You missed the point. While speeders who also have drugs, open liquor or other violatons do not get cited for these offences by photo radar, at least they are caught and punished for speeding. Photo radar supplements manned police patrols. More perps can be caught and punished when photo radar is implemented.
... photo radar must not be implemented in a manner that denies due process and other applicable protections. So far, all implementations have fallen well short of the required standard. Given the exacting nature of constitutional protections, I am not sure photo radar can ever be made legally compliant, but that is my opinion and not a fact. The technologies involved are evolving rapidly, and the law has its own ways of updating itself. I continue to trust that process.
Police work is best done by the POLICE, not private contractors, and not machines by themselves.
Re: EZPass - Illinois Tollway does document date, time, tollstation and transponder number in their database. If drivers are paranoid and fearful of big brother, they can choose to not subscribe to transponder. They can pay cash. But, tolls then cost double the amount over rate given to transponder users.
In the case of photo radar used correctly to only photograph speeders, have to assume that details of offence will be put in one or more databases similar to a sppeding offence ticket given by a police officer.
Mr. grbeck only wants faster speed limits, so in that perspective, he is irritated about photo radar because it's a system which prevents him from exceeding what he considers "too slow" speed limits. If he thinks speed limits are too low, then he should approach it from the angle of communication with the people who set the limits, instead of attacking a speed enforcement tactic. If speed limits were set high enough for his liking, then he would not have an issue with automated enforcement.
Mr. vcheng falsely thinks photo radar invades privacy, which is a challenge which, because it CANNOT be won, has never come up in a court case.
Mr. larsb just wants people to either drive the speed limit, or not complain when they get a ticket. You should not have it both ways - it you MUST speed, then prepare to pay the piper, because no one is FORCING you to speed - you are doing so of your own free will.
As long as the transponder is voluntary, then people wanting not to use the system have to regard the doubling the cost of toll as an expense thay have to accept. I would not use the terms like"paranoid" to describe this behaviour.
This is merely an exercise of options based on one personal beliefs, and every US citizen has right ot do that.
Photo radar has to monitor all traffic all the time to set off the camera. IT then places the burden of proof on the registered owner, not the person who broke the speed limit.
I would agree that police work is best done by police. I think that suppliers/vendors of photo radar can install the equipment and train qualified/bonded police department personnel to do regular calibration and routine maintenance. Think of photo radar as just another tool, like a police car, the radio and computer in the police car, etc. No reason why a machine that is properly and on-schedule maintained and calibrated by police personnel cannot determine, document and issue tickets/fines for law infractions. As I mentioned before, toll violators on Illinois Tollway have been photographed, documented and issued fines for the infraction for over a decade.
Re: Photo radar has to monitor traffic all the time to set off the camera.
Exactly the same on Illinois Tollway. Every unmanned toll station coninuously monitors for a transponder or drive-through without putting in coins. The camera with lots of falsh bulbs triggers when a vehicle without a transponder or a vehicle passes through without droppeing in any or appropriate amount of coins.
Mr. grbeck only wants faster speed limits, so in that perspective, he is irritated about photo radar because it's a system which prevents him from exceeding what he considers "too slow" speed limits.
However, speed limits are NOT the topic of disusion in this forum.
Mr. vcheng falsely thinks photo radar invades privacy, which is a challenge which, because it CANNOT be won, has never come up in a court case.
However, vcheng has provided enough logical arguments to prove his point of view, including the references presented by larsb.
Mr. larsb just wants people to either drive the speed limit, or not complain when they get a ticket. You should not have it both ways - it you MUST speed, then prepare to pay the piper, because no one is FORCING you to speed - you are doing so of your own free will.
And of course larsb is entitled to whatever his views are, but its does not give him the right to impose his opinions on all users of a public roadway.
No that is wrong. Photo radar is not indiscriminate. Assuming proper calibration and accuracy, photo radar discriminates between law breakers and law abiders. Only the breakers are detected, documented and cited. If you are obeying the law, you have nothing to fear.
As a law-abiding toll payer, cash or transponder, on the Illinois Tollway, and probably thousands of dollars and miles by wife and I, we have never received a ticket/fine for non-payment of a toll. The cameras have always operated, really non-operated, properly in our passage. We have never heard in Chicago/region newspapers/tv instances where Tollway camers(s) mistakenly identified a toll payer as a toll violator. The cameras work properly.
Nope, ALL users are detected and monitored 24/7 speeding or not. In addition, as shown above in Arizona, they were recording live video, not just snapshots, on all users.
This illegal video was then stored for at least 90 days, and this fact was hidden from the Legislature, who then voted to shut it down, just like many other programs before it elsewhere, as shown above.
Photo radar is so illegal that people looking to make money off of it have to continuously lie and cheat to keep their hand reaching into the pockets of the people.
Regardless of how "logical" you THINK your arguments are, the FACT remains that
because the courts have repeated refused to allow privacy claims in the public domain, NO successful challenges of the "invasion" theory have even been attempted.
You know lawyers - if they think they can win something, they will try. If they are pretty darn sure they can't win, they won't waste their time.
This fact ALONE, aside from all the other evidence, should PROVE to inquiring minds that photo radar is without a doubt NOT a Fourth Amendment violation.
vcheng says, "Except that all present forms of photo radar are being shut down"
They are not !! What gives you that idea? You find one or two stories of a county or city here and there shutting down photo radar systems and you ASSUME that they are "all being shut down?"
I respect your arguments and feel they are made in good faith. Don't ruin that good will by posting something so obviously incorrect.
larsb: "OK, you need to drop that issue, the recording one"
Why do you feel the need to limit what I can or cannot say?
First of all, the company knew what it was doing, secondly, it was hiding what is was doing from the Legislaature, and thirdly, it is yet another example that proves that it is impossible to reconcile photo radar with the Constitution.
Firstly, secondly, and thirdly, none of those points are proven to be true.
ESPECIALLY the third one.
Even if they WERE recording, that act is done DAILY by MULTIPLE STATE AGENCIES around the country and is NOT ILLEGAL and certainly NOT a privacy violation.
Hundreds of thousands of commuter cars on public roads are recorded every day, and that is not a Fourth Amendment privacy violation, for the reasons stated before - the laws and the courts have NOT DECLARED it to be.
Until that actually happens, I feel that my prediction, based on several examples, and a knowledge of the law and constitution, is quite robust, thank you very much.
After all, it designed and implemented the technology, so they did know what they were doing.
secondly, it was hiding what is was doing from the Legislaature,
The Legislature is on record as being surprised with the information since it was hidden from it by the company.
and thirdly, it is yet another example that proves that it is impossible to reconcile photo radar with the Constitution.
The validity as an example still stands.
Further:
Even if they WERE recording,
There is no IF here, they were, and without authorisation (which makes it ILLEGAL)
that act is done DAILY by MULTIPLE STATE AGENCIES around the country and is NOT ILLEGAL and certainly NOT a privacy violation
Except that the private company is NOT a State Agency, so your analogy is not valid. Those uses of photo recording are not the topic of discussion in this forum.
Well, there are FAR more system STILL running than there are systems being shut down.
So you are off to a "slow" start.
And for SURE, none of them are being shut down because of Fourth Amendment privacy violations. No court has said that. No lawmakers have ruled a law on that.
Anything you might say in regard to privacy issues is merely a GUESS on your part, with ZERO instances of Fourth Amendment privacy violations being a primary reason for shutting down a photo radar system.
You know the ONLY reasons they have been shut down?
1. They were not cost effective. 2. The police agency thought they were not effective in enforcement issues. 3. Pressure was put on agencies by speeders who are complaining of being caught. 4. The company UNKNOWINGLY violated laws or protocol.
ZERO have been shut down directly as a result Fourth Amendment issues.
If you argue that photo radar pictures (one snapshot ) taken under a contract to a STATE AGENCY with AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT is a violation (which it ain't) then you cannot logically say that other STATE APPROVED VIDEO RECORDINGS are then OK.
The end result is important, the route that disptaches photo radar to its grave is immaterial.
But let see:
1. They were not cost effective.
So you agree that financial considerations are what drives the program, not the guise of safety as originally claimed?
2. The police agency thought they were not effective in enforcement issues.
So what is it, money or safety?
3. Pressure was put on agencies by speeders who are complaining of being caught.
Well, isn't that DEMOCRACY?
4. The company UNKNOWINGLY violated laws or protocol.
How do you know it was unknowing? That is no defence. It is still illegal.
larsb: "No, you can't argue that point. "
Well, please let me decide what I can or cannot argue. Please do not try to impose limits on my freedom of expression.
Also: ".. are then OK. "
All I said is that "Those uses of photo recording are not the topic of discussion in this forum." That does not make it okay. Please do not jump to unsupportable conclusions.
Notice I am not calling YOU ridiculous, just your idea. Nothing personal at all.
Did you REALLY miss my point by that wide a margin?
I think the same applies to you!
I was not attempting to "limit" your "anything."
It sure seemed like that when you say things like "you need to drop this"
I was saying that logically, common-sensically, that is an invalid argument.
Logic and common sense are two different things.
That says nothing about your "permission" to make that argument.
It just means that making that argument is not a valid or time-worthy thing to do because it is completely non-arguable from your point of view.
I'm not going to address something that ridiculous any further.
Oh you mean you are voluntary going to stop posting here? Please don't. Your contributions are valuable as a lesson to others.
However, please keep the discussion limited to photo radar as the above comments are tilting toward discussion of my understanding on a personal level That is not appropriate.
But that is not my only point. It is not just the Fourth amendment.
What about due process considerations? How about innocent until proven guilty? How about the role financial considerations play in corrupting the various implementations as we have seen above?
There is much much more to this issue. It is not as simple as "If you speed, pay the fine and move on" is it?
Please do not fixate yourself on one consideration. Consider all aspects, and also look at the evidence from your own references as well as those that I have presented.
larsb: "But to me, it IS as simple as "If you speed, pay the fine and move on."
That's fine by me. But please allow others to discuss things that they may not find to be as simple as you think they should.
There is no "bring'em on!" here. I am not having a contest with you. I am trying to discuss all issues related to photo radar, which I think is a complex issue.
Please do not think that you should be the final arbriter of any comments made here, because your resolve and strength in holding on to your views in face of any evidence is quite remarkable, and one that I continue to respect.
I hope that other people contribute their thoughts as well so that we all can (well, with some exceptions) can further our understanding of the issues involved with photo radar in automatic traffic enforcement.
Of course this does not apply to anyone who has already made up their mind. For them, the matter is settled and thus there is nothing to discuss. For others that may have complex thoughts may find it productive to continue.
vcheng says, "here is no "bring'em on!" here. I am not having a contest with you. I am trying to discuss all issues related to photo radar, which I think is a complex issue. "
There is a "bring em on" because we are not just discussing this issue between the two of us.
The contest is Good (slowing people down) versus Evil (allowing people to drive as fast as they want) and the two issues ARE in a contest. The future of photo radar systems apparently are in the balance.
We are providing ( I HOPE ) good information for other posters and readers to this forum who have questions about Photo Radar systems.
vcheng says, "For others that may have complex thoughts may find it productive to continue."
There you go pulling a grbeck and assuming that "I am more complex and thoughtful than YOU are because I think yada yada yada and you only think yada."
Please don't compartmentalize people in that manner.
I am as complex and thoughtful as anyone else here who is either Pro or Con regarding this issue.
I have just seen through the fog of "false complaints" about photo radar when it mostly just boils down to "the meanies won't let me speed unimpeded and I don't like how they are doing it."
I know you will refute them one by one because your mind is already made up. I respect that. But why do you feel the need to badger everybody else into submission whose mind is not made up yet, including me?
Where does the "Good vs. Evil" comment come from? I thought we as a nation had moved on from GWB's phrase a long time ago. (Please note that I am a registered republican, not that it matters here.) Preaching your point of view to the exclusion of evrything else does tend to become monotonous and predictable after a while you know, not to mention counter-productive.
Religious concepts have nothing to do with photo radar.
No, my mind is only made up because of facts I have uncovered.
I am not stubborn to the concept of changing my mind when facts are presented. It's called an "open mind."
As I get older and find out that there are more and more things that I THOUGHT I understood well only to find out that with further study, things can change, and they have for me.
I have had several mind-changing events in the last 4-5 years.
Right now, the "Fourth Amendment" issue of photo radar is not something I will change views on, because the facts and data are out there to show that I am right.
Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell (R) is proposing a budget that increases the financial burden on drivers by $171m in order to close the state’s growing $850m deficit. Rell’s plan increases license and registration fees, imposes freeway speed cameras and assesses new charges on speeding tickets. If implemented, the programs would represent a permanent and steadily increasing source of revenue for the state.
“Governor Rell has produced a two-year spending plan that does not rely on any increased taxes,” the official budget summary explained. “The governor is keenly aware that the last thing our economy needs now is more money flowing from taxpayers’ wallets into the government’s hands.”
Under the proposal, $70m a year would flow from the wallets of drivers into the hands of a private company operating four speed cameras on Interstate 95. That company would then place $35m into the government’s hands after accounting for the expenses of operating the fixed and mobile devices. Rell has already put pressure on the state police to meet budget targets by increasing the number of speeding citations issued. The force responded with a sixteen percent boost that brought the total number of tickets issued last year to 75k.
As more drivers get those speeding tickets, more would qualify for the proposed “driver responsibility program” that would impose a point and citation tax of up to $2000 on ticket recipients. The same idea has succeeded in bringing over a billion dollars in revenue to Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Texas (details). Rell’s budget conservatively estimated the new revenue at $27m plus another $32.5m from increasing the base cost of speeding tickets. In Virginia the abuser fee concept was so unpopular that Governor Tim Kaine (D) was forced last year not only to repeal the law but also to refund the fees already collected, admitting that the program failed to improve public safety.
Rell rounded out her proposal by “updating” driver’s license and registration fees so that motorists would hand over another $72.4m to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. The full plan requires approval of the state legislature which last year turned down the speed camera idea when the budget deficit stood at just $165m. The Newspaper »
Well, is photo radar a money grab disguised as safety?
I think I will wait here for some other people to post before responding, as I already can predict lasb's response. And I am no Notradamus, imagine that!
larsb: You can't seem to make a valid argument without insulting my intelligence.
If you really think I'm like that, then you have not paid attention to what I have said.
Easy to say, "Oh, because you are an idiot you cannot understand" but in reality that does not fly, not in this case.
I have paid attention to what you've been saying. The problem is too little knowledge of the subject matter at hand, too much emotion. Not to mention the "if I say so, it must be right" line of thinking. The most egregious example is the idea that exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways makes one death-on-wheels, but driving slower than the flow of traffic, is just fine, because...you want to do it. Never mind that traffic engineers have long realized that drivers blocking the flow of traffic are the real danger.
And you are for photo radar...even though Arizona (your home state!) officials have questioned its efficacy in certain situations (i.e., on limited access highways - just as I have said). So, instead, you are now arguing that it doesn't violate privacy...which is a red herring.
Grbeck, lilengineerbogy: I think there are two different discussions going on here...
1. Photo radar violates a civil liberty, personal freedoms, or fails to allow you to meet your accuser in court, etc
2. Speed laws are mostly dumb.
It seems like your discussion falls into the second category for the most part, and while there is a lot of agreement with the sentiment, I don't know that its the same discussion Mr or Mrs V and Mr or Mrs L are having.
They are intertwined, because the assumption that larsb and other photo radar proponents hold is that all posted speed limits are valid, exceeding them is always dangerous, and therefore photo radar is necessary to improve highway safety.
Their advocacy for photo radar has its roots in the "speed kills" line of thought, and that all speed limits are ironclad and must be obeyed without question, and if we don't have some sort of way to prevent people from exceeding the speed limits - the latest tool is photo radar - then automotive armageddon will happen daily.
grbeck says, "The problem is too little knowledge of the subject matter at hand, too much emotion."
There you go AGAIN accusing me of having too little knowledge.
What can be done about these attacks?
P.S. Please don't try your commonly used "it was generic and not addressed toward YOU" tactic, because I know it was and so does anyone else who reads this forum.
grbeck says, " advocacy for photo radar has its roots in the "speed kills" line of thought."
That is because it is TRUE that speed kills. It's obvious and common sense to most people. For some reason, you rebel against the notion; but that does not make it less true.
But the main justification for photo radar systems in my view is to get people to obey the speed laws without spending an extra $600,000 a year to put 15 more officers on each stretch of road.
larsb: That is because it is TRUE that speed kills.
No, because the fatalities per 100 million miles driven are at record lows, and people are driving faster than ever, and there is no proof that people driving faster on limited access highways are more dangerous than slower drivers (if anything, the studies show the opposite).
larsb: It's obvious and common sense to most people.
It's what you THINK you know, not what is happening the real world.
For some reason, you rebel against the notion; but that does not make it less true.
I rebel against the notion because I've followed this issue for years.
larsb: But the main justification for photo radar systems in my view is to get people to obey the speed laws without spending an extra $600,000 a year to put 15 more officers on each stretch of road.
Except that experience has shown in other countries (Great Britain) and even Arizona that this does not improve highway safety, because it focuses on people whose speed is exceeding two numbers on a sign, and not on the real threats - drunk drivers, inattentive drivers, etc. That is why those extra officers - when their energies are directed at the real threats - are worth the extra money.
I would like to see photo radar improved. Perhaps they can advance technology to not only catch the perp going 75 in a 55 zone on interstate, but also determine if the vehicle was tailgating at 1-2 vehicle/car lengths. That could be a 3-bagger. First and second cars nabbed for 20 over and second car nabbed for following too closely. Lots of possibilities with publicity about new features of photo radar on tv that would help drivers change their bad habits. Also good to punish offenders and add needed revenue into government budgets. Just like lottery, gambling, smoking, drinking behaviour, let the state benefit from peoples' bad habits.
There could be more adaptions of photo radar to catch various offenders.
Also have a surveillance grid system that nabs LLCs and slowpokes in general. Impose and enforce minimum speeds on higher speed roadways. Punish these offenders as much as the speeders, and add revenue into irresponsible wasteful public sector budgets. Sounds good.
Comments
Police work is best done by the POLICE, not private contractors, and not machines by themselves.
In the case of photo radar used correctly to only photograph speeders, have to assume that details of offence will be put in one or more databases similar to a sppeding offence ticket given by a police officer.
Mr. grbeck only wants faster speed limits, so in that perspective, he is irritated about photo radar because it's a system which prevents him from exceeding what he considers "too slow" speed limits. If he thinks speed limits are too low, then he should approach it from the angle of communication with the people who set the limits, instead of attacking a speed enforcement tactic. If speed limits were set high enough for his liking, then he would not have an issue with automated enforcement.
Mr. vcheng falsely thinks photo radar invades privacy, which is a challenge which, because it CANNOT be won, has never come up in a court case.
Mr. larsb just wants people to either drive the speed limit, or not complain when they get a ticket. You should not have it both ways - it you MUST speed, then prepare to pay the piper, because no one is FORCING you to speed - you are doing so of your own free will.
This is merely an exercise of options based on one personal beliefs, and every US citizen has right ot do that.
Photo radar has to monitor all traffic all the time to set off the camera. IT then places the burden of proof on the registered owner, not the person who broke the speed limit.
Exactly the same on Illinois Tollway. Every unmanned toll station coninuously monitors for a transponder or drive-through without putting in coins. The camera with lots of falsh bulbs triggers when a vehicle without a transponder or a vehicle passes through without droppeing in any or appropriate amount of coins.
However, speed limits are NOT the topic of disusion in this forum.
Mr. vcheng falsely thinks photo radar invades privacy, which is a challenge which, because it CANNOT be won, has never come up in a court case.
However, vcheng has provided enough logical arguments to prove his point of view, including the references presented by larsb.
Mr. larsb just wants people to either drive the speed limit, or not complain when they get a ticket. You should not have it both ways - it you MUST speed, then prepare to pay the piper, because no one is FORCING you to speed - you are doing so of your own free will.
And of course larsb is entitled to whatever his views are, but its does not give him the right to impose his opinions on all users of a public roadway.
Nope. Carrying a transponder is voluntary. Photo radar is indiscriminate.
As a law-abiding toll payer, cash or transponder, on the Illinois Tollway, and probably thousands of dollars and miles by wife and I, we have never received a ticket/fine for non-payment of a toll. The cameras have always operated, really non-operated, properly in our passage. We have never heard in Chicago/region newspapers/tv instances where Tollway camers(s) mistakenly identified a toll payer as a toll violator. The cameras work properly.
Nope, ALL users are detected and monitored 24/7 speeding or not. In addition, as shown above in Arizona, they were recording live video, not just snapshots, on all users.
This illegal video was then stored for at least 90 days, and this fact was hidden from the Legislature, who then voted to shut it down, just like many other programs before it elsewhere, as shown above.
Photo radar is so illegal that people looking to make money off of it have to continuously lie and cheat to keep their hand reaching into the pockets of the people.
because the courts have repeated refused to allow privacy claims in the public domain, NO successful challenges of the "invasion" theory have even been attempted.
You know lawyers - if they think they can win something, they will try. If they are pretty darn sure they can't win, they won't waste their time.
This fact ALONE, aside from all the other evidence, should PROVE to inquiring minds that photo radar is without a doubt NOT a Fourth Amendment violation.
Repeating it is just like saying "because Enron was run by a bunch of crooks, EVERY big company is run by a bunch of crooks."
Patently false.
Don't try to lump all photo radar companies with ONE company who was most likely UNKNOWINGLY breaking the law.
They are not !! What gives you that idea? You find one or two stories of a county or city here and there shutting down photo radar systems and you ASSUME that they are "all being shut down?"
I respect your arguments and feel they are made in good faith. Don't ruin that good will by posting something so obviously incorrect.
Why do you feel the need to limit what I can or cannot say?
First of all, the company knew what it was doing, secondly, it was hiding what is was doing from the Legislaature, and thirdly, it is yet another example that proves that it is impossible to reconcile photo radar with the Constitution.
Please allow me to rephrase that: Except that all present forms of photo radar WILL BE shut down, as shown by several examples to date.
ESPECIALLY the third one.
Even if they WERE recording, that act is done DAILY by MULTIPLE STATE AGENCIES around the country and is NOT ILLEGAL and certainly NOT a privacy violation.
Hundreds of thousands of commuter cars on public roads are recorded every day, and that is not a Fourth Amendment privacy violation, for the reasons stated before - the laws and the courts have NOT DECLARED it to be.
First of all, the company knew what it was doing,
After all, it designed and implemented the technology, so they did know what they were doing.
secondly, it was hiding what is was doing from the Legislaature,
The Legislature is on record as being surprised with the information since it was hidden from it by the company.
and thirdly, it is yet another example that proves that it is impossible to reconcile photo radar with the Constitution.
The validity as an example still stands.
Further:
Even if they WERE recording,
There is no IF here, they were, and without authorisation (which makes it ILLEGAL)
that act is done DAILY by MULTIPLE STATE AGENCIES around the country and is NOT ILLEGAL and certainly NOT a privacy violation
Except that the private company is NOT a State Agency, so your analogy is not valid. Those uses of photo recording are not the topic of discussion in this forum.
So you are off to a "slow" start.
And for SURE, none of them are being shut down because of Fourth Amendment privacy violations. No court has said that. No lawmakers have ruled a law on that.
Anything you might say in regard to privacy issues is merely a GUESS on your part, with ZERO instances of Fourth Amendment privacy violations being a primary reason for shutting down a photo radar system.
You know the ONLY reasons they have been shut down?
1. They were not cost effective.
2. The police agency thought they were not effective in enforcement issues.
3. Pressure was put on agencies by speeders who are complaining of being caught.
4. The company UNKNOWINGLY violated laws or protocol.
ZERO have been shut down directly as a result Fourth Amendment issues.
If you argue that photo radar pictures (one snapshot ) taken under a contract to a STATE AGENCY with AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT is a violation (which it ain't) then you cannot logically say that other STATE APPROVED VIDEO RECORDINGS are then OK.
The end result is important, the route that disptaches photo radar to its grave is immaterial.
But let see:
1. They were not cost effective.
So you agree that financial considerations are what drives the program, not the guise of safety as originally claimed?
2. The police agency thought they were not effective in enforcement issues.
So what is it, money or safety?
3. Pressure was put on agencies by speeders who are complaining of being caught.
Well, isn't that DEMOCRACY?
4. The company UNKNOWINGLY violated laws or protocol.
How do you know it was unknowing? That is no defence. It is still illegal.
larsb: "No, you can't argue that point. "
Well, please let me decide what I can or cannot argue. Please do not try to impose limits on my freedom of expression.
Also: ".. are then OK. "
All I said is that "Those uses of photo recording are not the topic of discussion in this forum." That does not make it okay. Please do not jump to unsupportable conclusions.
I was not attempting to "limit" your "anything."
I was saying that logically, common-sensically, that is an invalid argument.
That says nothing about your "permission" to make that argument.
It just means that making that argument is not a valid or time-worthy thing to do because it is completely non-arguable from your point of view.
I'm not going to address something that ridiculous any further. Notice I am not calling YOU ridiculous, just your idea. Nothing personal at all.
Notice I am not calling YOU ridiculous, just your idea. Nothing personal at all.
Did you REALLY miss my point by that wide a margin?
I think the same applies to you!
I was not attempting to "limit" your "anything."
It sure seemed like that when you say things like "you need to drop this"
I was saying that logically, common-sensically, that is an invalid argument.
Logic and common sense are two different things.
That says nothing about your "permission" to make that argument.
It just means that making that argument is not a valid or time-worthy thing to do because it is completely non-arguable from your point of view.
I'm not going to address something that ridiculous any further.
Oh you mean you are voluntary going to stop posting here? Please don't. Your contributions are valuable as a lesson to others.
However, please keep the discussion limited to photo radar as the above comments are tilting toward discussion of my understanding on a personal level That is not appropriate.
Thank you.
My point that they have NOT violated such rights has been proven by the various legislatures and courts not disallowing it for that reason.
What about due process considerations? How about innocent until proven guilty? How about the role financial considerations play in corrupting the various implementations as we have seen above?
There is much much more to this issue. It is not as simple as "If you speed, pay the fine and move on" is it?
Please do not fixate yourself on one consideration. Consider all aspects, and also look at the evidence from your own references as well as those that I have presented.
Before that, we were discussing other issues.
If you are ready to move on to other issues, bring 'em on !!!
But to me, it IS as simple as "If you speed, pay the fine and move on."
I think anything else is just speeders finding a reason to complain about being caught.
That's fine by me. But please allow others to discuss things that they may not find to be as simple as you think they should.
There is no "bring'em on!" here. I am not having a contest with you. I am trying to discuss all issues related to photo radar, which I think is a complex issue.
Please do not think that you should be the final arbriter of any comments made here, because your resolve and strength in holding on to your views in face of any evidence is quite remarkable, and one that I continue to respect.
I hope that other people contribute their thoughts as well so that we all can (well, with some exceptions) can further our understanding of the issues involved with photo radar in automatic traffic enforcement.
Of course this does not apply to anyone who has already made up their mind. For them, the matter is settled and thus there is nothing to discuss. For others that may have complex thoughts may find it productive to continue.
There is a "bring em on" because we are not just discussing this issue between the two of us.
The contest is Good (slowing people down) versus Evil (allowing people to drive as fast as they want) and the two issues ARE in a contest. The future of photo radar systems apparently are in the balance.
We are providing ( I HOPE ) good information for other posters and readers to this forum who have questions about Photo Radar systems.
There you go pulling a grbeck and assuming that "I am more complex and thoughtful than YOU are because I think yada yada yada and you only think yada."
Please don't compartmentalize people in that manner.
I am as complex and thoughtful as anyone else here who is either Pro or Con regarding this issue.
I have just seen through the fog of "false complaints" about photo radar when it mostly just boils down to "the meanies won't let me speed unimpeded and I don't like how they are doing it."
The future of photo radar is in the balance because of grave legal concerns. And we have a system in place that will sort it out in due course.
It is not a simple issue, and it will take time to sort through.
Please list them and I can refute them one per one.
Where does the "Good vs. Evil" comment come from? I thought we as a nation had moved on from GWB's phrase a long time ago. (Please note that I am a registered republican, not that it matters here.) Preaching your point of view to the exclusion of evrything else does tend to become monotonous and predictable after a while you know, not to mention counter-productive.
Religious concepts have nothing to do with photo radar.
I am not stubborn to the concept of changing my mind when facts are presented. It's called an "open mind."
As I get older and find out that there are more and more things that I THOUGHT I understood well only to find out that with further study, things can change, and they have for me.
I have had several mind-changing events in the last 4-5 years.
Right now, the "Fourth Amendment" issue of photo radar is not something I will change views on, because the facts and data are out there to show that I am right.
Other aspects of photo radar?
Educate me.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/connecticut-governor-plans-to-charge-drivers-17- - - - 1m/
Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell (R) is proposing a budget that increases the financial burden on drivers by $171m in order to close the state’s growing $850m deficit. Rell’s plan increases license and registration fees, imposes freeway speed cameras and assesses new charges on speeding tickets. If implemented, the programs would represent a permanent and steadily increasing source of revenue for the state.
“Governor Rell has produced a two-year spending plan that does not rely on any increased taxes,” the official budget summary explained. “The governor is keenly aware that the last thing our economy needs now is more money flowing from taxpayers’ wallets into the government’s hands.”
Under the proposal, $70m a year would flow from the wallets of drivers into the hands of a private company operating four speed cameras on Interstate 95. That company would then place $35m into the government’s hands after accounting for the expenses of operating the fixed and mobile devices. Rell has already put pressure on the state police to meet budget targets by increasing the number of speeding citations issued. The force responded with a sixteen percent boost that brought the total number of tickets issued last year to 75k.
As more drivers get those speeding tickets, more would qualify for the proposed “driver responsibility program” that would impose a point and citation tax of up to $2000 on ticket recipients. The same idea has succeeded in bringing over a billion dollars in revenue to Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Texas (details). Rell’s budget conservatively estimated the new revenue at $27m plus another $32.5m from increasing the base cost of speeding tickets. In Virginia the abuser fee concept was so unpopular that Governor Tim Kaine (D) was forced last year not only to repeal the law but also to refund the fees already collected, admitting that the program failed to improve public safety.
Rell rounded out her proposal by “updating” driver’s license and registration fees so that motorists would hand over another $72.4m to the state Department of Motor Vehicles.
The full plan requires approval of the state legislature which last year turned down the speed camera idea when the budget deficit stood at just $165m.
The Newspaper »
Well, is photo radar a money grab disguised as safety?
I think I will wait here for some other people to post before responding, as I already can predict lasb's response. And I am no Notradamus, imagine that!
People want to speed, they can pay higher taxes.
State and local governments are hurting for money, so let the speeders give them an hand.
Next issue..................
If you really think I'm like that, then you have not paid attention to what I have said.
Easy to say, "Oh, because you are an idiot you cannot understand" but in reality that does not fly, not in this case.
I have paid attention to what you've been saying. The problem is too little knowledge of the subject matter at hand, too much emotion. Not to mention the "if I say so, it must be right" line of thinking. The most egregious example is the idea that exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways makes one death-on-wheels, but driving slower than the flow of traffic, is just fine, because...you want to do it. Never mind that traffic engineers have long realized that drivers blocking the flow of traffic are the real danger.
And you are for photo radar...even though Arizona (your home state!) officials have questioned its efficacy in certain situations (i.e., on limited access highways - just as I have said). So, instead, you are now arguing that it doesn't violate privacy...which is a red herring.
lilengineerbogy: I think there are two different discussions going on here...
1. Photo radar violates a civil liberty, personal freedoms, or fails to allow you to meet your accuser in court, etc
2. Speed laws are mostly dumb.
It seems like your discussion falls into the second category for the most part, and while there is a lot of agreement with the sentiment, I don't know that its the same discussion Mr or Mrs V and Mr or Mrs L are having.
They are intertwined, because the assumption that larsb and other photo radar proponents hold is that all posted speed limits are valid, exceeding them is always dangerous, and therefore photo radar is necessary to improve highway safety.
Their advocacy for photo radar has its roots in the "speed kills" line of thought, and that all speed limits are ironclad and must be obeyed without question, and if we don't have some sort of way to prevent people from exceeding the speed limits - the latest tool is photo radar - then automotive armageddon will happen daily.
There you go AGAIN accusing me of having too little knowledge.
What can be done about these attacks?
P.S. Please don't try your commonly used "it was generic and not addressed toward YOU" tactic, because I know it was and so does anyone else who reads this forum.
What can be done about these attacks?
Learn more about the subject matter at hand. That tends to help.
Incidentally, if you consider that to be an attack, I wonder how on earth you ever made it through the Marines with such a thin skin.
That is because it is TRUE that speed kills. It's obvious and common sense to most people. For some reason, you rebel against the notion; but that does not make it less true.
But the main justification for photo radar systems in my view is to get people to obey the speed laws without spending an extra $600,000 a year to put 15 more officers on each stretch of road.
No, because the fatalities per 100 million miles driven are at record lows, and people are driving faster than ever, and there is no proof that people driving faster on limited access highways are more dangerous than slower drivers (if anything, the studies show the opposite).
larsb: It's obvious and common sense to most people.
It's what you THINK you know, not what is happening the real world.
For some reason, you rebel against the notion; but that does not make it less true.
I rebel against the notion because I've followed this issue for years.
larsb: But the main justification for photo radar systems in my view is to get people to obey the speed laws without spending an extra $600,000 a year to put 15 more officers on each stretch of road.
Except that experience has shown in other countries (Great Britain) and even Arizona that this does not improve highway safety, because it focuses on people whose speed is exceeding two numbers on a sign, and not on the real threats - drunk drivers, inattentive drivers, etc. That is why those extra officers - when their energies are directed at the real threats - are worth the extra money.
Let's talk about what specific controls would be needed to make photo radar an aceeptable device to use for speed enforcement?
Further, are there any existing implementations that meet these controls?
Lastly, can the use of photo radar systems ever be improved to the point given our political process that it can be used legally?
We can look at arguments for and against for each point as the basis for further discussion.
Thanks!
There could be more adaptions of photo radar to catch various offenders.
A) how can the technology be improved to do what you just mentioned, and what would be the costs associated with such a program?
and
Let's take basic physics, which cannot be maipulated. It's black and white.
Basic physics says that the human body will suffer more severe damage in high-speed crashes than in lower-speed crashes.
Can we agree on that before I have to start posting "proof?"
Can we just agree that danger of severe injury and death increase with speed?