• 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
joko104 said:
They don't ticket cars and "driving is a privilege" is a slogan that is not based in law or court rulings. Overall it is a nonsensical slogan.
Click to expand...
Really? Then why do you need a warrant to come in to my home, but not start poking around my car? Its called a diminished right of privacy in your car vs your home.
 
CRUE CAB said:
You are the cop, look at your own stats. Easy enough.
You brought the emergency deal into it not me, so dont deflect.
Click to expand...


There are no such stats. Just slogans such as "speed kills." Speed doesn't kill. But to some people, slogans are truisms. In my opinion, slogans are for the mentally lazy and easily manipulated people.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Really? Then why do you need a warrant to come in to my home, but not start poking around my car? Its called a diminished right of privacy in your car vs your home.
Click to expand...

The right to search a car varies from state to state. There are circumstances where no warrant is needed to search a car. There are circumstances where no warrant is needed to search a house either.
 
joko104 said:
The right to search a car varies from state to state. There are circumstances where no warrant is needed to search a car. There are circumstances where no warrant is needed to search a house either.
Click to expand...

And the standards for no warrant searches are way different car vs home.
In a home the reasonable suspision of bodily harm. In a car anything in plain view, any suspicious activity by the driver or passenger.
You still have failed to answer my question. How many people have died in a true emergency from not speeding to a hospital?
And just what do you want people to do if they are followed while speeding by a police officer? Just keep going? Hope they get to the hospital before being Pit-ed or blocked in?
Just let them run red lights? Ignore school zones? Because they have an emergency? Is it really an emergency or just some over blown hypochondriac with a sore throat?
 
joko104 said:
They don't ticket cars and "driving is a privilege" is a slogan that is not based in law or court rulings. Overall it is a nonsensical slogan.
Click to expand...
Driving is a privilege. Nothing about it is a right. Show me where in the constitution where its a right.
 
CRUE CAB said:
And the standards for no warrant searches are way different car vs home.
In a home the reasonable suspision of bodily harm. In a car anything in plain view, any suspicious activity by the driver or passenger.
You still have failed to answer my question. How many people have died in a true emergency from not speeding to a hospital?
And just what do you want people to do if they are followed while speeding by a police officer? Just keep going? Hope they get to the hospital before being Pit-ed or blocked in?
Just let them run red lights? Ignore school zones? Because they have an emergency? Is it really an emergency or just some over blown hypochondriac with a sore throat?
Click to expand...

Since your messages generally are about your wanting more government control and less freedom, it stands to reason you think the burden of proof is upon those opposing government restraints and imprisonments. I think the opposite. Regardless, you may be the only person who would allow someone to die because you would be unwilling to not come to complete stop at every stop sign and would not go over 25 while taking someone in life threatening medical trauma to the hospital. Since I doubt there are other people like you, there can't be any stats. That you WOULD let someone die to not commit a traffic offense should how totally devoted to government as you "God" that you are. You 'd let a child die rather than drive over 25 mph in a 25 mph zone. I suspect you are the only person who would.

BUT there are millions and millions of speeding tickets. SO, by YOUR logic, you should be able to easily provide proof of how many people have died or been in accidents for going 80 to 85 in a 70 mph Interstate zone.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Driving is a privilege. Nothing about it is a right. Show me where in the constitution where its a right.
Click to expand...

Another nonsensical statement. Show me where breathing is a right in the constitution.
 
CRUE CAB said:
The Fourth Amendment covers that. It does not apply to your car.
One is a right the other a privilege.
Click to expand...

Yet the government cannot search your car without a warrant. Our rights still exist even when engaging in privileges.

Our 6th Amendment rights to face our accuser are not altered just because we drive motorized vehicles on regulated road systems and are issued license to drive on those roads as a privilege.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-591.pdf

Mechanical devices are not perfect at all times. While the camera may show a vehicle in a intersection it may have not been a traffic violation at the time. Often traffic lights malfunction. It used to be that traffic lights were pretty reliable with only issues with bulbs going out or if the power is cut. Now with computer processors being used failures happen a lot more. SDOT review reveals traffic signals 'trending toward failure' | www.kirotv.com

What defense do drivers have in determining if the ticket was valid or not?
 
joko104 said:
Since your messages generally are about your wanting more government control and less freedom, it stands to reason you think the burden of proof is upon those opposing government restraints and imprisonments. I think the opposite. Regardless, you may be the only person who would allow someone to die because you would be unwilling to not come to complete stop at every stop sign and would not go over 25 while taking someone in life threatening medical trauma to the hospital. Since I doubt there are other people like you, there can't be any stats. That you WOULD let someone die to not commit a traffic offense should how totally devoted to government as you "God" that you are. You 'd let a child die rather than drive over 25 mph in a 25 mph zone. I suspect you are the only person who would.

BUT there are millions and millions of speeding tickets. SO, by YOUR logic, you should be able to easily provide proof of how many people have died or been in accidents for going 80 to 85 in a 70 mph Interstate zone.
Click to expand...
So, you have nothing to back your statement with? Good.
 
CRUE CAB said:
And the standards for no warrant searches are way different car vs home.
In a home the reasonable suspision of bodily harm. In a car anything in plain view, any suspicious activity by the driver or passenger.
You still have failed to answer my question. How many people have died in a true emergency from not speeding to a hospital?
And just what do you want people to do if they are followed while speeding by a police officer? Just keep going? Hope they get to the hospital before being Pit-ed or blocked in?
Just let them run red lights? Ignore school zones? Because they have an emergency? Is it really an emergency or just some over blown hypochondriac with a sore throat?
Click to expand...

No the standards not different. If you let the police into your home without a warrant anything in plain sight is fair game. Even if you don't let him in anything he can see from the front door is fair game.
 
I wouldn't mind the cameras so much if their flash-bulbs (or whatever they call their light-giving devices these days) weren't so bright. That quick flash really hurts the eyes, thus making it harder for good drivers to see, thus possibly causing accidents.
 
CRUE CAB said:
The Fourth Amendment covers that. It does not apply to your car.
One is a right the other a privilege.
Click to expand...

The 4th amendment certainly applies to cars. There is no question about that.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
Did you know that cameras cause more accidents than they prevent?
Click to expand...
How could this possibly be proven?

I have no problem with the cameras or with funding a portion of the government through ticketing irresponsible drivers.

If speed limits are unreasonable in a specific area, that might be a different story.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Driving is a privilege. Nothing about it is a right. Show me where in the constitution where its a right.
Click to expand...

Ninth amendment would cover driving. States can curtail the right drive based on your demonstrated ability to not exercise the right safely. They cannot arbitrarily deny you the right.

And in case it matter little. Even if it was privilege and not a right it would have zero bearing on your 4th amendment rights.
 
CRUE CAB said:
The Fourth Amendment covers that. It does not apply to your car.
One is a right the other a privilege.
Click to expand...

Your car is your property. The fourth amendment applies to property.
 
Gaius46 said:
The 4th amendment certainly applies to cars. There is no question about that.
Click to expand...
No, it doesnt.
"Sir, will you exit your vehicle?" "Why, we would like to look around real quick". "You got a warrant?" "No, why would I need one" "Its my right". "OK, turn around hands on our head, you will be transported to our office while the warrant is called in."It will take an hour or so".
Before that, a dog will be called to hit on anything we find. If we find ANYTHING you will be charged immediatly. "but but..." "You have the right to remain silent. Keep that in mind".
 
Henrin said:
Your car is your property. The fourth amendment applies to property.
Click to expand...
It does not pertain to a conveyance. And if your car is found to be in the use to carry illegal goods, ie guns, drugs, people etc. Your car can and will be taken as evidence and good luck getting it back. If you are not in jail at the time of the police auction, you can go buy it back.
 
Gaius46 said:
Ninth amendment would cover driving. States can curtail the right drive based on your demonstrated ability to not exercise the right safely. They cannot arbitrarily deny you the right.

And in case it matter little. Even if it was privilege and not a right it would have zero bearing on your 4th amendment rights.
Click to expand...
Dont pay a ticket and see how much calling it a right works for you in court.
 
CRUE CAB said:
No, it doesnt.
"Sir, will you exit your vehicle?" "Why, we would like to look around real quick". "You got a warrant?" "No, why would I need one" "Its my right". "OK, turn around hands on our head, you will be transported to our office while the warrant is called in."It will take an hour or so".
Before that, a dog will be called to hit on anything we find. If we find ANYTHING you will be charged immediatly. "but but..." "You have the right to remain silent. Keep that in mind".
Click to expand...

Again what does that have to with anything? In certain circumstances the police don't need a warrant to enter your home either.

The fact is that the police cannot legally search your car without your permission or a warrant. And if they do you have a possibility of getting anything they found tossed. The fact that the police game the system sometimes doesn't bear on what your rights are.
 
Gaius46 said:
Again what does that have to with anything? In certain circumstances the police don't need a warrant to enter your home either.

The fact is that the police cannot legally search your car without your permission or a warrant. And if they do you have a possibility of getting anything they found tossed. The fact that the police game the system sometimes doesn't bear on what your rights are.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can enter your home with out a warrant. I have said, just a few posts before some of the reasons they can. But for your car you have a "diminished expectaion of privacy".
 
joko104 said:
A politician making a statement does not consitute a fact.

From your own link:

"But the lengthy report omitted facts later reported by the Tampa Bay Times, such as the fact that rear-end wrecks at intersections with red light cameras jumped 44 percent and overall crashes at those intersections increased 10 percent compared to the previous year."

The "report" he cites in your link was from a "consultant.":roll:
Click to expand...

Also from my link:

Both sides of the camera debate tout a plethora of research espousing their opinions.
Click to expand...

This disproves your claim that "Every study shows that redlight cameras dramatically increase the number of accidents.". You do not get to just make **** up. You will get called on it. If you cannot debate honestly you are going to be embarrassed like this alot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom