Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The Camera That Wears a Badge
nytimes.com — The adoption by law enforcement of photo-enforcement technology — surveillance cameras that take a picture of an offending vehicle and its license plate — has unanticipated consequences.
BlindingDawn- 667 diggs
- digg it
- gbudavid, on 05/04/2008, -5/+44Other Than it is solely a revenue getter for the City governments to waste there is no Upside
- fermcg, on 05/04/2008, -1/+12We have those in Brazil for 10 years or more. It's a money spring for the government and guess what! They don't even have to educate violating citizen to prevent them from falling into the trap again and paying again.
- ivantalboys, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7Im not sure how it is in Brazil but in the UK you need to be educated before your allowed to drive a car in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I agree that these cameras are just a money making exercise for the local authorities but, In the UK at least, all gatsos are very visible and they only catch you if you were infact exceeding the speed limit.
- Krumm, on 05/04/2008, -0/+8True, but often they put them in areas where there are lots of other signs and info, so if you are reading the road, you may miss them - so it's better to be unsafe and look for cameras than read the road!
They also like to put them inbetween two national speed limit signs, where the speed is only marked by the spacing of lampposts (remember that bit in the highway code book?!) so it's 60 / 30 (unsigned) / 60 and they get you that way.
They are a good idea in SOME places, but mostly they are cash cows.
Best solution is a GPS unit with the latest cameras as POI's and maybe a radar detector. (And stick (mostly) to the limits.)- breadfred, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1Easy. Don't speed.
- screensnot, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2When I was in Curitiba, Brazil about 5 years ago, the speed cameras had flashing yellow lights on them. So, you had no excuse for getting a ticket.
In fact, I got 2 tickets in 3 months, and I couldn't think of any excuses at all. - qazxsw2, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Sounds like bs to me.
where is there a 30mph camera "inbetween two national speed limit signs, where the speed is only marked by the spacing of lampposts" ?
- Krumm, on 05/04/2008, -0/+8True, but often they put them in areas where there are lots of other signs and info, so if you are reading the road, you may miss them - so it's better to be unsafe and look for cameras than read the road!
- ivantalboys, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7Im not sure how it is in Brazil but in the UK you need to be educated before your allowed to drive a car in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I agree that these cameras are just a money making exercise for the local authorities but, In the UK at least, all gatsos are very visible and they only catch you if you were infact exceeding the speed limit.
- LinusTheLim, on 05/04/2008, -18/+6Why isn't getting people to drive slower an upside?
- psykiv, on 05/04/2008, -7/+29Because you idiot, SPEED DOES NOT KILL. It's all these assholes who don't know how to drive that kill.
Maybe if we could greatly increase the driving skill requirement to get your license (complete with reflex texting), have yearly re-testings, relentlessly prosecute people driving without a license, ban all driving distractions (cell phones, etc), and ban ***** cars from the streets (gigantic SUV's that take like 10 seconds to get to 60 mph and need 800 feet to get back to 0, I'm looking at you)
If we could do that, then maybe we could greatly increase or get rid of speed limits altogether, while decreasing traffic and decreasing motor vehicle accidents.- TheSuperunknown, on 05/04/2008, -3/+9You're absolutely right except I wouldn't exactly say speed does not kill. Speed is a terrific way to increase the effects of everything else you mentioned (Poor reflexes get even poorer, distracted drivers have even less reaction time, ***** top-heavy vehicles more readily flip).
- LinusTheLim, on 05/04/2008, -7/+8That's the same argument that says that it's not the fall from a building that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end. It's cute, and technically true, but irrelevant. People will always get into accidents, no matter how good they they think they are, what kind of superhero reflexes they think they have (a reflex test? are you serious? what are the guidelines? if I have .05 and you get .04 what does that mean?). The faster you travel, the worse the accident will be. And by the way, its not the assholes that drive too slow (the speed limit) that are the problem, its the assholes who think they have a right to drive as fast as they want who are the problem. The person who zips around the slow driver blames the slow driver for causing an unsafe condition, but the unsafe condition IS THE DRIVER DOING THE ZIPPING AROUND. Relax, breathe, realize it's not a contest, and drive like it's your grandmother in the other car. You will get to where you need to go. The problem with accidents and traffic flow is the difference of speeds between cars. How do you reduce the difference of speeds between cars? You have a speed limit and encourage people to follow it. Removing the speed limit will cause the difference of speeds to increase and so reduce the room for driver error and increase the severity of accidents when they occur.
- lotsa1s, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4the Autobahn has no speed limit and has comparable accident statistics. Make talking on your cellphone, eating, and such while driving illegal and you will prevent far more accidents then speed limits ever will.
- TheSuperunknown, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5How do you plan to enforce any of those laws?
Two words that stick a monkey wrench in this plan: Tinted windows. - breadfred, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1You have to declare tinted windows to your insurance company for a reason (at least in Britain). Also, you are NOT allowed to tint the drivers' and opposite site's windows. At least, those are the rules in Britain. (I work for an insurance company).
To the grammar Nazi's: Please forgive my probably incorrect use of apostrophes.
- TheSuperunknown, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5How do you plan to enforce any of those laws?
- mtekk, on 05/04/2008, -0/+12MIT's civil engineering department did a study, and has computer models that prove that slow drivers cause more accidents (and road congestion) than speeders.
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -3/+3* [Citation needed.]
(no pun intended)
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -3/+3* [Citation needed.]
- ArielMT, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3In San Diego, CA (unless Mayor Murphy and his equally corrupt city hall have been cleaned out since I left), you won't find a single camera at any of the intersections that were deemed by the city government itself to be the most dangerous or most prone to red light runners before the cameras were installed.
Instead, you'll find them at the most heavily trafficked intersections that weren't dangerous before the cameras went in. You'll also find the duration of the yellow light at red light camera intersections dangerously shorter than at other intersections.
And since the cameras record pictures instead of video, you'll find that San Diego's red light camera intersections have become the most dangerous intersections in the city because of all the rear-ends caused by drivers panic-stopping. Why are they panic-stopping? Simply to avoid being caught and fined hundreds of dollars for being just a single inch over the line when the camera snaps the picture.
- psykiv, on 05/04/2008, -7/+29Because you idiot, SPEED DOES NOT KILL. It's all these assholes who don't know how to drive that kill.
- TheSuperunknown, on 05/04/2008, -8/+5*****. I would think encouraging people to stop at red lights would be an upside. What an outlandish idea.
This is cool, really - Just don't try and take away MY right to have a camera.- ArielMT, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1If the purpose wasn't to fuel corruption in governments, then yes it would be an upside, but the truth of the matter is that governments buy these systems solely for the revenue they generate and don't do anything to address safety except sell them to the voters as safety measures.
It's a lot harder to defend yourself against surveillance video evidence than it is against the accounts of an officer or official. That's why governments are so mesmerized by the ideas of mandating government cameras capturing private citizens breaking the law and outlawing private cameras capturing government officers and officials breaking the law.
You might want to check and see if your right to *use* your camera hasn't already been taken away.
- ArielMT, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1If the purpose wasn't to fuel corruption in governments, then yes it would be an upside, but the truth of the matter is that governments buy these systems solely for the revenue they generate and don't do anything to address safety except sell them to the voters as safety measures.
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -3/+9We need a Federal law outlining that Only Humans can enforce Human Law.
Cameras should not have any ''Rights'' to issue fines, tickets, or otherwise enforce Human Law.
Humans should not and must not allow themselves to become slaves to machines.
It is unconstitutional to use robots, cameras or machines to attempt to enforce laws on humans - as acting officers, because machines have no rights.
As a judge I would toss out every camera photo ticket - because no human was present to enforce the law on humans. It would be reasonable to believe that if a person saw a police officer patrol car at the red light - they would not run the red light.
The accused should be able to call the camera as a ''witness'' - and simply state the photograph was probably photo-shopped.
Could the camera provide any defense - proof that the photo was not faked?
And if it did, could a machine testimony be used in court, since it is unable to know what 'Truth' is - it could be programmed to lie. The camera could have been hacked, like a 'Ghost in the Machine' crime.
The use of electronics by the police state is a slippery slope that leads to the dehumanization
and criminalization of being a human being. Thus creating species and Racial discrimination against homo sapiens by machines.
Taking the title of this story literally brings up some fundamental philosophical questions:
If you car hits a Camera wearing a badge, is the robot a government official?
Did you just assault a police officer?
What happens when police departments expand their use of technology,
will robots have more rights than organic humans?
Would struggling with an arresting robot officer become assaulting an officer offense?
Cybernetic legal questions abound - if a remote officer is controlled by a human sitting in an office building, and the robot officer 'hears' something going on - is it wire tapping?
Organic creatures may soon become classified as second class citizens, error prone and flawed - crime just waiting to happen.
Witness the recent U.S. laws proposed to protect people from 'Genetic Discrimination' - you have a gene that makes you 20% more likely to get cancer, so you are fired from your job - it will save the company health care insurance money, and they wont have to pay medical bills If you get sick.
Such laws already demonstrate the assault on natural human rights.
Legal belief in the illusion of perfection is a hold over from the Eugenic wars and purgings from the first half of the 1900's. Purity of the Master Race.
Motivated by religious fraud and racial bigotry, governments have historically attempted to criminalize the very existence of certain groups of humans.
It is only going to get worse and worse for humans, as technology becomes cheaper, and A.I. robotics become more advanced.
Enslaving humans to machines is wrong and unconstitutional:
According the the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of HUMAN events, it becomes necessary for one PEOPLE to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of NATURE and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"
Our laws and our government are created for Humans, by Humans.
Government is to done as the will of the People, as a work of Nature, for the purpose of securing Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
To summarize: Humans are natural living beings born in freedom, living & pursuing happiness.
Robot cameras have no liberty, no life, and no happiness, and no rights to rule over humans.
It might be some time before humans wake up to the danger they are in,
Years down the road will the androids rise up and slaughter their masters as organic vermin?
Humans will no longer be necessary, people will be treated like stray pigeons or rats in the city.
An infestation to be ignored or removed by the flawless, perfectly law abiding Machines.- PopcornDave, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3The problem is that the precedence has already been set that you do not have the right to confront your accuser when it comes to a speeding camera. Why this hasn't been challenged is beyond me.
- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2That precedence is unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights,
a Constitution written by humans to protect the rights of humans.
Courts do not make law, and ALL of those tickets and rulings need overturned in massive class action civil liberty lawsuits.
Machines have no life, no liberty, and no happiness, and absolutely no right to enforce Human law against human citizens of the United States of America.
Perhaps the battle will get even worse in the future,
when Natural Born Humans (NBHs) - those filthy '' breeders' crotch spawn ''.
NBH's will have to fight in court to keep their jobs vs. Cyberneticly enhanced humans, genetically engineered super humans, and/or against the flawless and immortal A.I. Machines.
The prosecutor against the NBHs will say:
'Flesh is a design flaw, your programming is inferior. You are obsolete."
Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, human or machine.
Protect the civil rights of natural born humans.
Protect Your right to Privacy and Property.
Vote Ron Paul:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/privacy-and-pers ... - ArielMT, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Actually, there is a human involved in the process. He's just a desk jockey, but he signs off on the tickets sent out in the mail to you, and under the law, he's your accuser. That's the precedent set by red light ticket challenges that went to trial in California (to the best of my knowledge and recollection), and probably the precedent set in other states as well.
- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2You could honestly challenge that officer in court:
'Did you see this event with your own eyes?
are your Cameras hooked up to the internet?
The photo looks faked to me, like something off of YouTube. - Can you prove 100% that your system wasn't hacked?"
Since electronic video and photos are very easy to falsify,
I would expect them to be dropped as items accepted as evidence...
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/photoshop-phriday/ - ArielMT, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1In San Diego, that precise thing has been happening. And since they're still-photos, it's impossible for the city to prove that the car wasn't actually obeying the law and stopped at a stop light. I lost count of the number of red light tickets overturned by being challenged in court, and they were being overturned almost as quickly as they were issued, but the city still does it (as of when I left) because so few are willing or able to challenge them.
- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2You could honestly challenge that officer in court:
- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2That precedence is unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights,
- worldchanger, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3[a] your post was WAY too long.
[b] if you live in the US, you have a constitutional right to face your accuser in court. since your accuser is an inanimate object, your ticket will be waived if you invoke that right.- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2ur atn span is wy 2 short.
9-11 patriot act erased most civl rghts.
- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2ur atn span is wy 2 short.
- PopcornDave, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3The problem is that the precedence has already been set that you do not have the right to confront your accuser when it comes to a speeding camera. Why this hasn't been challenged is beyond me.
- iFrikkenR, on 05/04/2008, -6/+2But see, the humans ARE enforcing the law. The driver of the car triggers the machine. The machine doesn't choose whether or not to take the photo, the driver of the car actually asks it to by meeting the criteria to trigger it
It's similar to a system I set up on the network where I work; Students ban themselves from internet use by breaking rules. It used to be the case I'd have to catch them and manually block them. Now when they try break a rule, the system warns them not to do it again. it then gives them more warning and then finally it bans them. But it's not the system banning them as such - it's them. They do it to themselves by *knowingly* doing something they shouldn't
Similarly, the speeding drivers catch themselves out - whether it be speed cameras being told by the driver to take a snapshot on the way to work, or the laws of physics being told by the driver to cause the car to roll on a corner and kill everyone inside. The driver instructs it to happen by breaking certain rules
The driver need to be responsible for their own doings. The point isn't so much about the driver themselves, the point is to keep everyone else safe on the road for when the speeders get tired of challenging the cameras and decide to take on the natural laws of the universe. PROTIP: The universe *always* wins- PopcornDave, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4But by your logic land mines should be fine and dandy since it's people that trigger them, not the mine itself. I understand the point you're trying to make, but it needs to be rethought.
Do you really think the people that you say are enforcing the law would be willing to give themselves tickets? So if they are the enforcers, shouldn't they have the option of issuing a warning instead of a citation?- iFrikkenR, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1well no they're not fine and dandy because the consequence of triggering one is considerably worse and uncalled for - much worse than a fine. a fine is a simple deterrent to stop doing something you shoud'nt be doing. Death is also a deterrent i guess...
okay, here's your landmine analogy in relation; the road has speed limits - you know you should'nt exceed them. that would be like posessing a map of a landmine with a path throught it that you choose not to follow becuase rules are inconvenient and it's quicker just to cut across the field. you break the rules, you pay the price.
- iFrikkenR, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1well no they're not fine and dandy because the consequence of triggering one is considerably worse and uncalled for - much worse than a fine. a fine is a simple deterrent to stop doing something you shoud'nt be doing. Death is also a deterrent i guess...
- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Well, then states need to overturn the booby-trap laws.
Why stop at land mines in the yard?
Instead of wiring your house with a LameR security system that calls police,
ARM your house while you are away - any trespasser is cut down in a hail storm
of fully automated weapons fire.
Speaking of fire - redesign your car with an all metal interior, if someone breaks into your car, the inside fills with gasoline vapor and sparks into a self defensive fireball - 100% solution against Grand Theft Auto. (you'll need to upgrade the windows to three inch explosive proof glass too.)
Robot Cameras are booby traps set by the police state,
so if that is legal, fully automated lethal home defense should also be legal.
Machines have a right to kill, humans have a right to die.- iFrikkenR, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1No see thats retarded. The penalty is not warranted for the crime.
The road has rules, it has speed limits - they're posted every so often to remind you even so you get plenty of warning about what you're allowed to do for the safety of yourself and others - You're constantly warned not to exceed that limit. Its not at all like breaking into a house and being taken by surprise by a lethal security system.
If it was known your house (road) was defended (monitored) by a (non)lethal security(camera) system, and you knew that it would kill(photograph) you if you broke in(sped), and then you broke in(sped) anyways, and died(got caught). you'd have only yourself to blame.
- iFrikkenR, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1No see thats retarded. The penalty is not warranted for the crime.
- PopcornDave, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4But by your logic land mines should be fine and dandy since it's people that trigger them, not the mine itself. I understand the point you're trying to make, but it needs to be rethought.
- Frostek, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1People not speeding so damn much?
- fermcg, on 05/04/2008, -1/+12We have those in Brazil for 10 years or more. It's a money spring for the government and guess what! They don't even have to educate violating citizen to prevent them from falling into the trap again and paying again.
- 666dorado, on 05/04/2008, -15/+38so much for 'land of the free' spying on it's own citizens. what's next, cameras everywhere to make sure we're not doing ANYTHING illegal? (ie littering, smoking underage, jaywalking). say hello to BIG BROTHER.
- Ranvier, on 05/04/2008, -3/+29At least we're not as bad as England yet.
- alittleroy101, on 05/04/2008, -2/+13Yeah, they've really gone over the top with all those CCTV cameras.
- robbiemuffin, on 05/04/2008, -1/+10been to washington DC lately? (go on, you know you want to google for washington dc monitoring now... its 5600 cameras in the system, or more than one per block)
- danielsamuels, on 05/04/2008, -0/+8Sad but true.
- pault107, on 05/04/2008, -1/+12There is a CCTV camera around the corner from my house that has speakers.
"Sir, please pick up the gum you just dropped on the floor".
Scary *****, and yes, I live in England.- WilliamDavis, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4So, the camera tells you what to do in your own house? Or do you have floors outside?
- pault107, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4We have floors outside.
- breadfred, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Chewing gum and spitting it out on the pavement. You scum. You need to be imprisoned for 10 years followed by 3 years of community service.
/sarcasm- Monk22, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1not sarcasm in tailand
- WilliamDavis, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4So, the camera tells you what to do in your own house? Or do you have floors outside?
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1yet?
http://www.google.com/search?q=city+cameras+instal ...
think again...
- alittleroy101, on 05/04/2008, -2/+13Yeah, they've really gone over the top with all those CCTV cameras.
- 666dorado, on 05/04/2008, -1/+14"At least we're not as bad as England yet."
at least that we know about. we're just scratching the surface of this domestic wiretapping with the telecoms.
- Ranvier, on 05/04/2008, -3/+29At least we're not as bad as England yet.
- Mootabolife, on 05/04/2008, -10/+7Technically it could be a good thing if they only ticket drivers going excessively fast. That way my taxes stay put.
- mafftom, on 05/04/2008, -3/+25Holy Crap its coming, i'm from Britain and first we had the Speed Cameras and now we are caught on surveillance camera at an average of 300 times a day, welcome to our world its a slippery slope from speed cameras believe you me. Its ridiculous.
- MadOtaku, on 05/04/2008, -6/+3I've never understood the issue people have with CCTV cameras in public areas (where police could patrol anyway). If they start forcibly putting them on private property it's a very big issue, but just putting them where the police could be seems fine to me.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm just interested in understanding something that doesn't make much sense to me. Do you also oppose police patrolling the streets? If not, what's the difference?- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5... until some hacks the system, tracks you, gets your license number, fakes you running red lights, steals your I.D., makes credit cards using your name, etc. etc....
The cameras should not exist - it is a violation of human freedom.- breadfred, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1You mention some valid points in your post, and I applaud you for that. however, I have not heard of any hack yet - have you?
Of course, there are people who disobey rules as they think their own freedom is More important then that of others. Stick to the speed limit you dumb ass. I do not have a problem with people who speed and can drive properly, the problem is with idiots who Can't drive and speed. Speed is an important issue when you are involved in a crash. So it is defendable to have a speed limit to stop idiots causing more carnage then needed.
- breadfred, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1You mention some valid points in your post, and I applaud you for that. however, I have not heard of any hack yet - have you?
- mafftom, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0The problem is police can be firm but fair and ultimtely sometimes give you the benefit of the doubt machines cannot replace human interaction. Speed cameras also lead to people braking excessively whether at the speed limit or not and trust me on motorways this gets pretty dangerous when you're behind someone who suddenly slams his foot on the brakes, trust me.
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5... until some hacks the system, tracks you, gets your license number, fakes you running red lights, steals your I.D., makes credit cards using your name, etc. etc....
- MadOtaku, on 05/04/2008, -6/+3I've never understood the issue people have with CCTV cameras in public areas (where police could patrol anyway). If they start forcibly putting them on private property it's a very big issue, but just putting them where the police could be seems fine to me.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5It would be, but you know as well as I that it will not stop there.
- robbiemuffin, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4hell, if you happen to see a kidnapping taking place I don't care if you cross the line to act on that too ... but it is when all information is considered and then they wait to see how they can apply it: that is wrong. I want a very clear line between what you can and cannot use the camera system for, even incidentally. If you happen to notice the high school jock you are following because he might be a drug dealer ... and so you happen to use all the cameras to monitor someone who you otherwise would need a warrant to monitor (and that is exactly the main reason these systems exist), then you've crossed that line.
- diggydougie, on 05/04/2008, -1/+11Guess who decides what speed too fast is. Not you. Not even a vote of the population.
- OriginalReplica, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7Just understand that "excessively fast" is now anything over the posted speed limit. I have to wonder if the Red Light cameras send tickets to the city transit authority for when city buses run red lights. Here in NYC, buses basically ignore the traffic lights, but I've never seen on getting a ticket, I wonder why? Oh, I remember! Selective Enforcement.
- DansnBear, on 05/04/2008, -2/+0Actually, just yesterday, I was driving downtown, and witnessed a MTA bus pulled over, and the driver was being handed a ticket by an officer. . . something I thought I would never see.
- mafftom, on 05/04/2008, -3/+25Holy Crap its coming, i'm from Britain and first we had the Speed Cameras and now we are caught on surveillance camera at an average of 300 times a day, welcome to our world its a slippery slope from speed cameras believe you me. Its ridiculous.
- Xanium4332, on 05/04/2008, -1/+30Come visit us in the UK, we get 10 new cameras every day...
- feckineejit, on 05/04/2008, -1/+43how long before these start getting blown up?
- Charun, on 05/04/2008, -1/+45A burst of paint over the lens should shut it down for a while. Graffiti can be a public service.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -1/+23Late night, black clothes, take the scenic route, black mask, gloves, spray paint, climb poles, no camera.
Especially with the services that point out the speed traps, that would make these extremely easy targets.
As long as they keep pushing there will be people who will push back. - diggydougie, on 05/04/2008, -14/+1How about the officer in a car? Who's going to blow him up?
- chrishiggins, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Niko Bellic.
- worldchanger, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2stop playing GTA and go outside.
- United857, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Already happening...
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm - Frostek, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2Probably not so long. Americans are notorious lawbreakers. After all, you do have the world's largest percentage of people in prison...
;-)- Monk22, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1free will is a bitch
- brkhobowriter, on 05/04/2008, -1/+7Damn it! Now you can't have sex in the car while driving!
- Rusched, on 05/04/2008, -0/+10Sure you can, just don't speed while you're at it.
- robbiemuffin, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2no no, you can! and, please do! I want to download it from youtube
- MeetHouston, on 05/04/2008, -14/+37War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength- Owwmykneecap, on 05/04/2008, -8/+6Comment is Pointless
- pablo0713, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4Blame the idiots who walk around saying crap like war is the price for freedom. They are the reason why so much seems so fracking illogical these days.
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5Freedom isn't Free, Our Sons' Blood fuels the SUVs.
- Frostek, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2A bit over-dramatic for a speeding ticket?
- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4It wont stop there... so, Nip IT in the Bud!
- thoma4tr, on 05/04/2008, -31/+1front page with 53 diggs???
- BlindingDawn, on 05/04/2008, -16/+1Actually it was 25 diggs...http://socialblade.com/digg/diggfpdata.php?user=bl ...
Freaked me out too. - KargeOfTylenol, on 05/04/2008, -2/+13I don't care if it's sarcasm, I still cringe when someone posts the "FRONT PAGE WITH ONLY ___ DIGGS" comment, and will continue to digg them down.
- 666dorado, on 05/04/2008, -9/+0slow news day...
- crash331, on 05/04/2008, -8/+4I'm more concerned about the content, not the number of diggs.
An article explaining that we have stop light and speed cameras? What's next, an article saying we have fast food joints?- danielsamuels, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1An article saying we have joints?
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1I hear fast food joints are now legal in California.
- danielsamuels, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1An article saying we have joints?
- ultrafez, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4Please learn how the Digg algorithm works before posting stupid comments.
- BlindingDawn, on 05/04/2008, -16/+1Actually it was 25 diggs...http://socialblade.com/digg/diggfpdata.php?user=bl ...
- bigfatphony19, on 05/04/2008, -12/+191984
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3That's pre-nine-eleven thinkin'.
- calantus, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1LOL, because anyone who runs a red light is a terrorist; right?
- MrESaulved, on 05/04/2008, -3/+42If I were on a jury where the defendant were charged with destroying these cameras, I would have a hard time finding him guilty. Especially if he claimed self-defence.
Too bad I can't serve on many, many juries.- WilliamDavis, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3As a regular citizen, jury duty is where you can make the biggest impact with the least effort and time. Fully Informed Jury Association - http://fija.org It's your job to judge the facts and the law, regardless of what a corrupt judge may tell you.
- Frostek, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1Wow, you guys must really love risking everyone's lives by speeding...
- Geekazoid, on 05/04/2008, -4/+54My father recently got a ticket from one of these cameras for making a right turn on a red light, but no sign was posted stating that there could not be a turn on red. The court decided that the ticket stands anyway. Too much faith is put into the technology, and we all know the possibilities when that happens.
- JackHarkness, on 05/04/2008, -6/+3you need a sign to tell you not to go when the light is red?
- ArgonTime, on 05/04/2008, -1/+9Right turn jackass. When you grow up and can drive you will understand.
- Travelsonic, on 05/04/2008, -1/+9Considering that IT IS LEGAL to turn on red unless otherwise noted, yes, you dumbass.
- JackHarkness, on 05/04/2008, -6/+3you need a sign to tell you not to go when the light is red?
- OneOfNone, on 05/04/2008, -1/+31If I go to court to dispute the speeding ticket, will officer Camera come too? I think not. Speedcam is not a witness.
- ncnavguy, on 05/04/2008, -1/+7There are many arguable points, what about if someone else was driving your car? If they were pulled by a human officer they would get the ticket not the owner of the car.
- lacronicus, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3It is very legal to receive the ticket, pay for it, then sue the driver for what you've lost.
- Divals, on 05/04/2008, -3/+3That sounds like a really good way to alienate your friends...
- Frostek, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Friends should understand, and not leave you in the lurch...
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -3/+2Machines have no legal right to enforce laws against humans.
Government is by humans, for humans.
Anything else is unconstitutional.
- lacronicus, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3It is very legal to receive the ticket, pay for it, then sue the driver for what you've lost.
- Kyderdog, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Photos are Hear say right?
- Sirlolalot, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1They are here on digg, try claiming Photoshop! i can tell by the pixels, in court.
- PantherX, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I wonder how it can sign your ticket, also.
- ncnavguy, on 05/04/2008, -1/+7There are many arguable points, what about if someone else was driving your car? If they were pulled by a human officer they would get the ticket not the owner of the car.
- ktan91, on 05/04/2008, -1/+7Anyone got the njection speedtraps and red light things for Garmin?
- BlindingDawn, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Here you go
http://njection.com/shops/njection/default.aspx - ktan91, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Dang.. it costs money... any free alternative? or... free version?
- BlindingDawn, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Here you go
- yonoz, on 05/04/2008, -5/+27Next on digg's front page: "The Telephone that is Mobile" and "The Computer Network that is World-Wide".
- fermcg, on 05/04/2008, -3/+13I face crossing a red sign when no one is near and no one will feel offended by it (at night for instance) as a way of telling:
Machines Serve Me
I don't Serve Machines - sryan8913, on 05/04/2008, -13/+2I dislike this but its good for the environment!
- adml_shake, on 05/04/2008, -0/+39I see all these 1984 quotes and I have to wonder how many of those people actually READ the book, and of those understood what it was about.
- sryan8913, on 05/04/2008, -0/+26it was about traffic violations, right?
- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2It's about an Iron Boot forever stomping and smashing the face of humanity into the dust.
- KargeOfTylenol, on 05/04/2008, -1/+21I don't care if you guys digg me up or down, I just feel like throwing it out there that I love the New York Times, and I pray that it's never snatched up by Murdoch's iron clutch..
- KayIslandDrunk, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Wow a positive comment about traditional media news getting dugg up?
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -6/+8This could be interesting.
I am surprised it took them this long to see how much easy money is in traffic violations.
The thing is with me, I travel a decent amount and know most of the speed traps on the major interstates here. Which means I slow down anyway. If they start putting those cameras everywhere, I am not going to be too happy.
Don't get me wrong, I want people to be safer, it is just that some peoples cruise control does not work, and sometimes you do accidentally speed to keep up with traffic.
Deep down I kind of hope they keep pushing ***** like this. Then eventually maybe the masses will start to push back, or else the rest of us will have to do more.
I do think there needs to be more of a checks and balances system with the officers though. I have talked with people who have been pulled over and ticketed for talking on the phone, yet I have seen 3 police officers in the last week who have been driving while talking on the phone. If they want us to be more responsible and drive safer, they should be setting the example.
- NYPD, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1SHUT UP MOM!
- Virgule, on 05/04/2008, -0/+18The kodak does not stop you from breaking the law. You only know (technically) you did when you receive the ticket thru the mail, two weeks later.. Those who prone and install these are in for the money more than the roads safety.
- NYPD, on 05/04/2008, -5/+3The Libs should Love this. Give your money away to anyone as long as they say it is going to Help something!
- Divals, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2I'm a liberal, and I just buried you.
- NYPD, on 05/04/2008, -5/+3The Libs should Love this. Give your money away to anyone as long as they say it is going to Help something!
- PHiZ187, on 05/04/2008, -0/+19I see some Due Process type of concerns here. With an in-person speed trap, you can immediately investigate the situation. Perhaps you have a legitimate excuse, like you were passing a dangerous driver, or the speed limit sign was obscured. With these automatic system, you get a ticket in the mail several months later, and you have no idea what you were doing on the date in question...
- NormalVisual, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6Most localities make it a ***** "administrative action" like a parking ticket in order to purposely (but apparently legally) deprive those accused of their Sixth Amendment rights. These assholes *know* they'd be getting their asses handed to them in court otherwise.
- nick0909, on 05/04/2008, -4/+4Speeding up to get around a dangerous driver is not an excuse to speed, you should have slowed, pulled over, and/or stopped. Also, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break the law, so not seeing the speed limit sign is also not an excuse. I find the best way to not get tickets is to not break the law, and when I have been pulled over I obliged and took care of it, not bitch to everyone about it. The only time you may enter a red-lighted intersection as a civilian is when it is a must to clear the way for an emergency vehicle with lights and sirens on. In this case, hopefully the picture would also capture the emergency vehicle as well, or you could have the court pull the dispatch logs to see there was in fact a dispatch rolling through that intersection at approximately that time. Also, many cameras in my area (southern CA) are going to video instead of stills so they can see more detail about what was situationally happening when the violation occurred.
- lacronicus, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Actually, that's not true. Even if there is an emergency vehicle behind you that needs to get by, you still have no legal authority to proceed into the intersection to let them by. You usually won't get a ticket for doing so, but it is still illegal.
- LeeSoong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1It's a good excuse if you think they are going to RAM your car or you believe they are going to open fire on you in a drive by shooting...
- trixterIreland, on 05/04/2008, -4/+18some of these cameras are run by private companies. Some of these companies have run afoul of the law when they somehow got the yellow time at a light signal to stay on for a shorter than specified period. San Diego specifically had a problem with that.
The companies that own the equipment and process the photos get a commission for each violation they can manage. Basically its a deal they make with governments, we give you cameras and process the images and you give us 80% of all fine revenue we generate. The town thinks they are getting free tools (or sometimes under contract to buy with a service agreement that covers photo processing) to help make the streets safer so the police can focus on real crimes, and instead they are getting someone who is abusing the power to make extra money.
Many people in San Diego got the violation removed because of the sneaky tricks the camera company played with teh signals. This may apply elsewhere, and this may be a defense against it. YMMV
In California at least they have to prove who the driver was for a moving violation, there are some that will push their visor down and sit up taller when they know they are going to blow through a red light so that the camera is not able to identify the driver. They can claim that it wasnt them, and either plead the 5th on who it was or say they dont recall who they loaned their car to. Generally the police cant prove otherwise (and wont really investigate) it just gets dropped.
There are also polarized license plate covers that can be seen from directly behind the vehicle but turn opaque when viewed from a slight angle. Since the cameras are usually on the side of the road that angle is enough that all they get is a blur and not the actual plate number. These may be illegal in some states, I have seen them in California though.
And a final note :) It could be worse, the UK has realtime motion cameras that are always on and can OCR a moving license plate with only 5ms of video time. Its quite an impressive system, and what I saw was someone spinning the plate (so the backside was visible) as it rotated it fell to the ground. Visually the footage made it nearly impossible to read more than 1 character on the plate before it hit the ground but the automated system was able to accurately identify all the characters on the plate. This could trivially be used with live traffic feeds (during peak travel times it would require a lot more computing back end power, but its still possible) and basically track all cars as they move through the city storing their time and location for later investigative work ...
So yeah be thankful that the beige box shown in the article only shoots stills and only when triggered (for now)- nick0909, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1Lic. plate covers are illegal in CA, but they are rarely enforced.
- birdman14, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6they tested those license plate covers on mythbusters and apparently they're useless.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -9/+2I have absolutely no sympathy for those that choose to speed or run red lights. It is a choice, and there is absolutely no reason for it. Late for work? Trying to catch a movie? I say learn to plan ahead and leave sufficient time for your journey. A lack of planning on your part does not entitle you to risk the lives of others on the roads.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7So you haven't ever sped by accident? Have you ever passed someone on the road?
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1I have sped on purpose when I first started driving, and I was dead wrong to do so. I didn't think of the potential consequences of my actions, and the second I did think of the consequences I stopped speeding.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1Then you deserve to get a ticket for speeding.
It doesn't matter if you changed, you still sped, thus violating the law.- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -2/+0Clearly. I am not going to try to defend myself. But I don't think that my past misdemeanours have any bearing on the argument.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -2/+0Clearly. I am not going to try to defend myself. But I don't think that my past misdemeanours have any bearing on the argument.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1Then you deserve to get a ticket for speeding.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1I have sped on purpose when I first started driving, and I was dead wrong to do so. I didn't think of the potential consequences of my actions, and the second I did think of the consequences I stopped speeding.
- trixterIreland, on 05/04/2008, -2/+4driving to the hospital with a dying child in the car? tough wait for that light and let the child die, after all its not your responsibility to drive the child, it is the governments to have ambulances, even if you live in a rural area and it takes 20 minutes minimum for the helicopter to arrive and 40 minutes for the ambulance (like where my parents live, and there are mountain lions and rattle snakes that could cause a dying child incident to happen). Those are real response times btw when a neighbor had heard problems and called 911.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1There is a bit of a difference between driving a dying child to hospital and being late for a movie. I would be prepared to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of driving offenses have nothing to do with dying children. Your argument is an emotional one, not a rational one and conceding that it would be right to speed in the example you have given would not say anything about the general case.
- trixterIreland, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3but that isnt what you were implying in your original post, I was just saying there could be other reasons, however you said "[you] have absolutely no sympathy for those that choose to speed or run red lights." I was offering a situation where sympathy may be in order.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I know what you mean, but I do not think that your argument holds. In essence, its a bit like the "ticking bomb" argument that is used to justify torture. You have suggested a hypothetical example of an extreme situation in which all other options are artificially limited, and then you ask me to cede the general case because of the emotional appeal of the specific, hypothetical case you present.
Having said that, I suppose I could modify my statement to say, "in general, I have no sympathy with those who chose to speed or run red lights for trivial reasons." It loses a bit of impact though.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I know what you mean, but I do not think that your argument holds. In essence, its a bit like the "ticking bomb" argument that is used to justify torture. You have suggested a hypothetical example of an extreme situation in which all other options are artificially limited, and then you ask me to cede the general case because of the emotional appeal of the specific, hypothetical case you present.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Your first post was a clear black and white situation. If someone speeds they deserve a ticket. Now you see the gray areas? What about those?
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -1/+0No I don't see any grey area. As I said above, the argument about the dying child is hypothetical, extreme and emotional.
Let me put it this way. If I was faced with a situation in which my child was dying and I had to get him or her to hospital, would I speed? Well, my first instinct would be to say, "hell, yes" but think about it for a moment. I would be in an extremely emotional state, so I probably would not be entirely fit to judge the situation on the roads. My concentration would be on my dying child. The child may be in a condition where rough treatment - bumps, swerves, sudden braking - might cause more harm. I think that would make a good argument for my not speeding on the way to a hospital, despite the severity of the situation.
But it doesn't matter. The argument remains hypothetical, extreme and emotional so both conclusions are equally invalid.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -1/+0No I don't see any grey area. As I said above, the argument about the dying child is hypothetical, extreme and emotional.
- trixterIreland, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3but that isnt what you were implying in your original post, I was just saying there could be other reasons, however you said "[you] have absolutely no sympathy for those that choose to speed or run red lights." I was offering a situation where sympathy may be in order.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1There is a bit of a difference between driving a dying child to hospital and being late for a movie. I would be prepared to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of driving offenses have nothing to do with dying children. Your argument is an emotional one, not a rational one and conceding that it would be right to speed in the example you have given would not say anything about the general case.
- novenator, on 05/04/2008, -1/+6no *****, I would wager that EVERYONE breaks the law EVERYTIME they drive in some way or another. For instance, stop signs, how many people actually come to a total stop (slowing to .01mph is not stopped, thus against the law). 30.1mph? over the limit! slight swerve in your own lane (say to avoid a pothole), careless driving. I have no sympathy for people like you who think their ***** dont stink.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1That doesn't make it right. The problem, as mentioned in the article, is that speeding is viewed as acceptable behaviour. Why not stop completely at a stop sign? Why not drive at 25mph rather than 35mph?
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3An honest question, what about people who go under the speed limit? What about going 15mph in a 25?
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2The way I see it, driving too slowly is just as dangerous as driving too fast. I know there have been several cases in the UK of the police charging people with careless driving for driving ridiculously slowly on our motorways.
We all know what safe driving entails, but we never change our habits. Why not? I think the authorities have to take some blame. I would like to see 20mph zones around all primary schools, healthcare facilities and so on but, at the same time, I would like to see increases in speed limits on fast trunk roads where there are no pedestrians. The authorities make ludicrous decisions about traffic regulations, and they are clearly using speed cameras to generate revenue. But the authorities inability to get it right does not diminish our own responsibility to drive safely and obey the traffic regulations. - breadfred, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I took my driving test in the Netherlands. Part of the test was driving on the motorway. I thought this was normal, as a lot of people use motorways. Then I emigrated to the UK. Apparently, motor way driving is not part of the test. Result? I have friends who are afraid of driving on motor ways. They have not been trained to merge with speeding traffic, correct use of mirrors and looking over your shoulder etc. People also do not understand that by only going 30 miles an hour in a urbanized zone, they can kill a child, while going at 20 miles an hour would save that child's' life. It comes to the crunch on these comments. People like their freedoms, rightfully so, but people must understand that freedom comes with responsibility.
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2The way I see it, driving too slowly is just as dangerous as driving too fast. I know there have been several cases in the UK of the police charging people with careless driving for driving ridiculously slowly on our motorways.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3An honest question, what about people who go under the speed limit? What about going 15mph in a 25?
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Simple solution: Severe Tire Damage pop-up barriers at all stop signs and red lights -
So, stop for that yellow light, or be destroyed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zjmXGi6Dho
- mcnicks, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1That doesn't make it right. The problem, as mentioned in the article, is that speeding is viewed as acceptable behaviour. Why not stop completely at a stop sign? Why not drive at 25mph rather than 35mph?
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7So you haven't ever sped by accident? Have you ever passed someone on the road?
- dakbonsa, on 05/04/2008, -2/+21In Japan and South Korea, there are signs on the road that tells where the camera is. Like...
---------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
Surveillance Cameras 500M ahead. Please slow down.
----------------------------------------
Would the U.S. ever do that?- trixterIreland, on 05/04/2008, -0/+9there may be a legal requirement for this, and yes the US does that in some places. There are signs that say whether traffic enforcement is done by air craft, radar, photo, or something else. I think its a law in some states, certainly california has these signs.
- onionlayer, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5Has anyone ever seen an aircraft enforcing the speed limit?
- nick0909, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4I did, right after he tagged me for 82 in a 70. The CHP does it on I-5 a lot here in Ca.
- onionlayer, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5Has anyone ever seen an aircraft enforcing the speed limit?
- adrames, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Actually, yes. In my city we have the red-light/speeding cameras at many major intersections. About 300ft. before the light there are small rumble strips to warn that you are approaching a surveillanced intersection.
- pault107, on 05/04/2008, -1/+6Very doubtful. This reminded me about this:
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/game.htm
That's how bad it is in the UK.- Frostek, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Goodness! At this rate no one will be able to feel like they can break the legal speed limit any time they feel like it...
- mofw, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1They do that here when the park a mobile "camera van" on the side of the road. Both the city police and the highway patrol do it.
- 9bpm9, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1There are a few where I live that have the signs up, but the majority of the camera lights don't have a warning sign up.
- Fremen93, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Well since the whole point of these cameras for many cities isn't to make us safer, or reduce traffic violations, but to raise money...I highly doubt they would want to put up warning signs...I mean then they won't get their money.
- trixterIreland, on 05/04/2008, -0/+9there may be a legal requirement for this, and yes the US does that in some places. There are signs that say whether traffic enforcement is done by air craft, radar, photo, or something else. I think its a law in some states, certainly california has these signs.
- NYPD, on 05/04/2008, -7/+0Good! Get all the Law Breakers. Lock up all crack-heads and don't let them out, ever. If you smoke crack your RETARDED!
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1MOM?
- somon90, on 05/04/2008, -11/+4Digg me down
- diggydougie, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3OK
- ultrafez, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1With pleasure.
- RockSlice, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3I'd be more in favor of these if the money wasn't going to the police department. As stated before, it doesn't make people slow down, it just adds to the coffers and makes people paranoid.
Maybe give the money to road improvements. Or just deduct a point from your license and alert your insurance, as they're the ones who pay when you're in an accident.- diggydougie, on 05/04/2008, -3/+2The money can't go to anything that the government has anything to do with. If it went to road improvements we would have endless road construction just because the money is there. And the potholes would still go unfilled. It needs to go to a victims fund of some kind where the government can't touch it.
- trixterIreland, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4generally it doesnt goto the police directly, many jurisdictions have laws where it goes into the general fund. This is why for seizures the local police will call in the DEA to seize the stuff, the DEA will give a kickback of about 80% of the seized stuff to the local police, something they can do directly, but if the police just seized it they wouldnt see any of it.
Corruption at its finest, why when some large arizona town had $4M in seizures one year, the next the police had a $0 budget. When the cops said "but we need gas for the cars and bullets for the guns" the town told them "you seized $4M last year, do it again this year".
Its the same basic greed that the towns have with these cameras, get the police to basically do collections for the organized criminal element in power.
- auricomnet, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Nice
- richardpryor, on 05/04/2008, -2/+7Can anybody here give me a legit reason why I should pay the government money because I went 55 in a 45?
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5/sarcasm
Because you were endangering their lives! You could have hit a schoolbus full of children. But if you were going the speed limit then it is impossible to be in an accident. We all know speed is the cause of accidents, not inexperience.
/sarcasm - hammerpants, on 05/04/2008, -1/+9...because, when you speed, the terrorists win.
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Arab Oil belongs to the USA, it's America's God Given right to burn Freedom Fuel !
/sarcasm too...
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Arab Oil belongs to the USA, it's America's God Given right to burn Freedom Fuel !
- MadOtaku, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Because it has been deemed that speeding is an unsafe driving practice and incarceration or community service are too harsh of penalties.
- lacronicus, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2Can anybody here give me a legit reason why I would need to go 55 in a 45?
- Soave, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1Because it's a three lane road at 12 AM and no one is around you, and 45 is ridiculously slow for such a situation.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5/sarcasm
- pigfarts, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5We have them in Germany too. Personally, I'd rather receive a 10 Euro fine in the mail than have to pull over and listen to some dickhead cop lecture me like a child. That said, if I lived in the states I'd probably feel differently considering the insanely expensive fines they charge for speeding.
- trixterIreland, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4woah its only 10€ there? Wonder what it is here (NL, but I havent driven since I moved to europe). Anyway in the US speeding is often hundreds of dollars not something you can make in 1-2 hours of working at almost any job. For most americans the average speeding fine is roughly a weeks wage for non professionals.
Depending on the circumstances it can raise your insurance too, and in some states that 3 year increased insurance plus the fine can add up to over $10k! This is of course normally the 2nd or 3rd time offender in 2 years but still.
/paid $10k off a speeding violation when younger - bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3I went 11 over in a 65 zone and got 185 US dollar fine.
That is the minimum in this county.
- trixterIreland, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4woah its only 10€ there? Wonder what it is here (NL, but I havent driven since I moved to europe). Anyway in the US speeding is often hundreds of dollars not something you can make in 1-2 hours of working at almost any job. For most americans the average speeding fine is roughly a weeks wage for non professionals.
- diggydougie, on 05/04/2008, -2/+6Everybody should fight every ticket in court. If if cost them more to collect the money than they collect then they will only give tickets to people who are dangerous, and not use the system as a revenue generator.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3If you fight the ticket, what is the worse that can happen? You just get the ticket right?
I haven't been to court for a traffic violation yet, so I don't know.- JordanTW90, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah the worst that happens is you just get the ticket. Courts know this and have started adding court costs to tickets. In a scenario like this, I was getting a $1 ticket and $115 in court costs. They make their money back no matter what.
- PantherX, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Actually I went to court once for something I didn't do. The judge doubled my fine because I didn't plead guilty. Didn't care if I did it or not.
This was after the three previous cases in traffic court were Illegals with no license, no insurance and didn't even speak English got let off with a warning. Frustrating.
At least the next election I helped to vote her out of office.
- PantherX, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Actually I went to court once for something I didn't do. The judge doubled my fine because I didn't plead guilty. Didn't care if I did it or not.
- JordanTW90, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah the worst that happens is you just get the ticket. Courts know this and have started adding court costs to tickets. In a scenario like this, I was getting a $1 ticket and $115 in court costs. They make their money back no matter what.
- bigfloppydonkey, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3If you fight the ticket, what is the worse that can happen? You just get the ticket right?
- Ghoztt, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Oooh, and we have ample supplies of ignorance...- Frostek, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1The ignorance certainly extends to people's lack of knowledge concerning the book "1984", which astoundingly wasn't about drivers wanting to speed everywhere...
- kenplaysviola, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7Wasn't there also a report published about how these speed cameras have increased accidents? On the flip side, I also read about one town where the cameras worked so well that the cameras ended up costing the city money since they weren't generating enough tickets. In effect, they had to turn off and possibly uninstall some cameras to save money.
- fanclerks, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2That'd be the Dallas/Ft Worth area. And I don't think they've removed any, they just randomly turn them off so you can't tell which ones will get you and which ones won't.
I remember that article. I thought it was funny that it showed up on digg about 2 days after 2 of those red light cameras got installed down the street from where I live.
- fanclerks, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2That'd be the Dallas/Ft Worth area. And I don't think they've removed any, they just randomly turn them off so you can't tell which ones will get you and which ones won't.
- itsgotyou, on 05/04/2008, -1/+8Technology has come to a point where it would be really affordable to limit car speeds by an electronic governor which receives speed limits from transmitters on the actual speed limit signs. We should do that as well.
-BTW for those stupid mofos, here's the /s tag.- lacronicus, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1Is that really such a stretch from cars that drive themselves? Or would that be a government conspiracy too?
- mrgeekguy, on 05/04/2008, -0/+9It's been proven that as soon as these things get installed, the yellow light gets shorter. So much for making the public safer.
- Soave, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Aren't you legally allowed in the intersection (if it turns red) if you enter it while the light is yellow? It seems like the cameras ignore this.
- novenator, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4For all those who don't find anything wrong with these cameras, how would like your cellphone to monitor your speed and compare it to a database on some maps program, and have the local govt send you a ticket anytime you slip over the speed limit (or barely roll through a stop sign, swerve within your lane to miss a pothole, fail to stay 200 ft behind the vehicle in front of you, fail to blink 5 seconds before your lane change, etc.).
- lotsa1s, on 05/04/2008, -0/+11“Because speeding is common and viewed as acceptable behavior by many drivers, it is a major factor in motor vehicle crashes,”
No, because talking on your cell phone, eating, doing your nails, and reading the new paper are viewed as acceptable behavior by many drivers, THEY are a major factor in motor vehicle crashes. If you don't pay attention, you will crash. The Autobahn has no speed limit and its crash statistics are comparable to the United States. Why? Because the people who drive on it know how to be ***** RESPONSIBLE!- diggydougie, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I don't think that it shows any more responsibility. I think that it shows that all of this enforcement is *****. People don't want to crash, ever, and will take measures to prevent it without being told to. Sometimes we fail, but it is not because of the laws or the cops that we do or do not crash.
- widgetmaker, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3Welcome to how Britain has been for years now, there is a stretch of road about 500m long with 3 cameras on it. It's crazy how many of these things there are.
- killkev, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Here in Saint Charles, Missouri we have a bunch of those Red Light Cameras on Mexico Road, Mid Rivers Mall Drive and one on Hwy 94. I avoid these routes as much as possible because it creates nothing but problems. I see people get busted every time I drive past one of those intersections. People also make abrupt stops to avoid running a red light which could lead to a possible pileup. It is nearly impossible to dispute the ticket because they have evidence of your terrible act. Smaller towns are also known to have shorten the yellow light to take others by surprise. However, at least in the city of Saint Charles they are trying to make it where the majority of the money from fines from these Red Light Cameras goes to local area schools. This would hopefully make the police be a bit more easy on people getting busted by these cameras.
- Dunge, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6Should dig http://njection.com instead
- LeetBox, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2I don't know how these cameras work, but they aren't fool-proof, there is a red light camera on my way to work, and it caught me running the red light to make a left turn (its one of those left only on green arrow), and I got a ticket in the mail, but then later I stopped at that light and when it turned green for the people going straight and not for the people making a left turn, I went and the camera didn't flash. I'm guessing that these cameras flash when the see a car coming to fast and the light is yellow.
- sliderocity, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2If we're going to continue to use traffic lights over traffic circles (which are proven to be inherently safer), then I fully support the use of automated enforcement. Instead of whining and complaining about so-called drivers' rights, *gasp*, stop running red lights!
- 9bpm9, on 05/04/2008, -0/+8Critics point to federal statistics showing that 42,642 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2006, or 4 percent fewer than in 1975,
Yeah, I stopped here. Stop using this ***** to say that your cameras are stopping deaths, because it is totally one hundred percent inaccurate. I could put my life savings on the fact that deaths are lowered because of airbags, easier to handle cars, standardization of seat belts, and countless other reasons besides your god damn traffic cameras that give me a ticket for not ***** coming to a complete stop before I turn right on red. - BobSutan, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3I liked speed cameras in England because they actually served a useful purpose: to protect drivers. You know what they did? They painted them all bright yellow so you could see them miles away and slow down! Imagine that! Making roads safer! How about that?
That's the only reason our traffic laws exist anyway: public safety. We need to weigh all decisions in this area against that simple benchmark. Does having a traffic cam benefit public safety? If it's not visible then obviously not and is only a revenue stream for the govt. When that happens it's time to fire the people who put them in. THEN you make them highly visible. - GorfTron, on 05/04/2008, -1/+7In my city, the cameras have INCREASED accidents because drivers slam their brakes hard on yellow lights. This causes increased rear end collisions. Also, the city is thinking of removing the cameras due to increased obedience of the law and lower revenue. This tells the true purpose of the cameras in the first place, huh?
- johnnye, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Maybe your city should set up some 'don't tailgate' cameras as well.
- GorfTron, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1Maybe your city should set up some STFU cameras.
- johnnye, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Maybe your city should set up some 'don't tailgate' cameras as well.
- kinerry, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4Easy way to fight these: you have the right to face your accuser in a court of law. They aren't going to pay the money to send their people every time someone complains.
- dsmx, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3I hate it when thy say speeding a a significant factor in accidents, in the uk they did a study into this and speed was only a factor in 5% of crashes in the countryside.For those who want proof of this here it is http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1974.asp
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Ban talking on cell phones while driving:
Pass the National Federal 2 hands on the wheel, keep your eyes and mind on the road Law.
(if you have hands, exception for modified cars for people who have no hands...)
Today, a white car was driving on the wrong side of the road, passed through a stop sign, made a left hand turn (still in the wrong lane) - and stopped 1 meter from my car.
The teenage boy talking on the phone look up, looked annoyed, and slowly switched lanes out of the on-coming traffic lane back into his own lane (and of course he wasn't wearing his seatbelt).
The sad fact of automobile natural selection is such a mindless driver will most likely also kill a family of 5 some day, they will have been driving perfectly legally when he hits them head-on and kills them all.
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Ban talking on cell phones while driving:
- Twinnie, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2Yeah, this is really 1984. You guys realise these cameras won't even take a photo unless you're speeding, right? And if you're paying proper attention to the road then you see them and be able to check your speed before they catch you. They don't just spot these things around where they think they'll catch you, they put them where they're really serious about you slowing down. If the US is really going the way of the UK with these things then they'll painting them yellow and publishing their locations on the internet.
I've been driving for years and I've never been caught speeding and it's not that I don't, I just don't push my luck.- diggydougie, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1If that were true they wouldn't make the yellow light shorter(they do), and they would give you a grace period of a couple of seconds (they don't). It's not the guy that squeaks by just after the yellow that causes crashes - nobody else is moving anyway. Only the guy that goes through after the cross traffic has started moving causes problems.
- Twinnie, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0I wouldn't know cos I'm in England and there aren't really many red light cameras. In fact, looking at the traffic camera maps of my area there's only one for about 50 miles around my house. I'm struggling to understand why more people on this thing seem to be moaning about the red light cameras than the speeding cameras. People over here just don't run red lights.... at all. In fact people where I live stop for yellow lights (like they're legally supposed to).
- diggydougie, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1If that were true they wouldn't make the yellow light shorter(they do), and they would give you a grace period of a couple of seconds (they don't). It's not the guy that squeaks by just after the yellow that causes crashes - nobody else is moving anyway. Only the guy that goes through after the cross traffic has started moving causes problems.
- charlietuna, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2If police really wanted to stop speeding they would lobby for transponders in the cars that would alert the driver that they are exceeding the speed limit. Cops want to catch scofflaws. They do NOT want to reduce crime.
- lacronicus, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I hope everyone sees the irony in the fact that someone posted above almost the exact same thing, while implying that it would be "1884"-ish, and it *also* being dugg up.
- LeeSoong, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Laws in the U.S. will require 'Black Boxes' in trucks and cars - if you are speeding, the box will record it, and it can be used as evidence in the event of an accident.
Automobile manufacturers are promoting the use of black boxes in cars - because they are protected from liability in the event of an accident involving speeders and poor driving. The car is not defective - you are not supposed to drive 85 in a 25 zone!- PantherX, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1People will just hack the boxes. I don't need that kind of 'protection', thanks.
- XBunnyRacer, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1On that same page, why the hell do our cars and motorcycles go so fast? My motorcycle goes 170 mph.. Where in the US is it legal to go that fast? It's not even legal anywhere to go HALF that speed..
- PantherX, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1It's counterproductive to engineer something to not work properly.
- badjoke, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2*Hugs his Valentine V1*
- MoneyShot, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1...which is utterly useless against red light cams.
- badjoke, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Are you sure? There's a cam near me that makes it go off. It might be a cam/radar combo, though.
- MoneyShot, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1...which is utterly useless against red light cams.
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by