I myself have had 3 major accidents (cars severely damaged and totaled - with bodily injury) All happened because of people not following basic rules of the road/driving rules).
If there had been a robo-camera would that have prevented any of those accidents?
The only accidents I've ever been in were 2 I caused in response to road ragers. People in little cars shouldn't go off on someone in an old 6,000 pound 70s beatup Lincoln towncar. They're gonna lose that one. My Mrs. should be called "Little Miss Traffic Violator." Motorcycles. Cars. Boats. But she's never been in an accident nor gotten a ticket. She can drive! But she also drives like an old woman going to church on Sunday if children are in the car or in the area if she is alone. You could walk faster than she drives in a residential area with children present. But she likes to look at the children anyway.
Last edited by joko104; 10-15-13 at 08:52 PM.
Anyway, my point is that critical thinking needs to be used and only humans can use critical thought not cameras. If people are constantly being monitoring by nonhuman means (hence no critical thought), it becomes a rigid and repressive environment in which the motive (in this case public safety) can be abused to become a very different motive (which I think is revenue for the city).
I believe DC's motive is revenue much more so than public safety. If you look at some facts---speed and red-light cameras taking in an average of $30,570 a day and a total of more than $28 million since the start of fiscal 2011.
As of July 31, drivers in the nation's capital have paid nearly $70 million in traffic camera fines this year (they paid nearly $100 million in 2012), and 2014 is looking like a stellar year for the D.C. government, as the city has announced plans to more than double the number of traffic cameras in Washington -- from around 90 to 225.
New figures show D.C. traffic cameras increasingly are paying off for the city.
The city brought in more than twice as much money in 2012 as the year before – from about $43 million to more than $95 million.
If you like traffic cameras, that is your prerogative. I have a right to dislike them because I feel they are being grossly abused.
Transporting a person away from a scene as you describe is an arrest, and better be supported by PC.
So?Originally Posted by ronpaulvoter
I don't care if stupid people have to pay more.
There is more to it than that. There would never be a minimum 3 seconds at in intersection where the speed limit is 45 MPH.Originally Posted by ronpaulvoter
Only because stupid people panic.Originally Posted by ronpaulvoter
No, I would like people to start driving more responsibly.Originally Posted by ronpaulvoter
Many, but I never counted them. I don't look for them.Originally Posted by ronpaulvoter
No.Originally Posted by ronpaulvoter
Now, ordinarily, if an officer would see it, under state law most traffic offenses are Minor Misdemeanors, still not arrestable absent a few statutory exceptions.
Cities however are free to make any offense an M-4 or above and arrestable, except as stated, camera offenses.