• 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
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think they would claim that the same authority applies to a private company as it applies to an appointed government committee. They would claim that it is done under their authority, which was gained from our authority in electing them. They would claim that anything done by an appointed committee or private company is done under their watchful eye.

I don't buy into that, but that's what I believe their rationalization would be.
 
MoSurveyor said:
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.
Click to expand...

I love them. Especially in low-traffic hours. They let me navigate and go rather than sitting by myself at a red light for several wasteful minutes.

They're really not that hard, either. Like anything else that is new to us, we have to take a few moments to think and learn the nuances.
 
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...
Sadly, our (so far winning) fight over traffic cams was lost last year. It looks like traffic cams will now become a part of traffic enforcement in Missouri. The only upside is the tickets are not "moving violations" and do not go on driving records. They are, essentially, like expensive parking tickets and can be contested in court.


TurtleDude said:
Private companies-by definition, would be operating with government approval.
Click to expand...
In Missouri a peace officer has to review the evidence and issue the citation. He does not have to be paid from government funds for this "service".
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Sadly, our (so far winning) fight over traffic cams was lost last year. It looks like traffic cams will now become a part of traffic enforcement in Missouri. The only upside is the tickets are not "moving violations" and do not go on driving records. They are, essentially, like expensive parking tickets and can be contested in court.
Click to expand...
It's the same here in Iowa.

Makes me wonder: If you were to get a ticket from an actual police officer, and that ticket DOES go on your record, could you contest that ticket as being unequal treatment under the law? Speeding is speeding, isn't it? If so, then I would expect my officer-issued ticket to be treated that same as the camera-issued ticket.

It can't go the other way, either. The reason they make the camera tickets a lower offense is precisely because they cannot meet the standard of due process and all that to qualify for the steeper punishment.


MoSurveyor said:
In Missouri a peace officer has to review the evidence and issue the citation. He does not have to be paid from government funds for this "service".
Click to expand...
Yeah, but how much actual reviewing do you think they do? I'd bet not even enough to remember any details as soon as 2 seconds after they sign off on each one.
 
radcen said:
It's the same here in Iowa.

Makes me wonder: If you were to get a ticket from an actual police officer, and that ticket DOES go on your record, could you contest that ticket as being unequal treatment under the law? Speeding is speeding, isn't it? If so, then I would expect my officer-issued ticket to be treated that same as the camera-issued ticket.

It can't go the other way, either. The reason they make the camera tickets a lower offense is precisely because they cannot meet the standard of due process and all that to qualify for the steeper punishment.
Click to expand...
It's very hard, without other evidence, to prove a blurry picture of a driver is a given person. A police officer that's looking at you and your driver's license at the same time doesn't have that problem. Some red light cams don't even take the pic from the front, they take it from the back, which makes driver identification impossible. Tickets are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle, the first one listed on the title.



radcen said:
Yeah, but how much actual reviewing do you think they do? I'd bet not even enough to remember any details as soon as 2 seconds after they sign off on each one.
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter. When they physically see someone run a red they're only using a couple of seconds of observation - and the punishment is much worse when they see it in person.
 
Place as many camera's as needed for people to start keeping themselves to speed limits etc.

People who complain are usually people who have been ticketed. Well sorry for your damned luck but if you had followed the rules of the road you would not have been ticketed in the first place.

Don't come crying when you have had a speeding ticket, you broke the law so you have to pay the consequence. And no, the "safety only" argument means nothing to me because people who commit speeding offenses on one road will most likely do it on loads of other roads too. But as the police does not have the money for, or the attitude to police everybody on every street, camera's will be put on roads that either have the risk of leading to dangerous accidents or roads where a lot of people break the speed limit.

If you don't want a ticket, don't speed. If you don't want a DUI, don't drink and drive. If you don't want to be ticketed for running a red light, don't run a red light.

The best way to cost the state money? Behave yourself and keep to the speed limits. Don't run red lights, make illegal U-turns etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. You will save money yourself and maybe, just maybe free up the police to fight actual crimes instead of playing kindergarten cops to people who speed, run lights, ride your bumper or do other silly and mostly dangerous stuff.

I am 45 years now and have been on the roads now for about 33 years by myself and have had 1 speeding ticket in all that time.

The odds of someone to get a ticket if you follow the maximum speed limit is very small, break that speed limit and you will have to pay the consequence IMHO.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's very hard, without other evidence, to prove a blurry picture of a driver is a given person. A police officer that's looking at you and your driver's license at the same time doesn't have that problem. Some red light cams don't even take the pic from the front, they take it from the back, which makes driver identification impossible. Tickets are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle, the first one listed on the title.
Click to expand...
Taking the photo from the back is a relatively recent change. It fits with the lower charge since actual due process is so difficult to prove otherwise. It's easier to work with as not all cars have front license plates (even when legally required) yet virtually all cars do have rear plates. And if you no longer have to concern yourself with actual proof and due process... might as well go for the easier and more sure way.
 
MoSurveyor said:
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.
Click to expand...

I grew up with them (there was one about a mile from where I lived as a kid and my family used it several times a week). I've driven them more times than I can count and I STILL hate them.
 
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 just looked that up. The ruling makes sense to me. Besides, these were cameras set to ticket at +5MPH, and part of the suit was questioning the calibration.

Elmwood Place: Judge orders village to repay $1.8 million from speed camera tickets; 1/23/14
 
We use to go to Tampa often for dining but basically have stopped because of the growing number of redlight cameras. This is particularly true with the yellow light times changed to unknowns. Either you slam on your brakes when the light turns yellow - risking getting rear ended - or risk getting a ticket. An accident isn't worth it.

I can not speak for other states, but local and state government in Florida will not hesitate to endanger people's lives if they can get money out of it. Cameras aren't the only way they do so. For example, it is common to put up red cones and a reduced speed construction zone sign (then double the fine) for which the sign stating the speed limit has dropped is before a major entrance ramp - meaning people on the Interstate going 45 and people going 75 - a very dangerous situation. Just over the hill from that trap typically will be over a dozen county, local and state radar cars.

Another common trick is more around building up frustration - such as putting up a sign to mislead where you should turn on a state highway - and the just past where the sign showing what highway you are on is at there will be a turn-around lane marked to prohibit U-turns. It is common on the state and country roads for the speed limit to go up and down for no reason - meaning if you miss a sign you get burned.

It is illegal in Florida to have any kind of covering our your plate or anything else that possibly can interfere with traffic and watch-up cameras.
 
Peter King said:
Place as many camera's as needed for people to start keeping themselves to speed limits etc.

People who complain are usually people who have been ticketed. Well sorry for your damned luck but if you had followed the rules of the road you would not have been ticketed in the first place.

Don't come crying when you have had a speeding ticket, you broke the law so you have to pay the consequence. And no, the "safety only" argument means nothing to me because people who commit speeding offenses on one road will most likely do it on loads of other roads too. But as the police does not have the money for, or the attitude to police everybody on every street, camera's will be put on roads that either have the risk of leading to dangerous accidents or roads where a lot of people break the speed limit.

If you don't want a ticket, don't speed. If you don't want a DUI, don't drink and drive. If you don't want to be ticketed for running a red light, don't run a red light.

The best way to cost the state money? Behave yourself and keep to the speed limits. Don't run red lights, make illegal U-turns etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. You will save money yourself and maybe, just maybe free up the police to fight actual crimes instead of playing kindergarten cops to people who speed, run lights, ride your bumper or do other silly and mostly dangerous stuff.

I am 45 years now and have been on the roads now for about 33 years by myself and have had 1 speeding ticket in all that time. What is the minimum age to drive in the Netherlands.

You know the best way for a person to never break any of the billion pages of government restrictions is to never leave the house. There are people whose pride in life is in doing everything they are told to do and not do anything they are told not to.

They should note that on some people's tombstones: "Here lies a perfectly submissive person." :lol:



The odds of someone to get a ticket if you follow the maximum speed limit is very small, break that speed limit and you will have to pay the consequence IMHO.
Click to expand...

They don't allow 12 year olds to drive in the USA, which is what your age 45 and been on the road for 33 years comes out to. What is the minimum age to drive in the Netherlands?
 
Last edited:
There are people who's greatest pride in life is doing everything they are told to do and nothing told not to do. And furiously declare everyone else should equally be submissive and restrained.

That should be on some people's tombstones: "Here lies a perfectly submissive person." :lol:
 
We used to often go to Tampa on weekends for fine dining and a get-away trip. Between all the redlight cameras and Florida opting to take yellow lights times even below Federal standards for which there is no way to know how long the light will stay yellow has spoiled that. Do I slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket and then maybe get rear-ended? Or take that chance and get the ticket? Added is having to mind-read the drivers in front. If one of them slows or stops suddenly to make a left turn I could get stuck in the intersection or slowed enough not to clear the intersection in the unknown amount of time.

While a person should obviously not run red lights, having to constantly calculate everything and everyone to the millisecond while under cameras combined with the continuously changing speed limits it just isn't a pleasant cruise anymore - and too dangerous.
 
joko104 said:
They don't allow 12 year olds to drive in the USA, which is what your age 45 and been on the road for 33 years comes out to. What is the minimum age to drive in the Netherlands?
Click to expand...

In the Netherlands you can also cycle and ride mopeds before you are allowed to drive cars at 18. I never committed speeding offenses on my moped (from aged 16) and never cycled through red lights or committed a traffic offense when I only had a bike to move around.
 
Peter King said:
In the Netherlands you can also cycle and ride mopeds before you are allowed to drive cars at 18. I never committed speeding offenses on my moped (from aged 16) and never cycled through red lights or committed a traffic offense when I only had a bike to move around.
Click to expand...

You didn't ride a bike until age 12?
 
joko104 said:
You didn't ride a bike until age 12?
Click to expand...

Of course I did, I grew up riding bikes but until you reach a certain age your mother will accompany you to school, especially if you have to cross one of the busiest roads of the town while cycling to school.
 
Peter King said:
Place as many camera's as needed for people to start keeping themselves to speed limits etc.

People who complain are usually people who have been ticketed. Well sorry for your damned luck but if you had followed the rules of the road you would not have been ticketed in the first place.

Don't come crying when you have had a speeding ticket, you broke the law so you have to pay the consequence. And no, the "safety only" argument means nothing to me because people who commit speeding offenses on one road will most likely do it on loads of other roads too. But as the police does not have the money for, or the attitude to police everybody on every street, camera's will be put on roads that either have the risk of leading to dangerous accidents or roads where a lot of people break the speed limit.

If you don't want a ticket, don't speed. If you don't want a DUI, don't drink and drive. If you don't want to be ticketed for running a red light, don't run a red light.

The best way to cost the state money? Behave yourself and keep to the speed limits. Don't run red lights, make illegal U-turns etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. You will save money yourself and maybe, just maybe free up the police to fight actual crimes instead of playing kindergarten cops to people who speed, run lights, ride your bumper or do other silly and mostly dangerous stuff.

I am 45 years now and have been on the roads now for about 33 years by myself and have had 1 speeding ticket in all that time.

The odds of someone to get a ticket if you follow the maximum speed limit is very small, break that speed limit and you will have to pay the consequence IMHO.
Click to expand...

I remember driving with my cousins in the Netherlands it was annoying with all the speed cameras near Amsterdam. They would cause all the traffic to slow down and it just creates more congestion.
 
Carjosse said:
I remember driving with my cousins in the Netherlands it was annoying with all the speed cameras near Amsterdam. They would cause all the traffic to slow down and it just creates more congestion.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is the other way around. If people kept to the maximum speed limit or adjusted their speed limit to the level of traffic on the roads (and behaved like actual human being instead of antisocial road rage idiots) there would be much less congestion. But because some people think they have the right to drive faster than anybody else, drive so close to the car in front of them that the bumpers almost touch and refuse to act social on the road, accidents happen, traffic gets congested and then everybody blames the road/traffic cams/other road users/police/stop signs/weather etc. etc. etc. but seldom to you see them blaming the real culprit aka themselves.
 
Peter King said:
Sorry, but that is the other way around. If people kept to the maximum speed limit or adjusted their speed limit to the level of traffic on the roads (and behaved like actual human being instead of antisocial road rage idiots) there would be much less congestion. But because some people think they have the right to drive faster than anybody else, drive so close to the car in front of them that the bumpers almost touch and refuse to act social on the road, accidents happen, traffic gets congested and then everybody blames the road/traffic cams/other road users/police/stop signs/weather etc. etc. etc. but seldom to you see them blaming the real culprit aka themselves.
Click to expand...

Exactly! That's the real problem with our roads.

Things would be a lot better if the autos would just slow down and spread out. It wouldn't even need to be by all that much. And if traffic cams is what it takes to force them, then I'm all for it.

There are other issues that need to be addressed. And some will be less easy. But this would help a lot.

As far as the 'yellow light' issue goes, here's my suggestion. Paint a line right across the traffic lanes at some point ahead of the intersection. The exact spot would be determined by the yellow light timing. If you're going the speed limit and you've not yet crossed the line when the yellow comes on, then you're not going to make it. Everyone would understand this. I imagine that most people would actually welcome it as a way of giving them certainty. And let the cameras 'burn' those who ignore it.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well given the examples given by others are less than a fraction of a second in difference, I doubt anyone can tell if the light has been shortened. 4.5 or 4.3 seconds? 4 or 3.9? I don't live in a city but when I do go to town I am amazed at the number of cars that run the red. I do travel a bit and it seems many folks across the country figure if in the intersection while the light is still yellow you are GTG.

More than one safety issue in play here, seems you are only mad about the one that doesn't let you run the light, or roll the right hand turn.
 
Rocketman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have to once again throw the BS flag at you. The rental agency has you sign a rental agreement AND you have to use a credit card. The car rental agency gets the ticket, because it is the license plate not a facial recognition that identifies who gets the ticket. So the car rental folks charge your credit card PLUS a fee. (read your agreement)

You not being there in no way prevents a 'conviction', the owner of the vehicle is held responsible and like I said they just turn around and charge the card with which the car was rented.
 
Peter King said:
Sorry, but that is the other way around. If people kept to the maximum speed limit or adjusted their speed limit to the level of traffic on the roads (and behaved like actual human being instead of antisocial road rage idiots) there would be much less congestion. But because some people think they have the right to drive faster than anybody else, drive so close to the car in front of them that the bumpers almost touch and refuse to act social on the road, accidents happen, traffic gets congested and then everybody blames the road/traffic cams/other road users/police/stop signs/weather etc. etc. etc. but seldom to you see them blaming the real culprit aka themselves.
Click to expand...

When I as there we were travelling at about 120 till we got to the speed cameras, in Belgium the speed limit was 130 which I think is much more reasonable. You are also right next door to the Autobahn and the Germans are fine.
 
Peter King said:
In the Netherlands you can also cycle and ride mopeds before you are allowed to drive cars at 18. I never committed speeding offenses on my moped (from aged 16) and never cycled through red lights or committed a traffic offense when I only had a bike to move around.
Click to expand...

You can speed on a moped?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom