should all traffic cameraas be banned now and forever?

This is true. Police being visible, especially in black spots is the best deterrent. Not far from where I live is a mountain pass favoured by motorcyclists on the weekend. There were times when many motorcyclists used this pass as their own personal race track. As you can imagine, quite a few deaths and injuries. Nowadays, especially weekends, the pass is patrolled by police, often motorcycle cops. Accidents have been reduced dramatically. There's even a motorcycle safety brochure called 'Motorcycling Macquarie Pass'. I've ridden the 'Pass" many times.

http://www.dangerousroads.org/usa/1437-macquarie-pass-usa.html

Also,, Australian police have the power to stop any motorist for a breath analysis, even if no laws have been broken. Every police car in Australia is equipped with a breathalyser.

 

I am guessing that you have never been on a motorcycle and stuck at a light that won't change.

 

Your post is agreeable except for this part which has me confused.

You still have the right to a trial, right? If you show up in court, you can plead not guilty, at which point you get a trial. At this point, obviously somebody has to be there to point a finger at you and present a case. Are people pleading not guilty but being found guilty anyway even with no prosecutor?

In fact, I've been to traffic court a few times, and plead not guilty, and literally watched as all the other not guilty people around me had their cases dismissed in rapid succession because there's nobody there to make a case against them. (of course my case is the one in which they did show up).

Or, is this a case of the citations not even offering the invitation to appear in court to plead not guilty at all? Like just automatically imposing a fine with no chance to appeal in court. In this case of course that's unconstitutional. I'm not sure really so I would just ask you for clarification.

 

Yep.. Speeding people kill people. I think speeding should be a criminal offense for the exact same reason as drunk-driving. It puts people in undue risk and so many people are killed because of it.

It's not at all like attempted murder (or murder when death results), but more like reckless endangerment/manslaughter (when death results).

But when it comes to speeding, people always get flippant like it's their God-given right to fly through a school zone at 59 MPH and anyone who tells them they can't is a fascist.

 

What's wrong with a camera? Don't do something illegal, and there are no problems. The cameras exist because people break the rules - the gov is not to blame, but the people. We need to work together. Whether the camera is there or not, you should not be breaking the rules. If you are sore about it you only have yourself to blame.

Like parking attendants. I have no problem with them as I can follow rules. I know where not to park, and I know when I park somewhere I enter into a contract with the rules. If I feel I may breach the contract, then I can choose not to enter into it. There may be exceptions (might get hit by a car and taken to hospital so my meter expires and the car gets towed) which may not seem fair, but you can contest it. Ultimately (*)(*)(*)(*) happens in life.

I work in the UK quite a lot, and they have average speed cameras during road construction.
I think they are great - people sit at a constant speed and jams are reduced. Personally, I would like to see them everywhere. I don't see the problem with driving within the rules - why does anyone feel a need to break them?

Again, if nobody broke the rules, there wouldn't be any cameras - they are a result of our own idiocy. And I know you all wont like hearing that.

 

Why does it matter if its a motor cycle or not?

And your right. I havent been stuck at a light that wont change. And I live in a major metro area, with TONS of stop lights.

 

The "witness" cannot be cross examined. There's just a photo of the car.

The live witness is the person holding the photo. He neither witnessed the "crime" nor can he testify to any of the circumstances surrounding it. He can only testify that the photo was taken at a particular time and date.

I have heard, anecdotally, that most defendants are found not guilty or dismissed when they challenge the evidence. The hope, on the part of officials, is that the fine is not worth the day off from work and the time required to appear in court. Particularly if the state requests a continuance.

 

Apparently.

We have a small group of people imposing their will on everyone else. I never gave these people leave to rule over me and tell me what to do. They're presuming a hell of a lot.

 

That's true of pretty much all evidence. It isn't automatically a problem, they just need to convince the jury or judge that the means of gathering the evidence is reliable and the interpretation of it correct, which the defence can challenge. They actually need to do the same kind of thing for eye-witnesses too (which aren't as infallible as many people imagine).

In the context of your post, why would you expect anyone to accept a third hand anecdote as reliable evidence?

 

If these cameras do in fact promote and sustain A safer environment,

I believe they should be maintained.

On the other hand of the case,

if they do the exact opposite also if there objective is to gather profit instead of protect our roads,

they should of course be removed.

 

If there are traffic cameras where you live, chances are there are too many people, and you might want to consider living somewhere less overcrowded.
Traffic cameras are terrible.

 

The "evidence" does not show who is driving, only that the car is present.

And, since those who simply pay the fine do not show up to argue the case it is difficult to extract stats but

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-fl...8032/20246300/-/item/1/-/rkxeeoz/-/index.html

This gives an indication of what happens with those who do choose to fight.

 

Well my preference would be the forward facing cameras that do show the driver face. I don't know if any red-light cameras do that. Regardless, I think the owner of the car retains some responsibility, though if someone else was driving, surely all they need to do is say so and that person can be charged instead.

Yes, but your anecdote specifically referred to fines that are challenged. The outcome of all of those cases are recorded so there is no need to rely on what someone tells you.

No it doesn't. I related to a specific issue in a specific place. There is no justification for generalising it.

 

by the time you get the ticket you may not remember that, most people do not keep a detailed log of who was driving when

fact is, you should be notified at the time or you may not remember the incident enough to defend against it

 

making money by making accidents more common after shortening yelow lights to make more money isn't the American way.

they have their place, great for figuring out who had the right of way...but as a revenue tool, they are foolish.

 

move out of Uncle Sam's basement.

 

there are some traffic lights that rely on a traffic sensor to signal the light to change. these sensors come in two flavors, one you roll over and the weight of the axle sets it off, the other you stop over and the the ferrous metal content of your car disturbs the magnetic field of the sensor and signals the light. motorcyles don't have enough metal or enough axle weight for either.

 

yes, but only if we get better public transportation in return.

 

There is an inherent right not to be spied on by your servants.

I've never gotten a traffic ticket by camera, by the way.

 

I am very impressed by most of the posters on this thread - it is good to see a few liberty-minded individuals attempting to assert their rights. And of course, you are quite right - there is a reason that a police officer cannot give you a ticket the day following a suspected "incident," and any attempt on his behalf to do so would crumble in a court.

 

Your "preference" is, to put it kindly, foolish.

You're going to put a bunch of cameras at various heights facing the forward exterior of the cabin? You'd have to because the camera would have to shoot level into the driver side to clearly show the face and the camera that could see the driver of a mini would certainly miss the driver of an F350. What about nighttime? Going to use a flash? going to light a flash in the eyes of a driver running a red light?

The information lies in individual counties where cases are handled differently. Some are dismissed outright, some tried and dismissed. Providing those statistics would be difficult and catagorizing them unreliable without knowing the specifics of each case.

AND FINALLY

You provided nothing. All you did was troll about the word "anecdote" and complaining that anecdotal evidence is "unreliable." Well, "Dictionary Boy" pointing out that a statement is "anecdotal" is stating up front that it is unreliable which make you hopelessly redundant as well as foolish.

And yes, the article does indicate that nearly every case in Orange county where the defendant chose to fight was dismissed. The city of Orlando, in trying to preserve the revenue, is "appealing" those decisions in the hope of beating defendants down financially.

This is and always has been about the money. The government considers this "free money." The cameras are owned by private businesses. The systems are operated by these private businesses. The business decides whether you have committed an offense and passes the evidence to the government. There is no "law enforcement" involved here. Only greed.

Now troll elsewhere.

 

It works for some styles of speed camera, presumable managing the difficulties you mentioned.

I'm not arguing for cameras at all costs here. I'm arguing for effective means to try to prevent people committing dangerous, selfish crimes. As this thread shows though, the theme isn't "Work out the solution to problems", it is "Cameras bad! Stop cameras!".

I agree it would be difficult (though not impossible) to get reliable statistics and that such statistics wouldn't account for the specifics of each case. Of course, that latter problem applies even if we accept the the anecdotal evidence so what was the point in raising it in the first place?

Yes, and that demonstrates poor legal process in that place. It doesn't mean traffic cameras are bad, only that they need to be used correctly.

 

There is no intent on the part of government to uphold the law, to protect the public. The camera does not prevent the offense, it does not stop the driver who may be endangering others, it does not prevent accidents. All the camera does is provide an avenue for privately owned businesses to get their hands on your money.

Understand, it is not in the business' interest to reduce the number of offenses. It costs them money.
Understand, it is not in the local government's interest to reduce the number of offenses. It costs THEM money.

If the camera were to work as advertised then the government and those businesses would, necessarily, undertake to replace that missing revenue by expanding the type of offenses that can be charged. Seatbelt? Smoking with a child in the car? Using your cell phone? And if those aren't enough then create new offenses the camera can be used to charge.

So, yes, the government using cameras as a revenue tool is bad. Allowing private businesses to participate in a system where their only incentive is to grow and expand the number of offenses is bad. Cameras are bad.

You want to reduce the number of people running a red light? Put a cop on the corner with a big radar gun. Not hidden, right out there where everyone can see him. That will cause people to slow down. To stop for that red light. to buckle the seat belt. to put down the cell phone.

But, that costs money.

But if the issue really is protecting the public, that should not be an issue

 

I'd say they should be permitted, but not allowed to be used to fine or in any other way negatively impact the violating drivers. If a camera has been used to find that I was speeding, that camera sure as hell better show up in court, because I have a right to confront my accuser.

 

Then you need to fix the government. If the government were using the police to arrest their political opponents, would you be looking to get rid of the police?

That's true of hidden cameras but not visible and signposted ones. I argue for the latter. I want a deterrent.

Yes, yes but no. That's like saying cars are bad because of dangerous drivers or guns are bad because of mass shootings. The manner in which the cameras are being used in a lot of places is indeed bad. That's doesn't make the raw technology bad in itself.

It does cost money and that causes voters to complain, regardless of whether it's funded with more taxes, cutting other services or with the resultant fines. Drivers also complain about those police officers "wasting their time" and not dealing with "real criminals". There is a reason politicians so often do what makes most money rather than what is right and that reason is us.

If the issue was really protecting the public, people wouldn't be seeking to throw away a perfectly good technology to help with that, they'd be seeking how to ensure it is used correctly. This is about people being able to break the rules when they decide it's OK - politicians and drivers alike.