Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Photo Radar

1272830323338

Comments

  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,028
    Anyone arranging their vacation plans to avoid cities which do speed enforcement is just being foolish.

    I won't stay in Ventura CA anymore because of the corrupt CHP and worse, their county courts in that county.

    I won't buy a car in Escondido, CA, because I won't buy anything there because I won't go there to do my shopping anymore after learning of their red light cameras!!!

    The only thing I have left to do is to write all the business owner's of Escondido that they lost one good customer for life until they get rid of the unconstitutional cameras.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,028
    Actually, impeding traffic in the left lane is AGAINST THE LAW.

    They don't leave it up to you to decide who's speeding. If they are going faster than you are, you are to move over to the right. You are to allow faster vehicles to pass on the left. You are not to impede faster traffic.

    No where is is written anywhere that you are to not impede traffic, UNLESS you are at or going over the speed limit already.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,028
    Although many speeders have gone to jail for vehicular manslaughter, so maybe there is more of a connection than you thought?

    In order for that statement to have any value, you'd have to prove that all people convicted of vehicular manslaughter were speeders, and furthermore, that they were speeding when they committed the more serious crime.

    Obviously, that could never be proven because you can kill with a vehicle easily without having to speed.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,028
    Scientifically, Physics says that Speed DOES NOT EVER KILL.

    I could drive 1,000 Miles per HOUR in a 10,000 HP car and still not kill anyone.
    I would say that driver's that cause COLLISIONS could potentially kill.

    But speed does not cause collisions. Two objects occupying the same space at that same time does.

    Oh, and I"m glad you admit to being taught wrongly and incorrectly. Obeying the law is not always the right thing to do. If we pass a law legalizing murder in AZ, would you go out and do it?
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,696
    >Physics says that Speed DOES NOT EVER KILL.

    ...but it sure can make money with cameras and doesn't even require an officer be present.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    Would we really want to blindly trust this type of technology in our country? I don't think so!

    from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2729.asp

    France, UK: Parked Cars Receive Speed Camera Tickets

    While Germany claims its speed cameras are flawless, innocent motorists receive automated tickets in Arizona, France and the UK.

    While officials in Europe and the United States insist that "the camera never lies," motorists around the world are receiving automated tickets for crimes that they did not commit. In Liverpool, England, for example, a speed camera accused the Fiat Punto belonging to Emily Davies, 19, of hurtling down Edge Lane Drive at 37 MPH on March 10 at precisely 10:22pm, exceeding the road's 30 MPH limit.

    Confused, Davies asked to see the photograph of her alleged offense. The Merseyside Speed Camera Partnership, hoping she would just pay the £60 (US $87) fine, insisted she would have to go to court to see it. Upon later review, the photograph showed the Ford parked outside the Davies family home, which is located in view of a speed camera. Although Merseyside officials eventually apologized, Davies first had to go through quite a bit of hassle.

    "When I first disputed the claim, I was told that mistakes are never made," Davies told London's Daily Mail newspaper. "That's just not true. If this has happened to me, it must be happening to other people. It's a waste of time and money and things should be changed."

    It is happening to other people in Laval, France. There, motorist Delphine Joubert has likewise been victimized by three times by a speed camera located outside of her home. In each case, her car is visible in the ticket photographs -- parked, with nobody behind the wheel.

    "We must always justify ourselves, writing letters" Joubert told Agence France Presse. "I have other things to do. It's harassment."

    Another resident in the same building complained of receiving twelve speed camera tickets while parked. Despite the pleas of residents, French officials have shown no interest in investigating the speed camera problems.

    In Mannheim, Germany it took a January 21 court ruling for officials to investigate questions regarding the accuracy of Poliscan brand speed cameras. The city hired the private firm Dekra to write a report on the speed camera program. As part of a package of information released this week about the program, Dekra found the automated ticketing machines to be "flawless."

    "In the opinion of experts, there have been no references to incorrect measurements," a press release boasted. "Thus one can infer the proper operation of the present speed measuring systems."

    Even flawless machinery is subject to the human error of the for-profit firms that operate photo radar in the US. The issue has become so serious in Arizona that Judge Gerald A. Williams, North Valley Justice of the Peace, published an article calling the photo radar program "an extraordinarily bad idea" that the legislature needs to fix.

    "At North Valley, part of the problem was due to highway signs, or the lack thereof," Judge Williams wrote. "For a significant period of time, people received tickets for going 66 or 67 in a 55 MPH zone. The problem was that the temporary 55 MPH sign was often after the camera. As such, we have had hundreds of hearing requests. Thus far, drivers in this category have almost always been found not responsible at their hearing."
  • whahappanwhahappan Posts: 69
    Yes, police, prosecutors and judges are hypocrites who who cynically break their oaths and operate in bad faith. Thanks for acknowledging that.
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    Here is the complete article that makes for some interesting reading.

    What about due process? All she got was an apology with NO consequences for the camera operator or the police, and then only when she had to undertake the effort to prove her innocence! So where is the incentive? To improve safety or to increase revenue? And there are thousands upon thousands more like her, accused by an inherently faulty system that cannot work as we are always told it works. Trust this? BAH!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164824/Teenager-gets-speeding-ticket--c- - - - - - ar-parked-outside-house-asleep-bed.html

    Teenager gets speeding ticket... while her car was parked outside her house and she was asleep in bed
    By Fay Schlesinger
    Last updated at 4:13 PM on 25th March 2009

    When Emily Davies parked her car outside her house and went to bed at 10pm as usual, she had no reason to believe Merseyside Police would be on her case.
    But by the following morning they had given her a £60 speeding fine - even though her car had not moved an inch.

    The 'model' driver, 19, was apparently flashed by a speed camera travelling seven miles over the speed limit in a 30mph zone. But her R-reg Fiat Punto was parked in a bay while Miss Davies was fast asleep in bed, she says.

    The teenager was allegedly clocked speeding outside her home in Old Swan, Liverpool, on March 10. She received a speeding ticket in the post from Merseyside Police Camera Partnership last week.

    The police only realised their blunder after she went to the local police station to dispute the charge.

    The registration plate on Miss Davies's stationary car is believed have appeared in the frame with a speeding vehicle which triggered the camera. An over-zealous operator noted the number and a fine was duly sent out to the innocent motorist.

    She had been held up as a model driver when she passed her driving test first time with just one minor error two years ago. Her RAC instructor described her as his 'star pupil'.

    Miss Davies, a clinical receptionist at Fazakerley Hospital, in Liverpool, said: 'I looked at the letter and began to question myself. I was shocked because I'm such a careful driver and I never speed.

    'I knew there was no way I'd be out at 10.22pm on a week night. I realised they'd made a mistake. When I first disputed the claim, I was told that mistakes are never made. That's just not true. If this has happened to me, it must be happening to other people. It's a waste of time and money and things should be changed.'

    A spokesman for Merseyside Road Safety Camera Partnership said: 'All I can say is Merseyside Police make a sincere apology. There was a failure on the operator's side.

    'She will be getting a letter of apology and the matter will be cancelled.'

    Captain Gatso, the self-styled campaigns director for Motorists Against Detection, said: 'This is yet another example of the unfairness of speed cameras. Inordinate sums of money and swathes of technology are invested in policing by camera.
    'Mistakes happen again and again. As is demonstrated by a motorist 'speeding' while in fact parked and doing 0mph, cameras offer absolutely no discretion or common sense
    .'

    The AA has revealed that thousands of motorists have been wrongly accused of speeding because of glitches in the controversial speed camera system. Mistakes range from registration numbers being misread to the dates and times of the alleged offence being wrong.

    Drivers have been accused of breaking the speed limit when they were miles away in another county.

    Others received fixed penalty notices for speeding even though they were abroad on holiday when the offence was said to have been committed.

    Nationally, around two million motorists a year receive a £60 fine from 8,000 speed cameras.
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    Here is a nice article by a judge no less:

    http://www.thefoothillsfocus.com/032509-NewPicture.asp

    New picture develops on photo radar issue

    Judge Gerald A. Williams
    North Valley Justice of the Peace

    March 25, 2009

    It is no exaggeration to avow that highway photo enforcement tickets have hit my court with such a significant volume that our regular business operations are almost in danger of slowing to the pace of a federal government bureaucracy. Some basic questions deserve an answer. Who is getting theses tickets? Who is getting the money from the fines? Will the law be “fixed” in the current legislative session?

    Most of the Impact is on Four Courts: For reasons that are not completely clear, while some justice courts have a relatively few number of photo enforcement tickets, four courts received an avalanche. Those justice courts and the number of photo enforcement tickets they received in February 2009 alone are: Arcadia Biltmore (10,880), North Valley (9,062), Downtown (8,104) and South Mountain (6,791).

    At North Valley, part of the problem was due to highway signs, or the lack thereof. For a significant period of time, people received tickets for going 66 or 67 in a 55 mph zone. The problem was that the temporary 55 mph sign was often after the camera. As such, we have had hundreds of hearing requests. Thus far, drivers in this category have almost always been found not responsible at their hearing.

    Where Does the Money Go? It is worth repeating that former Governor Janet Napolitano’s budget materials, dated Jan. 18, 2008, listed highway photo radar as creating $90 million in “Non-Tax Increase Revenue Generation.” It has brought in nowhere near that amount; but the money is still substantial, perhaps around $20 million in the first six months. Each ticket has a base fine of $165 and a surcharge for Clean Elections of $16.50.

    Money from each photo enforcement ticket breaks down as follows: $16.50 to statewide public campaign financing, $13.48 to the Department of Public Safety, $25.17 to the Supreme Court of Arizona’s Administrative Office of the Courts, $29.70 to Red-Flex (the private photo enforcement company) and $96.65 to the State of Arizona’s general fund. Please note that neither the justice courts nor Maricopa County get anything from these tickets, other than perhaps a headache.

    Will Someone Please Change This Law? The simplest and easiest fix would be to repeal sections B, C and D of A.R.S. § 41-1722. Doing so would essentially require highway photo enforcement tickets to be treated just like any other civil traffic ticket. Many of our problems result from the obvious unfairness of having substantially different penalties for otherwise identical speeding violations. A close second would be to repeal the highway photo enforcement law completely.

    The bottom line is that using photo enforcement tickets as a way to generate revenue has proven to be an extraordinarily bad idea.

    If you are pulled over by a DPS officer, for going five miles over the posted speed limit, the presumed fine is $155; but, if found responsible, you also get two points recorded against your license and your vehicle insurance will likely increase as a result. If you receive a highway photo enforcement ticket, and you are found responsible, the fine is $181.50, whether you were going 76 mph or 106 mph, and nothing is reported to MVD. Hopefully, the state legislature will adopt a better system. I, for one, hope they do so soon.

    Judge Williams is the presiding justice of the peace for the Northwest Regional Court Center. His column appears monthly in The Foothills Focus.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    andres3 says, "If we pass a law legalizing murder in AZ, would you go out and do it?"

    I don't think we need to spend any time on that.

    I don't know where you people get off thinking speed does not kill? That's just crazy talk.

    Speed CAN be a direct cause of collisions. It has happened thousands of times.

    People going too fast for the conditions or the traffic flow have less time to react to a problem.

    Their SPEED being too fast is what allows them to NOT be able to steer out of a problem or stop in time to avoid a problem.


    Going too fast has been the cause of many, many deaths and will continue to do so.

    Just because you LIKE to speed does not mean you have to ignore the dangers of that action.
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    Another town may see the light. Isn't it amazing how quickly elected officials reverse themselves once profits are taken out of the picture?

    from: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cameras_976863___article.html/mayor_red.html

    Red Light Cameras Coming Down

    March 26, 2009 - 5:01 PM

    John Pless

    The city of Dalton is making a move that will make a lot of drivers very happy - city leaders want to get rid of those red light cameras.

    Mayor David Pennington says they don't make his city any safer, and now they are costing more money than what they bring in to the city with tickets.

    The camera's that catch drivers not completely stopping at red lights in Dalton have made a lot of drivers see red when they get the $75 ticket in the mail. The camera operated systems have been promoted as making streets safer and reducing crashes. But in Dalton, we've discovered the numbers don't show it.

    Mayor David Pennington said, "Does it really enhance the public safety in a community? We see no evidence that it does."

    Mayor Pennington says at one intersection, Waugh Street and Thornton Avenue, the number of crashes increased after the red light cameras were installed.

    "Because of rear-enders, and maybe some of it is some people when they see the sign and suddenly thought hey, there's a traffic camera here and they slam on their brakes and then somebody rear-ends them," he said.

    Besides having no safety benefits the city is now losing money on the camera systems, before taking into account the number of man hours it takes to process the pictures and mail out tickets. The equipment is not cheap. The city of Dalton pays Laser Craft, the company that installed these cameras, about $25,000 a month under the terms of the lease.

    The number of tickets issued has been declining. In February last year 586 tickets brought in just under $44,000. This February the number of tickets fell to 125, bringing in just under $9,400, nowhere near the $25,000 the mayor says he pays Laser Craft.

    Same for January, where 397 tickets in 2008 shrank to 203 tickets this year bringing in just over $15,000... about $10,000 less than the cost of the machines. So now the mayor wants to get rid of the red light cameras, which makes most drivers very happy.

    "Sometimes when you're in the middle of a yellow light you know, that's when they take their picture and stuff. Yeah, Id like to get rid of 'em, save a little money for us you know," one driver said.

    Tickets for rolling stops far outnumber the number of hard stops at the downtown cameras. That's where a driver approaches, slows down to a near stop, then proceeds if traffic is clear.

    Mayor Pennington said, "Instead of paying the money that it costs to have cameras at the intersections, are we not better off with a policeman that patrols a high-crime area?"

    Money better spent the mayor says, since red light cameras do not improve safety. The mayor will recommend the Dalton City Council take action to get rid of the red light cameras in the coming weeks. Other cities in suburban Atlanta have already taken their cameras down.
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    Democracy at work here too folks, slowly but surely :)

    from: http://www.kbmt12.com/news/local/41785612.html

    Beaumont Puts Brakes on Red Light Cameras
    News KBMT

    Story Created: Mar 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM CDT

    Story Updated: Mar 25, 2009 at 10:58 AM CDT

    The City of Beaumont has put the brakes on red light cameras.

    Council members Tuesday voted on a measure calling for the abandonment of a red light camera ordinance.

    This past year, the city has discussed the issue and held a public meeting to get input from Beaumont residents.

    According to city documents, Beaumont City Manager Kyle Hayes recommended today's vote to abandon the idea, saying he's seen conflicting studies on the effectiveness of the cameras.

    Councilman Alan Coleman was the only council member to vote in favor of red light cameras.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    It would be just as incorrect to say that red light cameras ALWAYS make intersections safer as if would be to say that they ALWAYS make intersections more dangerous.

    This is a good study which provides real data:

    Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras—Executive Summary

    This analysis, which was based on an aggregation of rear end and right-angle crash costs for various severity levels, showed that RLC systems do indeed provide a modest aggregate crash-cost benefit.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    And from IIHS

    What safety benefits do red light cameras provide?

    Cameras have been shown to substantially reduce red light violations. Institute evaluations in Fairfax, Virginia, and Oxnard, California, showed that camera enforcement reduced red light running violations by about 40 percent.3,7 In addition to reducing red light running at camera-equipped sites, violation reductions in both communities carried over to signalized intersections not equipped with red light cameras, indicating community-wide changes in driver behavior. An Institute evaluation of red light cameras in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that after red light violations were reduced by 36 percent following increased yellow signal timing, the addition of red light cameras further reduced red light violations by 96 percent.8

    In addition to reducing red light violations, cameras have been shown to reduce intersection crashes. In Oxnard, California, significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent.9 Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent. An Institute review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce red light violations by 40-50 percent and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent.10

    Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe than rear-end crashes, research has shown there is a positive aggregate benefit. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities.11 The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million over 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of approximately $39,000 per site year. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The Cochrane Collaboration (an international organization that conducts systematic reviews of the scientific literature on public health issues) reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light camera effectiveness in Australia, Singapore, and the United States.12 Using techniques of meta-analysis, the authors estimated a 16 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right-angle crashes. The review did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end crashes.
  • Speed does not kill! It is the reckless actions of the person speeding that kills! You can be just as dead getting hit by a car going 3 miles and hour and you can by one going 30 or 300 an hour!

    Either way, dead is dead, and it is the actions of the driver that does the killing.

    When will everyone wake up and rethink their stupid feelings of entittlement and need for control over others actions and realize that each person is responsible for their own actions and the consequences of them, and punish them accordingly?

    The general population should not suffer or be teathered to someone elses way of thinking because of the reckless actions of a few.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    joepeterson56, "You can be just as dead getting hit by a car going 3 miles and hour"

    can you explain further on how I might die in another car by being hit by a car going 3 miles per hour?

    "Speed does not kill" is merely a mythical rallying cry for people who want to speed. It's not based in reality at all.
  • People who make blanket statements such as this one, due a lot of diservice to a lot of law enforcement people who don't deserve that kind of abuse. People talk about racial profiling being a bad thing but talking like this is NO DIFFERENT.

    When a person sees a policeman speeding, they do not know for a fact if that officer is on a call of a nature that requires a fast emergency response, that calls for no lights or sirens unless absolutely necessary or unavoidable.

    If you cut your finger and it got gangerene, would you just cut off the finger to save the hand and arm, or would you cut off the hand or arm completely? Same type of thinking as those kinds of statements.

    Get real.
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    Speed costs money. Safety costs money. Safe Speed costs a LOT of money.

    What we do as a society depends greatly on these three simple facts.

    So, how fast do we want to go, and how safe do we want to be while we get there?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,227
    It is different, as one side will face accountability a lot more than the other.

    I see a lot of WSP speeding around the area where there's a popular breakfast/brunch establishment. Maybe it just has a lot of emergencies.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,696
    > they do not know for a fact if that officer is on a call of a nature that requires a fast emergency response, that calls for no lights or sirens unless absolutely necessary or unavoidable.

    Since it was a large SUV and doesn't have lights and siren and it was on I75 where the State Highway Patrol takes care of things (somewhat), I doubt he was on an emergency run. We were 1 miles south of the rest area so if the driver had a "call of nature" they just missed their chance.

    >People who make blanket statements such as this one, due a lot of diservice to a lot of law enforcement people who don't deserve that kind of abuse

    I'm not sure which statement you're calling "blanket." The FOP tags on the license plates should be illegal; they are only license for misuse and avoiding following the laws which apply to everyone in our state unless they're on an emergency call, and for that they have lights and sirens.

    I've been tailgated, passed, cut off, in the last years by too many vehicles with those convenient FOP tags, to give your criticism a consideration. Also my wife has a friend whose husband is a policeman. The wife used her "get out of jail free" card 3 times in 6 weeks when she was stopped--speeding X2 and illegal left turn out of a business driveway X1 (left turn across several lanes of traffic, controlled by warning sign in business driveway showing no left turns).

    >People who make blanket statements such as this one, due a lot of diservice to a lot of law enforcement people who don't deserve that kind of abuse

    I expect them to follow the laws in the same way I expect elected people in Columbus and DC to follow the laws. I know I'm expecting a lot from the elected folk, but for policemen it's what they agree to as part of their oath.

    It's real.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Hey, Illinois cares about everything. We sent our finest to Washington to reform health care, budget, inequity in wealth/income, and fix the world, etc. In addtion, Chicago will host Olmypiics in 2016. Our state does it all. Wait and see. We will probably outdo every State in number of photo speed cameras, stop light cameras by the time of the Olympics.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,227
    Maybe it's up to the brave credentialed optimistic skilled neocons to band together and launch a credible fight against these evil ideals, unlike they were able to do last year...

    I thought you were one of the types that loves the surveillance grid...
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,227
    Crap like this is why people are suspicious of the actions of cops and justifiably so...

    There's a lot of talk about out of control unions...maybe law enforcement unions need to be raked over the coals and sent to the same hell the UAW is going to end up in.
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    Cameras are just the first step, soon to be superseded by this type of technology, which will almost guarantee a surveillance state in Europe. Note the selling points are supposed to be safety, congestion and emissions. Do we want this here too?

    from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/31/surveillance-transport-communication-bo- - x

    Big Brother is watching: surveillance box to track drivers is backed

    Privacy row brewing over surveillance on the road

    Box could reduce accidents, pollution and congestion


    Paul Lewis in Brussels

    The Guardian, Tuesday 31 March 2009

    The government is backing a project to install a "communication box" in new cars to track the whereabouts of drivers anywhere in Europe, the Guardian can reveal.

    Under the proposals, vehicles will emit a constant "heartbeat" revealing their location, speed and direction of travel. The EU officials behind the plan believe it will significantly reduce road accidents, congestion and carbon emissions. A consortium of manufacturers has indicated that the router device could be installed in all new cars as early as 2013.

    However, privacy campaigners warned last night that a European-wide car tracking system would create a system of almost total road surveillance.

    Details of the Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems (CVIS) project, a £36m EU initiative backed by car manufacturers and the telecoms industry, will be unveiled this year.

    But the Guardian has been given unpublished documents detailing the proposed uses for the system. They confirm that it could have profound implications for privacy, enabling cars to be tracked to within a metre - more accurate than current satellite navigation technologies.

    The European commission has asked governments to reserve radio frequency on the 5.9 Gigahertz band, essentially setting aside a universal frequency on which CVIS technology will work.

    The Department for Transport said there were no current plans to make installation of the technology mandatory. However, those involved in the project describe the UK as one of the main "state backers". Transport for London has also hosted trials of the technology.

    The European Data Protection Supervisor will make a formal announcement on the privacy implications of CVIS technology soon. But in a recent speech he said the technology would have "great impact on rights to privacy and data".

    Paul Kompfner, who manages CVIS, said governments would have to decide on privacy safeguards. "It is time to start a debate ... so the right legal and privacy framework can be put in place before the technology reaches the market," he said.

    The system allows cars to "talk" to one another and the road. A "communication box" behind the dashboard ensures that cars send out "heartbeat" messages every 500 milliseconds through mobile cellular and wireless local area networks, short-range microwave or infrared.

    The messages will be picked up by other cars in the vicinity, allowing vehicles to warn each other if they are forced to break hard or swerve to avoid a hazard.

    The data is also picked up by detectors at the roadside and mobile phone towers. That enables the road to communicate with cars, allowing for "intelligent" traffic lights to turn green when cars are approaching or gantries on the motorway to announce changes to speed limits.

    Data will also be sent to "control centres" that manage traffic, enabling a vastly improved system to monitor and even direct vehicles.

    "A traffic controller will know where all vehicles are and even where they are headed," said Kompfner. "That would result in a significant reduction in congestion and replace the need for cameras."

    Although the plan is to initially introduce the technology on a voluntary basis, Kompfner conceded that for the system to work it would need widespread uptake. He envisages governments making the technology mandatory for safety reasons.Any system that tracks cars could also be used for speed enforcement or national road tolling.

    Roads in the UK are already subject to the closest surveillance of any in the world. Police control a database that is fed information from automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, and are able to deduce the journeys of as many as 10 million drivers a day. Details are stored for up to five years.

    However, the government has been told that ANPR speed camera technology is "inherently limited" with "numerous shortcomings".

    Advice to ministers obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act advocates upgrading to a more effective car tracking-based system, similar to CVIS technology, but warns such a system could be seen as a "spy in the cab" and "may be regarded as draconian".

    Introducing a more benign technology first, the report by transport consultants argues, would "enable potential adverse public reaction to be better managed".

    Simon Davies, director of the watchdog Privacy International, said: "The problem is not what the data tells the state, but what happens with interlocking information it already has. If you correlate car tracking data with mobile phone data, which can also track people, there is the potential for an almost infallible surveillance system."
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    While I agree with your sentiments about Brussels (beautiful city by the way, go to Boucherie Street for dinner if you ever get the chance), I am far more worried about the power hungry politicians in cahoots with special interests in Washington and State Capitols, and their trying to get this system up and running over here, all in the name of safety for the sheeple to digest.

    Step 1 in terms of desensitizing the populace with cameras everywhere is already well under way.
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    Good point. That places an even greater burden with those with the understanding of exactly what is at stake to work together to ensure that it doesn't happen.

    What was the wise saying about all that is needed for evil to flourish is for good people to remain silent?
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Slowing down speeders, who contribute to 48,000 dead on our roads every year, is nowhere in the neighborhood of any sort of EVIL.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    fintail says, "History is proving the fears of Orwell to be very valid. "

    Neh, just not seeing that happening.

    Until the surveillance starts targeting "innocent people" and so far is has not, then the more paranoid of you are just being that - paranoid. Unfounded fear.

    Photo radar are there to stop lawbreakers.
    Cameras in stores are there to stop lawbreakers.
    Cameras in casinos are there to stop lawbreakers.

    Do you know of any camera system in use anywhere in the world which is there to target or be a detriment to LAWFULLY BEHAVING citizens?

    If so, please enlighten us.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,227
    Slowing down speeders?

    Contribute to 48000 deaths?

    No evil?

    You need to preface that with "in my opinion"....
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Rage against cameras taken to another
    level


    This is the tragic, indirect result of the misplaced vehemence which speeders have for the photo radar cameras, and all the proponents who complain about it have driven this man to murdering a completely innocent person for doing their job.

    Any apologists for this cretin?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,227
    "Any apologists for this cretin? "

    Are you serious? That's a little melodramatic. Nobody is going to defend that.

    If anyone should be targeted, it is judges and legislators :P
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    You mean by "targeted", what?
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    The [non-permissible content removed] is in custody:

    Police: Suspect in custody in murder of photo radar worker
  • vinnynyvinnyny Posts: 774
    No thinking person would condone such a heinous act. However, does this surprise anyone? People have been attacking these one-eyed bandits since they first hit the streets. It was just a matter of time before some innocent person got hurt in the name of balancing the budget. It's truly disgusting that it has gotten to this point.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    I think it was driven by the unfounded, unnatural hate that these devices create.

    It's totally stupid to foster such a rabid dislike for the devices, and it obviously can move over into "death penalty eligible behavior" in people who have shaky mental health to begin with.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,227
    It's unnatural to hate someone who lies, yes.

    Unfounded and unnatural...in your opinion.

    Maybe if the irresponsible overpaid underworked civil servants who dream up these schemes could have the cojones to call them revenue shortfall correctors instead of safety godsends, there would be less animosity
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,696
    That Neopolitano was the governor who made the cash register cameras statewide. She just accused service people of being terrorists.

    I blame the polticians who see a way to make money. If I read one more time, like in the article, that the cameras work and free up policemen to do other real policing jobs...! Dumb. Put the policemen out watching for red light runners. They'll find other violations. The cameras don't; they just send a bill. Our city policemen patrol all the time. No money cameras here. We do have video cameras on most intersections live online throughout the city.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • Let's see, law enforcement is outsourced to a private corporation, yet the photo radar employees receive no police gear, no vest, no gun, just a vehicle that says DPS on the side of it. Smart.

    Redflex is going to have to hire police officers to keep their employees safe as they do the police officer's job.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Not at all.

    Has a city worker standing on the street working in the electrical panel of a red light ever been shot and murdered?

    No.

    Has there ever been a case of a law enforcement officer standing out beside his car with a radar gun in his hand being shot and murdered?

    No.

    It's not the fact that they are a police entity or not which got that man shot.

    It's the ridiculous attitude ingrained into people by the anti-photo-radar MOVEMENT which got him shot.

    The blood is on their hands.
  • vchengvcheng Posts: 1,284
    The suspect in custody has no speeding tickets. The motive is presently unknown.

    I would suggest that we wait for the facts to come out, as I am sure they will. Until that happens, and unless the the evidence presented suggests otherwise, this is a topic that does not relate to the present discussion directly.

    The suspect is innocent until proven guilty, and I for one will wait for facts before assigning any indirect guilt by association, but that's just me.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Sure, we should wait on the suspect to speak, or for the police to find a motive, sure.

    But reality check:

    The chances of it being "completely random" are about the same as the chances of the Supreme Court ruling photo radar unconstitutional TODAY.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,696
    >It's the ridiculous attitude ingrained into people by the anti-photo-radar MOVEMENT which got him shot.
    >The blood is on their hands.

    Do ya think the people putting up cameras as money makers rather than having policing occur might have a little responsibility? Hmmmm. Or all of it? Hmmmmm.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    No, they have none.

    They are just trying to enforce the speed laws.

    Or they are just trying to collect money from speeders.

    Don't speed, and your money won't get collected.

    If money was not being made by the cameras, then they would go away.

    You want them to go away? Get behind an anti-speeding movement.

    Really, think about this for a second. Which makes more sense?

    1. Attacking a method of enforcement.
    2. Stopping the behavior which causes the need for the enforcement.

    It's totally obvious.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,227
    Of course the third alternative is to demand logical law enforcement, justifiable use of publicly funded resources, and defendable laws to begin with. Such ideals are always not gained via mere elections.

    It's all about profit for a few well connected crony capitalists and for irresponsible public sector types to compensate for their own defective financial planning.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    So WHAT if it's all about profits? This is a capitalist society !!!

    If you don't want "well-connected cronies" to get rich, then preach the end of speeding.

    The end of speeding will be the end of all your "supposed injustices" that the photo radar system forces on the poor, innocent, harmless speeder.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    That story from an anti-photo-radar website, by the way.

    Heck, if merely yellow light lengthening prevents accidents and tickets, let's just put them at 10 seconds and save lives !!!

    The paradox is that there is never any news stories of camera installs working correctly, within the law, and within reason, as the vast majority are doing.

    Something "just working right" does not make the news.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,227
    But is the story wrong?

    Working right shouldn't be newsworthy...the segment of society entrusted to this manner of revenue collection should be able to be trusted to be ethical and honest. Extra credit is't deserved from a base expectation. Of course, they can't be trusted to be ethical or honest.

    Something just working wrong should always make the news.

    Heck, if going slow prevents accidents, let's all just go 30...
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,696
    >Get behind an anti-speeding movement.

    Actually, I'm still working on global warming. :P

    >Really, think about this for a second. Which makes more sense?

    >1. Attacking a method of enforcement.
    >2. Stopping the behavior which causes the need for the enforcement

    The technique is to do enforcement in a manner which is effective. And effective is with police officers actually stopping people to issue tickets. Nothing slows people down like flashing red and blue lights.

    The method of enforcement is certainly fair game, because it is not enforcement. It is not effective. It's collecting money after the fact with various legal technicallities to avoid state law, as in Ohio they are not in the ORC so they are just bills. They are not allowed to be tickets.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    The method some have suggested when the Person was shot then the owner of the car seen leaving the scene of the crime would have been charged for the crime even if they weren’t driving. Yes, look back at the posts we have seen and that is what some have suggested for anyone who has a car photographed speeding. In fact the suggestion has been made that the owner should just pay the ticket or provide the guilty party to the court themselves when their vehicle has been identified by the all knowing camera. So does that mean the registered owner of a vehicle that was observed leaving the scene of a crime should simply turn themselves in or catch the individual themselves? That was the suggestion made to justify photo tickets to registered owners.

    At least in the case of someone getting shot we still have heard the innocent till proven guilty mantra we have come to believe is a foundational part of our justice system. I feel sorry for someone getting shot just doing their job. And like others have said we don’t know why the shooting took place but at least the argument isn’t being made that the person owning the car should just go to jail without proof they were driving. And if there is proof they were driving that is the first step in “proving” someone is guilty.
Sign In or Register to comment.