Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano expressed an opinion today on Fox News Channel that the Red Light Cameras may be unconstitutional. Check out the video.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1661779416001/are-red-light-camer...

There may be hope yet

--
romanviking
1 2 3
<<Page 4

Have tried

twix wrote:

My statement, opinion, whatever you want to call it, can easily be verified by searching google. Just because you don't agree with what I say. Just because it's not true in your area, does not mean that what I'm saying has no basis in fact.

If you really want to know the "other side" do more than criticize. Do more than comment. Open your eyes, open google, and learn.

I have been unable to find articles that would support your statement that

twix wrote:

The vast majority of tickets are issued for ridiculous reasons. Stopping over the white line. Rolling rights on reds. Not being able to stop at the exact second the light changes.

Earlier in the thread, I made the statement

Quote:

In the past I have read reports of large numbers of tickets being given for "right-on-red" infractions, but my impression is that the outcry (justified, I believe) from citizens has had the effect of legislatures putting the brakes on such actions.

and then gave the example of Tennessee's actions.

You imply that those of us who would question you are just not trying and that all we have to do a Google search and we would see all these articles that support your position. Well, I tried doing so before I made my comment and was not successful one way or the other.

Maybe you will do this for us. Give us a few sample Google searches that will bring up support of your position and then challenge us to post the links for you.

jgermann vs twix

Just let it go. OK?

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

Yup unconstitutional u

Yup unconstitutional u betcha!

--
nuvi 250 --> 1250T --> 265T Lost my 1250T

Opinions vesus Facts

spokybob wrote:

Jgermann Vs Twix
Just let it go. OK?

Soon after Twix made the statement that included the word "ridiculous", David King asked

Quote:

Is this an opinion or did you get these stats somewhere? Would love to see them.

If it was an opinion, all Twix had to do is respond "that is my opinion". Twix did not - thus leaving the implication that there were stats to support such a statement.

Twix may indeed be able to cite recent stats that the "vast majority" of tickets from red light cameras could be classified as having been issued "for ridiculous reasons" - such "ridiculous" reasons being "[s]topping over the white line. Rolling rights on reds. Not being able to stop at the exact second the light changes."

Twix could have said that lots of red light camera tickets were issued for reasons that did not significantly impact safety. Twix did not.

Twix is certainly entitled to an opinion that stopping over the white line is "ridiculous" but if that is the law then it should be obeyed, especially if the violations are reviewed and tickets given only when the amount that the vehicle is past the white line impedes pedestrians and or traffic. See http://www.poi-factory.com/node/34833

I would myself agree that "Not being able to stop at the exact second the light changes" and getting ticketed is holding to the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. But, I do not know of a recent article that cited a municipality for not having some grace period (and do recall instances of such activity many years ago). Certainly, the amount of a grace period is a subject for debate as to whether or not an officer would have given a ticket versus a warning if present.

Twix is entitled to an opinion. Twix is not entitled to "facts" that may really be opinions of someone else. David asked for "stats". I was asking for links to see if they could be considered factual.

I would hope that we at this site would pride ourselves in giving out correct and complete information. We fact check ourselves quite well relating to statements about GPS units. I think we ought to do the same when discussing Automated Traffic Enforcement.

@spokybob, are you of the opinion that Twix's statements are statistically sound?

crime holiday

Let's turn all red light and speed cams off for 30 days. The President has the authority to have flags flown at half mast, so let's have a month of lawlessness. What the hey, we don't always have to be goodie two shoes and follow the law. As a matter of fact, if you get into an accident, as long as your vehicle is driveable, just speed away, as the cameras will no longer be violating your Constitutional rights for a month. Hey, a metro area of 19 mil. can take care of itself, without laws and cameras.

valid points

...all make good arguments, but the number of cameras continue to increase in many states (especially in NY).

So who are you voting for?

romanviking wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano expressed an opinion today on Fox News Channel that the Red Light Cameras may be unconstitutional. Check out the video. There may be hope yet ...

This is a National election year with a very viable & credible Libertarian on the Presidential ballot in each of the 50 states. You bet there is hope, but only if a sizable portion of the electorate chooses to voice its displeasures at the polls. mad

If you don't know...

jgermann wrote:

Twix is entitled to an opinion. Twix is not entitled to "facts" that may really be opinions of someone else. David asked for "stats". I was asking for links to see if they could be considered factual.

Twix's response to me reminded of my wife's fall-back response, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you".

--
NUVI40 Kingsport TN

Traffic engineering

100ton wrote:

In my opinion, If safety were the issue, a simple fix such as increasing the on time of the amber light, and longer red in all directions status would provide a less accident prone environment. Only drawback I can see here is...... no money for the courts and the cities.

Which is the way things worked 20 years ago. The traffic engineer would fix intersections that had too many accidents. They would restripe the limit lines, put up signs, retime the signals, etc.

It was traffic engineering.

Now, it's just enforcement. No engineering anymore. So I guess this all means nothing is about safety or preventing accidents. It's just about money.

BTW, I saw something on the news about RLC being made mostly illegal in California. I just caught the tail end of it.

your opinion?

Steevo wrote:
100ton wrote:

In my opinion, If safety were the issue, a simple fix such as increasing the on time of the amber light, and longer red in all directions status would provide a less accident prone environment. Only drawback I can see here is...... no money for the courts and the cities.

Which is the way things worked 20 years ago. The traffic engineer would fix intersections that had too many accidents. They would restripe the limit lines, put up signs, retime the signals, etc.

It was traffic engineering.

Now, it's just enforcement. No engineering anymore. So I guess this all means nothing is about safety or preventing accidents. It's just about money.

BTW, I saw something on the news about RLC being made mostly illegal in California. I just caught the tail end of it.

I will have to take your comments as opinion and not anything that could be backed up with any type of findings that begin to approach what could be considered evidence.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

A 'funny' ?

robert5733 wrote:

Just wait, next will be speed cameras on the side of the road eliminating the need for police and radar guns sitting on the side of the road.

Not sure if this is meant as a joke, since these speed cameras are already here. The People's Republic of Maryland LOVES them.

*

Box Car wrote:

I will have to take your comments as opinion and not anything that could be backed up with any type of findings that begin to approach what could be considered evidence.

Are you saying that if you read it on the internet it must be true?

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

jgermann

You of all people, have been provided link, after link, after link, that backs up what I say. Not only can you search google, you can search this forum.

Since you are incapable of finding anything on google, which I find hard to believe, this is what I found after typing, "red light camera rolling right" in the search box on google.

Link #1 http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/right-turn-on-red

"According to the LA Times, Los Angeles officials estimated that 80% of their red-light camera tickets are for rolling right turns. And according to the Chicago Daily Herald, rolling-right-turn violations have accounted for 90% of the tickets generated in several Illinois communities. These tickets are often given to drivers who actually stopped safely but were inches over the line."

Link #2 http://tdn.com/news/local/article_0c54f158-f541-11e0-b45d-00...

"The gravy is the rolling right turns on red, the ones that aren't really the T-bone causing accidents," said Sutinen, one of three Longview residents behind an initiative petition effort to repeal the cameras. "That's where the money is."

Link #3 http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/seeing_red_cherry_h...

"Seeing red: Cherry Hill faces first class-action suit over red-light cameras"

So the last one doesn't exactly cover the rolling right on red, but I think it's worthy to point out anyway because it mentions yellow lights not being set properly, which is another "opinion" of mine that I've had to link ad nauseam because I have to back up what I'm saying. I'm not allowed to express opinions, (that may have no basis in reality) because you, and other people that have opposing views, just can't accept that what I have to say may just be right. Whew!

@twix

Thank you for providing a way for me to use Google to see if there were recent articles supporting your position that:
“The vast majority of tickets are issued for ridiculous reasons. Stopping over the white line. Rolling rights on reds. Not being able to stop at the exact second the light changes”

I tried your search ("red light camera rolling right") first using quotes around the search string, but it did not produce anything. When I removed the quotes, I found your first link as the first Google response and your second link as the eighth.

The link http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/right-turn-on-red
Is from the National Motorist Association and was dated April 8, 2011. It gave a reference to an article in the LA Times dated May 19, 2008 which said “officials estimate that 80% of red light camera tickets go not to those running through intersections but to drivers making rolling right turns” (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/19/local/me-redlight19)
Your first link also quoted the Chicago Daily Herald as say that “rolling-right-turn violations have accounted for 90% of the tickets generated in several Illinois communities” but gave no source. I tried to track that article down but was not successful. What I did find was this link (http://www.chicagonow.com/chicagos-real-law-blog/2010/07/red...) which made this comment:

“Last week, a Chicago Tribune article reported that Gov. Pat Quinn signed new legislation changing some of the rules. It is now easier to appeal a violation, and there will be no extra fee for doing so.

The new law also allows vehicles to stop past the white line when turning right at a red light and not get a ticket. Previously, you could get a violation for stopping beyond this line, even though creeping up to the intersection is usually necessary in order to see whether you can turn safely. Rolling through a right turn on red is still a violation.

In addition, each violation will now be reviewed by a trained law enforcement officer or technician.”

My response to your first link is that it is not current. As I stated in previous threads, when Automated Traffic Enforcement first became prevalent, there were a lot of right turn violations, but my feeling was that most municipalities had responded to the outcry of their citizens and changed the rules. I cited Tennessee as a specific example.

Your second link (http://tdn.com/news/local/article_0c54f158-f541-11e0-b45d-00...) actually says that:
“51 percent of the tickets were for blowing straight through the red light, and about 3 percent were for illegal left turns, according to statistics the Longview Police Department provided Wednesday at The Daily News' request.”
By my reckoning the majority of violations were NOT rolling right turns.

You decided to include a quote from the article:
"The gravy is the rolling right turns on red, the ones that aren't really the T-bone causing accidents," said Sutinen, one of three Longview residents behind an initiative petition effort to repeal the cameras. ‘That's where the money is.’"

You decided not to quote the two paragraphs following the one you did quote:
“However, Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha disagrees that turning right on red without coming to a complete stop is a trivial infraction.

"From a police perspective, failure to stop at a red light means failure to stop at a red light," he said Wednesday”

Your second link was dated Oct 12, 2011 and would support my feeling that right turn on red does not constitute the “vast majority” of ticketing by red light cameras.

I can understand how confirmation bias would cause someone to latch on to some selected statistics from the past, generalize them, and make the assumption that they would continue to be true today. That is why I think it is important for each of us to try to be more precise in statements that we make. Consider this thread itself: “Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional”. Had the title been “Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional?”, it would have been more precise because the text of the OP correctly used the word “may” in discussing what a retired judge had said. Also, it is important to note that what was being claimed as unconstitutional was not a “red light camera” but the law that did not appear to provide “due process” for violations of a law against running a red light camera.

So what happens when the thread reaches multiple threads is that some new readers latch onto the word “unconstitutional” as receive confirmation that their opposition to Automated Traffic Enforcement is justified.

To summarize so far: your first link is not current and your second link disproves your assertion. Recall that you directed the following at me specifically

twix wrote:

My statement, opinion, whatever you want to call it, can easily be verified by searching google. Just because you don't agree with what I say. Just because it's not true in your area, does not mean that what I'm saying has no basis in fact.

If you really want to know the "other side" do more than criticize. Do more than comment. Open your eyes, open google, and learn.

In your commentary on your third link you say

twix wrote:

So the last one doesn't exactly cover the rolling right on red, I think it's worthy to point out anyway because it mentions yellow lights not being set properly, which is another "opinion" of mine that I've had to link ad nauseam because I have to back up what I'm saying. I'm not allowed to express opinions, (that may have no basis in reality) because you, and other people that have opposing views, just can't accept that what I have to say may just be right. Whew!

As I have stated in previous posts, you may be able to provide articles that factually support your position (with the proviso that they be current, given that I have already stipulated that your position was likely correct in the past) but these links do not suffice.

I do not feel that you have “had to link ad nauseam”. My impression is that you resist providing links. You directed at me the statement:

twix wrote:

If you really want to know the "other side" do more than criticize. Do more than comment. Open your eyes, open google, and learn.

In point of fact, I usually do a Google search before I comment on someone’s assertions. I had done several before I wrote that if you would not provide us links, at least provide us with a Google search string that would let us find the articles which you were claiming for your facts. As it turns out above, you have yet to provide us with enough facts. Based on your “vast majority” assertion, one would have assumed that you could point to some national survey (say something done by CNN or NBC) that would have given statistics from a number of states and/or major cities.

I wondered why you did not do a follow up of Cherry Hill since the article said that the timings had to be verified by Aug. 1. One of the recent articles was titled “N.J. officials lift traffic light suspension” (http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20120726/NEWS01/307...)

Another article (http://www.app.com/article/20120802/NJNEWS/308010125/Yellow-...) says that there were 3 lights that were not set at the correct yellow timings. But, that was based on “the law’s requirement that yellow-light times be set based on the speeds that 85 percent of the traffic was traveling at, according to NMA.”. As an aside, I note that the lights were claimed to be set correctly for the posted speed (in your third link) but that the citizens were speeding. One solution to this dilemma would be for the city to station mobile speed vans nearby to bring the speeds down.

twix

twix, I don't want to get between you and jgermann in this insult-trading competition, but it is considered good form, when you present facts, to cite them.

I don't think it is too much to ask anyone to provide sources of their information. We all do it on this forum.

Regards...

--
NUVI40 Kingsport TN

We get it!!!

Quote:

“However, Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha disagrees that turning right on red without coming to a complete stop is a trivial infraction."

The Chiefs opinion is on the internet so that makes it a fact.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

How to drive safe on the highways

I wonder what other drivers thinking about the fact that
to drive save is impossible when almost every car around moves over the speed limits, pushing drivers with peaceful mind to follow the stream to eliminate complications like: changing lanes, impossibility to get out of highway (because the right lane is occupied by drivers who pass you, even you drive with the maximum allowed speed!), being stopped by police, saying that one drives to slow.
Truck drivers are provoking others to compete for the right most lane as they are stimulated to drive as fast as possible ( and in most cases over the speed this truck is physically should maintain due to their tires are not rated for this speed at all). Why don't authorities implement the rule about gradual speeds (rightmost for 80km/h, middle for 100km/h and leftmost for no 130 km/h)? This should be accompanied by mandatory passing on the left rule as a matter of fact. Then everybody would be happy.

Not exactly

spokybob wrote:
Quote:

“However, Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha disagrees that turning right on red without coming to a complete stop is a trivial infraction."

The Chief[']s opinion is on the internet so that makes it a fact.

But, I believe we could take the rest of the statement "From a police perspective, failure to stop at a red light means failure to stop at a red light," he said Wednesday” as a fact. If pedestrians were in the vicinity of the intersection, then a police officer on the scene would likely issue a ticket because, in fact, a violation took place that impacted the safety of others.

whatever

David King wrote:

twix, I don't want to get between you and jgermann in this insult-trading competition, but it is considered good form, when you present facts, to cite them.

I don't think it is too much to ask anyone to provide sources of their information. We all do it on this forum.

Regards...

Show me where I was being insulting. If anything, you were by insinuating that I sounded like your wife.

I don't think it's too much to look for information yourself. There's no rule or regulation requiring me to provide links for people that disagree with what I'm saying. If there is a requirement, please, provide a link showing me that there is.

And to jgermann,

I'm not reading your responses. Sorry. You always turn things into dissertations, and I've got better things to do. You wanted links, you finally got them, and all you want to do is pick them a part, and expect me to care. I don't.

I did not scrutinize the links I provided. I was merely showing you how "easy" it was to find information on google. You may continue the search, if you so desire.

Entitled?

jgermann wrote:
spokybob wrote:
Quote:

“However, Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha disagrees that turning right on red without coming to a complete stop is a trivial infraction."

The Chiefs opinion is on the internet so that makes it a fact.

But, I believe we could take the rest of the statement "From a police perspective, failure to stop at a red light means failure to stop at a red light," he said Wednesday” as a fact. If pedestrians were in the vicinity of the intersection, then a police officer on the scene would likely issue a ticket because, in fact, a violation took place that impacted the safety of others.

If jgermann deems Police Chief Jim Duscha's opinion as fact, it is therefore entitled. It's only because Police Chief Jim Duscha's opinion fact coincides with jgermann's stance, therefore, it is worthy. Yes. It has been made so.

Money Grab for Private Companies

These red light and speed cameras do little or nothing to increase public safety. They are set up by private companies contracted with cities, usually with the agreement that the camera contractor receives 40%+ of the fines and the city getting the rest. They are placed in school zones where they are active after school hours, on weekends, and during the summer. They are placed in work zones when no work is being done. The motive is profit under the pretense of safety.

.

twix wrote:

...

jgermann wrote:

But, I believe we could take the rest of the statement "From a police perspective, failure to stop at a red light means failure to stop at a red light," he said Wednesday” as a fact. ...

If jgermann deems Police Chief Jim Duscha's opinion as fact, it is therefore entitled. It's only because Police Chief Jim Duscha's opinion fact coincides with jgermann's stance, therefore, it is worthy. Yes. It has been made so.

I still treat "From a police perspective, failure to stop at a red light means failure to stop at a red light," he said Wednesday” as a fact, regardless of who says it.

Do I take it that you are treating the immediately above statement as an opinion?

I don't have the power

jgermann wrote:
twix wrote:

...

jgermann wrote:

But, I believe we could take the rest of the statement "From a police perspective, failure to stop at a red light means failure to stop at a red light," he said Wednesday” as a fact. ...

If jgermann deems Police Chief Jim Duscha's opinion as fact, it is therefore entitled. It's only because Police Chief Jim Duscha's opinion fact coincides with jgermann's stance, therefore, it is worthy. Yes. It has been made so.

I still treat "From a police perspective, failure to stop at a red light means failure to stop at a red light," he said Wednesday” as a fact, regardless of who says it.

Do I take it that you are treating the immediately above statement as an opinion?

I'm not the deemer of entitling opinions to facts. Only you are. If you say it is a fact, it is in fact, a fact.

Not answering

twix wrote:

I'm not the deemer of entitling opinions to facts. Only you are. If you say it is a fact, it is in fact, a fact.

You are not answering. Is is yes or no?

Yep

blackkey76 wrote:

These red light and speed cameras do little or nothing to increase public safety. They are set up by private companies contracted with cities, usually with the agreement that the camera contractor receives 40%+ of the fines and the city getting the rest. They are placed in school zones where they are active after school hours, on weekends, and during the summer. They are placed in work zones when no work is being done. The motive is profit under the pretense of safety.

I concur.

@twix

twix wrote:

...
And to jgermann,

I'm not reading your responses. Sorry. You always turn things into dissertations, and I've got better things to do. You wanted links, you finally got them, and all you want to do is pick them a part, and expect me to care. I don't.

I did not scrutinize the links I provided. I was merely showing you how "easy" it was to find information on google. You may continue the search, if you so desire.

If you did not scrutinize the links, then you are making a mockery of any claim to be providing us with links that support your position that

twix wrote:

The vast majority of tickets are issued for ridiculous reasons. Stopping over the white line. Rolling rights on reds. Not being able to stop at the exact second the light changes

I appologize for having to provide a longer than you prefer response. If others read the response, I wanted to give them enough detail to come to the same conclusion that I had.

Wow

jgermann wrote:
twix wrote:

I'm not the deemer of entitling opinions to facts. Only you are. If you say it is a fact, it is in fact, a fact.

You are not answering. Is is yes or no?

I thought I made myself clear? I am not qualified to determine if an opinion is entitled to be a fact or not. Only you have that power. You tell me.

I think

twix wrote:

I thought I made myself clear? I am not qualified to determine if an opinion is entitled to be a fact or not. Only you have that power. You tell me.

I think that you have been unable to find support for your statement about the "vast majority" of tickets being for rolling right turns.

Unless you can support assertions with facts, I think you should label them as opinions when you make them. By doing so, you would not have others asking you for more details.

back that up

jgermann wrote:
twix wrote:

I thought I made myself clear? I am not qualified to determine if an opinion is entitled to be a fact or not. Only you have that power. You tell me.

I think that you have been unable to find support for your statement about the "vast majority" of tickets being for rolling right turns.

Unless you can support assertions with facts, I think you should label them as opinions when you make them. By doing so, you would not have others asking you for more details.

First, you need to be clear if you're stating an opinion, or a fact. You start out by saying, "I think." You go on to say, "I think" again.

Secondly, what I said originally, was neither claimed as a fact or an opinion. I know I can back up what I stated with links, I'm just not going to because I did state a fact, "I'm done providing links to back up my position. You can check google just as well as I can."

I was careful

twix wrote:

With a title of Back That Up

jgermann wrote:
twix wrote:

I thought I made myself clear? I am not qualified to determine if an opinion is entitled to be a fact or not. Only you have that power. You tell me.

I think that you have been unable to find support for your statement about the "vast majority" of tickets being for rolling right turns.

Unless you can support assertions with facts, I think you should label them as opinions when you make them. By doing so, you would not have others asking you for more details.

First, you need to be clear if you're stating an opinion, or a fact. You start out by saying, "I think." You go on to say, "I think" again.

Secondly, what I said originally, was neither claimed as a fact or an opinion. I know I can back up what I stated with links, I'm just not going to because I did state a fact, "I'm done providing links to back up my position. You can check google just as well as I can."

I was careful to say "I think" when I wrote about your apparent inability to find any support for your position. My opinion is that you have been unable to find any facts and are obfuscating to give yourself more time to do so.

You say that your original statement was neither claimed as a fact or an opinion. In a post I made earlier titled "Opinions Ve[r]sus Facts" (I had a misspelling), I said

Quote:

Soon after Twix made the statement that included the word "ridiculous", David King asked

David King wrote:

Is this an opinion or did you get these stats somewhere? Would love to see them.

If it was an opinion, all Twix had to do is respond "that is my opinion". Twix did not - thus leaving the implication that there were stats to support such a statement.

Twix may indeed be able to cite recent stats that the "vast majority" of tickets from red light cameras could be classified as having been issued "for ridiculous reasons" - such "ridiculous" reasons being "[s]topping over the white line. Rolling rights on reds. Not being able to stop at the exact second the light changes."

Twix could have said that lots of red light camera tickets were issued for reasons that did not significantly impact safety. Twix did not.

You had a chance after that post to say it was your opinion but you chose to belittle David and me because we were not able to find support for your position using Google. I do not know about David, but I had already attempted to check whether there were articles out there that gave recent, generalized data indicating that the proportion of total tickets that were due to rolling right turns or stopping just over the white line was way above 50%. As I previously indicated, I could not find any.

After those posts you said to me

twix wrote:

Jgermann, You of all people, have been provided link, after link, after link, that backs up what I say. Not only can you search google, you can search this forum.

Since you are incapable of finding anything on google, which I find hard to believe, this is what I found after typing, "red light camera rolling right" in the search box on google.

Had the reasonable person earlier not concluded that you were stating facts versus an opinion, then after the above statement that reasonable person would certainly conclude that you had "facts" to back up your statement - indeed you claimed that you had provided links to me.

If that were true, then you would, I am sure, have found any links you had previously provided in this thread or others and used them against me.

So, we are now at the point where you finally did provide two links - one of which was not recent and the other which contradicted your position.

So, I have backed up my comments.

You have failed to do so.

GlobeTurtle

You need to stop this bickering. This is not what the GPS Forum is about.

--
3790LMT; 2595LMT; 3590LMT, 60LMTHD

Right

I have failed to do so, because I don't have to answer to you. As I said, I know I can back up my statements/opinions/facts, whatever you want to call them. I'm choosing not to. I have the right to conduct myself however I want. If I say I'm done providing links, that's not a challenge. I don't know where you get the idea that I have to do what you say?

I don't have to prove anything.

closing comments

The back and forth does appear to be getting more heated, so this evening I'm closing comments on the thread. It's time to step back for a while, agree to disagree, and give this discussion a rest.

Jonathan

1 2 3
<<Page 4