Citations By Traffic Cam

tyrone_det · 08-18-2008, 11:59 AM

I am really bothered by these traffic cams that photograph license plates of traffic violators. These cameras have nothing to do with safety and have everything to do with revenue. Put enough cameras up, and everyone will become violators. Moreover, some states now tax drivers based on their driving records. I do not understand why the citizenry is not up in arms over this kind of stuff.

Everybody violates traffic laws. Do we really want a system where every time you violate a traffic law you get a ticket? The cameras pay for themselves in a very short time, so why not put them everywhere?

I always have thought that traffic fines were reasonable based on the gravity of the offense committed. Taxing someone based on the number of tickets on their driving record is overkill. We'll end up with the same shit we had when forfeitures were such a big deal - law enforcement ignoring real crime to get the forfeitures.

winston53660 · 08-18-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrone_det

I am really bothered by these traffic cams that photograph license plates of traffic violators. These cameras have nothing to do with safety and have everything to do with revenue. Put enough cameras up, and everyone will become violators. Moreover, some states now tax drivers based on their driving records. I do not understand why the citizenry is not up in arms over this kind of stuff.

Everybody violates traffic laws. Do we really want a system where every time you violate a traffic law you get a ticket? The cameras pay for themselves in a very short time, so why not put them everywhere?

I always have thought that traffic fines were reasonable based on the gravity of the offense committed. Taxing someone based on the number of tickets on their driving record is overkill. We'll end up with the same shit we had when forfeitures were such a big deal - law enforcement ignoring real crime to get the forfeitures.

In Texas governments actually rely on this revenue for their budgets.

Tirya · 08-18-2008, 12:13 PM

I disagree. Unfortunately, some people will only obey the law when there is fear of getting caught and punished (witness the way folks who are speeding suddenly hit the brakes when they see a cop on the side of the road).

Unless you post an officer at every intersection to keep red light runners from breaking the law (and endangering others), cameras are necessary. And reasonable fines are necessary in order to make a punishment for violation. There's a difference between "deterrant penalty" and "revenue-generating penalty".

Though I do have to admit, the idea of revenue being raised by people who are violating the law is fine by me - if you don't violate the law, you don't get penalized... seems simple enough. And it's one of the few times that law-abiding citizens get an indirect reward. Not only do we benefit by the revenue raised, we also have an increased level of safety from the idiots who would otherwise run red lights.

Quote:

http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/foc...light79-15.pdf

Of all the Texas cities using red-light cameras, only Garland has been operating a system long enough to have collected annual data on violations and citations. Since installing the cameras at the end of 2003, Garland has seen violations and citations drop in each successive calendar year.

The city launched its program with three cameras, added one a few months later, and installed a fifth camera in 2005. (The fifth camera has been excluded from the analysis because it malfunctioned during the final three months of 2005.) Program data show that average monthly violations per camera decreased 27 percent from 2004 to 2005, and average monthly citiations fell 14 percent over the same period.

Quote:

Dallas officials cite drop in accidents, tickets with red-light cameras | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Breaking News for Dallas-Fort Worth | Dallas Morning News

In Dallas, nearly 30 percent of all accidents at traffic signals were related to red-light running in 2006. That included 14 fatalities, 75 serious injuries and 487 minor injuries, according to city statistics.

The city's first 17 red-light cameras went online in mid-January. For the first six months, statistics show, T-bone crashes dropped 75 percent and rear-end accidents dipped 57 percent at those intersections.

I do agree that "taxing people based on their driving record" is wrong.

Wow · 08-18-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrone_det

I am really bothered by these traffic cams that photograph license plates of traffic violators. These cameras have nothing to do with safety and have everything to do with revenue. Put enough cameras up, and everyone will become violators. Moreover, some states now tax drivers based on their driving records. I do not understand why the citizenry is not up in arms over this kind of stuff.

Everybody violates traffic laws. Do we really want a system where every time you violate a traffic law you get a ticket? The cameras pay for themselves in a very short time, so why not put them everywhere?

I always have thought that traffic fines were reasonable based on the gravity of the offense committed. Taxing someone based on the number of tickets on their driving record is overkill. We'll end up with the same shit we had when forfeitures were such a big deal - law enforcement ignoring real crime to get the forfeitures.

What's wrong with saving lives and using the most efficient means of penalizing traffic law offenders?

Bronwyn · 08-18-2008, 12:44 PM

I think the use of cameras is something that COULD be abused easily, HOWEVER, I agree with the idea of having them at rea lights...especially at intersections with high accident rates.

And it can work the other way. There was a piece in the British news a few years ago when a gentlman got OUT of a traffic ticket because of the evidence on the officer's onboard camera.

Wow · 08-18-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tirya

I disagree. Unfortunately, some people will only obey the law when there is fear of getting caught and punished (witness the way folks who are speeding suddenly hit the brakes when they see a cop on the side of the road).

Unless you post an officer at every intersection to keep red light runners from breaking the law (and endangering others), cameras are necessary. And reasonable fines are necessary in order to make a punishment for violation. There's a difference between "deterrant penalty" and "revenue-generating penalty".

Though I do have to admit, the idea of revenue being raised by people who are violating the law is fine by me - if you don't violate the law, you don't get penalized... seems simple enough. And it's one of the few times that law-abiding citizens get an indirect reward. Not only do we benefit by the revenue raised, we also have an increased level of safety from the idiots who would otherwise run red lights.

I do agree that "taxing people based on their driving record" is wrong.

Tax Politicians based on their spending record!

tristanrobin · 08-18-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrone_det

I do not understand why the citizenry is not up in arms over this kind of stuff.

well, probably because it's going to be an uphill battle saying you're against some particular kind of equipment because it's going to make it harder for you to get away with breaking the law.

Tirya · 08-18-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

well, probably because it's going to be an uphill battle saying you're against some particular kind of equipment because it's going to make it harder for you to get away with breaking the law.

Especially since that technology has the demonstrated effect of reducing the risk to the public (you know, those people who aren't breaking the law and don't deserve to be t-boned by some lawbreaking dipwad who runs a red light?).

highway80west · 08-18-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrone_det

I am really bothered by these traffic cams that photograph license plates of traffic violators. These cameras have nothing to do with safety and have everything to do with revenue. Put enough cameras up, and everyone will become violators. Moreover, some states now tax drivers based on their driving records. I do not understand why the citizenry is not up in arms over this kind of stuff.

Everybody violates traffic laws. Do we really want a system where every time you violate a traffic law you get a ticket? The cameras pay for themselves in a very short time, so why not put them everywhere?

I always have thought that traffic fines were reasonable based on the gravity of the offense committed. Taxing someone based on the number of tickets on their driving record is overkill. We'll end up with the same shit we had when forfeitures were such a big deal - law enforcement ignoring real crime to get the forfeitures.

It is all about money. The local governments need to get their money in order to stay on their boats. And attorneys who specialize in cases involving the cameras are successful in getting their clients off the hook.

Some drivers who are wary of those cams may brake suddenly when the light start to turn yellow because they are scared green of being caught red-handed.

garysher · 08-18-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrone_det

I am really bothered by these traffic cams that photograph license plates of traffic violators. These cameras have nothing to do with safety and have everything to do with revenue. Put enough cameras up, and everyone will become violators. Moreover, some states now tax drivers based on their driving records. I do not understand why the citizenry is not up in arms over this kind of stuff.

Everybody violates traffic laws. Do we really want a system where every time you violate a traffic law you get a ticket? The cameras pay for themselves in a very short time, so why not put them everywhere?

I always have thought that traffic fines were reasonable based on the gravity of the offense committed. Taxing someone based on the number of tickets on their driving record is overkill. We'll end up with the same shit we had when forfeitures were such a big deal - law enforcement ignoring real crime to get the forfeitures.

Speed cameras have been endemic in the UK for 15+ years and it's all about the money.

The first ones were installed on the Chiswick flyover in west London, on the route to Heathrow. It ran out of film in less than an hour.

Often they are hidden behind other road signs so drivers can't see them, or the speed limit is set unnecessarily low to capture more people.

I agree with Tyrone, this is 'big brother' in action and it has gone far too far.

Many Brits are taking action against this infringement of civil liberties by the State:

Speed Cameras

this will bring a smile to the faces of beleagured motorists!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode