DRZinn
Member
It seems to me that they're using the camera as a proxy for the officers, the same as they do with speeding tickets.
Is this where traffic cameras are headed?
- Thread starter R-Tex12
- Start date
- Status
“The man received the fine because he was seen to gesture several times to officers operating a mobile speed camera in an obscene and offensive way.” - taken from - http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006050295,00.html
I'm not in approval of this, I'd just be surprised if making obscene gestures at US police isn't something that may occasionally get followed up by the US police.
I'm not in approval of this, I'd just be surprised if making obscene gestures at US police isn't something that may occasionally get followed up by the US police.
K-Romulus
Member
Iain:
That's what I get for blindly believeing everything I read in the US media . . .
That's what I get for blindly believeing everything I read in the US media . . .
Archie
Member
I cannot believe what I'm reading.
It seems a fair number of people think they are being deprived of a basic and essential human right because they cannot run red lights with impunity.
Gee, what a sad world this is when a guy can't run a red light and get away with it. Or drive with no hands putting on makeup. Clearly this is a violation of "Freedom from Responsibility"; and it's all George Bush's fault, right.
There are several people here to need to discover the concept of Personal Responsibility. Not the nonsense about being responsible only for your personal welfare and good, but the concept of being responsible for one's actions and how one effects the rest of the world.
I'm going to quit now; I'm getting more infuriated with the irrresponsible turds and I'm going to say something impolite.
It seems a fair number of people think they are being deprived of a basic and essential human right because they cannot run red lights with impunity.
Gee, what a sad world this is when a guy can't run a red light and get away with it. Or drive with no hands putting on makeup. Clearly this is a violation of "Freedom from Responsibility"; and it's all George Bush's fault, right.
There are several people here to need to discover the concept of Personal Responsibility. Not the nonsense about being responsible only for your personal welfare and good, but the concept of being responsible for one's actions and how one effects the rest of the world.
I'm going to quit now; I'm getting more infuriated with the irrresponsible turds and I'm going to say something impolite.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Iain, "shooting the bird" as crime is a function of court decisions. No consistency, either.
Some courts have held that it's an expression of free speech under our First Amendment.
Other courts have held that it's a provocative gesture, and have thrown out assault charges against somebody who struck the person making the gesture*.
Whether or not somebody is monitoring what a camera sees, however, I have a certain amount of difficulty in making the charge as was done in England. After all, shooting the bird at an inanimate object at most would merely be "crime agains camera", and would harm nobody. It's not like the guy painted the lens or bashed it with a cricket bat!
Art
* Years back, my buddy Big Luke was a wrecker driver. He got hooked on to a car for repossession, and was in a hurry to leave before any public confrontation occurred. A city bus pulled up and stopped, blocking him from leaving. Luke yelled at the driver. The driver ignored him and continued to write in his log book. Luke yelled again, and the driver shot him the bird.
Luke leaped out of his truck and charged into the bus and pounded on the driver. Luke climbed out and the bus went away. However, the driver filed charges.
In County Court, the judge listened to the complaint, and then turned to Luke for his version of the story. "Well, yes, Your Honor, I did hit him, but not until after he shot me the finger."
The judge looked at the complainant, who admitted that, yes, he had indeed done that.
The judge held that if Luke had only thrown one punch, she'd have let him off. However, he'd gone too far for the particular provocation.
"That will be $47.50, fine and costs."
Luke responded with a classic: "Your Honor, can I give you $95 now, and wait for him outside?"
Some courts have held that it's an expression of free speech under our First Amendment.
Other courts have held that it's a provocative gesture, and have thrown out assault charges against somebody who struck the person making the gesture*.
Whether or not somebody is monitoring what a camera sees, however, I have a certain amount of difficulty in making the charge as was done in England. After all, shooting the bird at an inanimate object at most would merely be "crime agains camera", and would harm nobody.
It's not like the guy painted the lens or bashed it with a cricket bat!Art
* Years back, my buddy Big Luke was a wrecker driver. He got hooked on to a car for repossession, and was in a hurry to leave before any public confrontation occurred. A city bus pulled up and stopped, blocking him from leaving. Luke yelled at the driver. The driver ignored him and continued to write in his log book. Luke yelled again, and the driver shot him the bird.
Luke leaped out of his truck and charged into the bus and pounded on the driver. Luke climbed out and the bus went away. However, the driver filed charges.
In County Court, the judge listened to the complaint, and then turned to Luke for his version of the story. "Well, yes, Your Honor, I did hit him, but not until after he shot me the finger."
The judge looked at the complainant, who admitted that, yes, he had indeed done that.
The judge held that if Luke had only thrown one punch, she'd have let him off. However, he'd gone too far for the particular provocation.
"That will be $47.50, fine and costs."
Luke responded with a classic: "Your Honor, can I give you $95 now, and wait for him outside?"
mrmeval
Member
Personal responsibility
To those who have a love affair with the camera you should have one in your home to be sure you don't beat your child or only beat your child with a rod, in your bedroom so you only bang your wife the 'proper' way according to law, one in your car to spy on you and others, one in your work so you're not slacking off, replace the sl with a j for the last,
And it all should be publicly available to the world so you'll always be 'responsible'.
To those who have a love affair with the camera you should have one in your home to be sure you don't beat your child or only beat your child with a rod, in your bedroom so you only bang your wife the 'proper' way according to law, one in your car to spy on you and others, one in your work so you're not slacking off, replace the sl with a j for the last,
And it all should be publicly available to the world so you'll always be 'responsible'.
gunsmith
member
very entertaining thread
Well, just practice son, you'll get the hang of it.
Really? I did it yesterday!
Well it isn't very nice but they prefer it over being shot at
homeland security has been notified that an American attitude has been detected, expect a visit shortly
CarbineKid
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 173
How exactly does a camera stop someone from running a red light? Its the same thing with the speeding cameras, are they going to make anyone slow down. Heck no!! You only find out about a violation long after the fact. Now if a city was serious about enforcing traffic laws, and PUBLIC saftey they would have a few more cops to enforce the laws. Cameras are a scam to milk you out of your money. Cops I have respect for, cameras are a politicians money maker.
Jammer Six
member
The same way a cop on a motorcycle does.
Keep running them, you'll figure it out.
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
Mike in VA said:
Hey, you think that's bad, you should see how distracted cops are when the start entering and reading info in their laptops while driving, or talking on the radio. I see it while watching Cops and it makes me nervous even though it's only on TV. And if it's dangerous for me to pick my nose while driving an automatic (which I do quite frequently), imagine how dangerous it must be to change gears for people with manual transmissions!
And talking about Kinetic Energy--whoa--check out the values for an airliner, talking on their mobile (radio) to the tower while coming in for landing: 300,000# * 293 FPS = 87,900,000 ft-#'s.
Red light camers are as much about safety as gun control is about safety. Safety is just an excuse to raise revenue, take away our rights, and give government an excuse to pry further into our lives. I'll personally take the risk of the woman putting on her makeup over the goverment following my every move.
gunsmith
member
what I like
are those digital readout signs that say 25 mph and tell you how fast your going.
I was getting high scores on those, I got them up to 35 and 45
now they've fixed them to say "slow down" when your a high scorer ...just when I was getting the higest scores too.!!!
are those digital readout signs that say 25 mph and tell you how fast your going.
I was getting high scores on those, I got them up to 35 and 45
now they've fixed them to say "slow down" when your a high scorer
...just when I was getting the higest scores too.!!!XLMiguel
Member
+1
Va had em for a while and found that although they reduced teh number of t-bone accidents, teh number of rear-enders went up (along with revenue
). Fortunately, they decided to get rid of them last July, though teh safety-nazis are whining to bring them (along with photo-radar) back. Aside from the realtime negative re-enforcement of actually being stopped at the time you do something wrong, traffic stops also catch alot of idiots who are wanted on warrants, driving without a license, DWI, and get alot of junk off the road. If the state wants more traffic infraction revenue, they should get it the old-fashioned way- by earning it and delivering some real benefit to the public.
DRZinn
Member
If I hit someone, fine me. If I hit someone because I was being negligent, fine me more or send me to jail. If I can drive to work with a cup of coffee in one hand and the stick-shift in the other and not hit anyone, get the **** out of my business.
If someone was driving erratically or impaired due to putting on make up, eating, talking on the phone - fine then stop and ticket them for distracted/erratic driving - otherwise leave them alone.
If .gov has the legal right/power to put cameras up to monitor people everyday in "public places" - fine then private citizens should have the right to monitor public places by putting up their own cameras in all public places - state houses - court rooms - judges chambers - politicians offices - police stations - police cars - any .gov work place where the peoples business is conducted. After all if they are obeying the law they shouldn't have anything to hide. Sounds fair to me.
I am always amazed by the 2nd amendment warriors who vociferously oppose any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms - (their sacred ox) - but who when an analogous discussion comes along on something they don't like or don't value - i.e. smoking cigarettes, freedom of travel or transportation, the environment, religion, property rights, etc... they are all for .gov involvement and restrictions/infringements for the good of the planet, for the children, or if it saves just one life, for the greatest good for the greatest number.
If .gov has the legal right/power to put cameras up to monitor people everyday in "public places" - fine then private citizens should have the right to monitor public places by putting up their own cameras in all public places - state houses - court rooms - judges chambers - politicians offices - police stations - police cars - any .gov work place where the peoples business is conducted. After all if they are obeying the law they shouldn't have anything to hide. Sounds fair to me.
I am always amazed by the 2nd amendment warriors who vociferously oppose any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms - (their sacred ox) - but who when an analogous discussion comes along on something they don't like or don't value - i.e. smoking cigarettes, freedom of travel or transportation, the environment, religion, property rights, etc... they are all for .gov involvement and restrictions/infringements for the good of the planet, for the children, or if it saves just one life, for the greatest good for the greatest number.
Otherguy Overby
member
CA cameras
The troubles with traffic cameras in CA have spawned this website:
http://highwayrobbery.net/
Keep paging down, it's long!
They are even issuing "snitch" tickets now see:
http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#Fakes
Yeppers, the government is somewhat out of control.
The troubles with traffic cameras in CA have spawned this website:
http://highwayrobbery.net/
Keep paging down, it's long!
They are even issuing "snitch" tickets now see:
http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#Fakes
Yeppers, the government is somewhat out of control.
SquirrelNuts
Member
This somewhat reminds me of the social security number.
When the Social security Administration was formed and the Social Security Number was created, it was expressly stated that it was NOT to be used, and never to be used as a form of identification. Now, your SSN is often exclusively, or use in conjunction as a primary identification and tracking method.
I remember when traffic cams (to monitor the flow of traffic) and traffic light cams (to catch red light runners) were installed. They were presented in much the same was as the SSN was. They are to be used to monitor the flow of traffic/catch red ligt runners, and are never to be used otherwise.
Didn't someone once say something about history repeating itself???
When the Social security Administration was formed and the Social Security Number was created, it was expressly stated that it was NOT to be used, and never to be used as a form of identification. Now, your SSN is often exclusively, or use in conjunction as a primary identification and tracking method.
I remember when traffic cams (to monitor the flow of traffic) and traffic light cams (to catch red light runners) were installed. They were presented in much the same was as the SSN was. They are to be used to monitor the flow of traffic/catch red ligt runners, and are never to be used otherwise.
Didn't someone once say something about history repeating itself???
The reason we have red light cameras is because people are running red lights and causing serious and sometiimes fatal accidents. I passed by one yesterday, one vehicle smashed in and the other flipped over. Two deaths.
If people don't want red light cameras and speeding cameras all they have to do is start driving their cars in a more responsible fashion. The worse they drive, the more cameras we'll see on our streets and highways.
It's really a simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it.
If people don't want red light cameras and speeding cameras all they have to do is start driving their cars in a more responsible fashion. The worse they drive, the more cameras we'll see on our streets and highways.
It's really a simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it.
gunsmith
member
3rdpig
if you like cameras at every intersection and folks getting tickets for every little offense you can move to England.
It's really a simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it.
if you like cameras at every intersection and folks getting tickets for every little offense you can move to England.
It's really a simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it.
3rdpig
If traffic engineers timed the green, yellow, red sequence properly, there would be VERY few people running red lights. This has been shown in repeated studies. See: http://www.motorists.org/
Red light cameras and speed cameras are a revenue raising devise, nothing more.
Akron Ohio just put in school zone speed cameras. Took in a terrific amount of money the first month and a half. They are there to protect the kids, you know.
Well trouble is, in the last 8 years there have been 0, that's zero, accidents attributed to speed in a school zone. Accidents in the school zones have been attributed to the kids doing something foolish.
Sure sounds like a money grabbing tactic to me.
Another point of law, when you receive a ticket for speeding from a camera, it is considered a civil penalty.
Problem: the law states speeding is a criminal infraction and those citations can only be issued by LEOs.
LEOs don't like the cameras, the public doesn't like the camers. The only people that like them are the money grabbing politicians.
'nuf said.
If traffic engineers timed the green, yellow, red sequence properly, there would be VERY few people running red lights. This has been shown in repeated studies. See: http://www.motorists.org/
Red light cameras and speed cameras are a revenue raising devise, nothing more.
Akron Ohio just put in school zone speed cameras. Took in a terrific amount of money the first month and a half. They are there to protect the kids, you know.
Well trouble is, in the last 8 years there have been 0, that's zero, accidents attributed to speed in a school zone. Accidents in the school zones have been attributed to the kids doing something foolish.
Sure sounds like a money grabbing tactic to me.
Another point of law, when you receive a ticket for speeding from a camera, it is considered a civil penalty.
Problem: the law states speeding is a criminal infraction and those citations can only be issued by LEOs.
LEOs don't like the cameras, the public doesn't like the camers. The only people that like them are the money grabbing politicians.
'nuf said.
gunsmith
member
3rdpig
The reason we have gun control is because people are shooting each other and causing serious and sometiimes fatal accidents. I passed by one yesterday, one ganbanger shot another gangbanger. Two deaths.
If people don't want gun control all they have to do is start shooting guns in a more responsible fashion. The worse they shoot, the more gun control we'll see on our streets and highways.
It's really a simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it.:banghead:
The reason we have gun control is because people are shooting each other and causing serious and sometiimes fatal accidents. I passed by one yesterday, one ganbanger shot another gangbanger. Two deaths.
If people don't want gun control all they have to do is start shooting guns in a more responsible fashion. The worse they shoot, the more gun control we'll see on our streets and highways.
It's really a simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it.:banghead:
Quote:
"The reason we have red light cameras is because people are running red lights and causing serious and sometiimes fatal accidents. I passed by one yesterday, one vehicle smashed in and the other flipped over. Two deaths.
If people don't want red light cameras and speeding cameras all they have to do is start driving their cars in a more responsible fashion. The worse they drive, the more cameras we'll see on our streets and highways.
It's really a simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it."
rewrote:
"The reason we have gun control laws is because people are using guns irresponsibly and causing serious and sometimes fatal shootings. I passed by the scene of a drive by shooting yesterday - two dead - one an innocent bystander.
If people don't want gun control laws and registration and background checks, all they have to do is to start using their guns in a more responsible fashion. The worse they shoot, the more gun laws, registration, and background checks we'll see in our land.
It's a really simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it."
"The reason we have red light cameras is because people are running red lights and causing serious and sometiimes fatal accidents. I passed by one yesterday, one vehicle smashed in and the other flipped over. Two deaths.
If people don't want red light cameras and speeding cameras all they have to do is start driving their cars in a more responsible fashion. The worse they drive, the more cameras we'll see on our streets and highways.
It's really a simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it."
rewrote:
"The reason we have gun control laws is because people are using guns irresponsibly and causing serious and sometimes fatal shootings. I passed by the scene of a drive by shooting yesterday - two dead - one an innocent bystander.
If people don't want gun control laws and registration and background checks, all they have to do is to start using their guns in a more responsible fashion. The worse they shoot, the more gun laws, registration, and background checks we'll see in our land.
It's a really simple equation, I'm surprised that more people don't understand it."
Jammer Six
member
No.
That's not the way it works here.
Perhaps you'd be happier somewhere else, where you had more "freedom"?
No, you wouldn't be.
[yawn]
Next...
mrmeval
Member
Whole bunch of saftey lovers willing to sacrifice you to their gahd.
Old Dog
Member
Ah, the utter, sheer hypocrisy. Some of you believe strongly in "muscle memory" and other concepts involving any physical action involving your eyes, your muscles, your reactions ... when it comes to firearms, shooting and tactical skills.
Why, then, do you think driving skills and spending time on the roads is any different? I say: you are hypocrites. Plain and simple. Here is a great demonstration:
So, ya know ... the problem as I see it is that, once one becomes accustomed ignoring stop signs, stop lights, yield signs and other traffic management signals, signs and markings ... based on one's belief that one is ALWAYS capable of seeing any potential hazards ... one has become a thoroughly dangerous driver who will eventually be responsible for killing another through his driving habits.
I don't want you on my roads, or on roads with my family members.
Why, then, do you think driving skills and spending time on the roads is any different? I say: you are hypocrites. Plain and simple. Here is a great demonstration:
So, y'all are perfect, then? Just don't come around preaching practicing your shooting skills and safe range practices ... The four rules? Shucks, if you're good enough to drive through stoplights or stop signs ... just 'cause you don't think you don't see anyone coming ... you don't need any "four rules" and don't have to worry about the possibility of anything bad happening to you on the roads or highways, because, you know, you see everything, and you're perfect ...
So, ya know ... the problem as I see it is that, once one becomes accustomed ignoring stop signs, stop lights, yield signs and other traffic management signals, signs and markings ... based on one's belief that one is ALWAYS capable of seeing any potential hazards ... one has become a thoroughly dangerous driver who will eventually be responsible for killing another through his driving habits.
I don't want you on my roads, or on roads with my family members.
- Status