• 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
Yes, they can enter your home with out a warrant. I have said, just a few posts before some of the reasons they can. But for your car you have a "diminished expectaion of privacy".

True enough given that cars aren't residences and that it's easy to look in them. However as I said, and I think you agree, the rule book does not get thrown out the window.
 
That's why in my scenario one would fight the ticket. They were already 1/4 of the way across the street when the light changed. The cop saw it differently. Maybe it was close to the end of the month and the cop had to make his quota for the month ? Some municipalities police departments do have quotas that their officers must meet.

Considering all of the problems you have encountered navigating the sidewalks and crossing streets while walking, I suggest you don't start driving a car.;)

Why would I fight a ticket where I know I broke the law? In your first scenario, I broke the law. Unless I had a damn good reason for doing so, I'm not going to fight it.

Now, there is a big problem with your scenario above. Unless the person is having problems walking, there is no way that they left while the person was showing on the walk sign and only made it 1/4 of the way across the street before the light changed if the lights were working properly. It sounds like they left to cross the street while the hand was blinking, which is a don't start crossing signal.

And my mother has had one ticket in her life, and it was most likely for a quota (in NC). She fought it and got off. She had to only pay the lawyer, not the fine nor court costs.
 
Every study shows that redlight cameras dramatically increase the number of accidents.

Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It

But some municipal governments would kill and criminal any number of people to get more money for themselves - and people who want control-freak government will always support any thuggery by government.

I showed a study earlier in the thread that showed differently. It showed a decrease in accidents for some in Newark, NJ.
 
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?

I've never received a ticket from a red light camera but there were controversies in my state. For one they were ticketing people for taking a right turn on a red and not coming to a complete stop...which wasn't in the law....and they was a controversy with lowering the amount of time it took from a light turning yellow to red. There is a federal guidlines for the time a light should stay yellow and by slighly decreasing that time they realized they could make more money.

Sooo....TLDR...yes red light cams are bull**** and if anything have led to more fender benders as people speed up to make yellow lights or slam on breaks as soon as it turns red. It has nothing to do with safety because the drunk idiot that runs a red light and hits someone still does. All it's done is create more headaches at intersections.
 
True enough given that cars aren't residences and that it's easy to look in them. However as I said, and I think you agree, the rule book does not get thrown out the window.

All an officer needs to do a road side search is plain sight or "reasonable" cause. Like when he lit you up, something fell from your car, you were swerving, everyone inside the car started bouncing around, you didnt react to the lights in a timely fashion.
Any or all of those things will give an officer just cause to look around your car. All he needs to find is a few seeds and at that point rip your car to shreds.
 
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:

If you see a yellow light coming up, you should be slowing down to stop for the upcoming red light. If you are right at the intersection when it turns yellow, that is when you have a pass because you obviously won't have enough time to stop.

What to do when the light turns yellow? : Driver’s Ed Guru

So in fact the answer is to "Stop" but generally that involves slowing down quickly, not slamming on your brakes.
 
If you see a yellow light coming up, you should be slowing down to stop for the upcoming red light. If you are right at the intersection when it turns yellow, that is when you have a pass because you obviously won't have enough time to stop.

What to do when the light turns yellow? : Driver’s Ed Guru

So in fact the answer is to "Stop" but generally that involves slowing down quickly, not slamming on your brakes.

Green means go, yellow means floor it. Red means floor it and hold your breath.
 
Why would I fight a ticket where I know I broke the law? In your first scenario, I broke the law. Unless I had a damn good reason for doing so, I'm not going to fight it.
I usually, but not always, fight tickets even if I know I'm guilty. Why? Because I have in the past been given a ticket and declared guilty when in fact I wasn't, but the LEO's testimony was given more credibility by the judge simply because he was a LEO.

Petty? Vindictive? Yeah, probably. But, because the system is so unequal they're at least going to earn it.
 
Green means go, yellow means floor it. Red means floor it and hold your breath.

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.
 
I usually, but not always, fight tickets even if I know I'm guilty. Why? Because I have in the past been given a ticket and declared guilty when in fact I wasn't, but the LEO's testimony was given more credibility by the judge simply because he was a LEO.

Petty? Vindictive? Yeah, probably. But, because the system is so unequal they're at least going to earn it.

I'm not like that. I admit when I have done something wrong, particularly if I am caught or if someone else would take the blame for me.
 
I told you posted speed was 35 due to being a high traffic area. Only there is no traffic at 3am so "high traffic" area doesn't apply with one car on the road.
I have often thought that signs and lights should be situational. For example, in your case, allowing 45 at 3am would be fine. Same with allowing a red light to be treated as a stop sign at 3am and the streets are otherwise empty. Why should I have to sit and wait for 2-3 minutes for the light to cycle when there's nobody else around?

But, I always come back to the fact that too many people are friggen morons and this would actually cause more problems than its worth.
 
I'm not like that. I admit when I have done something wrong, particularly if I am caught or if someone else would take the blame for me.

In even-handed situations I'm the same way. I don't view our legal system as even-handed or fair. If I don't get the same courtesy from it, I feel no obligation to give them said courtesy.

Note that I would NOT let someone else take the blame for me, though. I'm talking situations where it's just me.
 
In even-handed situations I'm the same way. I don't view our legal system as even-handed or fair. If I don't get the same courtesy from it, I feel no obligation to give them said courtesy.

Note that I would NOT let someone else take the blame for me, though. I'm talking situations where it's just me.

But you could be allowing someone to take the blame if you claim something less than truthful against what the cop says just simply to get out of the ticket. I'm not saying you would, but since you know you did something to break the law, I don't see how you couldn't.
 
I have often thought that signs and lights should be situational. For example, in your case, allowing 45 at 3am would be fine. Same with allowing a red light to be treated as a stop sign at 3am and the streets are otherwise empty. Why should I have to sit and wait for 2-3 minutes for the light to cycle when there's nobody else around?

But, I always come back to the fact that too many people are friggen morons and this would actually cause more problems than its worth.

Used to be that way here in Oregon. The speed limit was a suggestion and you could argue that you were driving safety for the conditions at the time. Didn't work once we got bigger and imported more Californians.
 
I'm not like that. I admit when I have done something wrong, particularly if I am caught or if someone else would take the blame for me.

Many vehicle laws are designed to generate revenue, not enhance safety. I don't have an issue with finding any way possible to get those dismissed.
 
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:

Not legitimately.

See the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. I happen to believe this this would also violate the true (but not obvious) intent of the Third Amendment as well, but that's another subject.
 
Interstates were built specifically to the standard that military vehicles could travel 100 mph on them. That was the initial design parameter and military defense was the justification used by Eisenhower for the Interstate system.

I'm given to understand that Eisenhower's inspiration for the Interstate Highway system came from the Autobahns in Germany, where there have long traditionally been no speed limits at all. Our Interstates were supposedly intended to be built to higher standards than the Autobahns. I don't know if he intended them to be unlimited, as the Autobahns are, but it was certainly intended that it should be safer to drive on them at high speeds than on the Autobahns.
 
I wouldn't mind the cameras so much if their flash-bulbs (or whatever they call their light-giving devices these days) weren't so bright. That quick flash really hurts the eyes, thus making it harder for good drivers to see, thus possibly causing accidents.

Agreed. I've had it happen a few times that I've been driving at night, and happened to be at the wrong place in an intersection when one of those red-light cameras went off, and was essentially blinded for several seconds as a result of the flash. On only one such occasion was I able to find anywhere to safely pull over until my vision recovered enough to be able once again to drive safely. On a few other occasions, I've been left with no choice but to drive blind for a few seconds, and hope I didn't run into something.

These flashes ought not be necessary. Modern digital camera technology is good enough that a high-end model ought to easily be able to take an adequate picture in ambient light in a well-lit intersection.
 
^ A nonsensical question.
Show me the stats of people who died while driving 80 to 85 mph in a 70 speed limit zone on an Interstate.

some people are overawed by authority and deferential to the point of being subservient to laws-even ones that can cause silly interpretations or results
 
I have often thought that signs and lights should be situational. For example, in your case, allowing 45 at 3am would be fine. Same with allowing a red light to be treated as a stop sign at 3am and the streets are otherwise empty. Why should I have to sit and wait for 2-3 minutes for the light to cycle when there's nobody else around?

But, I always come back to the fact that too many people are friggen morons and this would actually cause more problems than its worth.

I agree. I can't help thinking that if a human was there (cop), he wouldn't have pulled me over for speeding in a high traffic area at that time of night as my speed was not excessive. Those cameras are big money makers but in the meantime I will think twice before visiting again only to make a point. I would have given them plenty of revenue in a more conscionable way.
 
But you could be allowing someone to take the blame if you claim something less than truthful against what the cop says just simply to get out of the ticket. I'm not saying you would, but since you know you did something to break the law, I don't see how you couldn't.
I'm not sure I follow. Let's say I get a ticket for going 67 in a 55. As far as that particular ticket and the traffic court is concerned, it's either me declared guilty or me being declared not guilty. Nobody else is involved to take the blame.
 
I'm not sure I follow. Let's say I get a ticket for going 67 in a 55. As far as that particular ticket and the traffic court is concerned, it's either me declared guilty or me being declared not guilty. Nobody else is involved to take the blame.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom