National Review - RLC Article
Tue, 08/30/2011 - 12:14pm
 16 years
|
Article in the National Review about Red Light Cameras.
...Mayor Bloomberg contended that there is an economic advantage to enforcement cameras, as they are cheaper than employing more people. This is undoubtedly true. But leaving aside cameras’ lack of capacity for common sense and discretion, there is a real cost to reliance on technology.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275510/big-brother-bl...
Admits
At least Bloomberg admits they are for cash. Most users say thay are for "safety" which is a bold face lie.
Nuvi 750 and 755T
Am I correct ...
At least Bloomberg admits they are for cash. Most users say thay are for "safety" which is a bold face lie.
Am I correct that you just made the claim that red-light cameras do not provide any safety benefit?
Come On....
People need to get over the RLC issue...
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM
LA calling it quits ?
I didn't verify if this is true but I read Los Angeles, CA, recently decided to stop sending out tickets for the RLC and even told those that received them recently to ignore them. Sounds too good to be true . . . but I heard it.
Winston Churchill said, “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities.”
False assumption
I read the article and came away with the fact that the writer hates cameras and is not a Constitution expert.
He writes "Constitution starts with the words “We the people.” Specifically, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Clearly this is impossible when the witness is a camera". If I followed this logic then anyone caught on camera and convicted of committing a crime has to be let loose because he writes that cameras can not be used because they are not human.
I suggest one read the many cases that have gone to court that used camera video as evidence and the person was convicted.
In Iowa it went to the State Supreme Court and they ruled them legal.
As the recent US Supreme Court ruled that companies are people then those cameras will soon follow.
.
As the recent US Supreme Court ruled that companies are people then those cameras will soon follow.
Isn't that interesting!!!!!
Perhaps we should file this under "be careful what you ask for, you might get it."
Citizens United.
Yeah. The Citizens United decision certainly proved that the Supreme Court is far from being apolitical, and in my opinion will go down as one of the worst decisions ever made by that great body.
Alan - Android Auto, DriveLuxe 51LMT-S, DriveLuxe 50LMTHD, Nuvi 3597LMTHD, Oregon 550T, Nuvi 855, Nuvi 755T, Lowrance Endura Sierra, Bosch Nyon
RE: False assumption
I read the article and came away with the fact that the writer hates cameras and is not a Constitution expert.
He writes "Constitution starts with the words “We the people.” Specifically, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Clearly this is impossible when the witness is a camera".
Did you miss the part where he identified himself as an intern? Methinks he still has a lot to learn before he can get beyond the "intern" stages in his career.
Illiterate? Write for free help.