[flash]

red lights have been shown to be the number 1 cause of traffic accidents. nearly anything we can do to stop them will result in fewer accidents.



yellow means SLOW DOWN AND PREPARE TO STOP! it does not mean "step on it". you are not allowed to enter the intersection without the full expectation of being completely through it before it turns red. at no time may you stop in an intersection. you must keep moving. if you can't, then you don't enter. you stay behind the limit line and wait. if people are getting into accidents because of the cameras, it is because they are not following the law. i have no sympathy for them.



red light cameras work. it has been proven time and again. the problem with them is that the cities usually source out the operation of the system. that makes it unprofitable for most locations. but, even those cities that find that they cannot make them profitable, still find that they work. city by city they are being added. the cities have figured out that they just need to raise the fines. i applaud that.



as for constitutionality, you will soon see that change. the right to "confront your accuser" was intended to apply to real crime with real consequences. it was not intended to address the obvious proof provided by today's technology. there is no defense needed. you are in the intersection, or you are not. the picture says it all. there is no excuse. there is no defense. you're guilty. done deal. pay the fine and don't do it again.



frankly, i would be very happy to see automatic barriers pop up to stop red light runners. but, it's really easy to avoid the camera. don't go into the intersection on a yellow. when i see the yellow, i hit the brakes, every time. it pisses some impatient people off, as does when i sit behind the limit line and wait to enter until it's clear. tough break. it's the law.



if you don't like the cameras, then change the laws. in this day and age of constant paranoia though, i think you will be hard pressed. big brother is here, and he's not going away. contrary to popular misconception, this is neither a free country, nor a democracy.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Does a red light camera indicate a violation if the car enters the intersection after the light has turned red, or if it turns red while the car is in the intersection? If the former, I have no problem with them. If the latter, that seems to be a bit excessive, because there is a delay before the light turns green in the other direction that's long enough to allow a car that entered the intersection while the light was yellow to comfortably make it through.



I tend to agree that traffic laws are somewhat unusual in that individuals can get away with violating them the vast majority of the time, putting others in danger. As a libertarian-leaning individual, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I really have no problem with the use of technology to enforce the law. If the laws that are being enforced are proven to be unreasonable, change them. If you enjoy driving in a way that consistently violates traffic laws, I would recommend checking out a local race track.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

after the light has turned red. it allows for the yellow. they are always timed to assume that a car can pass through the intersection on the yellow. this allows ample time to stop prior to the red.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

That's what I thought. I agree that this is more than reasonable.



But what we really need is technology that detects when somebody throws a cigarette butt out the window, and then instantly dispatches a firing squad to the scene. That would be mega-cool. Nothing makes my blood boil more than driving behind someone using the road as their ash tray, especially in a drought-stricken tinderbox like Austin.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Sorry guys, I should have clarified; the article was not referring to red light cameras ( by the way I completely agree with flash re imposing severe penalties on red light runners - there is no excuse whatsoever running a red light. NONE . IMO ) but rather , there were speed cameras. And they're not just just placed in school zones, but on every type of street, avenue, boulevard, expressway, etc, etc. Not on highways though....yet. The problem is the cameras are not set up with various "allowances" , so you will get a ticket if you go 1 mph over the speed limit. That's just messed up if you ask me . It'll be interesting to see how long that'll last; if indeed that's the case and tons of people end up paying fees for doing , say, 38 in a 35, I can see an impeachment campaign against the mayor, the board of supervisors, and the other politicians seeking to run them out of town in tar and feathers, LOL.



Side note: as a general rule I want to see cameras covering every inch of this country, and the more high tech the better to identify criminals. To those who cry " invasion of privacy " I say - nonsense ! If you're not inclined to break the law, commit a violent act, etc you have nothing to be concerned about re your so-called privacy.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[WJH]

[quote name='ds968' timestamp='1381707568' post='150699']



Side note: as a general rule I want to see cameras covering every inch of this country, and the more high tech the better to identify criminals. To those who cry " invasion of privacy " I say - nonsense ! If you're not inclined to break the law, commit a violent act, etc you have nothing to be concerned about re your so-called privacy.

[/quote]



You cannot be serious. The constitution is designed to protect us from these things. If you have "nothing to hide" you would let them search your house, car, email, etc. whenever they want? Do you let the police search your car at traffic stops? Perhaps they could just install cameras inside our houses, we have nothing to hide!



I think I've got to quit this form, this kind of talk just upsets me. I don't need it.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Scott Collins]

I will support cameras for red lights and speed when the revenue generated helps feed hungry kids in Trenton, or builds a library in upstate NY. Until then, the conflict of interest and motivation for municipalities is not truly public safety, but

just another tax.



You don't need cameras anyway if the penalties for REAL violations would be so severe that you're taking the bus if you run a red light, instead of a "Pay your fee, get a B" type deal.



Basically I'm suggesting that the judicial and executive branches not be allowed control over the revenue, or to work together to reach into our pockets. Anyone want to carry this argument to the next level? Just thinking out loud here, not wanting to fart on anyones flowers...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[WJH]

This is an article about our own local ticket machine. A city of 2.7 square miles, 9500 residents, 16,624 tickets (2012). They have major roads passing through their little city and they make the most of them. People in the Kansas City metro area avoid the city when possible. They will write a ticket for anything.



http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/10/428...areas.html

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='WJH' timestamp='1381710524' post='150703']

You cannot be serious. The constitution is designed to protect us from these things. If you have "nothing to hide" you would let them search your house, car, email, etc. whenever they want? Do you let the police search your car at traffic stops? Perhaps they could just install cameras inside our houses, we have nothing to hide!

I think I've got to quit this form, this kind of talk just upsets me. I don't need it.[/quote]

Actually, I am quite serious. Of course I don't mean random searches or extreme measures of that nature, but I see nothing wrong with cameras everywhere in public places designed to capture ( for the most part ) acts of violence , and / or other major crimes and having the capability of easily identifying criminals, subsequently facilitating their capture. Quitting the forum because differences in ideology or opinions upset you ?! Sorry, but that's just silly; as much as we have in common here, there is just as much diversity among our members as anywhere else : we have conservatives and liberals at every end of that spectrum and everything in between, we have religious folks, we have atheists, we have people from many different cultures with different values, different life experiences based on which they may express views with which others may not agree, but if we're that sensitive to beliefs which we do not share, I think we have a lot more to worry about than cameras infringing on personal liberties when in public. All you have to do is look around you to realize there's barely a semblance of personal freedom or privacy left in this country nowadays . Reducing crime ( arguably ) and capturing those who commit it ( fact ) by proliferation of high tech equipment such as cameras is a good thing, not something to balk at, IMHO .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Scott Collins]

ds968,



I respectfully, strongly, disagree with your opinion. Just because "Big Brother" is out there does not mean we have to accept it or like it. And by "Big Brother", I mean an intrusive, spying, presence that can be an accuser without an identity. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means something for us, and after all, who's on the other side of the lens? That's right, basically inept people who have the power to take everything you have for reasons that do not have to be declared. Just remember that it's about money. Is that what our constitution is about?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[WJH]

You are correct, "there's barely a semblance of personal freedom or privacy left in this country nowadways."



That is what is wrong with America! Few people care anymore about their liberty. We can always reduce crime by giving more power to the state. Stop and frisk in NYC, reduces crime, does that make it right? Setting up checkpoints and searching cars for guns and drugs, yes that would reduce crime. Searching houses in known drug areas would also reduce crime. My local PD has car cams that run EVERY license plate as they drive down the road. They also log your location into their GPS database. I know, if it reduces crime it must be good. We surrender our liberties slowly, usually in the name of safety.



I'm sorry if you think I'm "silly" to get upset, but I take my liberty very seriously. I take the erosion of my liberty even more seriously. I don't view our personal liberties as a conservative, liberal, white, black, or religious issue. I think it is a very serious discussion that needs to happen in our society, sooner rather than later. The president said in 08 that we have some tough choices to make, I'm still waiting for that debate.



For now old silly me will just go back to my cars.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Inkedupfatboy]

I think down here, if you are in the intersection at any time when it is red, you lose. If you are in the middle of the intersection during a yellow that turns red, you get a nice photo in an envelope of the rear end of your car and a fine.



I agree - I don't do anything wrong, but there is no need to search my vehicle. The problem is, if you say no, then they seize the vehicle, wait for a tow truck, impound the vehicle, then get a warrant, search it anyways and then you might get it back and in who knows what shape.



I can see letting the officer have a root around my vehicle, but there is no way you are coming into my house without a warrant. Of course if they have a FISA warrant they will enter when you are not there and they don't have to tell you about it at all until they show up with the arrest warrant and haul your butt away. Then you are boned, and boned good.



I love my country but fear my government...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

Ask your wife how she feels knowing that if she sunbaths topless in the privacy of her own backyard, U.S. military (and soon to include law enforcement) are getting their yayas out watching via satellite. Yea, let's have EVERYTHING recorded. People who even think for an instant that's a good idea scare the bejesus out of me. Do you really think the technology that lets them see into your home, or even into your bedroom is that far behind? Heck, if you're not doing anything illegal in your bedroom, why should you care if the boys down at the precinct are watching, right? As has been proven again and again throughout history, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anyone who thinks you can trust the cops and/or the government to use such power wisely and not abuse it is a complete fool.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

what most people do not realize is that the only place you have any right to privacy is in your own home. not in your car. not on the street. not out in public, period. you never have and never will. do some reading. you will find that the constitutional provisions were to your home, beliefs, politics, and such. they did not cover anything that was done in public or viewable by the public.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Scott Collins]

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a big part of what American citizens are legally protected from. The Fourth Amendment was a response to all kinds of acts going against "natural law", stuff like "writs of assistance", open search warrants with no expiration dates. The British Government was hated and reviled for stuff like this, and we risk becoming what many sacrificed to be free from.



Lot's of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness takes place outside of the home, but I agree with Bob that the highest expectation of privacy takes place on your property, inside your home.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

With that ( the highest level of privacy inside your house, or on your property ) I completely agree. But I honestly do not understand why anyone is concerned and thinks cameras on every corner of a street is an erosion of any particular freedom ..freedom to do what ? In other words, you would be perfectly fine if someone mugs your wife or daughter, or friend , and never gets caught because there are no witnesses, whereas a camera might have ID's the attacker or maybe even deter him from committing that act knowing the chances are he'll be on film, because you feel it's a greater compromise to give up your right not to be watched by big brother while you're in public ? But alas, the cameras utilized right now have a far more important task than crime mitigation : to issue revenue generating tickets for drivers going 38 in a 35 zone.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

You all worry about cameras and traffic tickets when the largest erosion of our rights is occurring right under your noses with obamacare. Wake up and focus on what's really important and what will affect you whether your outside or in your bedroom. Your worried about intrusion in your personal lives, try signing up on a public exchange! For the lure of potential subsidies and insurance people are giving the govt the right to look into just about all facets of their lives. Worried about IRS abuses, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Inkedupfatboy]

Electronic medical records are mandatory with Obamacare and the Gov't can access them with clicks of a mouse. All your personal info plain and easy to see. Now, since the doctor patient relationship is legally privileged now, what do you think that does to it in the upcoming future?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biosurfer1]

Flash...how can you say that red light cameras are fine, no problem with them, if you run a red light you are guilty, no defense, etc but you think speeding cameras on the open highway is wrong? I don't understand the difference. If you are 1 mph over the speed limit at ANY TIME you are breaking the law. There is no defense and you should get a ticket according to you.



Not sure how a camera catching you break one law is ok, but another is wrong.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

I would have more respect for speeding laws on the freeways if the limit was more realistic in relationship to the road. Here in California, we have freeways that were designed to safely travel at least 75 mph with a 55 limit.



As for Obamacare - yea right, helping lower and middle income people to afford health care while taking a small amount of profit away from a few large obscenely rich insurance companies is going to cause the sky to fall. After all, didn't it already fall in the rest of the civilized world that has had universal health care for many decades?



Day one - Obamacare

Day two - Everyone forced to drive a Sputnik Sedan

Day three - FIdel Castro, Karl Marx, and Josef Stalin are climbing out of your toilet!



Oh the horror!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.