of ignorance, or impudence.
Click to expand...

Maybe. If red light cameras were really for safety, I might agree. But I don't like the idea of being filmed, and at each stop light And stop sign. It's too Orwellian.
 
And Again.. the same issues are still a problem with redlight cameras. Do they actually know who is driving? Is there an officer issuing a ticket to an individual? No and nope.
 
Cally said:
Maybe. If red light cameras were really for safety, I might agree. But I don't like the idea of being filmed, and at each stop light And stop sign. It's too Orwellian.
Click to expand...

Even if you are filmed, I doubt anyone cares. If an accident happens, they can tell who's at fault, who was texting etc.
Another positive would be drivers running from the scene of a crime. You, me, the average Joe singing at a red light probably doesn't make for great entertainment...unless I do Joplin proud.
 
Lovebug said:
Oh c'mon. I make a clear distinction here. What privacy do we have when out in public? The idea of being in public negates privacy, does it not? People are about, they observe others. We make phone calls that can be overheard by others, we talk in public.
Of course I don't have anything to hide, but my home is my home, and yes, privacy is expected. I am no legal expert, but doesn't the law stipulate as much?
Cameras are a two edges sword of course, but they are not just a negative. For me, the positive outweighs the negative.
Click to expand...

Would you say your backyard is the public? Can the government point cameras at your backyard? After all, people can see you there quite easily, right? Hell, they might even be able to overhear you.

(lets ignore the cameras in space already looking there for the sake of argument.)
 
Henrin said:
Would you say your backyard is the public? Can the government point cameras at your backyard?

(lets ignore the cameras in space looking already looking there for the sake of argument.)
Click to expand...

Why would anyone be interested in my back yard? I'd probably be more worried about some weirdo peeping in while I get my tan. But knowing that everyone who walks by can see in my yard, no, I don't really expect any privacy. Inside my home I do, unless I leave the lights on and the curtains open.
 
Lovebug said:
Why would anyone be interested in my back yard? I'd probably be more worried about some weirdo peeping in while I get my tan. But knowing that everyone who walks by can see in my yard, no, I don't really expect any privacy. Inside my home I do, unless I leave the lights on and the curtains open.
Click to expand...

Who cares why they are interested? Does someones interest level somehow warrant you complaining about being filmed? If your backyard is visible by the public(not surrounded by trees or far away from a street, etc) then why can't people pull out their cameras and watch you tanning in your backyard? What is your complaint if it is in the public?

The whole idea it is ok if the government watch people go about their daily lives because something might happen is simply faulty logic. It's one thing if someone walks by and sees other people doing things, but it's another when that guy watches you non-stop no matter where you go. The one is simply chance occurrence of someone going about their life, while the other is spying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom