By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Many times I have gotten behind a pack of cars on the interstate doing just under 55 MPH all because no one is willing to pass a park district cop. :sick:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It really has led to a drop in road behaviour though, because the police aren't around watching motorists and calming things down, and in addition locals get to know where the cameras are ( they have to be visible and are painted yellow) so they/we are good at speeding to the camera, slamming on the brakes, then speeding up when leaving the area on the road where the speed is assessed - there is a line of white marks to measure relative speed. That is why we get through front brake pads so quickly in UK....
That was a point I made earlier that the locals know where the cameras are. People who are traveling through or new don't know.
Are you saying the cameras measure speed between two white lines instead of radar?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Since AZ law says it has to be able to be read by another person at a distance, which those covers allow. But, when the cameras started coming out, they came down hard on anything put on the license plate.
I agree. I see it on other boards, people have no problem with invasion of privacy so long as they get some warm, fuzzy feeling (less speeders, red-light runners, etc).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The political division keeps the money when the officer issues a ticket. The camera company gets 75% roughly when the camera does it.
I parallel the camera companies with the officers retired who used to start agencies supplying drug cops to go in undercover and come up with arrest evidence. Essentially they were detective agencies but because they were excops they had an "in" with the police agencies. Many in this area would do "anything" to get evidence for an arrest, including stepping over the line of what they should do such as entrapment. Policing turning into a business is not good. Put officers out roving looking for redlighters; they'll pay their way.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That doesn't negate my argument, so the police officer can do a bit more so what? the camera is still basically doing the same as the police.
The camera company gets 75% roughly when the camera does it.
A few municipalities that don't get a good deal on the contract doesn't negate what I said either.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
runners be heavily fined so as to bring them in line and submissive to the law.
Red light cameras are to traffic as meters are to parking spaces. Get used to it.
The "Big Brother" theme in this debate is not applicable either.
Law enforcement technique includes sophisticated electronics & that is welcomed.
Wow, nobody's business. How does one justify that scary mentality?
It is EVERYONE's business as a citizen to know how much money is made and where it goes. You cannot justify having the books closed.
"The "Big Brother" theme in this debate is not applicable either. "
Wow. Not applicable. It's like Germany, 1936. Questioning the knowledge and credentials of the powers that be is on par with anarchy, right? Defer! Conform! Time for these devices to be taken out of operation, and likewise for those who blindly defer to such masquerades of justice and wastes of resources at the same time. Sure sounds like a revenue generating scheme (for public coffers and crooked private business alike) - a tax with bad driving being the sin, rather than pure "law enforcement".
runners be heavily fined so as to bring them in line and submissive to the law.
It sure is important and it is the business of citizens to know what percent of fines are paid to suppliers or contractors. We are supposed to have transparency in govt in the US.
No, the camera isn't doing the same thing that police officers are doing, and those extra checks performed by police officers make a HUGE difference. Those extra checks are more than a "bit more."
And magnette's post at #8990 - which is a first-person account of someone who drives in a nation that relies very heavily on camera enforcement - confirms what I and others have posted earlier about the lack of police presence encouraging bad driving behavior.
Here is it again, for easy reference: It really has led to a drop in road behaviour though, because the police aren't around watching motorists and calming things down, and in addition locals get to know where the cameras are ( they have to be visible and are painted yellow) so they/we are good at speeding to the camera, slamming on the brakes, then speeding up when leaving the area on the road where the speed is assessed - there is a line of white marks to measure relative speed. That is why we get through front brake pads so quickly in UK....
Direct experience with widespread use of these devices of law enforcement contradicts your assertions.
Oh I see they put up the cameras and fire all the police. Do you have a source? Is this a fact or just opinion? Fact is that the police are still out there and still doing their patrols. The cameras augment the police not replace them.
Direct experience with widespread use of these devices of law enforcement contradicts your assertions.
Cameras have been used around here for some time at railroad crossing where we used to have a major problem with cars being hit by trains. They are also being installed at "trouble intersections" in the area and that experience DOES NOT contradict my assertions.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The "scary" syndrome arises because they are subjected to "fearing" the law enforcement techniques.
Those who "respect" the law and do not fear authority, have no problem with the technical law enforcement apparati.
Submit, conform, and obey the laws or change them, but breaking them with an attitude of defiance is anarchy.
Some anarchy is needed, and more with each passing day.
Regards,
Kyle
What I quoted was a post from magnette, who lives in Great Britain and sees firsthand the side effects of widespread (over)reliance of traffic cameras for law enforcement purposes.
Seeing as how I was just in Great Britain (Leeds, London) two weeks ago, I agree with his observations. Not too many police patrols were visible.
Also seeing as how he lives there, and you don't, I give much more weight to his firsthand experience as opposed to your opinions.
snakeweasel: Cameras have been used around here for some time at railroad crossing where we used to have a major problem with cars being hit by trains. They are also being installed at "trouble intersections" in the area and that experience DOES NOT contradict my assertions.
Traffic cameras have NOT been installed in the United States to the extent that they have in Great Britain, so your limited example does not prove magnette's contention incorrect.
Police, as as rule, do not regularly patrol railroad crossings - they certainly don't around here. So the use of traffic cameras at railroad crossings has not replaced any police patrols. In Great Britain they are used not only for red-light running, but also for speed measurement.
And, incidentally, you originally said this in post #9000: That doesn't negate my argument, so the police officer can do a bit more so what? the camera is still basically doing the same as the police.
Really - cameras can arrest intoxicated drivers on the spot? Search for illegal substances? Pull someone over for an equipment violation (burned out headlight, etc.)? Arrest the driver when there is an outstanding warrant for some other crime? Find out immediately if the driver is driving with a suspended license, and immediately prevent him or her from driving? Pull someone over for other dangerous behavior (tailgating, weaving through traffic, etc.)?
Read your local paper and see how often a routine traffic stop leads to one of the above outcomes.
First off I am not giving my opinion of there but my first hand experience of here. Here we have been using these things with NONE of the problems that magnette has reported.
Police, as as rule, do not regularly patrol railroad crossings - they certainly don't around here.
They do around here especially at the railroad stations where a stopped train can block one or more streets and there is the trouble of people going around gates (in cars and on foot) when there is a stopped train in the station. I used to commute on the train (35 miles one way) and would see many places where the police were either watching the crossings or actively controlling traffic at the stations. Many of these also have cameras at the crossing.
And this is a perfect example. River road in Naperville has a grade level crossing that the Police had a Police officer in a car watching the crossing to give out tickets to people who violated the gates. They have since installed a camera at that location that has freed up that one patrol car to do their regular patrols so that they can stop speeders and those who don't stop at stop signs and stop lights. So that they can do all the things you say a camera cannot do. So now instead of spending 20+ hours a week watching a crossing the police officer can actually do his work.
Really - cameras can arrest intoxicated drivers on the spot?
As I said the cameras are not replacing police patrols. That will still happen along with greater enforcement of traffic laws.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Excellent point! So the drunk guy speeding through red light after red light has no one to stop him but at least he'll get those tickets.
Then can you explain why I no longer see cops posted at intersections looking for red-light runners?
Well, you seem to be defending and in support of red-light cameras. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Can you please say one way or the other, are you in favor or against red light cameras?
Hmm....I always thought that only one car was allowed to be in the intersection at a time. I've seen three cars go through a yellow here with that methodology at some of our bigger intersections. And, if they are keeping their front bumper on the line, then they are not allowed to make the turn when the light goes yellow because they are not in the intersection.
Maybe your not looking.
Maybe they are at another intersection looking for red light runners.
Maybe they are driving around looking for people driving erratically (something they can't do if they are sitting waiting for a red light runner).
Maybe they are responding to the lady who called in to say someone broke into her house.
Maybe they are now free to patrol the neighborhoods looking for people breaking into houses.
Maybe they are at Krispy Kreme :P
You see that by putting up a camera at a particular intersection they can watch other things that they couldn't watch if they were at that one intersection.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I am not defending them I just don't see these arguments against them as valid.
Can you please say one way or the other, are you in favor or against red light cameras?
No. I have formed no opinion one way or the other.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm not sure how it works where you are, but most tickets are a civil complaint and the ticket basically says "I (the officer) witnessed ______ doing _____ ...".
You are arguing in their defense. You state that a positive effect is that officers are freed to do other things. How is that not a defense of them?
No. I have formed no opinion one way or the other.
So you are indifferent to a violation of our basic rights?
Well, no. You could sue them.
In your response is the disengenuousness of the red light camera issue. The SWORN officer DID NOT witness the infraction.
Which is why I'm saying that cameras of any kind to enforce traffic laws are wrong. What it comes down to is the picture gets taken and then someone at at a private company (Redflex) decides whether or not you broke the law. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
An officer can issue a ticket based on the sworn testimony of a witness. My son got such a ticket based soley on the fact that he drove a white 2 door Neon and someone got hit by a white 2 door Neon. The plaintiff didn't get a license number, couldn't give a description of the driver and even got some identifying features of my sons car wrong.
What happened is the plaintiff saw my sons car in the parking lot where he worked a few days later took down the plate number and told the police that he found the car that hit him. The police investigated this and issued my son a ticket.
Of course the Judge threw it out when we presented a motion to dismiss based on lack of evidence.
Now how many times have you seen, been in or heard of an accident when someone was given a ticket by a policeman who didn't witness the accident?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I am not arguing in their defense, I am debating the legitimacy of the argument against them. There is a difference.
So you are indifferent to a violation of our basic rights?
I see no violation of basic rights.
Tell me since when is running a red light a basic right?
This is what I am talking about, the validity of the argument is what I am debating. Installing a camera to snap a picture of a car running a red light is no more a violation of basic rights than stationing a police officer there to issue a ticket to cars running a red light.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And magnette was giving his firsthand experience with the effect that the deployment of traffic cameras has on the police presence, and thus, traffic behavior.
Given that Great Britain has deployed far more traffic cameras - and for more numerous purposes - than any state in the union, I'm inclined to give his experience more credibility as to the long-term effect of relying heavily on traffic cameras as an enforcement tool.
snakeweasel: As I said the cameras are not replacing police patrols. That will still happen along with greater enforcement of traffic laws.
Considering that personnel costs are a HUGE expense for state and local governments, the idea that municipalities won't ultimately view traffic cameras as a substitute for police presence is a stretch, at best.
Of course it won't be sold that way at first - it never is. Local elected officials aren't that stupid. (It's the same as automakers not saying that this new automated welding machine will immediately eliminate "x" number of UAW members. Of course it eventually will, but they don't say that.) But the long-term effect will be the same.
Philadelphia, for example, has reduced the number of police officers for REGULAR patrol duty...and these are the officers who investigate serious crimes (and it isn't because Philadelphia is safer than ever). Are traffic cops more important?
If anybody really believes that municipal governments will deploy traffic cameras on a widespread basis and only use them to supplement regular police patrols, and not be tempted to use them to ultimately reduce police presence - well, I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, and it's a steal.
I'm sorry, but arguing that they free officers to do other things that there should be enough officers for in the first place is a defense of them.
This is what I am talking about, the validity of the argument is what I am debating. Installing a camera to snap a picture of a car running a red light is no more a violation of basic rights than stationing a police officer there to issue a ticket to cars running a red light.
Here is the logical fallacy, you are assuming that is the only case when these things issue tickets. It has been proven that they are not. The basic right here that is being violated is the right to face your accuser and the right not to incriminate yourself. You have not shown, in this or other discussions, a valid counter-argument to these points. You seen these arguments and, unable to come up with a viable counter-argument, how can you not see a violation of rights?
Agreed.
And when I give mine you ignore it, the most likely reason is that it doesn't support your view. There are a few issues with using magnettes testimony:
First it is antidocial and therefor should be used only if you can give some supporting documentation.
Secondly it is in another country under different circumstances, and as such should produce different results.
Finally it is on speeders not red light runners which is what we are talking about. It would seem that the red light cameras have had a different response here.
Philadelphia, for example, has reduced the number of police officers for REGULAR patrol duty...
If you are trying to link the reduction in police officers to the use of red light cameras you better be prepared to provide some proof. I know that Philadelphia is having a budget crises and the reduction in police officers is linked to that not cameras.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm sorry but it is no such thing, it is a rebuttal to someone claiming they don't see police at intersections where cameras are stationed.
The basic right here that is being violated is the right to face your accuser and the right not to incriminate yourself.
That right is not violated. In every state you have the right to view the photograph and contest it in court. Your accuser is the state and you have every right to face them in court. Just like every other piece of evidence against you.
You have not shown, in this or other discussions, a valid counter-argument to these points.
I have you just don't listen, I mean someone not to long ago even stated that showing up in court was self incriminating, and thats simply not true. I addressed that and I have addressed what you said. there is no violation of individual rights going on.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Might be a good reason to wear ski masks and buy those license plate warpers, or take off your front plate
Reasonable doubt is a good defense. And you wonder why law abiding folks become increasingly more contemptuous of law enforcement?
That would be fine if you left it at that, but you gave the distinct impression that we are better off because the police can do these other things. That is pointing out a "positive" effect and therefore a defense of them.
That right is not violated. In every state you have the right to view the photograph and contest it in court. Your accuser is the state and you have every right to face them in court. Just like every other piece of evidence against you.
The accuser CANNOT be the State, because the State did not witness me running the red light. The closest approximation is the Redflex person who looked at the camera data. It has been shown that these courts do not allow the cross-examination of the camera or the Redflex employee. Furthermore, they only send you small reduced quality prints of the pictures. If you want the ones that you can actually see if you entered the intersection like they say, you have to, guess what, show your face. They then have record that the person in the picture is the person who is walking in requesting the bigger pictures. BINGO, self-incrimination.
Still I see no evidence on your part that you are not forced to forgo your right not to self incriminate. You receive the tattle notice saying, "we saw your car do this, now fess up or tell us who did it". At that point they have ZERO evidence that YOU did it but that doesn't stop them from demanding a fine or you to take traffic school. At this point they only have evidence that the vehicle ran the light. Now, consider:
" 3. Red indication:
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of this paragraph, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. On receipt of a record of judgment for a violation of this subdivision or an act in another jurisdiction that if committed in this state would be a violation of this section, the department shall order the person to attend and successfully complete traffic survival school training and educational sessions within sixty days after the department issues the order."
How can they order the vehicle to complete traffic school? At this point, all they know is that a vehicle ran the light, not a specific person.