• 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
OTHER: Keep the ones already in place and put more up.
 
Redress said:
Yeah, because god knows we would not want to have safe roads. So much better to pay more for a bunch of police and have them watching instead of having cameras do it cheaper and better.
Click to expand...

But the Police will only be watching when there is an actual danger, not when there is no other cars around in the middle of the night.

However, maybe one of these intersections that sees a reduction in accidents could turn the cameras off, and just use them as a warning, like a scarecrow.
 
Starbuck said:
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.
Click to expand...
You need to educate yourself, seriously.

Lead Poisoning - CIPHE

Lead enters the bloodstream and accumulates in organs (especially the liver, kidneys and brain), tissues, bones and teeth. Prolonged and repeated exposure increases the levels of lead in the body. The human body absorbs and expels lead very slowly, it is a cumulative poisoning as it can take from weeks to years for the body to expel lead after exposure.

Medscape: Medscape Access

Furthermore, lead exposure, at much lower levels than those causing lead nephropathy, acts as a cofactor with more established renal risk factors to increase the risk of chronic kidney disease and the rate of progression. Adverse renal effects have been reported at mean blood lead levels of less than 5 mcg/dL. Cumulative lead dose has also been associated with worse renal function.

Baltimore County Md. Police - Lead Poisoning


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies lead as a heavy metal with no beneficial biological use in the body. When a person inhales or ingests lead, it is absorbed into the bloodstream. Once in the body it becomes very difficult to remove. Continual exposure results in the accumulation of lead in the body, and measurable amounts of lead indicate cumulative exposure over a lifetime.


Precautions on the Range

Precautions can be taken both on and off the range to protect shooters, instructors, and their families from lead poisoning. Administrative controls and good hygiene are two necessary tools. In addition, all shooters and instructors should practice the following dos and don'ts of range safety.

Do not smoke on the range.
Smoking any type of tobacco products on the range should be prohibited to prevent acceleration of inhaled lead into the blood stream and ingestion of lead transferred from hands to the cigarette, cigar, etc.

Do not eat on the range.
Lead dust on hands and face can be ingested through contact with food. Airborne lead expelled from the weapon can also contaminate food.

Don't collect fired brass in baseball caps.
Many shooters use their baseball caps to collect spent brass, this contaminates the cap with lead particles, When the cap is placed back on the head, the lead is deposited into the hair and absorbed into the skin. Providing boxes for the brass prevents this practice.

Do be aware face, arms, and hands are covered with lead.
Shooters and instructors should wash thoroughly with cold water and plenty of soap. Cold water is preferred because warm water enhances the absorption of lead by opening the pores of the skin. If no water is available, shooters should consider carrying a box of wet hand wipes or a bottle of cool water and a washcloth for this purpose.

Do be aware that hair and clothes are still contaminated.
Shooters and Firearms Instructors should wear an outer garment, such as a jumpsuit or coveralls, or change clothes before going home. Contaminated clothes should not be cleaned by blowing, shaking, or other means that dispense lead into the air. To prevent cross-contamination, range clothes should be washed separately from the family's regular laundry. Families with infants should be particularly careful, since infants are most vulnerable to lead contamination. Families with infants should be particularly careful since infants are most vulnerable to lead contamination. Changing to clean clothing before leaving the range prevents recontamination of the hands and any contamination of the family vehicle.

Shoes can also transport lead into the home.
Shoes should be left at the door to prevent tracking lead onto floors and carpets. Ordinary vacuuming does not remove lead from the home, but redistributes it by blowing it in to the air to be inhaled and/or resettled onto the carpet.
 
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...


I believe that traffic cams should be abolished for the simple fact that law enforcement duties should not be outsourced to private companies and autonomous or automated machines. Law enforcement shouldn't be profit motivated. It also paves the way for drones to spying on everything we do.I do not know where or how many traffic enforcement cams are in my town nor have I received a ticket because of any of them.

That said I do not feel sorry for anyone who receives a ticket for violating a traffic offense. Those are speed limit signs not speed suggestion signs. In my state you are supposed to stop at a yellow light.IN many other states you are suppose to stop at a yellow light unless you are too close to the intersection to stop.
 
Goshin said:
Straw man, red herring, whatever.... "let's exaggerate Goshin's argument far beyond anything he said to a ridiculous extreme nobody wants, as a way to make him look stupid even though he never said that."


Ok. I don't have time for that kind of nonsense.
Click to expand...

I am not exaggerating your position. The direct result of your position is less safe streets. That is not an exaggeration. What you are protecting is your ability to ot be seen by the government in a public place. That is not an exaggeration.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You need to educate yourself, seriously.
Click to expand...

I work in heavy industry and feel that I am relatively well educated regarding the potential for overexposure to lead.

The thing about lead poisoning is that the increasingly strict regulations regarding the use of lead as a pigment for paint or as an additive for gasoline during the 1980's and 1990's have greatly reduced the potential for dangerous over exposure in the United States. In fact, if you were to look at a study of lead overexposure in children from 1997 - 2011, you'd find that the percentage of children overexposed to levels higher than 10 µg/dL is less than 1% in all but one state. Blood Lead Levels of 10 µg/dL represent the very lowest level of overexposure considered harmful in humans.

The odds of me getting lead poising, especially where I use the proper protective equipment are so statistically slim that I'm more likely to die while driving on my way to work in the morning.
 
Starbuck said:
I work in heavy industry and feel that I am relatively well educated regarding the potential for overexposure to lead.

The thing about lead poisoning is that the increasingly strict regulations regarding the use of lead as a pigment for paint or as an additive for gasoline during the 1980's and 1990's have greatly reduced the potential for dangerous over exposure in the United States. In fact, if you were to look at a study of lead overexposure in children from 1997 - 2011, you'd find that the percentage of children overexposed to levels higher than 10 µg/dL is less than 1% in all but one state. Blood Lead Levels of 10 µg/dL represent the very lowest level of overexposure considered harmful in humans.

The odds of me getting lead poising, especially where I use the proper protective equipment are so statistically slim that I'm more likely to die while driving on my way to work in the morning.
Click to expand...

So then you are in agreement that lead requires precautions and proper protective equipment. You also confirmed that government regulations have indeed help lower the exposure to lead in the population.

In case you missed it I do not support the banning of lead bullets. I only pointed out that there are alternatives to lead bullets. And that lead is a dangerous heavy metal that shouldnt be presented as being nothing to worry about. Which you agree or you wouldnt need to use proper protective equipment when dealing with lead.
 
Goshin said:
The government agency whose job it is to keep up with how many laws there are can no longer give an accurate count, just an estimate... in the tens of thousands.


A Yale prof says everyone is a felon, because there are so many felonies and so many are no longer "common sense" items that probably everyone has committed one at some point without knowing it.



I have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

And I have no idea how this relates to what I said.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
So then you are in agreement that lead requires precautions and proper protective equipment. You also confirmed that government regulations have indeed help lower the exposure to lead in the population.
Click to expand...

This is all very true, although I feel that the perception of lead poisoning is disproportionate to the actual danger of lead poisoning.

FreedomFromAll said:
In case you missed it I do not support the banning of lead bullets.
Click to expand...

I must've missed that and this being a relatively short thread, I should probably go back and reread through it. For the life of me I can hardly remember how we got onto the subject of lead bullets anyway.
 
Cameras in a public space are fine but I worry that we may one day cross the line. In the UK they have placed cameras in the homes of some people that are on parole. That has crossed the line imo.
 
Baralis said:
Cameras in a public space are fine but I worry that we may one day cross the line. In the UK they have placed cameras in the homes of some people that are on parole. That has crossed the line imo.
Click to expand...

If you give someone an inch then they will take a mile. I would rather not give them that inch and say its none of the governments ****ing business what I am doing
 
jamesrage said:
If you give someone an inch then they will take a mile. I would rather not give them that inch and say its none of the governments ****ing business what I am doing
Click to expand...
But they have to watch you in case what you are doing BECOMES their business, and they need to figure out what precisely led up to that.

After all, it's not a matter of IF what you're doing becomes their business, but WHEN.
 
If LE were required to match the offense with the actual driver of the vehicle... you know, due process and all that other inconvenient stuff that we supposedly hold so dear to our hearts... I'd be fine with them. Responsibility should be a two-way street... on the part of the driver AND on the part of those making the charge/accusation.

Some jurisdictions do match the driver. Most do not. Most have opted for the easy money over the points on a driver's record (which is the real lesson).
 
APACHERAT said:
Most traffic enforcement cameras are operated by private companies who get a percentage of the fines paid. These companies are big political donors to politicians, especially Democrats.

The standard rule of thumb ( did I just used a politically incorrect phrase, "rule of thumb" that the Obama administration has labeled to be a sexist term ? I guess I did.)
But I digress.
The rule of thumb is when a traffic signal changes from green to yellow before turning red, the yellow signal is suppose to be set for being illuminated one second for every 10 mph for what ever the maxim speed limit is.

30 mph = 3 seconds.
35 mph = 3.5 seconds.
45 mph = 4.5 seconds.

Here in California it was discovered that the Democrat controlled municipal governments in collusion with the companies that provided and operated the cameras changed the duration of the yellow signals usually from .5 to 1 second. The cameras will take a picture of any vehicle which has entered or passed the line with in 1/1000th of a second when the signal turned red.

For stupid people. if you enter an intersection when the light is green or yellow and it turns red while your in the center or 3/4's of the intersection the camera takes your picture and you receive a $450 plus ticket in the mail.

Many municipalities in So Cal discovered that any intersection that had these cameras saw a huge increase in accidents, mostly rear end accidents. Most drivers are aware of the cameras and as soon as they see the traffic signal turn yellow, they are in fear of running a yellow light and hit their breaks. BAM !

But it goes further.
The SEIU and the other public service employees unions love these cameras. They cause millions of dollars to flow into the municipal tax coffers so they can demand higher wages for government workers.
You see them every day, the two city workers filling a pot hole while four other city workers supervise.
Click to expand...
God forbid that law enforcement should display some sort of... oh, I don't know... integrity, or anything.
 
Other, and I thank the origibator for this most important option.
It cannot just be the camera, it must be a camera system, which includes man, and his ability to think and reason....or not.
Do we have this quality of man ?
Its the Javerts in our society who scare me.
 
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...
A rather infantile attitude, IMO.
But, feel not bad, I was the same up to age 50 or so....
I do believe , now more tan ever, that the cameras are designed to save lives..
Pollyanna ?
yes....but where is mans faith ....in his fellow man ?
BTW, no camera has ever "caught" me.....I'll always be human.....
 
Hooooooooooooooo boy !
Have the conservative/libertarian/extremists ever taken hold of this one !
Or, we have too many Javerts...
 
Starbuck said:
This is all very true, although I feel that the perception of lead poisoning is disproportionate to the actual danger of lead poisoning.



I must've missed that and this being a relatively short thread, I should probably go back and reread through it. For the life of me I can hardly remember how we got onto the subject of lead bullets anyway.
Click to expand...

lol We were thinking about shooting out some cameras (I think).
 
Starbuck said:
So you are saying that dangerous traffic violations are not criminal?

If that is the case, why should someone have to pay in excess of $400 when they fail to completely stop at an intersection?
Click to expand...

Because the potential for accidents is high. So it is a public service (deterrent) and a revenue producer all rolled in one. Damn, I love me a twofer.;)
 
local judges have struck down speed cameras in Hamilton county ohio's "Elmwood Place" an obscure little area that used these things purely for revenue enhancement.

they violate the right to confront one's accusers. They are not designed to enhance safety anymore than podunk villages that say have 400 yards of I-75 running through their territory and using that as a speed trap excuse (by dropping the speed down to 55 from 65 MPH)
 
year2late said:
Because the potential for accidents is high. So it is a public service (deterrent) and a revenue producer all rolled in one. Damn, I love me a twofer.;)
Click to expand...

that's nonsense. I was a municipal prosecutor for several years. That is complete BS.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's nonsense. I was a municipal prosecutor for several years. That is complete BS.
Click to expand...

I can only tell you my personal experience. And frankly, I am a much more observant driver.
 
year2late said:
I can only tell you my personal experience. And frankly, I am a much more observant driver.
Click to expand...

good for you but that is no argument for what is pure revenue devices. I also can tell you that municipalities on state routes that are alternatives to big interstates often make their traffic light patterns as annoying as possible in order to prevent people from using said state route as an alternative when the Interstate is paralyzed by a wreck. In other cases, these municipalities set their lights in order to create as many violations as possible

I don't have much use for the EPA but I wonder why the EPA doesn't crush villages that do that kind of crap since it greatly increases air pollution from cars to have cars hitting every red light possible on a state route
 
TurtleDude said:
good for you but that is no argument for what is pure revenue devices. I also can tell you that municipalities on state routes that are alternatives to big interstates often make their traffic light patterns as annoying as possible in order to prevent people from using said state route as an alternative when the Interstate is paralyzed by a wreck. In other cases, these municipalities set their lights in order to create as many violations as possible

I don't have much use for the EPA but I wonder why the EPA doesn't crush villages that do that kind of crap since it greatly increases air pollution from cars to have cars hitting every red light possible on a state route
Click to expand...


It's odd, now that you mention it, that I've never thought before to suspect that such motives may be behind some of the traffic control issues here n Sacramento.

We do, of course, have the infamous red-light cameras, along with all the issues that they create.

But there are some things with the way lights are timed that have always seemed irrational.

The simplest and most obvious is a stretch of road that I used to drive on my way home from work—21st Street going from Broadway to H Street. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH, and if you drive that speed, you'll have to stop at every intersection for a red light; each light you stop at will turn green just in time for you to see the next one turning red. If you drive 40 MPH, you'll be perfectly-timed with the lights; once you go through one green, every other light will be turning green just as you reach it. I've never been stopped for speeding along this stretch, but any evening, they could nail a lot of “speeders” along that stretch if they had the cops in place to do so; as nobody is willingly going to drive at a speed that causes them to have to stop at every intersection in preference to a speed that has them stopping at none.
 
radcen said:
God forbid that law enforcement should display some sort of... oh, I don't know... integrity, or anything.
Click to expand...

These traffic enforcement cameras are actually private sector companies who run and operate them. Big time political contibutors.
Here in California a law enforcement officer will review the photo and or sign off or reject it. Most of the time they sign off on the photo and you get a ticket in the mail.

If you want to fight the ticket in the Great Socialist State of California, you have to post bail before you can even show up in court to plead not guilty and challenge the ticket. The bail is the fine and court cost if you are found guilty. A $100 ticket with a $350 court cost, it cost you in cash $450 to fight the ticket.

You have to pay the fine and court cost before you can contest the ticket.

If you do prevail and are found not guilty, you'll get a check in the mail returning your bail, 3 to 6 months down the road.

That's why I love Mexifornia so much. California didn't pull this #### thirtyfive years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom