• 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?

  • Neither should be banned.

    Votes: 20 54.1%

  • Both should be banned.

    Votes: 13 35.1%

  • Only the DUI checkpoint app should be banned.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Only the Red Light came app should be banned.

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • I do not know know/maybe/other

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Total voters
    37
winston53660 said:
A buddy of mine got hit by a cop the other day while the cop was doing something on his computer.
Click to expand...
It happens... Ive nearly hit folks myself once or twice...

I hit a deer once while checking pending calls holding.... thankfully it was only at 28mph.
 
Mason66 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Both your car and your gun are registered to you. Unless you can provide concrete evidence you were not using your gun at the time then yes you probably would go to jail instead of him. Whether that is right or not is not up to me.

I worked for a toll service in Florida and spoke to many people who had received tickets for running the toll booths which end up costing you over $100 if you don't pay them. You can contest the ticket but every person who I had spoken to said they had not successfully contested it. The fact is, when you run the toll they run the license tag through the system first to make sure you are a customer. If you are not, they request who the license tag is registered to from the DMV. Then they send you the ticket in the mail. It is just how things work. Now if you can prove you were not driving at the time, then the other person would be responsible if it is verified. So keep proof and you should be A-Okay.

To your other question about the ticket, I am not certain she contested it. She was going through a divorce at the time so I think she just paid to avoid any more stress.

To the reflective tape question, check out the link someone posted to the Mythbusters episode, it wont work.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
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...
Click to expand...

NC passed a no texting law. Quickly found out that phones are used for lots more than texting. I have GPS on my phone, it's not illegal to enter an address in the GPS. I have to punch numbers to make a call exactly as if I were texting, also not illegal. This led to officers asking to look at the phone and checking text logs. They found out quickly this IS illegal and they can't force a person to surrender their phone. People have a legitimate legal reason to be typing on their phone, so no reasonable suspicion exists. Figure the odds the text would still exist if they waited for a warrant.

Score one for the freedom lovers.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. If this is what you are doing, regardless of whether you're texting or entering a GPS code to get to your destination - you are a dangerous driver. As dangerous or MORE dangerous than a drunk driver.

If you believe that drunk drivers should be arrested and jailed for first-time offenses and NOT those who are fiddling with their phones - then your righteous anger against people who drink and drive is hollow.

You're excusing one behavior while punishing another.

And most of you aren't getting my point: I think the punishments for drinking and driving are ridiculous. You have to spend 48 hours in jail, drive on a restricted license, do 24-hours of roadside litter pickup...This is all without having done anyone any harm.

But do something more dangerous - as proven in multiple studies - and you're only going to get a slight fine. No biggie.

The only law I would pass, were I to get into the state legislature is that I would make operating a handheld cellphone in any way shape or form punishable equal to a DUI; and same with multiple offenses. I would then leave it up to the people who have passed the draconian laws and fines to then properly adjust things so they make sense and don't treat one driver making a bad decision different from another; when they are equally dangerous on the roads.

Caine, do you believe in "Texting Road Blocks"?
 
winston53660 said:
A buddy of mine got hit by a cop the other day while the cop was doing something on his computer.
Click to expand...

Destracted driving is not a crime if you're part of the government. It's only a crime if you're a regular citizen.
 
Caine said:
Illegal.
....
Click to expand...

How is the statute worded making transparent tape illegal?

It does not obstruct plain view of the digits so why would it be illegal?
 
Caine said:
Really? Is this all you have to come back with?
Click to expand...

Poking holes in every aspect of your argument wasnt enough?

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".
Click to expand...


Intersections become more dangerous when Red Light Cameras are installed......

.......so what is the purpose behind them again?

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
Click to expand...
.

So the cameras are not the cause.........its just coincidence collisions increase tenfold after they are installed.


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.
Click to expand...

And as stated before.........a yellow light with a 1 second duration........and you would still blame the drivers and their poor judgement.
.
.
.
.
 
Neither should be banned. The legal system has no right to tell a private company they can't make an application that compiles user information on where cops generally pull people over, or one that shows where red lights are. This isn't a police state.
 
Phoenix said:
NC passed a no texting law. Quickly found out that phones are used for lots more than texting. I have GPS on my phone, it's not illegal to enter an address in the GPS. I have to punch numbers to make a call exactly as if I were texting, also not illegal. This led to officers asking to look at the phone and checking text logs. They found out quickly this IS illegal and they can't force a person to surrender their phone. People have a legitimate legal reason to be typing on their phone, so no reasonable suspicion exists. Figure the odds the text would still exist if they waited for a warrant.

Score one for the freedom lovers.
Click to expand...

Yes. Score one for unsafe drivers!

However... doing ANYTHING on your phone outside of talking on it is in violation of the statute...

I suggest you check the statute in NC again.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
Doesn't matter. If this is what you are doing, regardless of whether you're texting or entering a GPS code to get to your destination - you are a dangerous driver. As dangerous or MORE dangerous than a drunk driver.

If you believe that drunk drivers should be arrested and jailed for first-time offenses and NOT those who are fiddling with their phones - then your righteous anger against people who drink and drive is hollow.

You're excusing one behavior while punishing another.

And most of you aren't getting my point: I think the punishments for drinking and driving are ridiculous. You have to spend 48 hours in jail, drive on a restricted license, do 24-hours of roadside litter pickup...This is all without having done anyone any harm.

But do something more dangerous - as proven in multiple studies - and you're only going to get a slight fine. No biggie.

The only law I would pass, were I to get into the state legislature is that I would make operating a handheld cellphone in any way shape or form punishable equal to a DUI; and same with multiple offenses. I would then leave it up to the people who have passed the draconian laws and fines to then properly adjust things so they make sense and don't treat one driver making a bad decision different from another; when they are equally dangerous on the roads.

Caine, do you believe in "Texting Road Blocks"?
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe in texting roadblocks. Its an asinine idea.

You can stop texting... You can't just stop being drunk at will.
 
Mason66 said:
How is the statute worded making transparent tape illegal?

It does not obstruct plain view of the digits so why would it be illegal?
Click to expand...

The statute specifically makes it illegal to cover or otherwise conceal or attempt to conceal the registration number plate from view or preventing a the taking of a clear photograph.

Something along those lines... Its not one I write often so I don't have it memorized.... Maybe when I get to work I'll look it up in my handy little blue book and post the exact citation language from my phone.... BUT NOT WHILE DRIVING! :)
 
Badmutha said:
Poking holes in every aspect of your argument wasnt enough?
Click to expand...
You didn't poke holes in my argument.. you CHANGED yours.




Intersections become more dangerous when Red Light Cameras are installed......

.......so what is the purpose behind them again?
Click to expand...
Intersections that have their yellow light durations reduced due to a money grab by the department of transportation and city become more dangerous when the YELLOW LIGHT DURATION IS REDUCED. This is an independent act that while associated with the installation of the red light camera, is not the CAUSE of the red light camera ITSELF.
How is this so hard to understand?


.

So the cameras are not the cause.........its just coincidence collisions increase tenfold after they are installed.
Click to expand...
Its called ****ty judgement by individual drivers due to paranoia of the red light camera. If they treat the intersection like a normal law abiding citizen would, there would be no problems. But they don't.




And as stated before.........a yellow light with a 1 second duration........and you would still blame the drivers and their poor judgement.
Click to expand...
WTF Does this have to do with the red light camera? NOTHING! Here you are proving that your entire argument is based around the yellow light duration being reduced and NOT the red light camera in an of itself. That does not match your original argument, of which you seem to be backpeddling.
 
Mason66 said:
How is the statute worded making transparent tape illegal?

It does not obstruct plain view of the digits so why would it be illegal?
Click to expand...

NCGS 20-63(g)
Cover or cause to be covered a part or portion of the vehicle registration plate or letters or figures by a device designed or intended to prevent or interfere with the taking of a clear photograph by a traffic control system camera.
 
DUI checkpoints involve law enforcement officials stopping every vehicle or every nth vehicle, so drivers are stopped without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.
Reasonable suspicion requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.
DUI checkpoints meet neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion requirements.

US Constitution – Bill of Rights – 4th Amendment
The California Constitution – Article 1 – Section 13 mirrors the 4th Amendment
In the 1750s, 60s, etc., the English authorities had almost unlimited power and hardly any oversight which brought general searches, general warrants, and general seizures. DUI checkpoints use ‘general seizures.’ The 4th Amendment was intended to protect us against these types of situations.
This is about individual liberty vs. the unchecked power of the state.
The app is not illegal nor is making such information public.


Red Light cameras are a joke. They are nothing but revenue generators for the state. It’s not about fewer collisions caused by drivers running through intersections…in Los Angeles 80% of photo tickets are for right-turn violations. It’s a sneaky way to raise revenue without raising taxes.
The Red Light Cam apps save people’s wallets from the vacuum of the state.
 
peepnklown said:
DUI checkpoints involve law enforcement officials stopping every vehicle or every nth vehicle, so drivers are stopped without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.
Reasonable suspicion requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.
DUI checkpoints meet neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion requirements.

US Constitution – Bill of Rights – 4th Amendment
The California Constitution – Article 1 – Section 13 mirrors the 4th Amendment
In the 1750s, 60s, etc., the English authorities had almost unlimited power and hardly any oversight which brought general searches, general warrants, and general seizures. DUI checkpoints use ‘general seizures.’ The 4th Amendment was intended to protect us against these types of situations.
This is about individual liberty vs. the unchecked power of the state.
The app is not illegal nor is making such information public.


Red Light cameras are a joke. They are nothing but revenue generators for the state. It’s not about fewer collisions caused by drivers running through intersections…in Los Angeles 80% of photo tickets are for right-turn violations. It’s a sneaky way to raise revenue without raising taxes.
The Red Light Cam apps save people’s wallets from the vacuum of the state.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, like seat belt laws this too is nothing more than a revenue generator especially in the state of CT. You can be stopped and fined for not wearing your seat belt, yet you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet legally in the state of CT. Just about all traffic laws are about revenue because if it were about safety a demerit system and governors on the vehicles would be more likely to promote safety.
 
I popped on here the other night and quickly voted incorrectly. I hadn't been keeping up again. RIM (Blackberry fame) apparently pulled an app from their site that showed DWI checkpoints, red light cameras, and speed traps because 4 senators complained about people using the app to evade law enforcement.

So, I looked for a third party app and found this one: Speed Trap Sharing System - Trapster
It's community orientated. There are almost 12 million users ATT. I added a red light camera that's by my house that wasn't being shown. It's a really cool program. It gives out voice audio warnings. I've got Bill Clinton's voice warning me now but I think I'll D/L the Yogi and Boo-Boo voice warnings later today.
Glad I could help!

Edit: Trapster has D/Ls for most smart phone platforms.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
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...
Click to expand...

I had this thought last night (and this morning as I have to drive an hour while really tired!). Tired drivers are just as dangerous as someone with a 0.8 BAC probably even more but if you made it a law that you cant drive while sleepy, you would have no one on the road. And that one actually is impossible to enforce. Should we do that as well? The law is meant to protect people and that is what it is doing with the DUI laws but there are some things that you just can't enforce.
 
Ooops.

The Mayor accidentally clicked "no".

Under the First Amendment it's not lawful for the government to ban them.

Under the Fourth Amendment, DUI checkpoints are illegal.

As for red light cameras, they serve primarily as profit centers for local governments, and the fact that the cities runnin the things typically reduce the yellow light timing to increase scores should be a factor for every lawsuit brought against the city for injuries suffered by anyone at any red light in the city, monitored or not, because red light cameras cause people to hurry, not slow down, at lighted intersections when the warning yellow is lit.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
I had this thought last night (and this morning as I have to drive an hour while really tired!). Tired drivers are just as dangerous as someone with a 0.8 BAC probably even more but if you made it a law that you cant drive while sleepy, you would have no one on the road. And that one actually is impossible to enforce. Should we do that as well? The law is meant to protect people and that is what it is doing with the DUI laws but there are some things that you just can't enforce.
Click to expand...

No.

The DUI laws are meant to raise revenues, first, and protect people, second. Also, DUI isn't even close to being the largest cause of vehicular accidents. Eating, interacting with passengers, and cell phone, radio, and other distractions all create a higher incidence of accidents.

DUI is a politically popular target because no one defends it. No legislature is ever going to pass a law forbidding EWD (Eating While Driving), or TTYPWD (Talking To Your Passenger While Driving), and the cell phone industry was ecstatic when the control freaks decided that cell phones could be targeted for revenue raising. The cell telephone industry has made a secondary fortune marketing "hands-free" gadgets.

Everytime a political hack decides something needs more regulation, try to find out who's getting the money.
 
Driving while intoxicated is illegal for a reason. It is very dangerous. Just because other dangerous activities while driving that SHOULD be illegal are not illegal is not a logical argument to make it LEGAL to drive a car while intoxicated. DWI laws are necessary.

Also, there is no fourth amendment violation with DWI checkpoints. You do not have a right to drive and you are driving on public property which is regulated by the government. The government has a right to make sure that you are operating in a safe and legal manner on the public streets.
 
ludahai said:
Also, there is no fourth amendment violation with DWI checkpoints. You do not have a right to drive and you are driving on public property which is regulated by the government. The government has a right to make sure that you are operating in a safe and legal manner on the public streets.
Click to expand...

Hogwash. It's a cliche that driving is a privilege. It is a right. The only way it can be denied you is via the court system by legislated mandate. That sounds like a right to me.
That point aside, merely being on public property (roads) doesn't give the government the ability to ignore your rights.
AND the government doesn't have rights, citizens do. The government has an "obligation" to make sure people are operating in a safe manner.
 
ludahai said:
Driving while intoxicated is illegal for a reason. It is very dangerous. Just because other dangerous activities while driving that SHOULD be illegal are not illegal is not a logical argument to make it LEGAL to drive a car while intoxicated. DWI laws are necessary.

Also, there is no fourth amendment violation with DWI checkpoints. You do not have a right to drive and you are driving on public property which is regulated by the government. The government has a right to make sure that you are operating in a safe and legal manner on the public streets.
Click to expand...

Care to quote anyone stating that DUI should be legal?

Also, the DUI checkpoints are indeed a violation of the Fourth. No probable cause exists to stop every car or every third car, or whatever. Probable cause means the operator of the vehicle is demonstrating inadequate control of his vehicle and poses a safety threat to others.

But, glad to see you'll be eager to learn how to goose-step and salute the new fuhrer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom