You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #88: Let's see here [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. Let's see here
The unconstitutional part comes from the fact that you cannot confront your accuser in a court of law. How does one confront a machine? Sure, you can do massive research, bring in expert testimony, but quite frankly most people cannot afford that, so they mumble and grumble and pay the ticket. Yet there are major flaws with red light cameras, as my first link above shows. And as my second link above points out, it seems that red light cameras are actually *causing* more accidents than they prevent, as people abruptly slam on their brakes and are promptly rear ended. Oh, and then there are some fourth amendment issues involved here. But again, who is going to make a federal case out of a hundred dollar fine.

And while you may not want a camera at the end of your driveway, that is exactly where this slippery slope is leading. In fact many major cities are starting to put cameras in various residential areas, and as we keep speeding down that slope, pretty soon there will be a camera in your front room. For your safety of course:eyes:

And then there is the fact that red light cameras are really nothing more than a revenue generator for the city and its affiliated private corporation. Thus, rules are broken to enhance revenue, namely the yellow light is being shortened, sometimes dramatically. The OP timed his light at 1.7 seconds, most standard times on a yellow light are three-four seconds. Yet it is quite common to knock down the camera equipped lights to three seconds or less. <http://itzlaw.com/bb-news/home/bb-news/newswt.php><http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/news/bay-area-city-must-refund-red-light-camera-tickets-127487.php><http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/12/eveningnews/main558431.shtml> In fact this is done even on roads that have speed limits of 45 and above, thus insuring a revenue cash cow<http://www.hwysafety.com/fhwa_redlight601_letter.htm> And like I showed earlier, contrary to the stated purpose of minimizing accidents, these cameras are actually causing more accidents as people slam on their brakes in order to not get ticketed.

Sorry, but these cameras are a bad idea. They are not reducing accidents, instead they are increasing them. They aren't designed for safety, but instead as a revenue generator, as shown by the shortening of the yellow lights. And they are one more landmark as we go down that slippery slope to total surveillance and total control. Today, it's a red light camera, or one at the end of the block. Tommorrow it is a camera at the end of your driveway, peering into your windows. And the day after, well hell, the camera will be in your front room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC