Topic: Is it true? Europeans.....

[Duke McDukiedook]

Yessssssss... we are only concerned about your sssssssafety!!!!!!!! Muah, hah hah!!!! 

[Gordon]

The trend in Texas seems to be going toward making red light cameras illegal

I can understand that with speed camera's especially if they are placed like they are here, even on bridges {lots of smashes on the bridge } so a lot of those are revenue raising but red light camera's are great IMO, #$%*ing idiots that run red lights need shooting, it is excessively stupid and extremely dangerous so why would everyone #$%* about them...?

Mick

I'm not completely following your logic here.  Running a red light is worthy of being shot, but exceeding the speed limit while tailgating is excusable?  Because that's what's causing the wrecks at both types of traffic cameras, not the cameras themselves. 

Red light cameras here have been blamed for increases in rear-end wrecks, too, but that's not why I don't like them.  I just don't like any step (and this is a pretty big one) that takes us any closer to 1984. 

[Retro Rocket]

The trend in Texas seems to be going toward making red light cameras illegal

I can understand that with speed camera's especially if they are placed like they are here, even on bridges {lots of smashes on the bridge } so a lot of those are revenue raising but red light camera's are great IMO, #$%*ing idiots that run red lights need shooting, it is excessively stupid and extremely dangerous so why would everyone #$%* about them...?

Mick

I'm not completely following your logic here.  Running a red light is worthy of being shot, but exceeding the speed limit while tailgating is excusable?  Because that's what's causing the wrecks at both types of traffic cameras, not the cameras themselves. 

Red light cameras here have been blamed for increases in rear-end wrecks, too, but that's not why I don't like them.  I just don't like any step (and this is a pretty big one) that takes us any closer to 1984. 

I thought you would be the last person here to put words or twist what someone was saying Gordon, point to where i said that it was ok to speed whilst tailgating..?....If there is an increase in rear end collisions you would have to look at the drivers habits rather than blaming a device designed to save lives...Cars don't crash , people do and rear enders are the driver at the rears fault, simple as that.
I am not too sure what you are trying to say in that post as you contradict yourself..? The last bit is paranoia, red light camera's are a risk to your freedom.? they are a safety device and should be welcomed by anyone that rides a bike or even drives a car for that matter. Had any friends killed by red light runners...i have and have personally witnessed some horrific accidents committed by idiots running Red lights. I spent 3-4 months while is was in Brisbane waiting for my transplant riding shotgun in my mates Tow Truck, maybe everyone should do that....

Mick

[Freaky1]

Personally I don't care if the video cameras in the parking lots of major shopping centers, inside the stores, on the interstate, or at the airport film me, I gave up all my illegal activities years ago. 

You just don't get the concept of government intrusion into your personal life.  And, how creeping escalation will eventually put monitors in your bedroom, bathroom, and auto just in case you might do something illegal while there.

...All to make your safety the number one concern.  

You really think they don't already know every web site you visit, every search you do in google, every credit card purchase you make, every phone call you make with your cell phone, or all the groceries you buy at the store? Privacy was dead long ago, just be careful who you vote for because it's the ones who know what's morally right that are dangerous.

[Gordon]

Hang on there, Mick, and take a step back.  I'm not twisting anybody's words.  Take my words at face value.  I am actually confused by your stance on the issue and was actually asking the question I asked in my previous post.  Please re-read it from a non defensive standpoint.  

You never specifically said it was okay to speed while tailgating, which is why I was asking for clarification.  

I'm not sure where you see me as contradicting myself.  On the contrary, from what I see you're contradicting yourself.  You claim the speed cameras are bad because they cause wrecks, but then go on to say that wrecks are not the fault of traffic cameras but the drivers who are tailgating.  What, then, is the cause of the wrecks near the speed cameras you're talking about?  Isn't it people driving too fast and following too closely?  

And your argument "they are a safety device and should be welcomed by anyone that rides a bike or even drives a car for that matter. Had any friends killed by red light runners...i have and have personally witnessed some horrific accidents committed by idiots running Red lights." could easily be used to champion the use of speed cameras, too.  

I just don't see how anyone could be for one type of automated traffic citation camera while simultaneously rally against another.

As for the "paranoia" opinion, please read my post on page 2 of this thread for my take on that:

http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=82868.msg934846#msg934846  

 

[Duke McDukiedook]

Look, the problem with the cameras are:

1- Lazy policing and a cheap form of revenue generations for municipalities, anytime an idiot councilman sees easy $$$ from some new-fangled idiotbox they go woozy and weak in the knees and will do anything to obtain said idiotbox. Damn privacy laws.

2- These cameras do not reduce vehicle incidents, all they do is create more rear end impacts while reducing frontal and t-bone collisions. You are merely moving the numbers around, no real reduction in collisions.

People will do the stupidest things to obtain a little so called 'safety'. 

[Gordon]

Look, the problem with the cameras are:

1- Lazy policing and a cheap form of revenue generations for municipalities, anytime an idiot councilman sees easy $$$ from some new-fangled idiotbox they go woozy and weak in the knees and will do anything to obtain said idiotbox. Damn privacy laws.

2- These cameras do not reduce vehicle incidents, all they do is create more rear end impacts while reducing frontal and t-bone collisions. You are merely moving the numbers around, no real reduction in collisions.

People will do the stupidest things to obtain a little so called 'safety'. 

#$%* yeah!

[Spanner 1]

If a camera 'says' you went thru' a red light and you get a ticket in the mail are you going to spend 1,000's of dollars fighting it in court or pay the fine ?

Now substitute the word 'cop' for' camera' in the above question; what's the difference ??
No difference, except the camera is irrefutable and you deserve a fine for endangering others , so i have NO problem with red light cameras  ... and if you think your pic, goes into some 'government database', I would say you are paranoid, for sure.......

[Retro Rocket]

You claim the speed cameras are bad because they cause wrecks,

I never said that at all, i said they are revenue raisers.....Once again show me where i said that..?

Isn't it people driving too fast and following too closely?  

I did say that, and that is correct.

And your argument "they are a safety device and should be welcomed by anyone that rides a bike or even drives a car for that matter. Had any friends killed by red light runners...i have and have personally witnessed some horrific accidents committed by idiots running Red lights." could easily be used to champion the use of speed cameras, too.  

Too simplistic Gordon.....Traffic lights cover a small part of any road and in the old days virtually no one ran a light or intersection because a cop directed traffic, so the camera penalises the idiots that run them. Speed camera's are used to generate dollars and usually aren't used in accident black spots and this is where the argument for having them removed and putting more cops on the road, statistics all over the world say the same thing,  drivers,  like young people in general are more badly behaved, due to a lack of training and education and discipline , yes speeding drivers kill but once again most motorists are poor drivers and therein lies the problem, people that run lights just couldn't be bothered stopping and people that run into them are just as stupid. What do you see as the difference between a cop policing the lights and a camera, these are not surveillance camera's so keep the conspiracy theories out of it, they are triggered by the car running the light and those idiots deserve to be caught. There is a big difference between speed camera's and red light camera's. I am a reasonably good driver and have never had an accident, i have never been booked by a speed camera and i speed where appropriate, I know the limitations of my driving but most people don't, my father raced cars and i have been driving since i was a small child. Also you don't have to be speeding to be tailgating, just following too closely which is driver error.
I am not being defensive at all just don't believe all the "reducing our freedom bull#$%*" You are less free than you think you are and the US government is one of the worst for keeping tabs on its population, they want to know what you are doing while hiding what they are trying to do to you.....and yes i am aware that it happens everywhere but not as extreme here as in the US. It really surprises me that as motorcyclists you wouldn't support something that could likely save your life, a large proportion of motorcycle accidents are at intersections controlled by lights....And dookie, you want to pay more taxes eh.? putting a cop at every intersection would help but cost a bloody fortune....

These cameras do not reduce vehicle incidents, all they do is create more rear end impacts

Thats stupid, rear enders aren't usually fatal, t bone and frontal are so they work, we are talking about saving lives not panel beating.....

People will do the stupidest things to obtain a little so called 'safety'.

Yep, like all being armed....

Mick

[Retro Rocket]

If a camera 'says' you went thru' a red light and you get a ticket in the mail are you going to spend 1,000's of dollars fighting it in court or pay the fine ?

Now substitute the word 'cop' for' camera' in the above question; what's the difference ??
No difference, except the camera is irrefutable and you deserve a fine for endangering others , so i have NO problem with red light cameras  ... and if you think your pic, goes into some 'government database', I would say you are paranoid, for sure.......

Absolutely.....

Mick

[Anti-Johnny]

I dont guess I have seen too many of these newfangled city lights that take your photo. The few I have seen have a sign about 100 yards before the intersection that warn you of a photo light. Plenty of time to slow down and reconsider driving recklessly. Or to speed back up because you've got places to go baby!

[TwoTired]

Personally I don't care if the video cameras in the parking lots of major shopping centers, inside the stores, on the interstate, or at the airport film me, I gave up all my illegal activities years ago. 

You just don't get the concept of government intrusion into your personal life.  And, how creeping escalation will eventually put monitors in your bedroom, bathroom, and auto just in case you might do something illegal while there.

...All to make your safety the number one concern.  

You really think they don't already know every web site you visit, every search you do in google, every credit card purchase you make, every phone call you make with your cell phone, or all the groceries you buy at the store? Privacy was dead long ago, just be careful who you vote for because it's the ones who know what's morally right that are dangerous.

You don't HAVE to use the internet or google.  You don't HAVE to use a phone.  You can pay cash at the grocery store.

Privacy is NOT quite dead...yet.  There are still choices that allow you to keep it or at least some of it.  Not all of them are attractive, granted.  But, that doesn't mean we should willingly and eagerly give up the ones we still have, simply because we have lost some, or placidly accept that the ones lost are irreversibly so.

By your logic, we should all stop breathing today, because it is inevitable that someday we will.

[Gordon]

If a camera 'says' you went thru' a red light and you get a ticket in the mail are you going to spend 1,000's of dollars fighting it in court or pay the fine ?

Now substitute the word 'cop' for' camera' in the above question; what's the difference ??
No difference, except the camera is irrefutable and you deserve a fine for endangering others , so i have NO problem with red light cameras  ... and if you think your pic, goes into some 'government database', I would say you are paranoid, for sure.......

The "difference" is that having an automated camera watch any public activity 24/7 is one step toward having a government camera watching my house 24/7 (from a public right-of-way, of course), and then listening to my house 24/7, and then monitoring all activity at my house 24/7, and so on, and so on.  It has to stop somewhere, and in my opinion, it's already gone a little too far.  

Give an inch, they'll take a mile.  

[Retro Rocket]

The "difference" is that having an automated camera watch any public activity 24/7 is one step toward having a government camera watching my house 24/7

they are triggered by the car running the light

Having trouble reading today Gordon ?, they are not video camera's they are stills camera's, the camera is triggered when the car enters the intersection on a red light......They don't record anything more than the idiots that run the red lights....which by the way is illegal activity...Explain {without the conspiracy theory} why that is such a bad thing..?

Mick

[Accolay]

There are still choices that allow you to keep it or at least some of it

And this is why I don't have Facebook.

[Spanner 1]

The funny thing guys is that your local 7-11 store/ gas station has more video footage of you, your car(s), your wife and kids, your clothes and maybe even they can match-up what u buy in the store with the time you walk in there  ... lots of data they then SELL to the Government, can't believe y'all didn't know this already...... sheesh  

A camera at a red light is not a 'public activity' monitor, merely a reckless endangerment check, camera or cop, no difference IMO.

[ivanhoew]

gosh!

[Gordon]

You claim the speed cameras are bad because they cause wrecks,

I never said that at all, i said they are revenue raisers.....Once again show me where i said that..?

Isn't it people driving too fast and following too closely?  

I did say that, and that is correct.

And your argument "they are a safety device and should be welcomed by anyone that rides a bike or even drives a car for that matter. Had any friends killed by red light runners...i have and have personally witnessed some horrific accidents committed by idiots running Red lights." could easily be used to champion the use of speed cameras, too.  

Too simplistic Gordon.....Traffic lights cover a small part of any road and in the old days virtually no one ran a light or intersection because a cop directed traffic, so the camera penalises the idiots that run them. Speed camera's are used to generate dollars and usually aren't used in accident black spots and this is where the argument for having them removed and putting more cops on the road, statistics all over the world say the same thing,  drivers,  like young people in general are more badly behaved, due to a lack of training and education and discipline , yes speeding drivers kill but once again most motorists are poor drivers and therein lies the problem, people that run lights just couldn't be bothered stopping and people that run into them are just as stupid. What do you see as the difference between a cop policing the lights and a camera, these are not surveillance camera's so keep the conspiracy theories out of it, they are triggered by the car running the light and those idiots deserve to be caught. There is a big difference between speed camera's and red light camera's. I am a reasonably good driver and have never had an accident, i have never been booked by a speed camera and i speed where appropriate, I know the limitations of my driving but most people don't, my father raced cars and i have been driving since i was a small child. Also you don't have to be speeding to be tailgating, just following too closely which is driver error.
I am not being defensive at all just don't believe all the "reducing our freedom bull#$%*" You are less free than you think you are and the US government is one of the worst for keeping tabs on its population, they want to know what you are doing while hiding what they are trying to do to you.....and yes i am aware that it happens everywhere but not as extreme here as in the US. It really surprises me that as motorcyclists you wouldn't support something that could likely save your life, a large proportion of motorcycle accidents are at intersections controlled by lights....And dookie, you want to pay more taxes eh.? putting a cop at every intersection would help but cost a bloody fortune....

These cameras do not reduce vehicle incidents, all they do is create more rear end impacts

Thats stupid, rear enders aren't usually fatal, t bone and frontal are so they work, we are talking about saving lives not panel beating.....

People will do the stupidest things to obtain a little so called 'safety'.

Yep, like all being armed....

Mick

I'm getting tired and need to go to bed, but I'll do my best.

I re-read your earlier post and realize I originally misinterpreted it, and I apologize.  You didn't say that speed cameras cause wrecks.

Again, though, some of your arguments against speed cameras can be used to argue against red light cameras, too.  They're revenue generators and they don't generally cover only the areas that are needed.  

Maybe this is more of a geographic difference.  Where I'm from traffic light controlled intersections are everywhere, and I mean, literally, everywhere.  And they're there every minute of every day.  They're not a few-and-far-between item.  You say "I'm a reasonably good driver", "know the limits of my driving" and "speed where appropriate".  

I say "I'm a reasonably good driver", "know the limits of my driving" and I run red lights where appropriate.  

I never blow through a red light.  I work at all hours of the day.  At 5am or 12am, when there is absolutely no other vehicle anywhere in sight of a particular intersection, I will stop, make sure the road is clear, and then proceed to go through the red light.

How is that any different than you making the decision for yourself that it's okay to exceed the posted speed limit?  

[Accolay]

A camera at a red light is not a 'public activity' monitor, merely a reckless endangerment check, camera or cop, no difference IMO

Red light cameras are pure cash in this crap economy for broke city governments. That's the real reason. Anything else is secondary.

[Retro Rocket]

How is that any different than you making the decision for yourself that it's okay to exceed the posted speed limit?  

I'm starting to worry about you Gordon, i speed mildly on motorways and highways when there's #$%* all traffic about, i try my best to make sure that i put no one else at risk, compared to red lights well the most common theme generally in accidents is " sorry but i didn't see you, you kill someone on your way home at night because you ran a red light and didn't see someone you are still in the wrong, {vehicular manslaughter} my doing 10 kmh over on a 100 or 110 posted highway here is acceptable under our law, we allow for 10% for speedo error, i just use that 10% where safe, i sometimes do 60KMH in a 50 zone but we are talking low speeds here and if there is traffic around i always do the limit. I sometimes {on my bikes} open up the throttle on country roads but not very often any more because the wild life and our cops drive unmarked cars and i point blank refuse to pay the government any more than i have too. I have NEVER run a red light ever, and seeing how hard bikes can be to see at times and the fact that you ride , i find it hard to comprehend that you would run a light rather than wait for the lights to change. I do understand there are laws in the States that allow you to run lights when they won't change but i thought they were specifically for bikes...
Just as a matter of interest i hate surveillance camera's as well, they are a huge invasion of privacy but they are video and not the stills camera's used to stop red light runners..

Red light cameras are pure cash in this crap economy for broke city governments. That's the real reason. Anything else is secondary.

Sorry Accolay but that is short sighted rubbish, Red light camera's only get IDIOTS that run red lights, if you want to add to the governments coffers then run them, don't expect any sympathy when you get owned by a truck....
This could be you....    http://s152.photobucket.com/albums/s182/Freaky1247/?action=view&current=TrucksAlwaysWin.mp4


Mick

[Spanner 1]

I'm only referring to red light cameras... not any privacy threat....... sorry but any method of monitoring road users that run/drive through a red light is fair game for a hefty fine...... where's your 'Liberty' denied in that ... You did it and a cop didn't see you, so it's O.K.?.......... innocent until caught in the act, yeah that makes for a great society.

[BeSeeingYou]

The only way I would find a red light camera even grudgingly acceptable would be one that takes a clear enough picture that the driver can be identified.  If you get a ticket in the mail and can prove that it is not you behind the wheel then the ticket is void. It is not up to the owner of the vehicle to track down or provide info on who was driving nor is it the owners job to hold them accountable.  If it's you in the photo then time to pay up.

[Gordon]

The "difference" is that having an automated camera watch any public activity 24/7 is one step toward having a government camera watching my house 24/7

they are triggered by the car running the light

Having trouble reading today Gordon ?, they are not video camera's they are stills camera's, the camera is triggered when the car enters the intersection on a red light......They don't record anything more than the idiots that run the red lights....which by the way is illegal activity...Explain {without the conspiracy theory} why that is such a bad thing..?

Mick

Not having any trouble reading today, Mick, but are you having some trouble with your apostrophes?

I know that red light cameras only take still pictures.  Is that what your argument has really come down to?  

I'll announce now that I'm speaking from a "devil's advocate" standpoint before I type the next question, because it obviously doesn't come across without being said:

Speed cameras don't record anything more than the idiots that exceed the speed limit....which by the way is illegal activity...Explain {without the conspiracy theory} why that is such a bad thing..?

[Accolay]

Sorry Accolay but that is short sighted rubbish, Red light camera's only get IDIOTS that run red lights, if you want to add to the governments coffers then run them, don't expect any sympathy when you get owned by a truck.

I don't disagree, and I don't run red lights, and I have little sympathy for anyone who gets T-boned by another car when running a light. (The video link you posted is an example of someone being chased by police, not someone trying to just make it by the light, both illegal, ill-advised and unsafe, but I digress) I just don't think safety is always the first reason that these are installed anymore. Any possible safety is a nice secondary benefit, but cash comes first.

Cities are so broke here they're going bankrupt. They're doing everything they can to enforce laws so they can get the revenue from fines. They're even starting to give tickets for jaywalking again. When you get bills or renew licenses and whatnot here, you'll find there are all these extras tacked on nowadays. They used to call these things taxes in America, but now they just call them "fees."

Having red light cameras wont make me stop running red lights, because I don't run red lights. I really try not to speed either because I don't want to pay the fines.

[Retro Rocket]

Not having any trouble reading today, Mick, but are you having some trouble with your apostrophes? Wink

I am due fore reading glasses, what apostrophe......

I know that red light cameras only take still pictures.  Is that what your argument has really come down to? 

Nope, just trying to make it a point because it isn't an invasion of anyone's business except for the dude running the light. it effects no one else....Totally off topic, man its so humid here that i was sweating in the shower.....that sucks...

Mick