• 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!

Abolish Traffic Enforcement Cameras

Abolish Traffic Enforcement Cameras

  • Abolish other types of cameras only (specify)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    79
Not under the law. In fact, even if you are within a distance where stopping isn't possible for a yellow light, you are not supposed to "floor it", despite popular belief.

This is part of the reason that people in the US can be bad drivers, they tend to get set in certain patterns of bad driving behavior, and then complain about efforts to correct that bad driving behavior.
My understanding of the law is that a "yellow light" means "stop unless you are very close to or already in the intersection".

Floor it, no. Speed up a bit to clear the intersection, possibly.
 
My understanding of the law is that a "yellow light" means "stop unless you are very close to or already in the intersection".

Floor it, no. Speed up a bit to clear the intersection, possibly.

You could speed up a little to make it, because it will generally be a judgement call, or at least it should be. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who aren't using good judgement on it. I can't count how many times I have seen people make a left turn on a yellow light, meaning they were stopped to wait for the person in front of them to turn, and moved into the intersection after the light turned yellow, usually resulting in holding up traffic because they weren't patient enough to wait that extra light cycle.
 
You could speed up a little to make it, because it will generally be a judgement call, or at least it should be. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who aren't using good judgement on it. I can't count how many times I have seen people make a left turn on a yellow light, meaning they were stopped to wait for the person in front of them to turn, and moved into the intersection after the light turned yellow, usually resulting in holding up traffic because they weren't patient enough to wait that extra light cycle.
I see people do that behind me all the time.

On a somewhat related note to this discussion, I ran a red light last night, because I was rubbernecking at something on the opposite side of the road and didn't see the yellow light until it switched to red when I was about 10 feet from the intersection, traveling somewhere in the 30-40 MPH range (I think). Briefly I hit my brakes, but I quickly realized that I would end up stopped in the middle of the intersection...so I kept going.
 
The same reasoning could be used for things like 'warrantless searches dont matter if you have nothing to hide'.

But I don't favor warrantless searches...
 
The government could easily require GPS and cellular to new cars black boxes, for which every traffic violation, ie criminal charge, could be mailed to each person each month - such as:

They are already doing that.

The case put Mr. Murray at the center of a growing debate over a little-known but increasingly important piece of equipment buried deep inside a car: the event data recorder, more commonly known as the black box.

About 96 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United States have the boxes, and in September 2014, if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has its way, all will have them.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/black-boxes-in-cars-a-question-of-privacy.html?_r=0

If a person doesn't want tickets, they should comply with all traffic laws 100% of the time in your claim.

Agreed...

It would not be that much a challenge or expense to also require such government monitoring and prosecution for traffic violations for bicycles too.

They do that when they catch somebody breaking a biking law...
 
I say ban the camers.

Here in Ohio a judge in Cininatti has ruled that the cameras are unconstitutional and ordered them shut off. After the company that operates them turned them back on he had them confiscated and impounded until they pay back people all the ticket money.

Now the Ohio House has passed a law banning them along party lines and hearings commenced in the Senate last week.

After the 2010 mid-terms us Ohioans grabbed the Democrats by their tonsils with our big hairy nutsacks and dragged them kicking and gagging out of the Statehouse and Govenor's office. (Figuratively of course). They got the worst teabagging ever. So now all three branches of the Ohio government are controlled by Republicans. Those cameras will be outlawed in Ohio very soon.
 
I see people do that behind me all the time.

On a somewhat related note to this discussion, I ran a red light last night, because I was rubbernecking at something on the opposite side of the road and didn't see the yellow light until it switched to red when I was about 10 feet from the intersection, traveling somewhere in the 30-40 MPH range (I think). Briefly I hit my brakes, but I quickly realized that I would end up stopped in the middle of the intersection...so I kept going.

I've been in the car with people who have ran fully red lights accidentally. It does happen. But that wouldn't mean they wouldn't be any less responsible for an accident that may have occurred because of their not paying attention. The thing is when someone is caught doing it, they should take responsibility for it, instead of complaining about why they were caught.
 
Actually there would be the officer who gave you the ticket. And that is why I said it depends on how you fought it. If he says you were doing 67 in a 55, are you going to deny it, even if you knew that was what you were doing? How are you planning on fighting this without making the officer look like he/she was lying or being petty?
You say that as if the officer is as pure as a new snowfall and never lies them self. I've experienced situations where an officer said one thing when giving me the ticket and then said the polar opposite in court. Our system isn't about right and wrong, it's adversarial and, for good or for bad, is about winning.

I wouldn't try to purposely embarrass the officer, that's hardly good strategy when the officer and the judge see themselves as being on the same side. I have never said an officer was lying, but once I used the word "mistaken".
 
Last edited:
You say that as if the officer is as pure as a new snowfall and never lies them self. I've experienced situations where an officer said one thing when giving me the ticket and then said the polar opposite in court. Our system isn't about right and wrong, it's adversarial and, for good or for bad, is about winning.

I wouldn't try to purposely embarrass the officer, that's hardly good strategy when the office and the judge see themselves as being on the same side. I have never said an officer was lying, but once I used the word "mistaken".

Some may lie. But you said that you would still fight it if you knew you did what you were accused of doing. Saying the officer was "mistaken", when you well know that you did something wrong is lying. And that lie could bring mistrust of that officer's ability to do his/her job just because you want to try to get out of a ticket because you feel that the system has screwed you over before.
 
I've been in the car with people who have ran fully red lights accidentally. It does happen. But that wouldn't mean they wouldn't be any less responsible for an accident that may have occurred because of their not paying attention. The thing is when someone is caught doing it, they should take responsibility for it, instead of complaining about why they were caught.
Luckily it was almost midnight and the intersection was almost deserted.
 
Some may lie. But you said that you would still fight it if you knew you did what you were accused of doing. Saying the officer was "mistaken", when you well know that you did something wrong is lying. And that lie could bring mistrust of that officer's ability to do his/her job just because you want to try to get out of a ticket because you feel that the system has screwed you over before.
In that particular case the officer was either mistaken or lying. No lying on my part. Spin, maybe, not outright lying.

As far as bringing mistrust and affecting the ability to do their job... it's traffic court. They probably joke about it at the water cooler afterward. Claiming it's damaging to the officer is hyperbole.
 
Actually there would be the officer who gave you the ticket. And that is why I said it depends on how you fought it. If he says you were doing 67 in a 55, are you going to deny it, even if you knew that was what you were doing? How are you planning on fighting this without making the officer look like he/she was lying or being petty?

Why would you care about how the officer looks? That's a serious question. His job is to get you ticketed and assist in your conviction. He doesn't care how he makes you look in the process. Why would you give one whit about how you make him look?

Speed limits can be about safety but more often than not they're about generating tickets.

That said if your defense is going to be "he lied" you might as well save everyone the trouble and just write the check.

I'
 
In that particular case the officer was either mistaken or lying. No lying on my part. Spin, maybe, not outright lying.

As far as bringing mistrust and affecting the ability to do their job... it's traffic court. They probably joke about it at the water cooler afterward. Claiming it's damaging to the officer is hyperbole.

You never know. But it is still wrong. You know what you did was wrong. You know you broke the law.
 
In that particular case the officer was either mistaken or lying. No lying on my part. Spin, maybe, not outright lying.

As far as bringing mistrust and affecting the ability to do their job... it's traffic court. They probably joke about it at the water cooler afterward. Claiming it's damaging to the officer is hyperbole.
A friend of mine contested a ticket for something along the lines of "driving a car with expired inspection sticker".

The cop noticed his car while they were both at a gas station, so he (the cop) had no proof that he had actually driven the car (well, not legal proof) there.

Judge agreed with my friend.
 
Why would you care about how the officer looks? That's a serious question. His job is to get you ticketed and assist in your conviction. He doesn't care how he makes you look in the process. Why would you give one whit about how you make him look?

Speed limits can be about safety but more often than not they're about generating tickets.

That said if your defense is going to be "he lied" you might as well save everyone the trouble and just write the check.

I'

You are assuming that every cop is the same. Not all are.

And I care because for one, I might eventually be one. And my husband is one. So, yes, I care how cops look. It is wrong to lie just because you believe all cops do it. First of all, you would be wrong in your stereotyping. And second, why do you feel it is okay for you to make him/her look bad eventhough you know you broke the law?
 
A friend of mine contested a ticket for something along the lines of "driving a car with expired inspection sticker".

The cop noticed his car while they were both at a gas station, so he (the cop) had no proof that he had actually driven the car (well, not legal proof) there.

Judge agreed with my friend.
Did your friend stay there standing around until after the cop left?

Anyway, this was over 20 years ago, but I was once in traffic court in the audience waiting my turn. One case had a cop and an empty chair. The defendant failed to show up. The cop must have thought it was a slam dunk, and basically gave zero testimony. The judge asked the cop THREE TIMES if he wanted to add anything else. The cop declined each time.

The judge said "ok", and found the defendant not guilty due to lack of evidence (the cop was incredulous)... then turned around and issued an arrest warrant for the defendant for failure to appear.

Next case: Same cop, different defendant... also a no-show. The cop gave a much more detailed testimony. He got his conviction on that one. That no-show defendant also got an arrest warrant for failure to appear.
 
You are assuming that every cop is the same. Not all are.

And I care because for one, I might eventually be one. And my husband is one. So, yes, I care how cops look. It is wrong to lie just because you believe all cops do it. First of all, you would be wrong in your stereotyping. And second, why do you feel it is okay for you to make him/her look bad eventhough you know you broke the law?

My brother was one. I was accepted into the NYPD but got a better paying job elsewhere so I'm not disposed to hate cops - though I do think the general quality of t However, I've been around the block enough times to know that at least where I live cops write tickets and look for reasons to stop cars on the flimsiest of pretexts. There are squads here whose sole job is writing tickets (and I'm not talking about highway patrol either). Their sole function is generating revenue.

I'm not saying to perjure yourself. But even if I was speeding I'm going to ask that the cop prove that the radar gun was calibrated and if he can't and the ticket gets tossed I'm not going to be upset about it or worry too much about how the officer might look because he didn't properly do his job - though in truth I'm guessing no one, even the cop, would think twice about it.
 
Did your friend stay there standing around until after the cop left?

Anyway, this was over 20 years ago, but I was once in traffic court in the audience waiting my turn. One case had a cop and an empty chair. The defendant failed to show up. The cop must have thought it was a slam dunk, and basically gave zero testimony. The judge asked the cop THREE TIMES if he wanted to add anything else. The cop declined each time.

The judge said "ok", and found the defendant not guilty due to lack of evidence (the cop was incredulous)... then turned around and issued an arrest warrant for the defendant for failure to appear.

Next case: Same cop, different defendant... also a no-show. The cop gave a much more detailed testimony. He got his conviction on that one. That no-show defendant also got an arrest warrant for failure to appear.
I don't recall exactly, this was several years ago...I think my friend may have received the ticket in the mail, or something...
 
I didnt say that you did. I said that one could use the same exact reasoning to justify warrantless searches.

I know you didn't and I agree that they could. That is why we vote per issue instead of reasoning... I support one but not the other.
 
I know you didn't and I agree that they could. That is why we vote per issue instead of reasoning... I support one but not the other.
When did we get to vote on these camera's? the concept is that these camera's are regulatory devices that are put in place by those with the authority to do so. There isnt any public vote in the matter except by voting those that you disagree with on the issue. On a regulatory level they must be rationalized. Legalities, numbers and evidence added together with public acceptance of these cameras is how it should work. If we do not like the cameras we should be able to influence the authorities to cease their use. But public acceptance is a fickle thing. lol sometimes we are wrong.
 
When did we get to vote on these camera's? the concept is that these camera's are regulatory devices that are put in place by those with the authority to do so. There isnt any public vote in the matter except by voting those that you disagree with on the issue.

We didn't vote. I said vote in that I approve.

On a regulatory level they must be rationalized. Legalities, numbers and evidence added together with public acceptance of these cameras is how it should work. If we do not like the cameras we should be able to influence the authorities to cease their use. But public acceptance is a fickle thing. lol sometimes we are wrong.

We can. We can write our public officials to make a change. If they don't we vote them out of office.

I think that CCTV and Red Light camera's are a good thing. I want them in public places (business districts).
If the majority disagrees with me then use the power of the vote and I will live a life of sorrow.
 
We didn't vote. I said vote in that I approve.



We can. We can write our public officials to make a change. If they don't we vote them out of office.

I think that CCTV and Red Light camera's are a good thing. I want them in public places (business districts).
If the majority disagrees with me then use the power of the vote and I will live a life of sorrow.

You dont see any danger in a progressive larger problem involving surveillance cameras? Law isnt issue based its universal to a certain degree.
 
You dont see any danger in a progressive larger problem involving surveillance cameras? Law isnt issue based its universal to a certain degree.

There are possible problems/issues with many things including camera's. I see the good far outweight the bad though and with anything there is a slippery slope.
 
Back
Top Bottom