• 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
Your getting hysterical and insulting about facts you don't like is just degrading yourself. In doing so, you enforce one point I am making about people who want control-freak government.

Pointing out your source is not what you claim makes me a government control freak? Really?
 
Quote the law that everyone is supposed to "slow down" at every intersection with a traffic light. How slow? 5 mph? 10 mph? It is discrepancies in speed that causes far more accidents than people speeding. Speeding by itself never causes an accident and few people deliberately run a redlight. :roll:

in Nevada( and other states) it's illegal to run a yellow light, period... the light must be green when you enter the intersection or you are breaking the law... and( in many states) it's illegal to accelerate into an intersection and you can be cited for reckless driving for doing so.

if you were to accelerate through an intersection Nevada on a yellow light.. you can be cited for up to 4 violations for that simple act( as my old neighbor found out :lol:)
 
People getting scared when they see the flashing light?

People slamming on their brakes to avoid running through the light?

If they were driving properly, neither would be an issue.
 
in Nevada( and other states) it's illegal to run a yellow light, period... the light must be green when you enter the intersection or you are breaking the law...

So, suppose you're going, say, ten or fifteen miles per hour, approaching an intersection. You're about a foot or two away from entering the intersection, when the light turns yellow. Not enough time to even react and push the brake pedal, much less to actually bring the car to a stop before you cross the line into the intersection. How can you avoid breaking the law, as you have stated it? What could you have done to avoid being in this position?

I don't know if the law really is anywhere as you have stated it, but if it is, then it is impossible to obey.
 
Last edited:
I think that it should be pointed out that those camera looking things at every intersection are not cameras. they are sensors for the lights.

This below is a sensor that only senses when the light should change.

image2.jpg


here are examples of real red light (and speeding) ticket giving cameras.

4d7ec8f501254.preview-300.jpg


images
Red-light-camera-springfield-ohio.jpg


But then you could just get one of these

images
 
Pretty sure it's illegal to deliberately hide your license plate.
 
People who choose not to follow the law are the ones who complain the most about it.


there are two kinds of criminal codes

1) stuff that is illegal because its evil. Murder, Rape, Robbery, assault, theft, and vandalism

2) stuff that is illegal just because the law says so

smoking dope, underage drinking, speeding etc.

many martinets cannot tell the difference. And having been a municipal prosecutor and city solicitor I can tell you that lots of traffic enforcement decisions are based on revenue rather than any public safety concerns. Like podunk towns in Ohio who have a few hundred yards of interstate within their boundaries and yet write more tickets than the Ohio State troopers for the 50 mile stretch before and after that little slice.

People who respect the constitution have problems with guilt by machine with no ability to confront one's accusers.
 
There are people who want the government watching everything they do to protect them from themselves. There are always people who hate and fear freedom, other people and even themselves. Those people essentially declare the government is their "God" and therefore "laws" are the will of their god.

I seriously doubt the American revolution was not due to colonists being outraged that the King of England wasn't regulating and policing them enough. It amazes me how many Americans now rage against personal freedom and privacy on behalf of wanting an all-seeing police state.

I wish I could wave a wand and make most of the most serious nanny state cravers disappear
 
It is interesting to note that many of those who support traffic cameras are also those who vociferously defend their Constitutional rights... especially 2nd Amendment rights... yet are so willing and even happy to voluntarily forfeit their right to proper due process. We complain about the courts chipping away at our Constitutional rights, then we turn around and hand over some of them without a fight.


I saw most of the supporters of those idiotic cameras as being anti gun statists

of the pro gun posters who are against cameras there is Bob Blaylock, Ernst B, Goshin, Henrin, Jamesrage, amongh others.


I don't see anyone who is really pro gun supporting all camera use

I put other because some cameras are used to time lights-meaning if no one is approaching an intersection, the light remains red until someone needs to cross it
 
there are two kinds of criminal codes

1) stuff that is illegal because its evil. Murder, Rape, Robbery, assault, theft, and vandalism

2) stuff that is illegal just because the law says so

smoking dope, underage drinking, speeding etc.

Where would drunk driving fit under these?
 
i'm against traffic cameras, because they are usually just used to generate money. as for abolishing them, it's a low priority issue for me, but i wouldn't shed a tear if they were abolished.
 
Where would drunk driving fit under these?

close one-good question. I think it would be the first because it demonstrates a depraved indifference to the safety of others.
 
But speeding doesn't?

nope not in most cases. 80 through a school zone-probably

70 in a 55 on an interstate not at all

45 in a 35 at certain times of day-not at all

the stuff that constitutes depraved indifference can be charged as reckless driving.
 
nope not in most cases. 80 through a school zone-probably

70 in a 55 on an interstate not at all

45 in a 35 at certain times of day-not at all

the stuff that constitutes depraved indifference can be charged as reckless driving.

So what if you drunk drive safely?
 
I think there's a bigger issue than that.

Laws are supposed to be for the benefit of the people. We enact laws, and set up mechanism to enforce them, in the hopes that people will obey these laws, and by doing so, create a safer, more orderly society in which everyone's rights and everyone's legitimate interests are protected.

Here, we have a situation where laws and enforcement mechanisms are set up in the hope that people will be caught violating them, so that government can use this as an excuse to fine them. The profit is motive, not safety or order. For government to take part in this sort of practice is pure corruption.
I agree with everything you say here. That particular post of mine was just narrowly tailored to address the post I was responding to.
 
So what if you drunk drive safely?

Not going to play that game. The highways in this country were designed to safely handle 70 MPH traffic. Decreasing speeds are based on revenue or in the time of Ford, "fuel conservation"
 
nope not in most cases. 80 through a school zone-probably

70 in a 55 on an interstate not at all

45 in a 35 at certain times of day-not at all

the stuff that constitutes depraved indifference can be charged as reckless driving.

Not going to play that game. The highways in this country were designed to safely handle 70 MPH traffic. Decreasing speeds are based on revenue or in the time of Ford, "fuel conservation"

The cameras being discussed are at intersections, not on the highway. As I linked to, they have been shown to be at least somewhat effective in reducing "T bone" accidents which are the ones most likely to cause injury and fatalities. They do this because people are less likely to speed up through yellow lights or push through a just turned red light. Does that influence your comments at all?
 
re: Which "causes" (for lack of a better word) more accidents?

I don't doubt that red-light cameras cause more accidents in the form of rear-end collisions, but those tend to be less severe than the t-bone accidents that usually go down when the cameras are present.

This is not unlike pit bull defenders pointing out that chihuahuas bite more people each year than pit bulls. Sure, that's true if all you're counting is the number of bites. But, the damage done by the pit bull is a whole different story.

Sometimes making these defenses and comparisons are only valid on the surface, if even then. They completely fall apart upon closer inspection.
 
The cameras being discussed are at intersections, not on the highway. As I linked to, they have been shown to be at least somewhat effective in reducing "T bone" accidents which are the ones most likely to cause injury and fatalities. They do this because people are less likely to speed up through yellow lights or push through a just turned red light. Does that influence your comments at all?

I was going on the poll. traffic enforcement cameras.

I oppose all of the cameras based on the confrontation clause. as to deterrence-people who don't worry about being in an accident are going to worry about a ticket?
 
I was going on the poll. traffic enforcement cameras.

I oppose all of the cameras based on the confrontation clause. as to deterrence-people who don't worry about being in an accident are going to worry about a ticket?

Apparently, yes, that is what the research shows.
 
Apparently, yes, that is what the research shows.
that doesn't influence my position

I oppose traffic enforcement cameras
 
Where would drunk driving fit under these?
I sometimes wonder about such laws, actually.

Laws against texting while driving, drinking while driving, cell phone use while driving....etc.
Or laws against smoking in public places. Laws against jaywalking. Laws against any number of other behaviors.


All of them seem, in a way, redundant. They're designed to add extra penalties to certain behaviors to dissuade people from doing them.

But driving drunk could fall under any number of other laws. Attempted murder, perhaps. Or other stuff. I dunno the exact laws...
Speeding beyond a certain point would fall under the same laws, in general. Also texting or cell-phone use while driving.

Why are there so many laws that are so damned specific?
 
Shouldn't those who claim to honor the intent of our system of due process also properly follow the law instead of seeking ways around it?

Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Back
Top Bottom