• 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
Lord of Planar said:
If a vehicle stops in front of you, and that scares you, you must have been following too close!

Have you ever paid attention to the whole picture of traffic signals?

First off, there is usually a pause between the red of one direction, to the green and walk of the other. Even when there isn't, it still takes time for a pedestrian or car to accelerate.

I haven't heard a single argument that doesn't sound like any better of an excuse than "my dog ate my homework."

I am infuriated by drivers who think they are the only ones that matter on the roadways. There are other methods of "traffic quelling" that bother me, but not red light cameras.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand your view is that if a pedestrian steps in front of your vehicle or a car stops while you are in an intersection, you'll run over the pedestrian or slam into the car ramming it out of the intersection because you are not afraid to comply with law. :roll

Or is it that you are pretending that pedestrians wait for the "walk" sign and cross only within the cross walk and that no cars actually every run a red light IF they are coming the other way in a love affair with robo-camera cops no-matter-what.

What has not been seen is you or anyone explaining how a person can avoid a redlight camera ticket with certainty UNLESS there are not other vehicles at or near the intersection, no pedestrians, and you stop and wait for the light to cycle thru to green again.
 
I think I was photoed last week. The flash went off but I'm not sure it was photoing me. I cover my face with my hand at this location looking through my fingers. The camera is on a 6 lane highway with wide shoulders and wide islands and a ridiculous 45 limit. The camera is where a small town's borders, El Mirage, intersects a few feet of this highway. I'm so glad that this town is so concerned about my safety. It makes everyone be ready to apply their breaks for it. The poor drivers that don't know about the camera get to test their brakes since the drivers that know it's there apply their brakes.
Note that all the cameras Phoenix has on its freeways have been removed a few years ago due to the fact that some argued, with data, that they were increasing the number of crashes. ( BTW get off the damn phone and drive. )
 
I make a retarded face and pick my nose every time I drive past one of those cameras.
 
radcen said:
How do we know you don't do that all the time?
Click to expand...

I also do that in self-portraits that I take on every trip... I am making retarded looking spaze faces while picking my nose in some terrific spots around the world. Paris. Monaco. All ove rthe USA. The Yukon. Fiji. Mexico. Hong Kong. Auckland. Sydney. Disneyland. Hanoi. Canada. It is a really great collection.

At Disneyland as my daughter drives Utopia.

IMG_0417.jpg
 
They are reducing the length of yellow on traffic lights to increase red light camera tickets. Florida takes in $100,000,000.00 a year.

It's not enough. So they are shortening the length of yellow, which insures that people will reach lights were they either slam on their brakes or risk the ticket. Since you have no way to know how long the yellow will last, slamming on your brakes is the only option to avoid a ticket.

There is about nothing Florida will not do to endanger people if it gets money from tickets.
 
joko104 said:
They are reducing the length of yellow on traffic lights to increase red light camera tickets. Florida takes in $100,000,000.00 a year.

It's not enough. So they are shortening the length of yellow, which insures that people will reach lights were they either slam on their brakes or risk the ticket. Since you have no way to know how long the yellow will last, slamming on your brakes is the only option to avoid a ticket.

There is about nothing Florida will not do to endanger people if it gets money from tickets.
Click to expand...

Prove that they are changing the length of yellow lights.

Show a credible source from the state of FL showing the change in light times.

I call BS on this information.
 
joko104 said:
They are reducing the length of yellow on traffic lights to increase red light camera tickets. Florida takes in $100,000,000.00 a year.

It's not enough. So they are shortening the length of yellow, which insures that people will reach lights were they either slam on their brakes or risk the ticket. Since you have no way to know how long the yellow will last, slamming on your brakes is the only option to avoid a ticket.

There is about nothing Florida will not do to endanger people if it gets money from tickets.
Click to expand...
I suggest people learn to drive.
 
SMTA said:
Prove that they are changing the length of yellow lights.

Show a credible source from the state of FL showing the change in light times.

I call BS on this information.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't surprise me if the length of yellow was being shortened, but I have never seen one so short that it was dangerous. Some yellows are too long. The problem is when people rely on a length of yellow they don't have. That is their failure in my opinion. When you see yellow, if you can make a non-emergency stop, then do so. If not, then keep going. If eyes were on a text message... who's fault is that?
 
longview said:
I don't know how credible the source, but this Tampa TV station
had a lot of info in their story.
Florida's red-light camera intersections issuing more tickets after yellow light times quietly reduced | wtsp.com
Click to expand...
Interesting.

A 2011 law change striking "whichever was greater," but still requiring a safe time, which was then changed again almost a year ago requiring a 1.4 second reaction time instead of 1.0.

This disproves post 406, or at least shows that Joko is using outdated information.
 
Lord of Planar said:
in my opinion. When you see yellow, if you can make a non-emergency stop, then do so.
Click to expand...
If the yellow light is only one second this can easily still result in you getting a ticket.
 
longview said:
I don't know how credible the source, but this Tampa TV station
had a lot of info in their story.
Florida's red-light camera intersections issuing more tickets after yellow light times quietly reduced | wtsp.com
Click to expand...

They have also reduced the time to less than federal standards so the danger factor is quite real. There is no manner for anyone to know how long the yellow light will last.

When there is a major accident or fatality, I hope the State of Florida is sued over this.
 
if the ticket does not come directly from the city municipal or state law enforcement I have started tossing them. Most of them are in rental cars anyway and in states that do no cooperate with mine. These contractors that send these out have no recourse for collection without a conviction anyway and they know it.
 
IN RECENT court decision, An Ohio Common Pleas judge ruled (after issuing preliminary injunctions) that the Village Elmwood Place actions of using cameras to issue tickets was unconstitutional and has ORDERED the village to refund the moneys so collected. The Village apparently cannot since it spent a lot of the windfall


Great ruling-puts a nail in the coffin of these revenue gathering schemes masquerading as traffic safety.
 
TurtleDude said:
IN RECENT court decision, An Ohio Common Pleas judge ruled (after issuing preliminary injunctions) that the Village Elmwood Place actions of using cameras to issue tickets was unconstitutional and has ORDERED the village to refund the moneys so collected. The Village apparently cannot since it spent a lot of the windfall


Great ruling-puts a nail in the coffin of these revenue gathering schemes masquerading as traffic safety.
Click to expand...

Yea, I read about that.

It's BS that the cameras usage is driven by revenue generation as opposed to safety.
 
SMTA said:
Yea, I read about that.

It's BS that the cameras usage is driven by revenue generation as opposed to safety.
Click to expand...


I am a bit confused

1) are you saying that the Town was really motivated by safety

2) or the Town was Full of it claiming it was a for safety
 
TurtleDude said:
IN RECENT court decision, An Ohio Common Pleas judge ruled (after issuing preliminary injunctions) that the Village Elmwood Place actions of using cameras to issue tickets was unconstitutional and has ORDERED the village to refund the moneys so collected. The Village apparently cannot since it spent a lot of the windfall


Great ruling-puts a nail in the coffin of these revenue gathering schemes masquerading as traffic safety.
Click to expand...

I was just forming the thought that perhaps the private companies that operate these red-light camera scams could be subject to lawsuits on charges related to fraud, extortion, and something akin to “impersonating a police officer”. That last, on the basis that not being a legitimate government agency, they have no genuine law-enforcement authority, and yet are claiming or at least implying such authority; and in any event, extortion if they threaten any consequences for failing to pay the ticket (since, not being a government agency, they have no authority to impose any such consequences), and fraud, because the authority on which they issue the tickets is false, along with any claimed authority to impose any penalty for failing to pay.

But I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. What do you think, Turtledude?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I was just forming the thought that perhaps the private companies that operate these red-light camera scams could be subject to lawsuits on charges related to fraud, extortion, and something akin to “impersonating a police officer”. That last, on the basis that not being a legitimate government agency, they have no genuine law-enforcement authority, and yet are claiming or at least implying such authority; and in any event, extortion if they threaten any consequences for failing to pay the ticket (since, not being a government agency, they have no authority to impose any such consequences), and fraud, because the authority on which they issue the tickets is false, along with any claimed authority to impose any penalty for failing to pay.

But I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. What do you think, Turtledude?
Click to expand...

Private companies-by definition, would be operating with government approval.
 
TurtleDude said:
Private companies-by definition, would be operating with government approval.
Click to expand...

But they are not accountable to the people, as government theoretically is. Surely very large part of any authority that government has to enact and enforce laws (if not the entirety of this authority) is derived from its role as a servant and representative of the people that are thus governed, and from the accountability that this government is supposed to have to the people. A private company is not representative of the people, and is not accountable to the people. The people cannot vote officials into or out of office within that company; and cannot vote regarding that company's policies.

I say that government cannot legitimately delegate any of its authority in such a manner, to any outfit, agency, or company that is not accountable to the people. I say that this authority cannot legitimately exist separated from the accountability and representation that applies exclusively to government; and that government, therefore, cannot legitimately delegate this authority to any non-government organization.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
But they are not accountable to the people, as government theoretically is. Surely very large part of any authority that government has to enact and enforce laws (if not the entirety of this authority) is derived from its role as a servant and representative of the people that are thus governed, and from the accountability that this government is supposed to have to the people. A private company is not representative of the people, and is not accountable to the people. The people cannot vote officials into or out of office within that company; and cannot vote regarding that company's policies.

I say that government cannot legitimately delegate any of its authority in such a manner, to any outfit, agency, or company that is not accountable to the people. I say that this authority cannot legitimately exist separated from the accountability and representation that applies exclusively to government; and that government, therefore, cannot legitimately delegate this authority to any non-government organization.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me, but good luck with that.

The same could also be said even of government in the sense that government creates agencies and departments and committees that creates rules and regulations that we are expected to live under while these agencies and departments and committees are appointed and not actually answerable to the people.
 
radcen said:
Makes sense to me, but good luck with that.

The same could also be said even of government in the sense that government creates agencies and departments and committees that creates rules and regulations that we are expected to live under while these agencies and departments and committees are appointed and not actually answerable to the people.
Click to expand...

Yes, it certainly could. And to some degree, I think my point applies there as well.

Ultimately, everything that government legitimately does, every power and authority that it legitimately claims, it does as a representative of the people.

We, the people, delegate to government that power which is rightfully ours, to exercise on our behalf. Government only functions legitimately when it functions according to this principle, and with full accountability to the people for how it exercises this power.

It is nothing new that government seeks, in its corrupt state, to try to evade accountability, and to exercise power over us that we, the people, did not willingly delegate to it.

But I think there is a particular line being crossed, when government delegates our power to a private company, to be used against us, and with no accountability whatsoever to us. At this point, no basis remains on which to claim that this power, or any exercise thereof, still has any legitimacy.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Rotaries (called traffic circles in my parts) are HORRIBLE and can cause more accidents because of the issues with merging.
Click to expand...
When people grow up with them they are actually MUCH safer than signaled intersections. The problem we're currently having is a lack of experience with them. Our children (or grandchildren, for those of us that are older) will handle them just fine when they grow up and be safer for it.


Personally, I hate the damn things, too! But I didn't grow up with them. It's hard to break 40+ years of driving habits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom