• 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
APACHERAT said:
These traffic enforcement cameras are actually private sector companies who run and operate them. Big time political contibutors.
Here in California a law enforcement officer will review the photo and or sign off or reject it. Most of the time they sign off on the photo and you get a ticket in the mail.

If you want to fight the ticket in the Great Socialist State of California, you have to post bail before you can even show up in court to plead not guilty and challenge the ticket. The bail is the fine and court cost if you are found guilty. A $100 ticket with a $350 court cost, it cost you in cash $450 to fight the ticket.

You have to pay the fine and court cost before you can contest the ticket.

If you do prevail and are found not guilty, you'll get a check in the mail returning your bail, 3 to 6 months down the road.

That's why I love Mexifornia so much. California didn't pull this #### thirtyfive years ago.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know a whole lot about this state of yours. California is one of the leading states in taking down red light cameras. Many of the major cities, including LA and San Diego, have already stopped using them. And there was just a ruling from the state appellate court restricting greatly how much the camera could be used in convicting someone of running a red light, basically saying they would need more. And I cannot find anything at all that says you have to pay to fight a red light ticket. Can you provide anything to support this?

Dan Walters: Red-light cameras under siege in California - Dan Walters - The Sacramento Bee
 
People who choose not to follow the law are the ones who complain the most about it.
 
roguenuke said:
You obviously don't know a whole lot about this state of yours. California is one of the leading states in taking down red light cameras. Many of the major cities, including LA and San Diego, have already stopped using them. And there was just a ruling from the state appellate court restricting greatly how much the camera could be used in convicting someone of running a red light, basically saying they would need more. And I cannot find anything at all that says you have to pay to fight a red light ticket. Can you provide anything to support this?

Dan Walters: Red-light cameras under siege in California - Dan Walters - The Sacramento Bee
Click to expand...

Show me exactly where I don't know a whole lot about Mexifornia.

You never contested a traffic ticket before ?

If you are issued a ticket you don't show up in a court room in California but stand in a long line at the county court clerks office to either pay your fine or post bail so you can face a judge and plead not guilty and ask for a trial.

The bail equals the fine and court cost. The court cost usually being many times more than the fine. If you want to contest the ticket and go to trial, the court cost increases.

It's a racket. It's someones idea to make it to expensive for someone to fight a ticket. It's cheaper to just pay the fine instead of missing two days of work. If you fight a ticket and lose in the court room, the fine is still the same but the court cost is higher than if you just paid the fine and court cost in the begaining.

As for the "Capital of the Third World" aka Los Angeles. The "do as I say not as I do" leftist on the city council proved that they were a bunch of hypocrites. You may remember that the Los Angeles city council don't believe that elected officials or any government agency should uphold and defend the Constitution or that any state should enforce federal laws.

So when the State of Arizona decided to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law the liberals in California had a meltdown. Los Angeles went even further, they boycotted doing business with any company located in Arizona. But as usual, liberals never take the time to think what will be the consequences.

Los Angeles City Council Makes Exemption to Arizona Boycott for Lucrative Traffic Camera Contract

>" Los Angeles council members voted Wednesday to make an exemption to its self-imposed boycott of Arizona, opting to extend a contract with an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections -- a program that earned the city $6 million last year.

Los Angeles has led the boycott against Arizona over its controversial immigration law, banning most city travel to the state as well as future contracts with Arizona companies. The city council has argued that the law, which allows local law enforcement to check the immigration status of any suspected illegal, is unconstitutional and could lead to racial profiling.

But council members on Wednesday made an exception to their boycott, voting to extend a lucrative contract with red-light camera operator American Traffic Solutions, based in Scottsdale..."<

continue -> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...migration-law-boycott-traffic-camera-dispute/
 
I think automated fine-generation devices in general should be abolished. Humans should have to observe, document, and charge the offense.
 
They are EXTREMELY dangerous. There is NO standard for yellow-light time, so the only choice if a light turns yellow is to slam on your brakes. The last time in Tampa we were nearly rear ended and nearly rear ended another car due to signs advising of red-light cameras.

Why not, instead, have GPS and cellular added to the black box of all cars - and then everyone could be mailed 10, 20, 50 tickets per month. Plus put tracking chips in people to detect jay walking.
 
joko104 said:
Why not, instead, have GPS and cellular added to the black box of all cars - and then everyone could be mailed 10, 20, 50 tickets per month. Plus put tracking chips in people to detect jay walking.
Click to expand...
Why even do that? If we're willing to assign tickets/fines to the owner of a vehicle without know or caring who the actual driver was, why don't we just send everybody a ticket? I don't care who you are, if you drove, you violated a traffic law at some point.
 
Phys251 said:
People who choose not to follow the law are the ones who complain the most about it.
Click to expand...

There are people who want the government watching everything they do to protect them from themselves. There are always people who hate and fear freedom, other people and even themselves. Those people essentially declare the government is their "God" and therefore "laws" are the will of their god.

I seriously doubt the American revolution was not due to colonists being outraged that the King of England wasn't regulating and policing them enough. It amazes me how many Americans now rage against personal freedom and privacy on behalf of wanting an all-seeing police state.
 
DC made quite a bit of money off of us on our last trip. We had several tickets in the mailbox awaiting our arrival home. All were done with cameras (they showed the shots) done in the wee hours in the morning as we were arriving. I think we had a few bad turns due to being unfamiliar with the roads. One was saying we went over the speed limit which was 35 miles an hour (we were going 43) because there were virtually no cars out on the road at 3 am. I won't be going back again if I can help it. A little common sense would be nice.
 
APACHERAT said:
Show me exactly where I don't know a whole lot about Mexifornia.

You never contested a traffic ticket before ?

If you are issued a ticket you don't show up in a court room in California but stand in a long line at the county court clerks office to either pay your fine or post bail so you can face a judge and plead not guilty and ask for a trial.

The bail equals the fine and court cost. The court cost usually being many times more than the fine. If you want to contest the ticket and go to trial, the court cost increases.

It's a racket. It's someones idea to make it to expensive for someone to fight a ticket. It's cheaper to just pay the fine instead of missing two days of work. If you fight a ticket and lose in the court room, the fine is still the same but the court cost is higher than if you just paid the fine and court cost in the begaining.

As for the "Capital of the Third World" aka Los Angeles. The "do as I say not as I do" leftist on the city council proved that they were a bunch of hypocrites. You may remember that the Los Angeles city council don't believe that elected officials or any government agency should uphold and defend the Constitution or that any state should enforce federal laws.

So when the State of Arizona decided to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law the liberals in California had a meltdown. Los Angeles went even further, they boycotted doing business with any company located in Arizona. But as usual, liberals never take the time to think what will be the consequences.

Los Angeles City Council Makes Exemption to Arizona Boycott for Lucrative Traffic Camera Contract

>" Los Angeles council members voted Wednesday to make an exemption to its self-imposed boycott of Arizona, opting to extend a contract with an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections -- a program that earned the city $6 million last year.

Los Angeles has led the boycott against Arizona over its controversial immigration law, banning most city travel to the state as well as future contracts with Arizona companies. The city council has argued that the law, which allows local law enforcement to check the immigration status of any suspected illegal, is unconstitutional and could lead to racial profiling.

But council members on Wednesday made an exception to their boycott, voting to extend a lucrative contract with red-light camera operator American Traffic Solutions, based in Scottsdale..."<

continue -> Los Angeles City Council Makes Exemption to Arizona Boycott for Lucrative Traffic Camera Contract | Fox News
Click to expand...

I've never had a license, so no, I've never contested any tickets before. This is why I asked for actual evidence, not simple anecdotal accounts because it could just be your experience with your area, not how it works across California or even in most places. And even if it did work that way here, is that different than everywhere else or most other places?

And that was in 2010. I provided evidence that much of California and especially its major cities, have stopped using red light cameras. And the case was after 2010 as well.
 
joko104 said:
They are EXTREMELY dangerous. There is NO standard for yellow-light time, so the only choice if a light turns yellow is to slam on your brakes. The last time in Tampa we were nearly rear ended and nearly rear ended another car due to signs advising of red-light cameras.

Why not, instead, have GPS and cellular added to the black box of all cars - and then everyone could be mailed 10, 20, 50 tickets per month. Plus put tracking chips in people to detect jay walking.
Click to expand...

You are supposed to be slowing down to stop for a yellow light anyway, not going faster. And yes, there is a standard. There is a minimum a light has to remain yellow by law.
 
It is interesting to note that many of those who support traffic cameras are also those who vociferously defend their Constitutional rights... especially 2nd Amendment rights... yet are so willing and even happy to voluntarily forfeit their right to proper due process. We complain about the courts chipping away at our Constitutional rights, then we turn around and hand over some of them without a fight.
 
Phys251 said:
People who choose not to follow the law are the ones who complain the most about it.
Click to expand...

radcen said:
Shouldn't those who claim to honor the intent of our system of due process also properly follow the law instead of seeking ways around it?
Click to expand...

I think there's a bigger issue than that.

Laws are supposed to be for the benefit of the people. We enact laws, and set up mechanism to enforce them, in the hopes that people will obey these laws, and by doing so, create a safer, more orderly society in which everyone's rights and everyone's legitimate interests are protected.

Here, we have a situation where laws and enforcement mechanisms are set up in the hope that people will be caught violating them, so that government can use this as an excuse to fine them. The profit is motive, not safety or order. For government to take part in this sort of practice is pure corruption.
 
roguenuke said:
I've never had a license, so no, I've never contested any tickets before. .
Click to expand...

Well maybe some day a San Diego cop will issue you a ticket for crossing the street against the "don't walk" signal and you were already 1/4 the way across the street when the signal changed fron walk to don't walk.

You'll ask the cop how much is this ticket going to cost me ? He'll tell you the fine is $45. So you decide to fight the ticket so you show up at the county court house. You are informed the fine is $45. and $150. court cost. $195. !!!

You tell the court clerk bull ####, I want to plead not guilty and I want a trial. The clerk informs you that you have to post bail to go to trial. The bail will be equal to the fine plus $300 court cost. $345. :eek:
 
APACHERAT said:
Most traffic enforcement cameras are operated by private companies who get a percentage of the fines paid. These companies are big political donors to politicians, especially Democrats.

The standard rule of thumb ( did I just used a politically incorrect phrase, "rule of thumb" that the Obama administration has labeled to be a sexist term ? I guess I did.)
But I digress.
The rule of thumb is when a traffic signal changes from green to yellow before turning red, the yellow signal is suppose to be set for being illuminated one second for every 10 mph for what ever the maxim speed limit is.

30 mph = 3 seconds.
35 mph = 3.5 seconds.
45 mph = 4.5 seconds.

Here in California it was discovered that the Democrat controlled municipal governments in collusion with the companies that provided and operated the cameras changed the duration of the yellow signals usually from .5 to 1 second. The cameras will take a picture of any vehicle which has entered or passed the line with in 1/1000th of a second when the signal turned red.
Click to expand...

If those responsible for setting tragic light timing really cared about safety rather than revenue generation, there's something very obvious that I've noticed a a deficiency.

I've never seen an intersection where the yellow light duration was adequate to insure that even if traffic stopped as it reasonably could in response to a yellow, that the intersection would be clear when the light turned red. At the same time that the light turns red, a conflicting light immediately turns green, possibly with the last one or two cars from the previous direction still in the intersection. It's common enough, when the light at which I am stopped turns green, for me to have to wait a second or two for the cross traffic to clear, before I start moving.

Why don't they allow a few seconds, between the time one light turns red, and the next one turns green? Make sure cross traffic has had a reasonable chance to clear before the next traffic is allowed to move through. This simple, obvious change, would do much, much more to promote safety than anything that anyone can even think of claiming these red-light cameras could do.

I think the answer, of course, is obvious. The change which I propose would do nothing to generate additional revenue for a corrupt city government.
 
APACHERAT said:
Well maybe some day a San Diego cop will issue you a ticket for crossing the street against the "don't walk" signal and you were already 1/4 the way across the street when the signal changed fron walk to don't walk.

You'll ask the cop how much is this ticket going to cost me ? He'll tell you the fine is $45. So you decide to fight the ticket so you show up at the county court house. You are informed the fine is $45. and $150. court cost. $195. !!!

You tell the court clerk bull ####, I want to plead not guilty and I want a trial. The clerk informs you that you have to post bail to go to trial. The bail will be equal to the fine plus $300 court cost. $345. :eek:
Click to expand...

Since I don't do that, it won't happen. I obey the laws. In fact, I get quite pissed when I see people cross the street in the middle of traffic. Living in Hawaii, I saw way too many instances where people were or almost were hit by cars. I was hit by a car while 5 months pregnant that wasn't looking while leaving a parking lot, then he yelled at me and drove away. I was almost hit by a bus there that decided it didn't have to stop for a red light. And the red light was not even close to yellow. I could see the walk signal on the other side before the bus blew right through. I expect people to obey traffic laws to the absolute best of their ability.

Oh, and you apparently have no idea how pedestrian laws work. As long as the walk is up there when you start to cross, they cannot give you a ticket for jaywalking, no matter if the blinking hand or don't walk is up (provided you are not purposely holding up traffic).

You are the one not providing anything to back it up. You aren't even providing me information about it. Not all tickets are $100.
 
Supreme Court ruling on redlight and speeding cameras:

US Supreme Court Upsets Speed Camera Industry

However, in real terms it is all but impossible for most people to contest a traffic ticket. Most courts will require you appear 2 or 3 times, and those who are pleading not-guilty often are made to sit in court all day - then to be told the case dismissed because the officer didn't appear. But most working people can't take 2 or 3 days off work - and even if so will lose more pay than the ticket costs.

And that assumes an in-town ticket. If you are traveling and out of state, it is essentially impossible to contest a ticket unless you are willing and able to fly/travel to the city 2 or 3 times - and then you better get a jury trial as municipal judges particularly are employees of the local government.

Control freaks who want the government to watch and regulate everyone about everything all the time simplify the issue to their presumption that everyone accused is guilty, that laws are perfect and the robo-cops can't make mistakes. I've commented on how easy it would be to set anyone up for endlessly more tickets and computer cops do make mistakes - such as those people who get bills for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in toll fees for a computer glitch.

Redlight and speeding camera systems are nearly or entirely computer systems down to the mailing of the tickets. Traffic tickets are CRIMINAL cases for which a person can be arrested and jailed - solely because a computer says someone in a car that seems to have your license plate committed a traffic offense as a computer printout.

These robo-cops are basically fully automated and run by non-law enforcement for-profit companies that take a percentage of each ticket. Often they are out of state companies with no one available to verify anything under oath or cross examination. There is no incentive for accuracy nor any safeguards. In short, a non-law enforcement company provides unverified computer data declaring you a criminal for which there is no realistic way to contest or even have a trial without hundreds or thousands of dollars in expenses even if you win. But paranoid, control freaks who want total government control of everyone don't care about any of that. They don't leave their houses much and don't want anyone else to do so either in my opinion.
 
roguenuke said:
You are supposed to be slowing down to stop for a yellow light anyway, not going faster. And yes, there is a standard. There is a minimum a light has to remain yellow by law.
Click to expand...

The only option with redlight cameras is to slam on your brakes if the light turns yellow unless you are already in the intersection. Since all cars are supposed to be far enough back to stop if the car in front slams on their brakes then doing slamming on the brakes is the correct legal course of action. That is what we do if we see a redlight camera and the light turns yellow before we enter the intersection. Regardless, we have insurance. If someone slams into the back of us then they have to pay for the damages as obviously they should be far enough back and attentive enough to stop. Hopefully their vehicle has as much safety equipment and as good of brakes as ours do.

We are not going to risk getting a mailed-ticket because municipal government has decided to make people decide between safety and getting a ticket. If the municipal government has decided to endanger peoples' lives for ticket profits, that's their decision. There are other instances where I see people deliberately endangered by law enforcement/the legal system for the purpose of trying to get traffic ticket money.
 
Every study shows that redlight cameras dramatically increase the number of accidents.

Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It

But some municipal governments would kill and criminal any number of people to get more money for themselves - and people who want control-freak government will always support any thuggery by government.
 
joko104 said:
Supreme Court ruling on redlight and speeding cameras:

US Supreme Court Upsets Speed Camera Industry

However, in real terms it is all but impossible for most people to contest a traffic ticket. Most courts will require you appear 2 or 3 times, and those who are pleading not-guilty often are made to sit in court all day - then to be told the case dismissed because the officer didn't appear. But most working people can't take 2 or 3 days off work - and even if so will lose more pay than the ticket costs.

And that assumes an in-town ticket. If you are traveling and out of state, it is essentially impossible to contest a ticket unless you are willing and able to fly/travel to the city 2 or 3 times - and then you better get a jury trial as municipal judges particularly are employees of the local government.

Control freaks who want the government to watch and regulate everyone about everything all the time simplify the issue to their presumption that everyone accused is guilty, that laws are perfect and the robo-cops can't make mistakes. I've commented on how easy it would be to set anyone up for endlessly more tickets and computer cops do make mistakes - such as those people who get bills for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in toll fees for a computer glitch.

Redlight and speeding camera systems are nearly or entirely computer systems down to the mailing of the tickets. Traffic tickets are CRIMINAL cases for which a person can be arrested and jailed - solely because a computer says someone in a car that seems to have your license plate committed a traffic offense as a computer printout.

These robo-cops are basically fully automated and run by non-law enforcement for-profit companies that take a percentage of each ticket. Often they are out of state companies with no one available to verify anything under oath or cross examination. There is no incentive for accuracy nor any safeguards. In short, a non-law enforcement company provides unverified computer data declaring you a criminal for which there is no realistic way to contest or even have a trial without hundreds or thousands of dollars in expenses even if you win. But paranoid, control freaks who want total government control of everyone don't care about any of that. They don't leave their houses much and don't want anyone else to do so either in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Do you ever get your facts right? The case was not about red light cameras, as your scource clearly states if you had actually read it. The case was about lab analysis of drug evidence. While the ruling may impact red light camera cases in that those who certify them can be called as witnesses, it is not about them.

Most of the rest of your hyperbole ridden post is just hilariously stupid. You clearly have no clue as to the motivations of others.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
Are you aware that traffic enforcement cameras are designed primarily to steal people's money rather than enhance safety?

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?

Did you know that cameras cause more accidents than they prevent?

Would you like to abolish any of these?

Do you have many cameras in your neighborhood?

Have you received any (or many) tickets from cameras?
Click to expand...


they ain't goin' anywhere... they are great revenue generators with little overhead
it's just a simple reality that revenue generation is at the top of government's priority list.

I see the little cameras all the time, I pass a dozen or more when I go into town for shopping (I live in the sticks.)
we don't have a problem with accidents or "public safety" at these intersections, but we have the cameras nonetheless...there's money to be "made"
 
roguenuke said:
You are supposed to be slowing down to stop for a yellow light anyway, not going faster. And yes, there is a standard. There is a minimum a light has to remain yellow by law.
Click to expand...

Quote the law that everyone is supposed to "slow down" at every intersection with a traffic light. How slow? 5 mph? 10 mph? It is discrepancies in speed that causes far more accidents than people speeding. Speeding by itself never causes an accident and few people deliberately run a redlight. :roll:
 
roguenuke said:
Oh, and you apparently have no idea how pedestrian laws work. As long as the walk is up there when you start to cross, they cannot give you a ticket for jaywalking, no matter if the blinking hand or don't walk is up (provided you are not purposely holding up traffic).
.
Click to expand...

That's why in my scenario one would fight the ticket. They were already 1/4 of the way across the street when the light changed. The cop saw it differently. Maybe it was close to the end of the month and the cop had to make his quota for the month ? Some municipalities police departments do have quotas that their officers must meet.

Considering all of the problems you have encountered navigating the sidewalks and crossing streets while walking, I suggest you don't start driving a car.;)
 
Redress said:
Do you ever get your facts right? The case was not about red light cameras, as your scource clearly states if you had actually read it. The case was about lab analysis of drug evidence. While the ruling may impact red light camera cases in that those who certify them can be called as witnesses, it is not about them.

Most of the rest of your hyperbole ridden post is just hilariously stupid. You clearly have no clue as to the motivations of others.
Click to expand...

Your getting hysterical and insulting about facts you don't like is just degrading yourself. In doing so, you enforce one point I am making about people who want control-freak government.
 
joko104 said:
Every study shows that redlight cameras dramatically increase the number of accidents.

Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It

But some municipal governments would kill and criminal any number of people to get more money for themselves - and people who want control-freak government will always support any thuggery by government.
Click to expand...

And again you get your facts wrong. PolitiFact Florida | Rick Kriseman says red light cameras change driver behavior, reduce most dangerous crashes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom