• 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
Phys251 said:
​
Click to expand...


I consider that as a concession that you have no response to it is impossible for anyone to assuredly and legally avoid a redlight while driving.
 
year2late said:
Good Lord.

You get a license to drive by showing you have knowledge of the rules and you take a behind the wheel test to show your ability to follow the rules. If you do not intend to follow the rules of the road, why even get a license?

Luckily most people follow the rules of the road so - it is not utter chaos out there. But those that do cause a lot of physical and property damage.

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).

What in the hell does following rules of the road have to do with being submissive?
Click to expand...

By definition, following rules solely for the sake of following the rules is being "submissive."

I often write how much I despise slogans, that they are for the mentally lazy and for people with little ability of independent thought.

Driving in a way clearly dangerous to others is clearly dangerous to others. "Rules of the road" are only relevant to safety when they are relevant to safety.

Do you set your parking brake and turn you wheels the correct direction towards the curb when you park? If not, OMG! You are endangering everyone! But in fact no your are not, not unless does so endangers others. Following rules can endanger people. For example, if all cars are going 75 to 80, but one person doing 45 on a 70 mph Interstate, only one driver is driving "following the rules." But that is the dangerous one.

I am objection to two things:

1. Inhuman machine-cops that can prosecute civil or criminal cases against humans. I do not approve of machines and computers become masters of the human race - generally or individually. The dangers of allow such technology at that degree of power in the law enforcement, civil justice and criminal justice system are massive and dehumanize such systems and all of us.

2. The premise that rules of government are as rules of some god and for which ethics and even what defines reality is singularly within those rules (ie "laws.")

Rules did not help me in all of my childhood and youth. Rules of government hurt me. Terribly. More than people could grasp. Rules, government, never, once helped or protected me. They sent me to and trapped me in a true living hell on earth. Cops and laws didn't help, protect or serve me for the next 14 years either. Rather they were only dangers and to be avoided, patronized, hidden from.

A person should be free. Within that freedom is a restraint to not seriously endanger or harm others. I do not make a connection between that standard and "government rules" nor "social rules" - though I put more stock in social rules in terms of the functioning of society.

Most people are conditioned from birth with a vast collection of slogans and platitudes. Including about government, rules and laws. I wasn't. Therefore, they are not automatic truisms to me.

What is dangerous to others is dangerous to others. What isn't, isn't. Not coming to a 100% stop at a flat intersection in the middle of nowhere with no car in sight endangers no one. A person's rear bump 1 foot still in the intersection endangers no one. "Running" a redlight of itself endangers no one. Only dangerously running a redlight does. That is SO obvious to me it seems absurd to dispute it.

The specific reasons I gave against robo-computer-light-cops in terms of accuracy, roadrage pranks, fairness and safety has been responded to by no one. Rather, just slogans, platitudes and ragings about the rules, law and government to try to divert from reality.
 
year2late said:
So by implication you have no desire to follow the rules of the load. Now we know why you are so dead set against the camera's.

Well.....time to get off the wahhhhhhhhambulance. You reap what you sow.
Click to expand...

if you drive in the left lane and aren't passing anyone you aren't following the rules of the ROAD not Load
 
joko104 said:
By definition, following rules solely for the sake of following the rules is being "submissive."

I often write how much I despise slogans, that they are for the mentally lazy and for people with little ability of independent thought.

Driving in a way clearly dangerous to others is clearly dangerous to others. "Rules of the road" are only relevant to safety when they are relevant to safety.

Do you set your parking brake and turn you wheels the correct direction towards the curb when you park? If not, OMG! You are endangering everyone! But in fact no your are not, not unless does so endangers others. Following rules can endanger people. For example, if all cars are going 75 to 80, but one person doing 45 on a 70 mph Interstate, only one driver is driving "following the rules." But that is the dangerous one.

I am objection to two things:

1. Inhuman machine-cops that can prosecute civil or criminal cases against humans. I do not approve of machines and computers become masters of the human race - generally or individually. The dangers of allow such technology at that degree of power in the law enforcement, civil justice and criminal justice system are massive and dehumanize such systems and all of us.

2. The premise that rules of government are as rules of some god and for which ethics and even what defines reality is singularly within those rules (ie "laws.")

Rules did not help me in all of my childhood and youth. Rules of government hurt me. Terribly. More than people could grasp. Rules, government, never, once helped or protected me. They sent me to and trapped me in a true living hell on earth. Cops and laws didn't help, protect or serve me for the next 14 years either. Rather they were only dangers and to be avoided, patronized, hidden from.

A person should be free. Within that freedom is a restraint to not seriously endanger or harm others. I do not make a connection between that standard and "government rules" nor "social rules" - though I put more stock in social rules in terms of the functioning of society.

Most people are conditioned from birth with a vast collection of slogans and platitudes. Including about government, rules and laws. I wasn't. Therefore, they are not automatic truisms to me.

What is dangerous to others is dangerous to others. What isn't, isn't. Not coming to a 100% stop at a flat intersection in the middle of nowhere with no car in sight endangers no one. A person's rear bump 1 foot still in the intersection endangers no one. "Running" a redlight of itself endangers no one. Only dangerously running a redlight does. That is SO obvious to me it seems absurd to dispute it.

The specific reasons I gave against robo-computer-light-cops in terms of accuracy, roadrage pranks, fairness and safety has been responded to by no one. Rather, just slogans, platitudes and ragings about the rules, law and government to try to divert from reality.
Click to expand...

You follow traffic rules because it is the safe thing to do.
 
Rocketman said:
I bought an Escort Redline, haven't had a ticket in 3 years now.

Escort%20Redline.jpg
Click to expand...

For the car my wife got me, in addition to a total cosmetic redo and upgrade, she is adding front and rear laser jammers (legal), state of the art radar detectors (legal), redlight/speeding cameras early warning system (legal) and radar defeating paint to the critical areas of the frontal area which reduces radar's range from 50 to 75%, depending on the unit and all well after the radar detector would alert. Total cost under $5K. The navigation system already warns when over the speed limit, and she is adding a "license plate flipper." Not illegal to have but circumstantially is to use.

I didn't ask for it and rarely would be turning on the radar detector and usually I'm well under the speed limit - sometimes annoyingly so to others, though I try not to impede traffic. On the other hand, if I really am in a hurry for some reason or on some long empty stretch in the middle of nowhere, I may open it up. Then again, sometimes she'll be driving and usually that's "hold her Johnny! She's headed for the barn!!!"
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
For the car my wife got me, in addition to a total cosmetic redo and upgrade, she is adding front and rear laser jammers (legal), state of the art radar detectors (legal), redlight/speeding cameras early warning system (legal) and radar defeating paint to the critical areas of the frontal area which reduces radar's range from 50 to 75%, depending on the unit and all well after the radar detector would alert. Total cost under $5K. The navigation system already warns when over the speed limit.

I didn't ask for it and rarely would be turning on the radar detector and usually I'm well under the speed limit - sometimes annoyingly so to others, though I try not to impede traffic. On the other hand, if I really am in a hurry for some reason or on some long empty stretch in the middle of nowhere, I may open it up. Then again, sometimes she'll be driving and usually that's "hold her Johnny! She's headed for the barn!!!"
Click to expand...

I drive some where almost every week staying out 2-4 nights each week. Between the fake construction zones, texting idiots, people driving in the left lane holding up traffic, I do not feel guilty at all. The radar detector above was $500 and it was worth every penny. I just had it updated two weeks ago and it is better than when I got it. I drive a black car (harder for laser to target) and have a coating on my license plate that flashes bright white when a red light camera goes off.
 
year2late said:
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).

QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rocketman said:
I drive some where almost every week staying out 2-4 nights each week. Between the fake construction zones, texting idiots, people driving in the left lane holding up traffic, I do not feel guilty at all. The radar detector above was $500 and it was worth every penny. I just had it updated two weeks ago and it is better than when I got it. I drive a black car (harder for laser to target) and have a coating on my license plate that flashes bright white when a red light camera goes off.
Click to expand...

That coating on a license plate is illegal in Florida, but what are they gonna do about it if they don't have a picture? But Florida only has REAR plates, no front plate. The radar defeating paint on key areas will give you greater time to respond to your radar detector as it shortens the range of radar units. That is legal EXCEPT on license plates in some states. Look up "radar blocking paint" on You Tube. They show it in real radar tests against numerous units. Again, it's legal. Laser blockers are legal in almost all states and do work, but are pricey if they are real. Radar jammers are illegal and don't work anyway.
 
joko104 said:
That coating on a license plate is illegal in Florida, but what are they gonna do about it if they don't have a picture? But Florida only has REAR plates, no front plate. The radar defeating paint on key areas will give you greater time to respond to your radar detector as it shortens the range of radar units. That is legal EXCEPT on license plates in some states. Look up "radar blocking paint" on You Tube. They show it in real radar tests against numerous units. Again, it's legal. Laser blockers are legal in almost all states and do work, but are pricey if they are real. Radar jammers are illegal and don't work anyway.
Click to expand...

My redline picks up policemen sitting on the opposite side of an overpass 2 miles out. It is a great piece of equipment
 
CRUE CAB said:
You got a ticket, then paid it. What is your point? You were 8 miles over. That will get you a ticket by a cop just as easily.
Click to expand...

No not true. I was traveling at a safe speed for that time of night on a deserted road. Most police here won't even pull you over unless you are going 10 miles over the limit unless in a school zone or during high traffic times or driving dangerously.

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.
 
CRUE CAB said:
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".
Click to expand...

Sure the 4th applies to cars. An order to exit to the driver is a Mimms order, and is constitutional, failure to obey is grounds for arrest . Mimms is 4th AM law, so it applies.

Transporting a person away from a scene as you describe is an arrest, and better be supported by PC.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
Are you aware that traffic enforcement cameras are designed primarily to steal people's money rather than enhance safety?
Click to expand...
So?

I don't care if stupid people have to pay more.


ronpaulvoter said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.


ronpaulvoter said:
Did you know that cameras cause more accidents than they prevent?
Click to expand...
Only because stupid people panic.


ronpaulvoter said:
Would you like to abolish any of these?
Click to expand...
No, I would like people to start driving more responsibly.


ronpaulvoter said:
Do you have many cameras in your neighborhood?
Click to expand...
Many, but I never counted them. I don't look for them.


ronpaulvoter said:
Have you received any (or many) tickets from cameras?
Click to expand...
No.
 
APACHERAT said:
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 !
Click to expand...

Well, that's what stupid people get for following too close.

2 second rule....

Anyone...
 
joko104 said:
The only option with redlight cameras is to slam on your brakes if the light turns yellow unless you are already in the intersection.
Click to expand...

Not quite true.

Always brake is you are within a safe, non-emergency stopping range when a light turns yellow. Of you still get tagged, go back with a stopwatch and time the yellow for court.
 
joko104 said:
. Traffic tickets are CRIMINAL cases for which a person can be arrested and jailed -
Click to expand...

Not in Ohio. Camera tickets are "Infractions" per the OSC.

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.
 
radcen said:
In my state it is a civil issue also, hence the skating around the Constitutional issues of not identifying the driver and only going after the owner.
Click to expand...

Such a ticket, as a non occupied parking ticket is a "prima facie" case agaisnt the registered owner, it has nothing to do with what you state. An alibi needs to be argued if it was not you driving/parking.
 
CRUE CAB said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Reasonable" Cause is interchangeable with "Probable" Cause, which is different from Reasonable suspicion.

Under the automobile exception, state specific, if an officer has PC to believe contraband is in the car, he can search it without a warrant, but PC must exist.

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.
Click to expand...

No, he can't rip it to shreds, extreme detail searches require a warrant.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, that's what stupid people get for following too close.

2 second rule....

Anyone...
Click to expand...

My guess (only a guess) is that the rear end accidents that are likely caused by tailgating and stops at yellow lights are more like "fender benders" with rare serious injury. I would think the accidents caused by the red light runners are often T-bone type accidents that can be quite serious. And go figure, I care more about serious bodily injury.
 
year2late said:
My guess (only a guess) is that the rear end accidents that are likely caused by tailgating and stops at yellow lights are more like "fender benders" with rare serious injury. I would think the accidents caused by the red light runners are often T-bone type accidents that can be quite serious. And go figure, I care more about serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...
I think so too. I'll bet if we review the statistics were people are claiming more accidents, they are just that for the most part. Non serious rear end taps.

I brake check people. If you follow me too close, I will hit my brakes moderately hard.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think so too. I'll bet if we review the statistics were people are claiming more accidents, they are just that for the most part. Non serious rear end taps.

I brake check people. If you follow me too close, I will hit my brakes moderately hard.
Click to expand...
It is really simple.

Don't tailgate.

If you need to get someplace earlier, leave sooner.

Don't blame cameras or your poor driving choices.
 
Still not one redlight camera supporter has shown how a person can legally avoid a redlight ticket with certainty for the many reasons I gave that it can't be done.

Why? Because they don't care about whether the person actual ran a redlight or not, nor about safety. They only care about more, endless, government control to try to soothe their own fears.
 
joko104 said:
Still not one redlight camera supporter has shown how a person can legally avoid a redlight ticket with certainty for the many reasons I gave that it can't be done.

Why? Because they don't care about whether the person actual ran a redlight or not, nor about safety. They only care about more, endless, government control to try to soothe their own fears.
Click to expand...
No one ever addresses the due process and "innocent until proven guilty" aspects, either... which just reinforces in my mind even more that people who prattle on about responsibility and law & order the most really don't give a crap about it.
 
radcen said:
Sounds like something a stupid person would do. Two stupids don't make a smart.
Click to expand...
I do so enough to scare people to driving better. I watch carefully to accelerate before being hit.

Yes, I can see how my particular habit can be thought of as stupid. I simply do not like people violating my safety zone. I force them to realize that if I had to make an emergency stop, that they would have hit me. If they don't understand that, then not much else I can do.
 
radcen said:
No one ever addresses the due process and "innocent until proven guilty" aspects, either... which just reinforces in my mind even more that people who prattle on about responsibility and law & order the most really don't give a crap about it.
Click to expand...

You have the right to go to court and fight it. many people do.

Now, if you think there is some elaborate scheme where they have CGI your face onto another driver, I am all ears.

I know there are a few (not all) of the intersections that have red light cameras that I feel much safer since they were placed. Too many close calls.

I do agree with a prior poster that the company in charge of the cameras should get a flat rate. They should have no financial incentive to play games with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom