Itinerant Air-Cooled

I don't really know if I was watching the local news or the Today show, but this morning I saw a blurp about the backlash communities are feeling after implementing Red Light Cameras. What was supposed to be a combinatation bake sale and an efficent traffic enforcement system turns out to be not enforable and a money loser. Judges are throwing out the tickets because apparently the camera doesn't capture the image of the driver. What they need is a second camera at ground level aimed at the driver's side window. Anyway, the television report showed a Tea Party gathering of red light camera protesters claiming that the government is over reaching. As a Libertarian-ish type, frankly, I don't see what the problem is. You made a choice to trade in some of your individual liberties when you pull out of your driveway and onto a public road. Even if you think that no one is looking, you never had the right to run a red light. I don't know to what degree the TP thinks that they might have libertarian values, but in this case I think that they are over reaching.

I think red light camera's are a good idea, but I wouldn't want to see speed camera's, so where can you draw the line?

Put yer bikini babe back on or yer banned. I hate the red-light cameras. I have got nailed a few times by 'em. Once I got by unmolested. I dread the feeling when ya' sail through a intersection safely as the light changed, only to see in yer mirror one of those boxes is lookin at ya. But, I suppose it's a good deterrent for more bad decisions, which I honestly don't think I indulge in. The time I got away apparently, the sun was setting behind me and the light was obscured by strong sunlight, AND it was only a sidestreet entrance to a mall, AND no one was on either cross-street. But somehow, the ticket missed me.

airkooledchris wrote:I think red light camera's are a good idea, but I wouldn't want to see speed camera's, so where can you draw the line?

Did you happen to see the Modern Marvels show on the Autobahn that Meyer2 posted a link to a while ago? In it, they showed a cop taking pictures and sending tickets to tail-gaters. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

turk wrote: I have got nailed a few times by 'em. Once I got by unmolested. I dread the feeling when ya' sail through a intersection safely as the light changed, only to see in yer mirror one of those boxes is lookin at ya.

Did they send you just a photo of your car or both your car and your mug in the driver's seat?

They send ya' the ticket with 3 or 4 photos of the vehicle in progress at said intersection. They should have video on the incident if you need it. No pics of driver's face (yet).

They put one of those cash registers at the exit of a local mall here. The thing generated over 1 million dollars in the first month. The vast majority were for right turn on red violations.(the camera issues tickets if you don't stop behind the white line for 3 seconds. No rule exists regarding a 3 second stop).

People were outraged and said they'd never shop at that mall again. There was a huge outcry from the retailers at the mall.

The camera was removed.

I don't now what there complaint is.
But here is the problem I see, and the questions I would ask.
Who is paying for this? Who owns the road?
Who owns the road has a right to put up cameras.
In my county they have those cameras. These roads are county owned.
Taxes have gone sky high. So let's see. On a road that I am suppose
to be part owner of, they installed camera's with money they took from
me via property tax, and might I mention they use guns and the threat of jail
to take this money from me, but they put up these cameras to fine me for
doing something they don't like on a road that is paid for by me.
I have a problem with this.

When they first started using these the problems was something like the following.
Traffic things like speeding fell under a certain part of the law/legal system because
that is the only place they could legally do it. Citations being a civil issue you had to
sign the citation at the time is was issued. In beginning these cases were thrown out
of court for that reason. Their rules, not mine, I don't fully under stand it.

There's nothing like approaching a green light at 35 only to have it go yellow, you are 20 feet from the white line and you don't know how long the yellow is going to last, so you slam on the brakes and all your camping gear comes flying forward and the moron who was riding your ass and had every intention of barreling through the light smashes into you.

BellePlaine wrote: As a Libertarian-ish type, frankly, I don't see what the problem is. You made a choice to trade in some of your individual liberties when you pull out of your driveway and onto a public road. Even if you think that no one is looking, you never had the right to run a red light. I don't know to what degree the TP thinks that they might have libertarian values, but in this case I think that they are over reaching.

If I understand their logic, a lot of Libertarians are against the cameras because the authorities can fine you for going through a red light even if there isn't anybody else around for blocks. It's the old question of: If I run through a red light under these circumstances, who is being hurt? Whom am I putting in danger? If the answer is "Nobody," then the law over-reaching, because it addresses a crime that can't exist, if there is no victim or aggrieved party.

But, then, I'm no lawyer.

JLT wrote: If I understand their logic, a lot of Libertarians are against the cameras because the authorities can fine you for going through a red light even if there isn't anybody else around for blocks. It's the old question of: If I run through a red light under these circumstances, who is being hurt? Whom am I putting in danger? If the answer is "Nobody," then the law over-reaching, because it addresses a crime that can't exist, if there is no victim or aggrieved party.

But, then, I'm no lawyer.

I don't think that it the Libertarian stand on it.
Libertarians view should be this.
It is the choice of those who own it.
In this case probably a town, city, county or state.
No one should be forced to pay for it. Not thru a property tax, or whatever.
They could be charged to use the road by whomever owns the road.
But not charged if they do not use the road.
If those who own the road want and pay for the cameras with their money, then they can have them.
See my post, two or three up from this one.
I can see many Libertarians not liking it and seeing it as an invasion of privacy, probably because it is considered public property, and they don't want the government spying on them on public property. The legal basis though should be more like what I state, from a Libertarian point of view.

Actually I think the issue is something like....do you (the defendant) have the ability to question or cross exmine the accuser (ie the camera) in court?

I am OK with red light camera's myself provided they are on public right of ways (not a privately opwned mall or something like that.

If you don't want to have to pay a fine, don't run the red light. Somehow you have to hold people responsible and accountable for their actions.

steve74baywin wrote: See my post, two or three up from this one.

Hmm. I did, and found this:

steve74baywin wrote: So let's see. On a road that I am suppose
to be part owner of, they installed camera's with money they took from
me via property tax, and might I mention they use guns and the threat of jail
to take this money from me, but they put up these cameras to fine me for
doing something they don't like on a road that is paid for by me.
I have a problem with this.

Taken to its logical conclusion, that would not only nullify red light cameras and seat belt or helmet requirements (which are the usual "victim-less crimes" cited by Libertarians (or at least the ones I know), but traffic laws altogether. I don't like having to do less than 70 mph through a neighborhood, or stopping for red lights or school buses. Not on roads that I own and pay for. If the other citizens don't like it, that's their problem. If I'm paying for this road, I can do anything I want on it, as long as I take responsibility for any damage or mayhem I cause. Right?

So where do you draw the line?

We have a bunch in my small town, my wife has been caught and fined by one. I have sweat more than once when I refused to "slam" on the brakes when going thru one of the intersections, and I was driving the Bus and besides, there is no slamming in my Bus. But from our city website:

A red light violation occurs when a vehicle crosses a stop line and proceeds through an intersection after the traffic signal has turned red.
It is not a violation if the vehicle’s front tires have already passed the stop line at the time the signal turned red. At no time will a citation be issued a citation if the vehicle crosses the stop line while the traffic signal is still yellow.

But we have this law too, from 2008:

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue (R) yesterday signed into law a set of restrictions on cities that use red light cameras. Beginning January 1, motorists who receive a photo ticket can avoid paying the fine by sending in a form certifying that they were not behind the wheel when the citation was issued. State Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Cassville) initially sought to ban automated ticketing outright with his legislation, but he settled for the mild restrictions after powerful city lobbyists lined up to defend their revenue stream.

The new law will also ensure that vehicle owners actually receive the citation before a penalty is imposed. Current law only requires one notice sent by regular mail to the last known address of an owner. Now, a second notice must be sent using certified mail so that there is a record of whether the owner received the ticket before any finding of guilt is made.

For our safety, and the revenue stream. I know it is illegal, but I have a problem with that very statement. Also, what do you think of the company that owns and operates the camera's is contracted out?

I have yet to meet a Tea Party guy who takes on responsibility for any of their actions.

Sylvester wrote:
For our safety, and the revenue stream. I know it is illegal, but I have a problem with that very statement. Also, what do you think of the company that owns and operates the camera's is contracted out?

Private sector contract with the public government equals a sweet deal for them, for all our benefit, the logic suggests. It's hard to argue with robots. This is a little example of how the private sector is the real source of revenue for the government. The government is just the school-marm and referee. It would be out of a job without the private sector to "regulate", and bully, on behalf of the people. So, Oscar Wilde's quote "Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people" has some truth to it.