• 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!

Should DUI checkpoint and red light cam apps be banned?

Should DUI checkpoint and red light cam apps be banned?

  • Only the DUI checkpoint app should be banned.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    37
People may be able to see me, but I still retain the right to secure myself, my papers and property against unlawful, unreasonable search and seizure.

^^ There is the soundbyte again.

Yet still no explanation to what Ikari THINKS this means, in a legal sense.

Also, I noticed you added the word "unlawful" to the text of the 4th amendment.
 
Not that I can see. It appears in general to be a gross violation of the 4th, and clearly an unreasonable search of my person which I am most certainly allowed to protect against such things.

Probable cause is ALWAYS needed for the government to act.

Its not a search of your person......

I think the argument you were actually looking for was "It is an unreasonable seizure"

Do I have to make your arguments for you?

Hint: Probable cause is not always needed for the government to act. The text of the 4th says "unreasonable search and seizure" then mentions that no warrants shall be issued except upon probable cause. Don't string the two together. For a police officer to make a traffic stop, he/she requires "REASONABLE SUSPICION" (opposed to "unreasonable" which would be a violation of the 4th).
 
Last edited:
.
.
.
.


Damn idiot drivers.......
.
.
.

You just changed the entire scenario. How intellectually dishonest of you.

THAT article you posted makes the city department of transportation responsible for creating hazardous driving conditions... in THOSE 6 CITIES.

The red light camera, in an of itself, is not the cause of the less safe conditions at the intersections that have had yellow light duration shortened.
 
You just changed the entire scenario. How intellectually dishonest of you.

No.....you placed all the blame on the "idiot drivers"......I threw in the enlightenment for free......

THAT article you posted makes the city department of transportation responsible for creating hazardous driving conditions... in THOSE 6 CITIES.

Those 6 Cities......where the yellow light times were looked at.

The red light camera, in an of itself, is not the cause of the less safe conditions at the intersections that have had yellow light duration shortened.

Of course.......even if the yellow light time was 1 second.....its all the "idiot driver's" fault.
.
.
.
 
No.....you placed all the blame on the "idiot drivers"......I threw in the enlightenment for free......



Those 6 Cities......where the yellow light times were looked at.



Of course.......even if the yellow light time was 1 second.....its all the "idiot driver's" fault.
.
.
.

Really? Is this all you have to come back with?

Your original argument was that the red light cameras create rear end collisions.
Then you decided to add an element of areas where yellow light durations have been reduced by a city's department of transportation in order to nab more money.
You see, in this situation, the red light camera system is still what it is, it is the shortening of the yellow light duration that is causing the "harm".

In a situation where a red light camera has been placed in an intersection and a person reacts over-cautiously because of it, It is not the fault of the red light camera. It is the fault of a poor decision on an individual driving a motor vehicle. And this situation holds true if no other changes except the installation of a red light camera system are made. By adding the yellow light reduction factor in, you are essentially moving the goal posts in order to make your point. Yet your original point is still not made, as the red light system, itself, is not the cause of the decreased traffic safety at these intersections.


Don't worry, I find that it is pretty standard for people to excuse an incident that is an individual's responsibility in favor of blaming someone else for the problem. I think that is what is wrong with society today.

The fact is, and refute it however you'd like to try.... A red light camera system is not responsible for a person's poor judgement in slowing down too late/rapidly at a red light. Nor is it responsible for a person slowing down and stopping with several seconds of yellow light to spare, causing the person behind them to rear end them because that person was ready to move through the intersection on a yellow light. These are all choices of the individuals involved, and not the fault of a mechanical system, of which the knowledge of this system may have had a FACTOR in the decision making process.
 
^^ There is the soundbyte again.

Yet still no explanation to what Ikari THINKS this means, in a legal sense.

Also, I noticed you added the word "unlawful" to the text of the 4th amendment.

I wasn't quoting the 4th directly. Try a bit of honesty in your arguments please. Also, any rational and intelligent individual knows what I wrote and what it means. It means that if you want to search me or take any of my stuff before you can intercede you first must have probable cause. Jesus Christ, I can't believe this has to be explained to an adult.
 
Its not a search of your person......

I think the argument you were actually looking for was "It is an unreasonable seizure"

Do I have to make your arguments for you?

Hint: Probable cause is not always needed for the government to act. The text of the 4th says "unreasonable search and seizure" then mentions that no warrants shall be issued except upon probable cause. Don't string the two together. For a police officer to make a traffic stop, he/she requires "REASONABLE SUSPICION" (opposed to "unreasonable" which would be a violation of the 4th).

You are searching my person if you want to determine that I am drunk. If I show signs of being drunk observed by the police, that's one thing. They are well within their power to pull me over. If I do not, then they have no rightful reason to pull me over.

You don't have to make my arguments for me because then the arguments would be dumb. So please keep your hands off. Jesus, now the police even want to take our ideas and thinking processes.
 
Ive arrested over 200+ DWI Offenders. Ive NEVER had someone be charged nearly 10,000 bucks.

One's private attorney fees are not the problem of the state.

That's because you want to be dishonest about it. Even without attorney, you can get up to 6 or 7 thousand dollars. While an attorney may not be the "problem of the state", it is still money which is spent by someone arrested for DUI. Try a bit of honesty please.
 
Official Website Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Those are DUI Laws for Florida. To me, it seems too lenient. I do not want drunk drivers around me. People drive like idiots enough as it is! I live in a college town and know plenty of people who drive after drinking. I won't drive around 2 am on a Friday or a Saturday. Any day that is a drinking holiday, such as cinco de mayo and st patricks day, I won't drive at any time. I think we should do anything we can to keep drunks off the road. I also agree that people shouldn't text while driving but that is harder to control. Someone could be looking at their GPS or ignoring a call or heck even just looking down at your lap momentarily.

Then you really aren't about safety. Texting and driving IS more dangerous than drunk driving.

Once again, drunks may cause 29% of traffic accidents - but sober idiots cause the other 71% - including people who text while driving.

The fact that you dismiss texting and driving because "it's harder to control" proves you're only out to get some people because propaganda has declared them criminals, while you dismiss people who are more dangerous (and probably more prevalent) because you think that law would be inconvenient.

Get those people (you disdain them); but those more dangerous people, well...we don't have time for them. Besides, they're like the people I know, so they can't be criminals (until they kill someone).

Drinking and driving is bad. Yes. No one denies that. But your attitude and our present laws don't reflect a true concern for safety...
 
.
.
.
.


Damn idiot drivers.......
.
.
.

I love people who pose as "small government" on one hand, but who applaud big government on the other.

The yellow light timing is something that is supposed to be set by safety standards based on posted speed limit and size of the intersection. A four-way stop between two two-way streets where the speed limit is 30 mph, would have a much shorter yellow time than an Y-intersection between three four-lane street with a 40 mph speed limit.

If the various city departments are violating the safety standards, then this would be a huge issue. If they're still within safety ranges, then there really isn't a big deal.

I would, however, argue that the local government is messing with something potentially dangerous. People who drive routes on a daily basis have a tendency to drive drive by feel (whether they should or not), changing things on them can create dangerous situations - unless you're posting a warning. If you post warnings that things have changed, people actually have a tendency to be safer.
 
Actually you can contest a violation.
Red-light Safety Camera Program | City of Fort Worth, Texas
Contesting a Violation

If, after viewing your video at www.ViolationInfo.com, you feel a violation does not exist, you may contest the violation in writing by completing the coupon on the back of your notice and returning it back by the due date. All contests must be made in writing.

The vehicle owner will be notified in writing of the date, time and location of the hearing. If the vehicle owner is found liable or fails to appear, the civil penalty must be paid within 30 days. No additional fees will be added.

If you receive a notice of violation for a vehicle you do not own or was reported stolen at the time of violation, submit an affidavit of non-liability by the due date. Affidavits are available at www.ViolationInfo.com and must be completed, notarized, and mailed to:
Violation Processing Center
P.O. Box 59995
Phoenix, AZ 85076-9995

If you have sold the vehicle, visit the Texas Department of Transportation Web site to ensure your vehicle's title was properly transferred.

Doesn't putting reflectorized tape over thenumbers on the plate make this a moot point? If the camera can't see the number it can't send the violation.
 
I think there are legitimate reasons to run a red light. If the person behind you isn't going to stop or slow down and you think you may get hit, then going through the light while it is almost red (i.e. on yellow but towards the end of the yellow, where you would end up in the middle of the intersection when the light turns red). People often get tickets for making a legal right turn as tessa mentioned. There are a few other reasons as well. When the camera takes a picture of you and you get a ticket a few days later you may not remember what happened and even if you do, how can you prove it. Now I am in favor of speeding cameras and DUI checkpoints(although I haven't given much thought to this one, so my opinion might change). To the person who said that it proves your car ran it not you... If someone is driving your car, it is your responsibility. Period. Thats the way the law works and don't loan your car to someone you don't trust. If they run a red light make them pay it.

Now to the apps, I am on the fence about it. I know for red light cameras at least in this area, there is a sign that says that this intersection is photo enforced or something like that. I think it even says it on my GPS. I don't think people should be drinking and driving so anyway cops can get people that are doing it, I say go for it. Banning these apps though seems wrong but I can't explain why I think that.

Does that only apply to cars?

If you loan your buddy your rifle and he kills somebody while he is hunting, should you go to jail instead of him?

There is no legal basis for your point.
 
I have two issues with this post. First, no law that prevents citizens from sharing locations of a checkpoint or camera. Maybe not particularly in this case, but there was a speed trap on a road and my mom tried to alert other drivers by flashing her lights. A cop saw her and gave her a ticket. I would think the same law she broke would apply in this situation as well.

Second, the money grabbing. If you choose to break the law, you should pay. People keep complaining that the state has no money and they keep cutting important programs but no one is willing to find ways to gain money or cut anything. What is wrong with charging people that break the law more money to deter them from continuing to put other people in danger?

Did your mother plead not guilty and what was the outcome when she did?
 
Doesn't putting reflectorized tape over thenumbers on the plate make this a moot point? If the camera can't see the number it can't send the violation.


Whoa and if you get caught doing that...........
 
Whoa and if you get caught doing that...........

Caught doing it? It is invisible at street level but makes the numbers unreadable from above.

Who says you can't put a layer of tape on your plate to protect it from the elements? I beleive the law says that nothing can be on the plate that obstructs the view of the numbering. The tape doesn't.

Besides if the govt is going to use tactics such as this, they should not be surprised when people try to protect themselves from it.
 
Caught doing it? It is invisible at street level but makes the numbers unreadable from above.

Who says you can't put a layer of tape on your plate to protect it from the elements? I beleive the law says that nothing can be on the plate that obstructs the view of the numbering. The tape doesn't.

Besides if the govt is going to use tactics such as this, they should not be surprised when people try to protect themselves from it.

I'm not a lawyer and I would check in your State to see what the details are.
 
You are searching my person if you want to determine that I am drunk. If I show signs of being drunk observed by the police, that's one thing. They are well within their power to pull me over. If I do not, then they have no rightful reason to pull me over.

You don't have to make my arguments for me because then the arguments would be dumb. So please keep your hands off. Jesus, now the police even want to take our ideas and thinking processes.

So you consider it a "search" to look at someone? No, thats called plain view. And odors are a part of plain view.

You are missing the correct word.....
 
You are searching my person if you want to determine that I am drunk. If I show signs of being drunk observed by the police, that's one thing. They are well within their power to pull me over. If I do not, then they have no rightful reason to pull me over.

You don't have to make my arguments for me because then the arguments would be dumb. So please keep your hands off. Jesus, now the police even want to take our ideas and thinking processes.

You don't have to explain **** to me. I work within these rules every day according to what the courts see them as. You just read them and repeat them over and over without ever even bothering to mention what they actually mean.
 
That's because you want to be dishonest about it. Even without attorney, you can get up to 6 or 7 thousand dollars. While an attorney may not be the "problem of the state", it is still money which is spent by someone arrested for DUI. Try a bit of honesty please.

Dishonest? The decision to hire counsel or to just plea guilty is on the individual.

I have never seen someone who represented themselves get a harsher sentence than someone who payed an attorney $7,000 just to have the attorney tell the judge they are guilty.

Thinking that an attorney will make your sentence lighter in all cases is just assinine.

Thinking its the state's responsibility how much a private attorney charges you for his/her representation is also asinine.

You try a bit of honesty please. Your (not you specifically) attempt to "get off" of a crime that you very well committed (and then failure to do so resulting in even more cost to you) is not the state's problem.
 
Then you really aren't about safety. Texting and driving IS more dangerous than drunk driving.

Once again, drunks may cause 29% of traffic accidents - but sober idiots cause the other 71% - including people who text while driving.

The fact that you dismiss texting and driving because "it's harder to control" proves you're only out to get some people because propaganda has declared them criminals, while you dismiss people who are more dangerous (and probably more prevalent) because you think that law would be inconvenient.

Get those people (you disdain them); but those more dangerous people, well...we don't have time for them. Besides, they're like the people I know, so they can't be criminals (until they kill someone).

Drinking and driving is bad. Yes. No one denies that. But your attitude and our present laws don't reflect a true concern for safety...

29% of all traffic accidents is pretty bad when you consider that a MUCH MUCH lower percentage of the driving public than 29% ever have any alcohol in their system. Not to mention this 29% comes at a time when typically fewer cars are on the roadway anyhow. (Yes, I know, not all the time, but im not speaking in absolutes)

As for the rest of your comments.... The poster was right... Texting while driving is hard to control.

Police Officers don't have their vehicle's on autopilot.... we have to be able to control our vehicle safely as well. This can't be done if we are trying to stare at Hugetits McGee over there to see whether she is texting or dialing 911.

Then of course, there is the problem of, outside of viewing somenoe doing it (and not crashing our own car trying to do so) we have to rely on.... admission.

As Ive explained to Ikari before, the "Texting While Driving" law will appear to be a smashing sucess in bringing down the number of crashes attributed to texting while driving because now that it is illegal, many people who would have otherwise admitted to texting while driving as the reason why they made a mistake and hit another vehicle are now going to attribute it to some other form of distraction that is not yet illegal. Making the reported number of texting while driving crash incidents lower, and the law will look like a smashing sucess.
 
Doesn't putting reflectorized tape over thenumbers on the plate make this a moot point? If the camera can't see the number it can't send the violation.

Illegal.
....
 
Police Officers don't have their vehicle's on autopilot.... we have to be able to control our vehicle safely as well. This can't be done if we are trying to stare at Hugetits McGee over there to see whether she is texting or dialing 911.


A buddy of mine got hit by a cop the other day while the cop was doing something on his computer.
 
Then you really aren't about safety. Texting and driving IS more dangerous than drunk driving.

Once again, drunks may cause 29% of traffic accidents - but sober idiots cause the other 71% - including people who text while driving.

The fact that you dismiss texting and driving because "it's harder to control" proves you're only out to get some people because propaganda has declared them criminals, while you dismiss people who are more dangerous (and probably more prevalent) because you think that law would be inconvenient.

Get those people (you disdain them); but those more dangerous people, well...we don't have time for them. Besides, they're like the people I know, so they can't be criminals (until they kill someone).

Drinking and driving is bad. Yes. No one denies that. But your attitude and our present laws don't reflect a true concern for safety...

How do you suggest we stop people from texting and driving? So we make a law that says you cannot text and drive. How do you enforce this? How do you know if someone is texting versus calling 911 or watching their GPS. You give me a legitimate way to enforce this I will whole heartedly jump on your side of this.
 
How do you suggest we stop people from texting and driving? So we make a law that says you cannot text and drive. How do you enforce this? How do you know if someone is texting versus calling 911 or watching their GPS. You give me a legitimate way to enforce this I will whole heartedly jump on your side of this.

Exactly.

Outside of the rare instance of seeing someone with a flip out keyboard phone having the phone in keyboard mode while it rests at the top of their steering wheel thumbing away at it, we aren't going to know whether someone is texting or not. Not to mention its difficult for a law enforcement officer to keep good control over his/her own vehicle while examining the interior of another vehicle that closely while moving on the road.
 
Back
Top Bottom