• 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!

Should DUI checkpoint and red light cam apps be banned?

Should DUI checkpoint and red light cam apps be banned?

  • Only the DUI checkpoint app should be banned.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    37

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should DUI checkpoint and red light cam apps be banned?

Neither should be banned.
Both should be banned.
Only the DUI checkpoint app should be banned.
Only the Red Light came app should be banned.
I do not know know/maybe.





As far as I am concerned the government has no business banning either.If I choose to want to have these apps then it is my business. Besides that they usually advertise on TV where and when they are going to have DUI check point.And as far as I am concerned red light cams only prove that it was your car that ran the red light not you,so you should not be forced to pay for a ticket for an offenses that you did not do nor can they prove you did.




I remember commenting in another thread how this should be invent,it looks like somebody already has.
Four senators target DUI checkpoint apps - USATODAY.com
In a letter Tuesday, the senators asked Apple, Google and BlackBerry to either disable or quit selling downloadable applications that allow iPhone and iPad, BlackBerry and Android operating systems to identify locations of local police DUI crackdowns.

"We know that your companies share our desire to end the scourge of drunk driving, and we therefore would ask you to remove these applications from your store unless they are altered to remove the DUI/DWI checkpoint functionality," wrote Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada, Charles Schumer of New York, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Udall of New Mexico.
 
Last edited:
If we ban these, then we have to ban visine drops, because pot smokers use them.
 
In Texas, the red light cameras are not a police function. They are owned, operated, and "fines" are administered by a private company. It isn't documented as a traffic violation when you're caught running a red light with one of these cameras. The organizations running the program have signed a contract with the state. The state gets a percentage of the "fine" in exchange for granting a hold on all license or registration renewals for those who fail to pay. You cannot contest a violation, apply for deferred adjudication or defensive driving to help nullify the ticket, etc.
 
There is no purpose to these applications except to make it easier to break the law and these particular laws are absolutely necessary for public safety.
 
In Texas, the red light cameras are not a police function. They are owned, operated, and "fines" are administered by a private company. It isn't documented as a traffic violation when you're caught running a red light with one of these cameras. The organizations running the program have signed a contract with the state. The state gets a percentage of the "fine" in exchange for granting a hold on all license or registration renewals for those who fail to pay. You cannot contest a violation, apply for deferred adjudication or defensive driving to help nullify the ticket, etc.

Actually you can contest a violation.
Red-light Safety Camera Program | City of Fort Worth, Texas
Contesting a Violation

If, after viewing your video at www.ViolationInfo.com, you feel a violation does not exist, you may contest the violation in writing by completing the coupon on the back of your notice and returning it back by the due date. All contests must be made in writing.

The vehicle owner will be notified in writing of the date, time and location of the hearing. If the vehicle owner is found liable or fails to appear, the civil penalty must be paid within 30 days. No additional fees will be added.

If you receive a notice of violation for a vehicle you do not own or was reported stolen at the time of violation, submit an affidavit of non-liability by the due date. Affidavits are available at www.ViolationInfo.com and must be completed, notarized, and mailed to:
Violation Processing Center
P.O. Box 59995
Phoenix, AZ 85076-9995

If you have sold the vehicle, visit the Texas Department of Transportation Web site to ensure your vehicle's title was properly transferred.
 
If we ban these, then we have to ban visine drops, because pot smokers use them.

Pot smokers are not the government, and hence they are not the ones whom are limited in their use of power. The government is restricted, not the People.
 
Perhaps the system in Fort Worth is not the only system? I received a violation notice in Duncanville and had no recourse unless my car had been reported stolen. I couldn't argue that I had stopped, and then made a legal turn on red. I couldn't attend any meeting or function to contest the "charges". It was "pay it or you won't be able to renew your registration next year".
 
Perhaps the system in Fort Worth is not the only system? I received a violation notice in Duncanville and had no recourse unless my car had been reported stolen. I couldn't argue that I had stopped, and then made a legal turn on red. I couldn't attend any meeting or function to contest the "charges". It was "pay it or you won't be able to renew your registration next year".

I think that's bull****. First off fines and penalties from using the public roads should be administered by government only. No private business has right to issue tickets on public property like that. Secondly, there should always be the ability to redress the government; particularly for these things. Otherwise it's nothing more than government sanctioned theft. Which is most likely what they want. To be honest, I can see more call for red light cameras than I can DUI checkpoints. I think the checkpoints are clearly an unreasonable search.
 
I think that's bull****. First off fines and penalties from using the public roads should be administered by government only. No private business has right to issue tickets on public property like that. Secondly, there should always be the ability to redress the government; particularly for these things. Otherwise it's nothing more than government sanctioned theft. Which is most likely what they want. To be honest, I can see more call for red light cameras than I can DUI checkpoints. I think the checkpoints are clearly an unreasonable search.

I think a DUI checkpoint depends on the situation. If it is set up outside of a bar at 2:15am I have no problem with them. If they're on a residential street at 2:30pm I might have an issue.
 
Neither should be banned. Both DUI checkpoints and Red Light Cameras are violations of a citizen's rights, and are really nothing more than shameless money grabs on the part of the state. There is no law that prevents citizens from sharing the locations of a checkpoint or camera personally, so why should an app that does the same thing be banned? However, even if these companies do remove the apps from their official stores, I see that having no impact on the average smart device user. Any app banned from the official app store is usually available on the jailbroken market within a matter of days. I'd love to see government try to go after the actual producers of the software and win that one in court. ;)
 
Neither should be banned. Both DUI checkpoints and Red Light Cameras are violations of a citizen's rights...

What rights are we referring to, exactly? Because I am not aware of any right to drunk or reckless driving.
 
Perhaps the system in Fort Worth is not the only system? I received a violation notice in Duncanville and had no recourse unless my car had been reported stolen. I couldn't argue that I had stopped, and then made a legal turn on red. I couldn't attend any meeting or function to contest the "charges". It was "pay it or you won't be able to renew your registration next year".

I think you have to contact redflex customer service.


Contact Us - City of Duncanville, Texas
 
I think there are legitimate reasons to run a red light. If the person behind you isn't going to stop or slow down and you think you may get hit, then going through the light while it is almost red (i.e. on yellow but towards the end of the yellow, where you would end up in the middle of the intersection when the light turns red). People often get tickets for making a legal right turn as tessa mentioned. There are a few other reasons as well. When the camera takes a picture of you and you get a ticket a few days later you may not remember what happened and even if you do, how can you prove it. Now I am in favor of speeding cameras and DUI checkpoints(although I haven't given much thought to this one, so my opinion might change). To the person who said that it proves your car ran it not you... If someone is driving your car, it is your responsibility. Period. Thats the way the law works and don't loan your car to someone you don't trust. If they run a red light make them pay it.

Now to the apps, I am on the fence about it. I know for red light cameras at least in this area, there is a sign that says that this intersection is photo enforced or something like that. I think it even says it on my GPS. I don't think people should be drinking and driving so anyway cops can get people that are doing it, I say go for it. Banning these apps though seems wrong but I can't explain why I think that.
 
I think you have to contact redflex customer service.


Contact Us - City of Duncanville, Texas

I did. I read the fine backwards and forwards. I called because there was no option anywhere in the paperwork to contest the fine. I was told "you can't contest it. If you don't pay, you're registration will be placed on a hold and you will be in violation of state law when your current sticker expires". This was two years ago, so perhaps they have revised some of the BS policies...but they're still BS. A private organization should not be policing me.
 
There is no purpose to these applications except to make it easier to break the law and these particular laws are absolutely necessary for public safety.

The majority of people stopped by a DUI check are not breaking the law and they usually advertise on the news where and when these check points will be,so its not like someone is getting classified info. As for red light cams doesn't knowing where a camera is encourage the motorist to stop at a red light?
 
As for red light cams doesn't knowing where a camera is encourage the motorist to stop at a red light?

Knowing where the camera is encourages the motorist to stop at one red light. Not knowing where the camera is encourages the motorist to stop at all red lights.
 
I did. I read the fine backwards and forwards. I called because there was no option anywhere in the paperwork to contest the fine. I was told "you can't contest it. If you don't pay, you're registration will be placed on a hold and you will be in violation of state law when your current sticker expires". This was two years ago, so perhaps they have revised some of the BS policies...but they're still BS.


I think you should have sought legal advice or asked to speak with a manager or file a complaint. I think someone is bull****ing you.


A private organization should not be policing me.

I agree with that a 100%.Law enforcement should be only done by law enforcement not by companies.
 
Pot smokers are not the government, and hence they are not the ones whom are limited in their use of power. The government is restricted, not the People.

I was being sarcastic. I was just taking the arguments for the ban to their logical conclusion. If we are going to ban some things because they could be used to commit a crime as well as legal things, why not ban everything?
 
Last edited:
Neither should be banned. Both DUI checkpoints and Red Light Cameras are violations of a citizen's rights, and are really nothing more than shameless money grabs on the part of the state. There is no law that prevents citizens from sharing the locations of a checkpoint or camera personally, so why should an app that does the same thing be banned? However, even if these companies do remove the apps from their official stores, I see that having no impact on the average smart device user. Any app banned from the official app store is usually available on the jailbroken market within a matter of days. I'd love to see government try to go after the actual producers of the software and win that one in court. ;)

I have two issues with this post. First, no law that prevents citizens from sharing locations of a checkpoint or camera. Maybe not particularly in this case, but there was a speed trap on a road and my mom tried to alert other drivers by flashing her lights. A cop saw her and gave her a ticket. I would think the same law she broke would apply in this situation as well.

Second, the money grabbing. If you choose to break the law, you should pay. People keep complaining that the state has no money and they keep cutting important programs but no one is willing to find ways to gain money or cut anything. What is wrong with charging people that break the law more money to deter them from continuing to put other people in danger?
 
Knowing where the camera is encourages the motorist to stop at one red light. Not knowing where the camera is encourages the motorist to stop at all red lights.

Most people who get tickets do not know there is a traffic cam this until they get a ticket in the mail. If you drive a particular way everyday you pretty much know where the red light cams are anyways seeing how they usually post signs that a particular light is enforced with a traffic cam,so those people are not being stopped from speeding at other red lights. So its not some secret a area has traffic cams.


235668266.jpg


Not knowing where the camera is encourages the motorist to stop at all red lights.

This is only true if you are new to the area and do not know where the red light cams so you are driving to spot where the cams are,this is of course assuming you are even worried about getting a ticket by a camera.
 
Last edited:
What rights are we referring to, exactly? Because I am not aware of any right to drunk or reckless driving.

In the case of DUI checkpoints, they violate my Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and/or seizure. If I've not given any indication that I'm breaking any traffic laws, I have no business being Terry stopped by law enforcement.

Red light cameras violate my Constitutional right to confront my accuser. Because a piece of electronic equipment cannot physically testify against me or be proven a reliable witness in court, their “evidence” against me should be unenforceable.
 
What rights are we referring to, exactly? Because I am not aware of any right to drunk or reckless driving.

Unreasonable search and seizure. Because if you are showing signs of reckless driving, that's one thing. But if you're merely in a line for the cops to come up and check on ya; that's a whole nother ball game.
 
Unreasonable search and seizure. Because if you are showing signs of reckless driving, that's one thing. But if you're merely in a line for the cops to come up and check on ya; that's a whole nother ball game.

Did you mistake the poll for "DUI checkpoints and red cams" instead of "DUI check points and red light cam apps"?
 
In the case of DUI checkpoints, they violate my Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and/or seizure. If I've not given any indication that I'm breaking any traffic laws, I have no business being Terry stopped by law enforcement.

Red light cameras violate my Constitutional right to confront my accuser. Because a piece of electronic equipment cannot physically testify against me or be proven a reliable witness in court, their “evidence” against me should be unenforceable.

The reason I would be ok with the red light cameras is that at the very least they do not fire (take a picture) less someone is actually breaking the law. The check points, however, are well more general and they pull over everyone even if they have not driven in a manner which would have broken the law.
 
In Texas, the red light cameras are not a police function. They are owned, operated, and "fines" are administered by a private company. It isn't documented as a traffic violation when you're caught running a red light with one of these cameras. The organizations running the program have signed a contract with the state. The state gets a percentage of the "fine" in exchange for granting a hold on all license or registration renewals for those who fail to pay. You cannot contest a violation, apply for deferred adjudication or defensive driving to help nullify the ticket, etc.

Yes you can contest it. Lawyers are making a living off of it. The city that has the cameras gets the lions share of the revenue. The state gets a portion, and the company that installed them gets a portion plus a monthly fee for maintaining them. These deals are made with individual cities.........not the state..........We in Houston voted them out...........and they were promptly turned off. Also the state not renewing your licence is a bluff..............the state made no such deal. They just put that on the fine to scare you into paying it. Why would the state not renew your 60 registration over a their 10% of a $75 dollar fine (7.50) Makes no sense
 
Back
Top Bottom