Red-Light Cameras Backed

acludem said:
My problem with these cameras is that they don't just pan cars going through lights. They film and record what business people go to, where they drive to, etc. It is scary what one could use these cameras for. Big Brother is definitely watching.

acludem

Oh poop. How far can a camera at an intersection track you?

And if the cops use cameras as a security device to monitor activities on the street - what's wrong with that? None of your rights have been violated. If you want the right to privacy, stay home. If you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, hence the term "public". All major chain stores have video surveillance and the ACLU has been notably silent on that. I find it far less objectionable having the streets being monitored by police video surveillance than having cameras installed in the office by an employer who wants to catch his workers taking an unauthorized break.
 
-=d=- said:
Independent studies, as listed above, show the devices do nothing but generate revenue.

I'd like to see a study of accident rates in Europe where these devices have an established track record.

But regardless, I still think they're a good idea if for no other reason than to tag the reckless buttholes who think that obeying traffic signals is only for the other guy.
 
acludem said:
My problem with these cameras is that they don't just pan cars going through lights. They film and record what business people go to, where they drive to, etc. It is scary what one could use these cameras for. Big Brother is definitely watching.

acludem


The red light cameras we have in LA take still shots only of the intersection.

A
 
Merlin1047 said:
I suggest that the increase in rear end collisions cited by the study you provided is a temporary phenomena. .


Here we solved this by extending the length off the YELLOW light, giving ample warning to even speeding drivers, and thus ending the panic reaction that results in rear ends.


A
 
CivilLiberty said:
Here we solved this by extending the length off the YELLOW light, giving ample warning to even speeding drivers, and thus ending the panic reaction that results in rear ends.


A

I wish I could find it again, but in line with D's argument on rear end collisions, I remember reading an article on the misuse of these devices.

I believe it was Washington DC which used the devices and the contractor or the city intentionally shortened the interval of the yellow light in order to sucker more people into running the red which now came up faster than expected. This was done to "enhance" revenues to the city.
 
Merlin1047 said:
If you want the right to privacy, stay home. If you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, hence the term "public". All major chain stores have video surveillance and the ACLU has been notably silent on that. .


Indeed the ACLU has been silent on the PUBLIC STREET cameras such as those in New York.


I do have some issues with government run cameras, but as long as they are not HIDDEN such that there is no perceived "expectation of privacy", then I can't really find legal fault with them (even though I am concerned about the recording of my movements, etc.)

The legal issues revolve around an expectation of privacy, and invading same without due process.

The implication in the constitution is that WITH "due process" the government can do just about whatever they please. As a civil libertarian, my single biggest concern of late is in maintaining due process.


A
 
Merlin1047 said:
I wish I could find it again, but in line with D's argument on rear end collisions, I remember reading an article on the misuse of these devices.

I believe it was Washington DC which used the devices and the contractor or the city intentionally shortened the interval of the yellow light in order to sucker more people into running the red which now came up faster than expected.


I hope the citizenry were up in arms about that one. That borders on entrapment.


A
 
CivilLiberty said:
The implication in the constitution is that WITH "due process" the government can do just about whatever they please. As a civil libertarian, my single biggest concern of late is in maintaining due process.


A

I take no issue with that. But if you're involved in a traffic accident or if you're the victim of a mugging on a public street, which would you rather have as a witness - a human eyewitness or a videotape?
 
weve had those in this area for a little bit now. havent heard how they are doing jsut yet.
 
i know they have them in Phoenix-one of the neighbors of my in-laws has gotten 3 tickets so far. i figure they work for the most part because i did notice people drive nicer and more courteous down there-big change from here.

most people don't knowingly run lights. they do it because they are not really paying attention or they think the yellow light will stay yellow long enough for them to pass through.

the tickets from the cameras certainly would make people pay attention.
 
Merlin1047 said:
I take no issue with that. But if you're involved in a traffic accident or if you're the victim of a mugging on a public street, which would you rather have as a witness - a human eyewitness or a videotape?

we have actually used video tape from parking lots that have a view of more than the parking lot.

it helped nab a guy committing insurance fraud WHILE buying drugs. he hit a concrete wall (he tried to say someone hijacked the car and ran it into the wall) after buying drugs. turns out he wanted to get the money from insurance so he could buy MORE drugs, because he owed money on the car. he tried calling the police and everything.

its people like that who don't get caught, who drive up rates for the rest of us.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top