• 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
We didn't vote. I said vote in that I approve.



We can. We can write our public officials to make a change. If they don't we vote them out of office.

I think that CCTV and Red Light camera's are a good thing. I want them in public places (business districts).
If the majority disagrees with me then use the power of the vote and I will live a life of sorrow.


Do you support putting gps and wireless in all vehicles connected to their black boxes so everyone would receive tickets for every and all traffic violations?
 
Do you support putting gps and wireless in all vehicles connected to their black boxes so everyone would receive tickets for every and all traffic violations?

No. I generally speed.

I support the idea of allowing police to use the black box to shut off engines of cars that refuse to pull over so that police chases are a thing of the past and innocent people stop getting hurt/killed though.
 
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.

Surprise flashing lights can startle people. Particularly older drivers.
 
No, it doesnt.
"Sir, will you exit your vehicle?" "Why, we would like to look around real quick". "You got a warrant?" "No, why would I need one" "Its my right". "OK, turn around hands on our head, you will be transported to our office while the warrant is called in."It will take an hour or so".
Before that, a dog will be called to hit on anything we find. If we find ANYTHING you will be charged immediatly. "but but..." "You have the right to remain silent. Keep that in mind".

That sequence you describe would be the basis for a valid illegal arrest lawsuit. Arresting someone for asking a police officer if he has a search warrant would be an extreme example of official oppression and false arrest.
If a dog "hits" on a house, that also is basis for a search warrant. You keep getting in wrong in your yearning for a police state totalitarian government. Glad you are not a "cop."

We have been around these topics on other threads. It appears your priority in life is pride is in a personal dogmatic submissiveness to the government, authority and "the law." You rage that everyone should be as submissive a personality as you are and want everyone who isn't in prison. I am pragmatic about law in the sense of evaluating the risks and benefits of following and not following a law with a heavy preference towards personal liberty to do what I want to do.

Thus, for example, in my past I went well out of my way to NOT use a weapon or to kill anyone as the penalties for doing so are very severe if caught. The potential penalty for harming someone but not fatally and without a weapon generally are trivial provided it was not in the commission of some other crime such as robbery.

Personally, my speed in driving usually is based upon not impairing traffic as generally I tend to drive slow and well under the speed limit to enjoy the drive, private time or uninterrupted time with who is with me. I've been stopped twice in my life for "driving suspiciously slow," though not illegally slow. Once I was in a BiTurbo Maserati going 58 across Missouri on an empty Interstate highway in the wee hours of the morning. The officer said no one in a Maserati drives 58 unless they are under the influence of liquor or drugs or trying to hide something. He was wrong.

My wife, generally, drives extremely fast because she believes the most valuable asset a person has is the time of their life which is irreplaceable. So a minute lost to driving slow is a minute of her life wasted. Plus she enjoys driving very fast anyway. I don't. Neither of us have ever gotten a ticket. She has been stopped many, many times for speeding in cars and boats, but never a ticket for many complex and unique reasons. The fastest I know of because I was along was 170 mph in the Southwest on a trip across the Southern desolate route from Florida to San Diego. She didn't get a ticket, but the officer chewed me out for "allowing her" to drive my (then) AMG/Renntech S65 that fast. The fastest I've ever drive was very recently, 140ish, and that just to test out a 200+mph capable car my wife got me for my birthday.
 
Last edited:
All this talk about freedom, oppression, 4th Amendment, yadda yadda yadda is completely overlooking something vitally important.

Life. As in, human life.

Where is the discussion in this thread is the acknowledgement of the hundreds of human lives that are destroyed every year because someone chose to disobey a red light?

Even those of you who don't want traffic laws enforced via traffic camera. Many of you have admitted that red light cameras reduce the risk of T-bone collisions, which are far more deadly than rear-end collisions.

Those of you who show a nearly theocratic devotion to the Founding Fathers. Remember that phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? There's a real reason that life comes first. It's because NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIFE ITSELF. NOTHING.

So to those of you who choose to drive poorly and get a massive ticket as a result, cry me a river. Man up and pay the damn fine.
 
That sequence you describe would be the basis for a valid illegal arrest lawsuit. Arresting someone for asking a police officer if he has a search warrant would be an extreme example of official oppression and false arrest.
If a dog "hits" on a house, that also is basis for a search warrant. You keep getting in wrong in your yearning for a police state totalitarian government. Glad you are not a "cop."

We have been around these topics on other threads. It appears your priority in life is pride is in a personal dogmatic submissiveness to the government, authority and "the law." You rage that everyone should be as submissive a personality as you are and want everyone who isn't in prison. I am pragmatic about law in the sense of evaluating the risks and benefits of following and not following a law with a heavy preference towards personal liberty to do what I want to do.

Thus, for example, in my past I went well out of my way to NOT use a weapon or to kill anyone as the penalties for doing so are very severe if caught. The potential penalty for harming someone but not fatally and without a weapon generally are trivial provided it was not in the commission of some other crime such as robbery.

Personally, my speed in driving usually is based upon not impairing traffic as generally I tend to drive slow and well under the speed limit to enjoy the drive, private time or uninterrupted time with who is with me. I've been stopped twice in my life for "driving suspiciously slow," though not illegally slow. Once I was in a BiTurbo Maserati going 58 across Missouri on an empty Interstate highway in the wee hours of the morning. The officer said no one in a Maserati drives 58 unless they are under the influence of liquor or drugs or trying to hide something. He was wrong.

My wife, generally, drives extremely fast because she believes the most valuable asset a person has is the time of their life which is irreplaceable. So a minute lost to driving slow is a minute of her life wasted. Plus she enjoys driving very fast anyway. I don't. Neither of us have ever gotten a ticket. She has been stopped many, many times for speeding in cars and boats, but never a ticket for many complex and unique reasons. The fastest I know of because I was along was 170 mph in the Southwest on a trip across the Southern desolate route from Florida to San Diego. She didn't get a ticket, but the officer chewed me out for "allowing her" to drive my (then) AMG/Renntech S65 that fast. The fastest I've ever drive was very recently, 140ish, and that just to test out a 200+mph capable car my wife got me for my birthday.

I thought getting caught going 100mph over the speed limit was an automatic felony... fastest I have gone is 160mph in my friends Acura.
 
It relates to my responding to a message of someone complaining of bright flashing redlight cameras.

:lol:

I assumed you were talking to me and didn't even look at the name...
 
I thought getting caught going 100mph over the speed limit was an automatic felony... fastest I have gone is 160mph in my friends Acura.

It varies from state to state I suppose. She's a special case, so to speak, or so it seems.

Did you FEEL like a felon while doing 160? :lol:

When I was doing 140, it felt great but also was scary - scary at the prospect of getting caught. Yes, now speeding more than 20 over is treated like you are worse than a serial burglar or assailant. But it also is up to the officer's discretion whether or not to do anything about it.
 
All this talk about freedom, oppression, 4th Amendment, yadda yadda yadda is completely overlooking something vitally important.

Life. As in, human life.

Where is the discussion in this thread is the acknowledgement of the hundreds of human lives that are destroyed every year because someone chose to disobey a red light?

Even those of you who don't want traffic laws enforced via traffic camera. Many of you have admitted that red light cameras reduce the risk of T-bone collisions, which are far more deadly than rear-end collisions.

Those of you who show a nearly theocratic devotion to the Founding Fathers. Remember that phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? There's a real reason that life comes first. It's because NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIFE ITSELF. NOTHING.

So to those of you who choose to drive poorly and get a massive ticket as a result, cry me a river. Man up and pay the damn fine.

:2bigcry:

Freedom is terrifying to some people such as you indicate in your message. THE safest place is in prison in solitary confinement. It would not be difficult for you to get yourself into such a safe setting.

The "founding fathers" absolutely did NOT believe "nothing is more important than life itself." They declared nothing is more important that freedom, even life itself. That's why they went to war. War isn't "safe."

Rear end accidents are one of the most common types of accidents that happen. In 2006, there were 1.8 million rear end accidents reported. This accounts for 29% of all of the injury crashes that occurred in the U.S.
There are over 6 million car accidents that occur in the country every year and around 31% of these are rear end collisions.
Rear-End Collisions: Statistics, Injuries and Prevention
The National Safety Council claims it is over 2,500,000 rear end collisions each year.

Redlight cameras - and those at few intersections - in cities where added increase accidents by 10 to 20 percent.


"Man up" is such a stupid phrase.:roll:
 
Last edited:
All this talk about freedom, oppression, 4th Amendment, yadda yadda yadda is completely overlooking something vitally important.

Life. As in, human life.


“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin​
 
Freedom is terrifying to some people such as you indicate in your message. THE safest place is in prison in solitary confinement. It would not be difficult for you to get yourself into such a safe setting.

The "founding fathers" absolutely did NOT believe "nothing is more important than life itself." They declared nothing is more important that freedom, even life itself. That's why they went to war. War isn't "safe."
·
·
·​
"Man up" is such a stupid phrase.:roll:

I don't know that it always is, but it certainly is, when it comes from someone who advocates sheepish submission to overbearing government and sacrificing liberty in exchange for an illusion of safety.
 
No. I generally speed.

I support the idea of allowing police to use the black box to shut off engines of cars that refuse to pull over so that police chases are a thing of the past and innocent people stop getting hurt/killed though.

There are people who buy vintage cars to avoid those black boxes. I do think requiring all cars to have the ability to shut them down is going to be required for all new cars soon, and many already have it whether you know it or not.
 
I don't know that it always is, but it certainly is, when it comes from someone who advocates sheepish submission to overbearing government and sacrificing liberty in exchange for an illusion of safety.

LOL! I've seen that alot on the forum lately - that a person should "man up and submissively surrender" - an oxymoronic claim.
 
Last edited:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin​

Yes:

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Read more at If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care... - Dwight D. Eisenhower at BrainyQuote

This country needs another Eisenhower now, not another leftwing or rightwing ideology who doesn't know what the hell he's doing and governing like this is all is a fantasy pipedream.
 
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin​

I don't know that it always is, but it certainly is, when it comes from someone who advocates sheepish submission to overbearing government and sacrificing liberty in exchange for an illusion of safety.

Do feel as if you have the right to run red lights AND not have the police do something about it AND potentially kill an innocent person in the process?
 
LOL! I've seen that alot on the forum lately - that a person should "man up and submissively surrender" - an oxymoronic claim.

Indeed. To sheepishly submit to overbearing government, to willingly give up liberty in exchange for false safety, is the very opposite of what I understand the term “man up” to mean.
 
Do feel as if you have the right to run red lights AND not have the police do something about it AND potentially kill an innocent person in the process?

:lamo

Yeah, I feel I have a right to not be watched continuously by robo-government non-human computer cops that exist to criminalize citizens for the purpose of getting more money for government and causing hundreds of thousands of accidents to do so.

Why do you want 250,000 more rear-end collisions each year? Why do you think you have a right to rear-end a 90 year old or a car full of children?
 
Do feel as if you have the right to run red lights AND not have the police do something about it AND potentially kill an innocent person in the process?

11970857951547845327johnny_automatic_straw_man.svg.hi.png
 
:2bigcry:

Freedom is terrifying to some people such as you indicate in your message. THE safest place is in prison in solitary confinement. It would not be difficult for you to get yourself into such a safe setting.

The "founding fathers" absolutely did NOT believe "nothing is more important than life itself." They declared nothing is more important that freedom, even life itself. That's why they went to war. War isn't "safe."

Rear end accidents are one of the most common types of accidents that happen. In 2006, there were 1.8 million rear end accidents reported. This accounts for 29% of all of the injury crashes that occurred in the U.S.
There are over 6 million car accidents that occur in the country every year and around 31% of these are rear end collisions.
Rear-End Collisions: Statistics, Injuries and Prevention
The National Safety Council claims it is over 2,500,000 rear end collisions each year.

Redlight cameras - and those at few intersections - in cities where added increase accidents by 10 to 20 percent.


"Man up" is such a stupid phrase.:roll:

Are you seriously suggesting that my right to survive my trip from Point A to Point B must yield to your "right" to run a red light? And then you have the nerve to lecture me that it's YOUR "freedoms" being violated? Do tell me, what gives you the right to lecture me about your "right" to break a law that's simply designed to increase my probability that I will survive tomorrow's trip home from work?
 
Indeed. To sheepishly submit to overbearing government, to willingly give up liberty in exchange for false safety, is the very opposite of what I understand the term “man up” to mean.

Too many "men" cry for government to "please! please protect helpless me!!" wanting totalitarian government to protect them, even from themselves. I find it rather pathetic really. What the fail to realize is that the government doesn't see that as cause to protect them, but rather justification to take away their freedom, their money, and to imprison them.

Does endlessly more power make government more "good?" Or more "oppressive?" History proves the latter is true. Every power over people a government takes is freedom lost. How much do people want to be sheeple of a regulated and restrained flock?
 
Are you seriously suggesting that my right to survive my trip from Point A to Point B must yield to your "right" to run a red light? And then you have the nerve to lecture me that it's YOUR "freedoms" being violated? Do tell me, what gives you the right to lecture me about your "right" to break a law that's simply designed to increase my probability that I will survive tomorrow's trip home from work?

Are you REALLY that terrified? Seriously. Why aren't you raging that all cars have breathalizers? Alertness detectors? Cell/text phone blockers? You are 100 times more likely to be killed that way.

Oh, that's right. Government wouldn't make money on that, that wouldn't cause accidents and mostly then it would inconvenience you. It isn't about safety at all. Redlight cameras dramatically increase accidents.
 
Back
Top Bottom