http://gamingtrend.com
December 22, 2014, 05:43:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Dallas considers shutting off red light cams, since they're working too well?  (Read 2520 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15987


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« on: March 16, 2008, 03:20:56 PM »

Just a simple cut and paste job Via Engadget to give you your WTF allotment of the day:

Dallas considers shutting off red light cams, since they're working too well and harming revenue

Quote
There's just one, fairly ironic, flaw to the otherwise totally lovable red light cameras that adorn Dallas: they work too well. Turns out the cams have curtailed red light infractions by 50 percent, which in turn has put a budget crunch on City Hall. The city is now considering stopping its planned rollout of more cameras, or shutting down the cameras on a rotating basis -- upkeep when off is next to nothing, but the city pays $3,799 per month per online camera to its service provider. That sounds like quite a spendy broadband bill, but we're not the experts here. Just remember kids, your government wants what's best for you, and what's best for you is a well-funded government, alright?

...

That said, I never liked the red light cameras, simply because I always believed that they'd raise the number of rear end collisions to make said intersection 'safer'. And here in AZ, we have speed cameras on the freakin' interstate in certain spots.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
leo8877
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12935



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2008, 04:04:19 PM »

WTF is right. 
Logged
papasmurff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1399


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2008, 04:20:46 PM »

hmmm...what is funny is that my city has been talking about doing the same.  Even though they are still in the process of installing new cameras.  The news keeps reporting the the cost of the equiptment is more than the revenue generated b/c people aren't running lights as much.  Personally, I don't give a shit how expensive they are as long as they save lives.  I mean, if they make people pay attention more then they are worth every penny spent.
Logged

Gaming Tag: papa smurff 4
Wolves
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 171

DAMMIT!!!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2008, 04:58:12 PM »

We used to have speed cameras on our highways here in Ontario.

The limit is 100 km per hour and the cameras were set to go off if you exceeded 120 km.
After a while people started figuring out that a van at the side of the road meant a possible radar camera and slamming on the brakes when they saw one, so less tickets were given out....then they reduced the camera setting to 108 km per hour and pissed off pretty much everyone!
 Roll Eyes

A provincial election was coming up and the opposition pledged to get rid of the cameras.
They won.
And in a rare case of politicians telling the truth, they kept their promise!
No more speed cameras.  icon_biggrin
Logged

Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2008, 05:40:26 PM »

I absolutely hate red light and speed cameras.  I think it's a travesty that they're somehow considered "legal".  From a civil liberties standpoint, I'm horrified by these things.  They often just get a shot of the license plate but NOT the driver.  Legally, the driver is responsible for the infraction yet the owner gets the ticket and then somehow has to prove they weren't driving the car during that time.  Seems rather anti-Constitutional - ya know, "innocent until proven guilty".  They get around it by somehow calling it a civil penalty, but if you don't pay they can arrest you. 

In Charlotte, NC, they put in a bunch of red-light cameras by telling the people that 90% of the funds were going to the schools.  Of course, 50% of the revenue went to the operator of the cameras.  An attorney sued and got them shut down because the money didn't go to the schools and I don't think they've ever been turned on again.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Chaz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5212



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2008, 06:29:53 PM »

Two things.  First, to ascertain who the driver is, they could position a camera down the road shooting toward the windshield.  Link it to the camera shooting the plate, and you've got both the plate and the driver.

Second, the main purpose of these things should be as a deterrent.  Apparently they actually function as a deterrent if red light running decreases enough that revenues drop below the cost of the camera operation.  Why then would the city be so vocal about shutting them off?  If the public doesn't know they're not on, than the deterrent remains in effect without losing revenue to expensive camera costs.  Alternately, they could put them on an intermittent operating schedule.  Doing that, the public wouldn't know exactly when the cameras were on.  Sure, some people would still run reds, but eventually they'd get caught, resulting in them not running reds, or in them paying money.

I also don't understand the argument of people against the cameras saying that they increase the chance of rear-end collisions.  What that seems to mean is that people who are breaking the law (speeding in an unsafe manner) should be allowed to run the red light (illegal and unsafe) rather than slam on their brakes to stop for the red (unsafe, and if they were driving at a reasonable speed and paying attention to the light, they shouldn't need to slam the brakes).  I'm all for encouraging people to adhere to the traffic laws in the first place, but I agree that there are more cost-effective ways of doing it than having red light cameras running constantly.
Logged

unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2008, 06:43:24 PM »

This is precisely why I get literally outraged at the concept local governments take regarding using citizens as a revenue stream.  Their goal then shifts from law enforcement (where it should rightfully be) toward penalization, which is just a stealth form of taxation.

The blame for this crap lies both upon anti-tax advocates, parroting talking points without any understanding of the big picture (or any will to even gain such), and also with local governments who are too gutless to actually talk to their constituents and say "hey, we need money, the government is in debt, so the only fiscally responsible thing to do is raise taxes".

It would be nice if somehow they could say "either we raise taxes or we raise such and such fees x amount", and let the voters decide.  But this stupidity that all taxes are bad in all cases for all reasons... it's doing an incredible amount of harm to our nation.  But seeing how the people leading the charge outright state their goal as drowning America's government in a bathtub, it's not very surprising to see that their success comes through America's failures.
Logged
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15987


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2008, 06:51:00 PM »

If I hit an intersection with a red-light cam on them, it totally changes how I drive. In short, if I hit that magical moment when it changes, instead of me going through the light (even if I would've made it in plenty of time), I slam on my brakes as I refuse to take that chance anymore.

That's also why I never drive through those intersections anymore either.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2008, 08:22:57 PM »

actually, they have a great idea.  By rotating which ones are on and which ones are off they're not spending as much, but the citizens will not know which ones are not working, so they'll treat them as all being on.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Austin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1708


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2008, 01:44:27 AM »

THey could just shorten the yellows.  retard
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1543



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2008, 02:39:54 AM »

They need to take this approach:

Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2008, 01:52:42 PM »

Quote from: Chaz on March 16, 2008, 06:29:53 PM

I also don't understand the argument of people against the cameras saying that they increase the chance of rear-end collisions.  What that seems to mean is that people who are breaking the law (speeding in an unsafe manner) should be allowed to run the red light (illegal and unsafe) rather than slam on their brakes to stop for the red (unsafe, and if they were driving at a reasonable speed and paying attention to the light, they shouldn't need to slam the brakes).  I'm all for encouraging people to adhere to the traffic laws in the first place, but I agree that there are more cost-effective ways of doing it than having red light cameras running constantly.

Well, fwiw, the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) ran a study in 7 jurisdictions of red-light crashes, and concluded that rear end crashes increased 15% in jurisdictions that used red-light cameras.  Of course, the far more dangerous right-angle crashes decreased 25%.
Logged
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15987


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2008, 01:56:31 PM »

Maybe they should increase the time that the entire intersection is red by a second or so. Wouldn't that allow the chance for the insane idiots who do all that running the red light stuff to get the heck out of the way?
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1543



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2008, 02:28:21 PM »

Quote from: Destructor on March 17, 2008, 01:56:31 PM

Maybe they should increase the time that the entire intersection is red by a second or so. Wouldn't that allow the chance for the insane idiots who do all that running the red light stuff to get the heck out of the way?

People push the edge if they can get away with it. Then you'd just see the same morons who run red lights now running them when they are even "more" red. At the end of the day, red light cameras make intersections safer.
Logged
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2008, 04:08:14 PM »

Quote from: Crux on March 17, 2008, 02:28:21 PM

Quote from: Destructor on March 17, 2008, 01:56:31 PM

Maybe they should increase the time that the entire intersection is red by a second or so. Wouldn't that allow the chance for the insane idiots who do all that running the red light stuff to get the heck out of the way?

People push the edge if they can get away with it. Then you'd just see the same morons who run red lights now running them when they are even "more" red. At the end of the day, red light cameras make intersections safer.

...While crushing a little bit more of our freedom.
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1543



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2008, 05:26:26 PM »

So your expectation of freedom is that you should be able to break the law and not get caught?
Logged
Wolves
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 171

DAMMIT!!!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2008, 07:52:09 PM »

I don't think he's against reducing red light running, just against the cameras. (I could be wrong though)

Video cameras are all over the place now, (for better or worse), but it is kind of creepy when you think about it.  paranoid
Logged

morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2008, 08:40:33 PM »

Quote from: Wolves on March 17, 2008, 07:52:09 PM

I don't think he's against reducing red light running, just against the cameras. (I could be wrong though)

Video cameras are all over the place now, (for better or worse), but it is kind of creepy when you think about it.  paranoid

Correct!

If they make us all get RFD chips they can use that and the cameras to give us all jaywalking tickets every time we cross the road wrong!  They can add mics and every time we cuss and or shout in public they can site us for disturbing the peace.  Slippery slope? maybe...

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

I don't consider running yellow/red lights an essential liberty.  However, I do consider right to privacy an essential liberty.   also, as some one mentioned above they make no distinction of who was driving.  My wife, sister, a friend, nephew and a neighbor have all used one of my cars in the past three months. 

My wife got one of these tickets last month.  She was taking a left turn on an arrow...the red arrow light doesn't work...The camera still does.  So now she can goto court and lose a days pay to fight or just pay the stupid fine.  Either way shes getting screwed.  If there was a cop there he/she most likely would have done what?  Not sure but I would guess they wouldn't have written a ticket.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 05:19:02 PM by morlac » Logged

morlac00 on PSN
Andrew Mallon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1901


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2008, 08:50:07 PM »

Quote from: morlac on March 17, 2008, 08:40:33 PM

I don't consider running yellow/red lights an essential liberty.  However, I do consider right to privacy an essential liberty.   also, as some one mentioned above they make no distinction of who was driving.  My wife, sister, a friend, nephew and a neighbor have all used one of my cars in the past three months. 

Driving is not an essential liberty either, nor is it a right. It is a privilege granted to you, and one of the conditions of that privilege is video enforcement of rules and regulations. I'm not a big fan of red light cameras myself, but to say that it somehow diminishes our privacy or liberties is ridiculous.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2008, 09:23:01 PM »

Quote from: morlac on March 17, 2008, 08:40:33 PM

If they make us all get RFD chips they can use that and the cameras to give us all jaywalking tickets every time we cross the road wrong!  They can add mics and every time we cuss and or shout in public they can site us for disturbing the peace.  Slippery slope? maybe...

don't forget the nanites they'll put in the RFD chip to kill us should we rebel....
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2008, 09:30:34 PM »

I don't remember agreeing to be under constant video survelliance when I applied for my license.  Was there some form I was supposed to sign?  There wasn't any small print indicating as such.  Your fine with giving up one of the most important aspects of our judicial system so easily?  Innocent until proven guilty?  That's what happens when some one else is driving your car and you get one of these or like in my wife's case. I won't even go into the habeas corpus issues.  Hey, but it won't count as points against your license so just pay it up.  These are pure money making things that have way more potential for abuse than any minimal gain.  I even heard some woman on the news a few weeks ago claiming they can save a lot of money by not hiring as many cops because these cameras do such a good job....perfect.
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2008, 09:36:25 PM »

Quote from: CeeKay on March 17, 2008, 09:23:01 PM

Quote from: morlac on March 17, 2008, 08:40:33 PM

If they make us all get RFD chips they can use that and the cameras to give us all jaywalking tickets every time we cross the road wrong!  They can add mics and every time we cuss and or shout in public they can site us for disturbing the peace.  Slippery slope? maybe...

don't forget the nanites they'll put in the RFD chip to kill us should we rebel....

Hehe, laugh all you want but it's already been suggested for keeping track of immigrants. 
Plus I was being silly, but whats the difference?  I'm hoping they will just install a tracking system in your car so that when you exceed the speed limit and slow roll through stop signs they can just calculate how much you owe.  They can just put a credit card slot next to the ignition so you can just pay right there.  That would be great!
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11554


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2008, 10:41:18 PM »

Quote from: Andrew Mallon on March 17, 2008, 08:50:07 PM

Quote from: morlac on March 17, 2008, 08:40:33 PM

I don't consider running yellow/red lights an essential liberty.  However, I do consider right to privacy an essential liberty.   also, as some one mentioned above they make no distinction of who was driving.  My wife, sister, a friend, nephew and a neighbor have all used one of my cars in the past three months. 

Driving is not an essential liberty either, nor is it a right. It is a privilege granted to you, and one of the conditions of that privilege is video enforcement of rules and regulations. I'm not a big fan of red light cameras myself, but to say that it somehow diminishes our privacy or liberties is ridiculous.

I don't think people should get away with shoplifting but I don't want to live in a country with armed police enforcing at every storefront.  Likewise, I don't think people should be allowed to run red lights but I don't want to drive in fear of every yellow light, slamming on the brakes because I don't know which lights are programmed fairly.

The red light camera is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are ticketed.
Logged
Wolves
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 171

DAMMIT!!!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2008, 10:53:55 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on March 17, 2008, 10:41:18 PM

The red light camera is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are ticketed.

Unless this happens....
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/nov/26/police-say-man-shot-red-light-camera/
Logged

Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15987


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2008, 11:49:07 PM »

Quote from: Wolves on March 17, 2008, 10:53:55 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on March 17, 2008, 10:41:18 PM

The red light camera is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are ticketed.
Unless this happens....
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/nov/26/police-say-man-shot-red-light-camera/

I don't have the link handy, but apparently this is a VERY common thing in Great Britain (as they plunk down speed cameras where you will NOT see them until you've already tripped them, and it's done on purpose).
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2008, 01:42:45 AM »

Quote from: Andrew Mallon on March 17, 2008, 08:50:07 PM

Driving is not an essential liberty either, nor is it a right. It is a privilege granted to you, and one of the conditions of that privilege is video enforcement of rules and regulations. I'm not a big fan of red light cameras myself, but to say that it somehow diminishes our privacy or liberties is ridiculous.

I consider this type of quote pathetic.  It's an entire sidestep of my points above regarding such controversial ideas like "innocent until proven guilty", habeas corpus and the right to privacy.  It's the same type of reasoning that leads down the path to "it doesn't matter unless you're doing something wrong".  That's how we've gone from a Democracy to a Police State.   

History has shown, time and time again, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This case is no exception.  Not only do your civil liberties absolutely get violated in these programs, but there's evidence to suggest that in the rush to collect dollars, cities have shortened or shorted the timing of the yellow signal to cause more tickets.  This has happened in Union City, CA (where the timing on a light was 1.3 seconds below the minimum allowed by state law), Lubbock, TX (where a number of lights were found below the minimum) and a few other cities.  Not to mention that these are essentially money grabs - in my own city of Charlotte, the cameras were not installed at the most dangerous intersections.  Nope, the 23 most dangerous intersections were ignored in order to install the cameras at the most profitable locations.  You want to know how bad it can get?  When I lived in High Point, NC, they installed red light cameras.  When you got a ticket, you didn't get to appeal to a judge but rather a local college professor, hired and paid for by....you guessed it, the red light funds.  Not to mention the original hearings weren't held in court, but an office owned by...you guessed it, the office of the red-light ticket company itself.  RICO charges have been brought for less than that...
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2008, 02:25:52 AM »

Hey Balckadar just be glad you didn't have to pay to have a hearing to defend yourself like in Knoxville.

"For months, citizens accused of running camera-monitored red lights in Knoxville were told they'd have to pay $67.50 just to have a hearing to contest the charge."

Once they got nailed on it they changed it so that....

""If you win, you pay nothing," Wingate said.

Lose, however, and cough up the $50 fine and the $67.50 fee, which actually is supposed to represent court costs, according to Wingate.

That would not be all that different from the way a speeding ticket is handled - with one big exception. It typically does not cost more to fight a speeding ticket in court than to pay it in advance. In fact, it could wind up costing less, since a judge might well cut an offender a break for having an otherwise clean record."

And how do they get away with this...

"Under state law, running a red light is a class C misdemeanor. Under Knoxville's ordinance that laid the groundwork for the bargain with Redflex(the operator/installer of cameras), it is deemed a civil offense."

How convenient that...

"Kelley, who represents Redflex, counters that even though Redflex incorrectly stated on the notice that a person must pay to schedule a hearing, it is not illegal to require someone to post money on the front end of a civil case."

So that's why/how you get to where folks are shooting them up as linked to above in a paper from.....Knoxville.


p.s. source: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/oct/26/red-light-fees-a-mistake-city-says/

« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 02:29:07 AM by morlac » Logged

morlac00 on PSN
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2008, 02:28:19 AM »

God Bless America!


http://www.photoblocker.com/


Take that you commie picture taking bastards!
« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 02:34:04 AM by morlac » Logged

morlac00 on PSN
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1543



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2008, 02:50:46 AM »

The red light and speeding cameras they have in Australia catch the driver's face. There's no confusion as to who is guilty, unless you typically drive around town wearing a disguise. They also don't take constant video/pictures of everyone. They only trigger when a red light is run. Hence you aren't under constant surveillance. You come under surveillance when you break the law.

Regarding the shortening of light durations - that is an abuse no different than the kinds of things that happen in other avenues. Speed traps, where the next day you might drive along the same road at the same speed and have a police officer pass you going the same direction and do nothing.

But, those limited abuses are not an argument against cameras. They are an argument against corruption. PS the whole 'power corrupts' thing is a little dramatic, don't you think? Let's also not forget that the 'slippery slope' argument isn't merely overused, it is typically based on fallacy. In this case certainly so.
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2008, 02:57:41 AM »

Quote from: morlac on March 18, 2008, 02:28:19 AM

God Bless America!


http://www.photoblocker.com/


Take that you commie picture taking bastards!

MythBusters covered a bunch of these things. None of them worked.
Logged
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15987


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 18, 2008, 04:45:03 AM »

Quote from: Lee on March 18, 2008, 02:57:41 AM

Quote from: morlac on March 18, 2008, 02:28:19 AM

God Bless America!

http://www.photoblocker.com/

Take that you commie picture taking bastards!

MythBusters covered a bunch of these things. None of them worked.

They also did a test to see if you could weave at the last second to fool the picture (nope), and see if you could go really fast to not get your picture taken (nope - unless you were going drag racing speeds).
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 18, 2008, 05:59:08 AM »

so you spray the stuff on your license plate, and it obscures part of your license, yet does nothing to hide the color or make of your car and leave a portion of the license plate left for the authorities to deduce that it in fact your car?  seriously, if someones using that stuff just to break traffic laws then the asshat deserves to be busted.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 18, 2008, 06:04:00 AM »

Quote from: CeeKay on March 18, 2008, 05:59:08 AM

so you spray the stuff on your license plate, and it obscures part of your license, yet does nothing to hide the color or make of your car and leave a portion of the license plate left for the authorities to deduce that it in fact your car?  seriously, if someones using that stuff just to break traffic laws then the asshat deserves to be busted.

Well if it did work (on MB, it had no effect at all), how would they find you just off of make and color of your car? It would cost more just to have someone track you down. Since the whole purpose of these cameras to generate money (and deterrence), that would defeat the purpose.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 18, 2008, 06:11:56 AM »

Quote from: Lee on March 18, 2008, 06:04:00 AM

Quote from: CeeKay on March 18, 2008, 05:59:08 AM

so you spray the stuff on your license plate, and it obscures part of your license, yet does nothing to hide the color or make of your car and leave a portion of the license plate left for the authorities to deduce that it in fact your car?  seriously, if someones using that stuff just to break traffic laws then the asshat deserves to be busted.

Well if it did work (on MB, it had no effect at all), how would they find you just off of make and color of your car? It would cost more just to have someone track you down. Since the whole purpose of these cameras to generate money (and deterrence), that would defeat the purpose.

well, if they had the make and color of the car that belongs to the plates, I imagine it wouldn't be hard to make a program to search the database for the same type of car with letters/numbers corresponding to the same placement of the ones that do so up in the picture.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 18, 2008, 07:21:54 AM »

Quote from: Crux on March 18, 2008, 02:50:46 AM

The red light and speeding cameras they have in Australia catch the driver's face. There's no confusion as to who is guilty, unless you typically drive around town wearing a disguise. They also don't take constant video/pictures of everyone. They only trigger when a red light is run. Hence you aren't under constant surveillance. You come under surveillance when you break the law.

Regarding the shortening of light durations - that is an abuse no different than the kinds of things that happen in other avenues. Speed traps, where the next day you might drive along the same road at the same speed and have a police officer pass you going the same direction and do nothing.

But, those limited abuses are not an argument against cameras. They are an argument against corruption. PS the whole 'power corrupts' thing is a little dramatic, don't you think? Let's also not forget that the 'slippery slope' argument isn't merely overused, it is typically based on fallacy. In this case certainly so.

So what happens when you get ticketed wrongly?  Or does that not happen in Australia?  What good is a picture of your face do when you didn't do anything?  You are ignoring the key unconstitutional aspects of it. The fact they are making them a civil matter(here in the US) puts the burden of truth on the defendant which is not how it is supposed to work.
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 18, 2008, 07:32:55 AM »

Quote from: CeeKay on March 18, 2008, 05:59:08 AM

so you spray the stuff on your license plate, and it obscures part of your license, yet does nothing to hide the color or make of your car and leave a portion of the license plate left for the authorities to deduce that it in fact your car?  seriously, if someones using that stuff just to break traffic laws then the asshat deserves to be busted.

You don't get it do you?   These are completely automated.  I'm not sure a human hand even stuffs the citations in envelopes.  I guarantee nobody in law enforcement has anything to do with it.  They are sent out by the company that runs the cameras.  In my above linked to article the city of Knoxville admitted to not even knowing how many citations had been sent out.  Besides, do you really want them diverting resources to track down that nefarious, dastardly scoundrel who barely 'may' have run a red light?  As Lee said " it would defeat the purpose...$" 
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1543



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 18, 2008, 03:20:34 PM »

Quote from: morlac on March 18, 2008, 07:21:54 AM

So what happens when you get ticketed wrongly?  Or does that not happen in Australia?  What good is a picture of your face do when you didn't do anything?

Did you even read?

Quote
They also don't take constant video/pictures of everyone. They only trigger when a red light is run. Hence you aren't under constant surveillance. You come under surveillance when you break the law.

If you didn't do anything, then your picture wouldn't have been taken.

Quote
You are ignoring the key unconstitutional aspects of it. The fact they are making them a civil matter(here in the US) puts the burden of truth on the defendant which is not how it is supposed to work.

If that's the case then they are doing a bad job of it. But abuse of red light cameras doesn't make all red light cameras bad. It makes the people who abuse them bad. The same as anyone who abuses anything.
Logged
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 18, 2008, 05:14:06 PM »

Quote from: Crux on March 18, 2008, 03:20:34 PM

Quote from: morlac on March 18, 2008, 07:21:54 AM

So what happens when you get ticketed wrongly?  Or does that not happen in Australia?  What good is a picture of your face do when you didn't do anything?

Did you even read?

Quote
They also don't take constant video/pictures of everyone. They only trigger when a red light is run. Hence you aren't under constant surveillance. You come under surveillance when you break the law.

If you didn't do anything, then your picture wouldn't have been taken.

Quote
You are ignoring the key unconstitutional aspects of it. The fact they are making them a civil matter(here in the US) puts the burden of truth on the defendant which is not how it is supposed to work.

If that's the case then they are doing a bad job of it. But abuse of red light cameras doesn't make all red light cameras bad. It makes the people who abuse them bad. The same as anyone who abuses anything.

Did I read what?  You are naive enough to believe that these camera will never inadvertently ticket some one?  Did you not read what I wrote about my Wife's instance?  Obviously not.  Also, If you had read the linked to articles you would see that they had some 900 cases of potential wrongful ticketing out of 11,000ish in just one city.  Are all of those legit misticketings?  Doubtful, but still.  Is there some little man in the cameras in Australia that can tell when something goes wrong with the process and won't take the picture?  Your unwavering faith in technologies infallibility is interesting.  If these things get slightly mis aligned they are caput, or the timing is off, or the red arrow is not working(as cited above which you didn't read). Then you have to potentially pay to prove your innocence with no habeas corpus. That IS the way the system is set up currently in the US.  ALL OF THEM, not just a few bad apples.  It is flawed and usurps basic judicial rights.  It's flawed as a whole. Take the flawed system add potential for a shit ton of $ and then let some unsanctioned private for profit organization take control...brilliant!  Have you not seen Robocop?  That's what happens when you start farming out police work to money making corporations.  icon_twisted
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 18, 2008, 05:39:20 PM »

Quote from: Crux on March 17, 2008, 02:28:21 PM

At the end of the day, red light cameras make intersections safer.

Or maybe not....

Here's a nice 10 year study done in Australia on the effectiveness of these abominations smile


http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/6.asp

"The most complete study of the correlation of accidents and the use of red light cameras. It closely examined every accident report filed over a ten year period (including several years before and after cameras were installed). It found the cameras provided no benefit."

"The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals."


Doh!


Sorry bout beating a dead horse but I'm bored and find this interesting.
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #39 on: March 18, 2008, 09:34:54 PM »

Since I don't drive anymore (for the most part), I take cabs a lot now.  And many of the cab drivers point out where these things are at, and tell me they usually avoid those intersections.

Moral of the story is, as usual, that people aren't stupid, and tend to find ways around things.

Now I don't like people going through red lights, there's no excuse for that, but IMO it's kind of stupid to expect someone going 30+ mph to slam on the brakes because the light turns yellow just before they get to the intersection (which is why rear end accidents have increased).

Another thing I majorly object to is how a person can be assessed a fine with no recourse except paying or not paying.  IMO, that's the biggest problem with these things.  That's the way parking tickets work in Chicago now, and is about 70% of the reason I'll never own a car while I live in the city.  There's something so fundamentally wrong with being fined without a chance to state your case before a judge, that I get at a lost for words when I think about it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.187 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.043s, 2q)