• 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

  • All cameras should be abolished

    Votes: 37 46.8%

  • Abolish red light cameras only

    Votes: 5 6.3%

  • Abolish speeding cameras only

    Votes: 4 5.1%

  • Abolish other types of cameras only (specify)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Allow all cameras to remain in use

    Votes: 22 27.8%

  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 11 13.9%
  • Total voters
    79
FreedomFromAll said:
If we want to use common sense and logic, then any intersection or section of road that qualifies for cameras should instead have the signage and whatever else would curb such behavior done. Slapping a camera up hoping that people getting tickets will change their behavior is a fools errand.

Better to build and mark the roadways properly rather than expect a camera to fix it. If a intersection is a problem access why it is a problem. If people regularly speed in a area put rumble strips on the road surface.
Click to expand...

In California a signage is required notifying there's a camera. It's what is probably responsible for the huge increase of tail in collisions.

My argument against progressive/liberal ideology has always been about change, they never take the time to think what will be the consequences of the change. Be it social engineering of the military or installing cameras at intersections.

Governor Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown in California just signed into law today outlawing bullets that contain lead. Basically requiring steel bullets. Steel bullets are ferrous, they spark when they hit rocks or anything that contains iron. Sparks cause fires.Wildfires destroys homes and wildlife. How many years will it take for them to figure it out ?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Tickets are a pretty decent deterrent. I've gotten my share and I support giving them out when someone breaks the law.
Click to expand...

I agree that money is a pretty decent deterrent from 'breaking the law.'

For me though, it's never been about people breaking the law. I'm only really concerned with they physical safety of people. If a car runs a light and there is no one around to crash into it, who am I to care and why should they have to pay for that?

CaptainCourtesy said:
Rotaries (called traffic circles in my parts) are HORRIBLE and can cause more accidents because of the issues with merging.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they cause plenty of accidents, driving in Malta is crazy. It was, pretty fast though. The only traffic I sat in anywhere on either island was while sitting at one of the very few stoplights. It made a horrendous amount of backup, but everywhere else in the country traffic moved very quickly.
 
APACHERAT said:
In California a signage is required notifying there's a camera. It's what is probably responsible for the huge increase of tail in collisions.
Click to expand...

They are also required to post it on the cities webpage with pertinent information regarding when the camera went into effect.


APACHERAT said:
Governor Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown in California just signed into law today outlawing bullets that contain lead. Basically requiring steel bullets. Steel bullets are ferrous, they spark when they hit rocks or anything that contains iron. Sparks cause fires.Wildfires destroys homes and wildlife. How many years will it take for them to figure it out ?
Click to expand...

I know that he vetoed a lot of the gun ban legislation, but I didn't hear that they outlawed lead bullets, do you have an article for that?
 
Starbuck said:
I know that he vetoed a lot of the gun ban legislation, but I didn't hear that they outlawed lead bullets, do you have an article for that?
Click to expand...

I just heard it on KFI radio 30 minutes ago when they also said he vetoed making my Ruger 10/22 illegal.
 
APACHERAT said:
In California a signage is required notifying there's a camera. It's what is probably responsible for the huge increase of tail in collisions.

My argument against progressive/liberal ideology has always been about change, they never take the time to think what will be the consequences of the change. Be it social engineering of the military or installing cameras at intersections.

Governor Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown in California just signed into law today outlawing bullets that contain lead. Basically requiring steel bullets. Steel bullets are ferrous, they spark when they hit rocks or anything that contains iron. Sparks cause fires.Wildfires destroys homes and wildlife. How many years will it take for them to figure it out ?
Click to expand...

So it isnt really about traffic cameras, its actually about progressive/liberal ideology bashing?

Brass, aluminum alloy bullets dont spark. Lead is actually a very hazardous material. If you do any reloading you have to take active precautions for personal health safety. Handle that lead too much and it makes you stupid.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
So it isnt really about traffic cameras, its actually about progressive/liberal ideology bashing?
Click to expand...

He stubbed his toe yesterday. It was PC liberal/progressives fault. Also beware all his undocumted claims. They tend to be bull****.
 
APACHERAT said:
I just heard it on KFI radio 30 minutes ago when they also said he vetoed making my Ruger 10/22 illegal.
Click to expand...

So he did sign the AB711, which will make the use of lead bullets illegal for hunting in California by 2019. After reading through the Bill, its not as dumb as I thought and doesn't really impose anything too harsh.

However, I do think that lead as become quite the boogeyman. I think people forget that lead is an element, and unless you are overexposed it is not harmful to your health. Additionally, if you remove yourself from the expose levels of lead in your blood will naturally dissipate.

Think is, animals can get poisoned by ingesting too much copper also.


LA Times Article
 
I actually like the cameras they set up. Ever since they went up, the more problematic intersections in town have become a lot safer to drive on. Traffic cameras are what happens when people drive like dumb assholes.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Brass, aluminum alloy bullets dont spark. Lead is actually a very hazardous material. If you do any reloading you have to take active precautions for personal health safety. Handle that lead too much and it makes you stupid.
Click to expand...

Lead has become a trademark boogeyman for our society.

Sure it's hazardous, but so is aluminum or copper. Really, any metal can be poisonous if you ingest, inhale or inject too much of it into your body. The problem with lead is that we used it for a great number of things and overexposure became common.

Handling lead bullets on occasion is not going to cause an overexposure.
 
Surtr said:
I actually like the cameras they set up. Ever since they went up, the more problematic intersections in town have become a lot safer to drive on. Traffic cameras are what happens when people drive like dumb assholes.
Click to expand...

But could the same results not have resulted from having an empty police car sitting at that intersection for a period of time?
 
Surtr said:
An empty cop car doesn't issue tickets.
Click to expand...

But the visceral reaction to seeing the profile of a marked police vehicle does cause people to slow down and follow all applicable traffic laws.

Same result, but without the investment of installing a camera and without the inconvenience of issuing citations to citizens.
 
Starbuck said:
But the visceral reaction to seeing the profile of a marked police vehicle does cause people to slow down and follow all applicable traffic laws.

Same result, but without the investment of installing a camera and without the inconvenience of issuing citations to citizens.
Click to expand...

Investment? Because cars are notable for being so much cheaper than cameras...
 
Redress said:
Investment? Because cars are notable for being so much cheaper than cameras...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Starbuck said:
But the visceral reaction to seeing the profile of a marked police vehicle does cause people to slow down and follow all applicable traffic laws.
Click to expand...
Only where that one car is, and once they pass the police car they go right back to speeding and running red lights. Without real consequences, people will do what they want on the road. That has resulted in far too many fatal accidents and dead pedestrians, so I don't have any problems with these cameras at all.

Same result, but without the investment of installing a camera and without the inconvenience of issuing citations to citizens.
Click to expand...
Cameras cost a hell of a lot less than Crown Vics. I don't see how "inconvenience" is a viable argument, either. The reason we have these cameras is because people were dying due to people speeding, running red lights, and driving drunk. I'm perfectly fine with reckless, stupid drivers being "inconvenienced" by the enforcement of traffic laws.
 
Starbuck said:
But could the same results not have resulted from having an empty police car sitting at that intersection for a period of time?
Click to expand...

Surtr said:
An empty cop car doesn't issue tickets.
Click to expand...

More to the point, an empty police car doesn't generate revenue for the city/county/state.

It might actually reduce bad driving, and traffic accidents, but that was never the true intent behind these traffic cameras.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
More to the point, an empty police car doesn't generate revenue for the city/county/state.
Click to expand...
Which is a good thing. We're still recovering from the damages caused by a drought in 2011.

It might actually reduce bad driving, and traffic accidents, but that was never the true intent behind these traffic cameras.
Click to expand...
I'm ok with that.
 
Surtr said:
Only where that one car is, and once they pass the police car they go right back to speeding and running red lights.
Click to expand...

The same can be said of the intersection cameras, people are careful at that one particular intersection and then go about their normal driving habits away from the camera.

I agree that traffic citations offer solid financial consequences for not obeying traffic laws, however I don't believe that blindly issuing a citation to a car that happens to run a red light in the middle of the night is necessarily a valid idea. I think a police officer should be the one to issue a citation. If s/he is there to personally witness the unsafe driving then the citation is valid.


Surtr said:
Cameras cost a hell of a lot less than Crown Vics.
Click to expand...

The average installation cost for a intersection camera is well above $50,000, and that doesn't include the maintenance of the system or the review of the data collected. An average police vehicle costs a community around $35,000 and can be used for multiple things, such as emergency response.


Surtr said:
I don't see how "inconvenience" is a viable argument, either. The reason we have these cameras is because people were dying due to people speeding, running red lights, and driving drunk. I'm perfectly fine with reckless, stupid drivers being "inconvenienced" by the enforcement of traffic laws.
Click to expand...

It's not really an argument.

My point is that traffic enforcement should be solely predicated upon increased safety. Maybe they should turn the cameras off during non-peak traffic hours, because as I've already said, I don't think someone pausing at a timed light in the middle of the night should constitute a traffic citation. . . especially where there are no other cars/ pedestrians around to hit.
 
Starbuck said:
The same can be said of the intersection cameras, people are careful at that one particular intersection and then go about their normal driving habits away from the camera.
Click to expand...
Cameras aren't the only measures taken.

I agree that traffic citations offer solid financial consequences for not obeying traffic laws, however I don't believe that blindly issuing a citation to a car that happens to run a red light in the middle of the night is necessarily a valid idea. I think a police officer should be the one to issue a citation. If s/he is there to personally witness the unsafe driving then the citation is valid.
Click to expand...
The citation is valid whether there was a police officer there or not. Camera tickets can be fought in court just like those issued by police. The only problem with fighting camera tickets is that it's no longer your word against an officer's. There's documented evidence that a law was broken.

The average installation cost for a intersection camera is well above $50,000, and that doesn't include the maintenance of the system or the review of the data collected. An average police vehicle costs a community around $35,000 and can be used for multiple things, such as emergency response.
Click to expand...
One specific model of camera does. The large infrared cameras with bulky steel housings that look like this:
Round_Rock_to_install_061ab86a-13b5-4ca8-8b5a-cf40dfdc1e800000_20110928182833_640_480.JPG


This is the type of camera we have:
redlightcamera.jpg

red-light-camera-sugar-land.jpg

Not every city uses the same cameras, so we can move beyond that myth.

My point is that traffic enforcement should be solely predicated upon increased safety. Maybe they should turn the cameras off during non-peak traffic hours, because as I've already said, I don't think someone pausing at a timed light in the middle of the night should constitute a traffic citation. . . especially where there are no other cars/ pedestrians around to hit.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the "no cop; no stop" mentality has caused many fatal accidents and pedestrian deaths here in the past. One of the problem roads in the older part of town is littered with white crosses that memorialize dead pedestrians. Something was done about it, and it yielded very good results. If that's not worth the investment, I don't know what is.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, I suppose that means that the standard, "red means stop, green means go, yellow means go very fast" mindset would need to change. If you go through a red light, you get a ticket. A good rule of thumb with this issue would be to slow down when you see a yellow, not speed up.
Click to expand...
Personally, it depends how close I am to the yellow. If I don't think I'll make the stop, or if it's a close thing, I keep going and maybe speed up a bit. If I have plenty of time to stop, I stop.
 
Starbuck said:
Lead has become a trademark boogeyman for our society.

Sure it's hazardous, but so is aluminum or copper. Really, any metal can be poisonous if you ingest, inhale or inject too much of it into your body. The problem with lead is that we used it for a great number of things and overexposure became common.

Handling lead bullets on occasion is not going to cause an overexposure.
Click to expand...

Not all metals are the same. Lead is by far more dangerous to handle than aluminum or copper. And yes occasional handling of lead can poison you. Anytime that skin comes in contact with lead you should wash your hands with soap. If you dont the cumulative absorption into your skin will make you ill.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Not all metals are the same. Lead is by far more dangerous to handle than aluminum or copper. And yes occasional handling of lead can poison you. Anytime that skin comes in contact with lead you should wash your hands with soap. If you dont the cumulative absorption into your skin will make you ill.
Click to expand...

Sure not all metals are the same.

However, to say that the occasional handling of lead can poison you is quite the overstatement. Even OSHA has set a standard for routine safe/ permissible exposure to lead particles in the air.

Simply touching a lead surface isn't going to poison you, especially if you are only doing this on occasion.

Besides, when removed from the hazard the body will return to it's normal state, expelling any excess lead.

It is absolutely not cumulative.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
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?
Click to expand...

So nobody will speed if every inch of the streets is covered?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Not all metals are the same. Lead is by far more dangerous to handle than aluminum or copper. And yes occasional handling of lead can poison you. Anytime that skin comes in contact with lead you should wash your hands with soap. If you dont the cumulative absorption into your skin will make you ill.
Click to expand...

So why don't more fishermen end up with lead poisoning from sinkers?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom