• 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!

Speed Cameras

Are Speed Cameras legal, effective, and used to promote public safety?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14

Cally

Active member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
360
Reaction score
57
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Several weeks ago, my car was photographed supposedly speeding on a highway while passing a tractor trailer. I was traveling behind another car whose license plate was blocked because of the angle of the camera as both of our vehicles passed the truck. I was able to access the video through a website called “photonotice.com” Unfortunately, I found the ticket only recently in a pile of junk mail, and I did not have the time to schedule a court date. I attempted to call customer service to explain my situation, but in mid conversation, the phone call was conveniently disconnected. I ended up paying the fine which was $50 for speeding 68mph in a 55mph speed zone. I just don’t have the time to deal with this bs. However, after the fact I decided to research speed cameras and their validity as a law enforcement tool.

So even though speed cameras are illegal in my state and in several other states, in cities and counties where contracts already existed for the cameras- they are exempted from the law. Can unpaid tickets cause legal issues? Apparently they don't in most cases. However, they can **** with your credit. And when I say "they" I mean the scum sucking ****wads of Redflex. This Australian based company has a rather lengthy history of bribery and corruption. I personally think that such a company should not be able to damage someone’s credit when the entire basis for issuing a traffic violation is not only illegal but nonsensical.

First, there is no actual cop issuing a ticket to an actual person. There is a camera using radar and taking a picture of a vehicle which is supposedly constituting “evidence.” The traffic violation and process of issuing a citation is faulty. Essentially, the ticket is being issued to a vehicle since no actual interaction occurred between a police officer and civilian. The owner of the vehicle is cited, but the onus is on the government to prove who was driving the vehicle. Apparently, these crappy cameras supposedly don’t take pictures of the motorist in question. And when I read the brochure Redflex offers to its customers, it stated that only 1% of people who receive these tickets actually go to court. Bastards-- they know that most people do not have the time or inclination to bother challenging the ticket. And when people don't pay, they threaten them with collection letters and eventually **** up their credit.

How much of a deduction will a person’s credit take if the ticket goes unpaid? It depends on the credit score, but the better your credit, the more points may be deducted. According to the Washington Post: “Someone with a 680 score could lose roughly 50 points from the addition of a collection of this nature,” Paperno said. [a spokesman for FICO] “For someone with a 780 score — very, very good credit — the appearance of one of these collections could lower their score by as much as 105 to 125 points.”

Here are some sources of information about Redflex:

Redflix conniving, corrupted money-making scheme

Redflex bastards on trial

I also read about how to defeat speed cameras, and most methods have been shown to be ineffective. Certain covers for license plates can even cause more problems because cops can cite the driver for obstructing the license plate. The most effective methods I have found basically use some type of flashing light or infrared spectrum LED lights placed above the license plate which causes too much light to be reflected back into the lens thus protecting the driver’s identification. I’ll keep looking into it.




Anyone else have experiences with speed cameras?
 
They can't prove who's driving.... so they are unlawful...
 
They can't prove who's driving.... so they are unlawful...

Once got a photo ticket. I showed a twenty something on a Harley.

I am a fifty something and has never owned a Harley.

I tried to explain in a phone call and kept getting told it was my bike, and if I knew who was driving I should tell the local PD.

I told them if that was indeed my bike it was stolen.... And I had no idea who was riding... Went round and round until they checked the DMV records and realized it wasn't my bike.


Then the idiots asked me AGAIN who it was riding.

How the hell should I know I asked... Wasn't my bike. Wasn't me. Wasn't in my county.
 
Bring on the cameras. If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind...except plugging buggers from your nose at a red light.
 
They can't prove who's driving.... so they are unlawful...

It's interesting. In Texas it's a felony for a municipality to send a ticket to a traffic camera violator without including the words "a warrant cannot be issued for failure to pay fine."

I've gotten three and threw them right in the trash.
 
No. These camera systems cannot issue a moving violation citation (aka a traffic ticket) so they do not add points to one's driving record. This means that one only suffers a fine, often less than the amount that would be lost by taking a day off work to challenge the fine, making paying the fine the better deal financially. No points on one's license means no loss of drivng priviliege and no increase in one's vehicle insurance premiums - which means little (no?) real deterent effect. These camera systems are about making money, not detering speeding (red light running) or making the roads any safer.
 
Swedish speed cams take a picture from the front so the driver's face is visible. In the UK they are from the rear, so the driver's face is unseen. What is he position in the US?

The whole speed limits thing is absurd, because they are the same summer and winter. The common 90 kph can be absurdly slow in good weather and visibility but outright dangerous when there is snow and ice on the road.
 
Swedish speed cams take a picture from the front so the driver's face is visible. In the UK they are from the rear, so the driver's face is unseen. What is he position in the US?

The whole speed limits thing is absurd, because they are the same summer and winter. The common 90 kph can be absurdly slow in good weather and visibility but outright dangerous when there is snow and ice on the road.

They have started implementing digital speed limit signs in my area. I wonder if they will eventually start changing the limit on the signs to fit driving conditions.
 
It amazes me how willing people are to be photographed everywhere they go because "if you have nothing to hide.." .. That logic is 100% unconstitutional.
 
Bring on the cameras. If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind...except plugging buggers from your nose at a red light.

The same logic used to support the Patriot act and the TSA. Maybe I don't want some dudes hand down my pants because i just don't want some dudes hand down my pants. Maybe I don't want to be blasted with radiation so strangers can see me naked because I wore clothes for a reason and I don't much care to increase my risks of cancer for no reason.

When in public........

All these ideas you are talking about came from court rulings. There is nothing about expectation of privacy in the Constitution nor anything about there being a difference between public and private places.
 
It amazes me how willing people are to be photographed everywhere they go because "if you have nothing to hide.." .. That logic is 100% unconstitutional.

I don't like it, and I don't see speeding as being a problem as much as other things people do. However, it is the law.

I laugh at threads like this, because it becomes a whine-feast from those who get caught.

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.
 
I don't like it, and I don't see speeding as being a problem as much as other things people do. However, it is the law.

I laugh at threads like this, because it becomes a whine-feast from those who get caught.

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.

Yep, fully admitting doing 68 in a 55, then complaining because they got busted. Lol. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, if he/she was close enough to the vehicle in front to block the speed camera, that should've been another moving violation. ;)
 
I don't like it, and I don't see speeding as being a problem as much as other things people do. However, it is the law.

I laugh at threads like this, because it becomes a whine-feast from those who get caught.

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.
So, even if we don't like it, we're supposed to just roll over like spineless ******s and not say anything?

How does anything get changed for the better if we can't raise awareness and discuss the topic?
 
Yep, fully admitting doing 68 in a 55, then complaining because they got busted. Lol. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, if he/she was close enough to the vehicle in front to block the speed camera, that should've been another moving violation. ;)

Crazy, I know, but some people actually believe in proper due process and the theory of innocent until proven guilty.
 
Several weeks ago, my car was photographed supposedly speeding on a highway while passing a tractor trailer. I was traveling behind another car whose license plate was blocked because of the angle of the camera as both of our vehicles passed the truck. I was able to access the video through a website called “photonotice.com” Unfortunately, I found the ticket only recently in a pile of junk mail, and I did not have the time to schedule a court date. I attempted to call customer service to explain my situation, but in mid conversation, the phone call was conveniently disconnected. I ended up paying the fine which was $50 for speeding 68mph in a 55mph speed zone. I just don’t have the time to deal with this bs. However, after the fact I decided to research speed cameras and their validity as a law enforcement tool.

So even though speed cameras are illegal in my state and in several other states, in cities and counties where contracts already existed for the cameras- they are exempted from the law. Can unpaid tickets cause legal issues? Apparently they don't in most cases. However, they can **** with your credit. And when I say "they" I mean the scum sucking ****wads of Redflex. This Australian based company has a rather lengthy history of bribery and corruption. I personally think that such a company should not be able to damage someone’s credit when the entire basis for issuing a traffic violation is not only illegal but nonsensical.

First, there is no actual cop issuing a ticket to an actual person. There is a camera using radar and taking a picture of a vehicle which is supposedly constituting “evidence.” The traffic violation and process of issuing a citation is faulty. Essentially, the ticket is being issued to a vehicle since no actual interaction occurred between a police officer and civilian. The owner of the vehicle is cited, but the onus is on the government to prove who was driving the vehicle. Apparently, these crappy cameras supposedly don’t take pictures of the motorist in question. And when I read the brochure Redflex offers to its customers, it stated that only 1% of people who receive these tickets actually go to court. Bastards-- they know that most people do not have the time or inclination to bother challenging the ticket. And when people don't pay, they threaten them with collection letters and eventually **** up their credit.

How much of a deduction will a person’s credit take if the ticket goes unpaid? It depends on the credit score, but the better your credit, the more points may be deducted. According to the Washington Post: “Someone with a 680 score could lose roughly 50 points from the addition of a collection of this nature,” Paperno said. [a spokesman for FICO] “For someone with a 780 score — very, very good credit — the appearance of one of these collections could lower their score by as much as 105 to 125 points.”

Here are some sources of information about Redflex:

Redflix conniving, corrupted money-making scheme

Redflex bastards on trial

I also read about how to defeat speed cameras, and most methods have been shown to be ineffective. Certain covers for license plates can even cause more problems because cops can cite the driver for obstructing the license plate. The most effective methods I have found basically use some type of flashing light or infrared spectrum LED lights placed above the license plate which causes too much light to be reflected back into the lens thus protecting the driver’s identification. I’ll keep looking into it.

Anyone else have experiences with speed cameras?
Not so fast (no pun intended)...
Credit Report Settlement Threatens Automated Ticketing Industry

Credit Report Settlement Threatens Automated Ticketing Industry
 
Yep, fully admitting doing 68 in a 55, then complaining because they got busted. Lol. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, if he/she was close enough to the vehicle in front to block the speed camera, that should've been another moving violation. ;)

Wrong again. I guess for some people, it's habit forming. Here is what I said:

"Several weeks ago, my car was photographed supposedly speeding on a highway while passing a tractor trailer. I was traveling behind another car whose license plate was blocked because of the angle of the camera as both of our vehicles passed the truck. I was able to access the video through a website called “photonotice.com” Unfortunately, I found the ticket only recently in a pile of junk mail, and I did not have the time to schedule a court date. I attempted to call customer service to explain my situation, but in mid conversation, the phone call was conveniently disconnected. I ended up paying the fine which was $50 for speeding 68mph in a 55mph speed zone."

The other car was passing at the front end of a twenty feet tractor trailer while I was following it and had not even made it half way past the truck. The angle of the camera would have photographed my vehicle rather than the other one. Also, just because the speed was recorded as such doesn't mean it was accurate. I wouldn't be the first person to question that.

I may have been speeding.. it's certainly possible. But the point that several people are not getting is the due process. Now, apparently police officers are not needed and citing people for violations is automated. I find that to be disturbing.
 
Crazy, I know, but some people actually believe in proper due process and the theory of innocent until proven guilty.

As I said when I agreed with the person who was responding to. I don't agree with the use of speed, red light, etc cameras. But in this case, the OP is fully admitting they broke a couple of laws by driving like an asshole. Then is having a whinefest over getting busted. :shrug:
 
Swedish speed cams take a picture from the front so the driver's face is visible. In the UK they are from the rear, so the driver's face is unseen. What is he position in the US?

The whole speed limits thing is absurd, because they are the same summer and winter. The common 90 kph can be absurdly slow in good weather and visibility but outright dangerous when there is snow and ice on the road.
To put the infraction on a person's driving record the police must follow due process. That means accusing the specific driver, proving it was them, proving they were speeding, and so on. In the early days of speed and red light cameras this was done and most cameras took pictures of the front and the driver's face. This proved problematic, though, as some cars didn't have front license plates, a visor might obscure the face, photo might be blurry, or whatever. The conviction rate was unsatisfactory.

So, they started taking photos of the rear. Every car (just about) has a rear license plate. No worries about visors, etc. The trade-off was that they could no longer put the infraction on the driver's record because they had absolutely no way to prove who was actually driving the vehicle. To still have the cameras and collect the fines legally, they had to reduce it from a moving violation to a civil infraction, which requires no due process or proof, and they went after the owner of the vehicle since that's all they had to go on.

The whole way this played out proves that safety is irrelevant and that revenue is the goal. It's too inconvenient to waste energy going after the actual driver, but they still want the money coming in. If it were really and truly about safety, they'd make sure they punish the driver.
 
Last edited:
As I said when I agreed with the person who was responding to. I don't agree with the use of speed, red light, etc cameras. But in this case, the OP is fully admitting they broke a couple of laws by driving like an asshole. Then is having a whinefest over getting busted. :shrug:

Is expecting proper due process really that unreasonable?
 
Your sister is a wise person. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom