Looks reasonable to me

 

I don't live in Florida and yes that is reasonable to me too.

smile

I sometimes think we should have stopped technological>>

advances at toilet paper...this Big Brotherism remains a constant threat to our freedom as it encourgaes people to believe that free men need to be watched...sickening really.

--
"You can't get there from here"

Many do need to be watched

TMK wrote:

...this Big Brotherism remains a constant threat to our freedom as it [encourages] people to believe that free men need to be watched...sickening really.

Perhaps you will tell us why cameras threaten your freedom.

I do not ever remember any opponent of Automated Traffic Enforcement saying that red-light running did not exist or even that it was not a problem. What is sickening is that people think they should be granted the freedom to run red lights or speed simply because they are in a hurry.

There are lots of people who believe that they are "free" to break laws and they do indeed need to be watched. I hope you are not one of them. Running red lights often lead to harm to others.

Hmmm....

TMK wrote:

advances at toilet paper...

In that case we wouldn't have GPS's ....or this Forum.

Ron

where

jgermann wrote:

[

... What is sickening is that people think they should be granted the freedom to run red lights or speed simply because they are in a hurry.

There are lots of people who believe that they are "free" to break laws and they do indeed need to be watched. I hope you are not one of them. Running red lights often lead to harm to others.

where has anyone said they were against enforcement camera so they can be 'free' to break the law????

Even the police chief is against them

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-loui...

"A 'GOTCHA' GAME

County Police Chief Tim Fitch — already an outspoken critic of police departments in communities too small to support a professional force — said he thinks speed cameras are used mainly to keep struggling municipalities financially afloat under a pretense of traffic safety. The tickets generate fines but not necessarily other consequences.

"If you're really trying to affect driver behavior, you need to identify the driver and assess points to their license," Fitch said. With speed cameras, it's clearly a 'gotcha' game," Fitch said.

So far, voters in 24 places around the country have voted on banning speed or red light cameras or both. The initiatives have passed in all but two.

But the list of lobbyists for camera companies operating in the St. Louis area reads like a who's who of Democratic powerhouses, holding the purse strings to campaign funds. And St. Louis County has a Democratic majority on its council.

When it comes to the state level, camera companies tend to open their pocketbooks wide, said Arizona state Sen. Frank Antenori, who said his efforts to reach the ballot were blocked by lobbyists. These guys know if it gets to the ballot, it's the end game," Antenori said. "So they keep it in the hands of the gutless and spineless politicians that won't put it on the ballot."

Oh no, definitely not about the money. :rolleyes:

Of course, you see no infringement of this guy's freedom

jgermann wrote:

Perhaps you will tell us why cameras threaten your freedom.

Red-light camera ticket in St. Peters leads to arrest, anger

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/red-light-camer...

Happens all the time.

But of course, from the comfort of your easy chair, you see no infringement of that guy's freedom. The guy who was actually there, having experienced the stupidity of being arrested and taken to jail for a pissant infraction, has a very different point of view.

Maybe if someday a mistake based on a combination of factors originating with a perceived "threat" detected and conveyed by an automated computerized system that human beings became too complacent about not questioning the validity of, results in a SWAT team shooting up your house ("OOPS, sorry about that, we acted in good faith based on what we thought was credible information") and kills one or more members of your family, maybe that will be enough to get the point across. It seems to me that will be about the only way you will ever get it.

Think stuff like I've just described above never happens? Think again. Or more appropriately, get out you google search keywords and do your homework. But I still doubt that will be enough unless you learn it the hard way.

re: "Many do need to be watched" ?

jgermann wrote:

...they do indeed need to be watched.

Sounds like you agree with this slogan:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Do your usual google search and see who that belongs to.

In case you didn't know (not that you'd mind), this phrase:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

was not originally construed to be limited to inside their domicile (that's why "houses" is just one in that list, and why "persons" and "effects" - possessions, like their car - is specifically listed separately).

The concept of 'no expectation of privacy in a public space' is a relatively recent judicial construct, which in every case was decided on the basis of making it easier on law enforcement, tipping the scales in their direction every time.

In my lifetime, thanks to people like you who don't give a damn about privacy, I've seen this eroded from needing "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" to the current interpretation: anything goes. And if history is any guide, people get used to what they grow up with, and it only goes downhill from there.

read the link

GoneNomad wrote:
jgermann wrote:

Perhaps you will tell us why cameras threaten your freedom.

Red-light camera ticket in St. Peters leads to arrest, anger

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/red-light-camer...

Happens all the time.

But of course, from the comfort of your easy chair, you see no infringement of that guy's freedom. The guy who was actually there, having experienced the stupidity of being arrested and taken to jail for a pissant infraction, has a very different point of view.
...

I see no infringement of County Councilman Joe Brazil’s freedom. He admitted the validity of the ticket. He admitted he got a second notice and ignored it. He says he mailed a cashier's check for the fine and thought that was the end of it.

He had the freedom to call and question if his payment had been received for the admitted violation, but he chose not to exercise that freedom. I keep the customer copy of all cashier's check I get (I assume you do too).

The city issues arrest warrants whenever someone doesn’t show up for a court date on any charge, not just those involving red-light cameras.

Was it unnecessary? Yes it was. But the rule of law is one of the freedoms we have and the law of this municipality was to issue an arrest warrant.

Now, if you would like to debate what level of #@#@# infraction should have been the dividing line for arrest, I will be willing to do so.

fuzzy logic

GoneNomad wrote:

...
Happens all the time.
...

Having some background in statistics, I want to point how that "all the time" implies that unnecessary arrest warrants are happening close to 100% of the time. I realize that not is what you meant or think.

Still, it is clear that you think it happens a lot.

If you had simply said that it "happens too often", I would had had to agree.

We were not discussing an instance of false arrest. This was about an unnecessary arrest.

Somehow you morphed a valid but unnecessary arrest into

Quote:

a SWAT team shooting up your house ("OOPS, sorry about that, we acted in good faith based on what we thought was credible information")

George Orwell

GoneNomad wrote:
jgermann wrote:

...they do indeed need to be watched.

Sounds like you agree with this slogan:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Do your usual google search and see who that belongs to.

...

There is a good essay on this concept at
http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...

As you say:
"The concept of 'no expectation of privacy in a public space' is a relatively recent judicial construct,"
but it is now the law of the land and I basically agree with it.

You did it again - "anything goes". I'm surprised you haven't moved to a country whose government is better given the absoluteness of your disdain for ours.

Automation YES

GoneNomad wrote:
jgermann wrote:

Perhaps you will tell us why cameras threaten your freedom.

Red-light camera ticket in St. Peters leads to arrest, anger

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/red-light-camer...

Happens all the time.

But of course, from the comfort of your easy chair, you see no infringement of that guy's freedom. The guy who was actually there, having experienced the stupidity of being arrested and taken to jail for a pissant infraction, has a very different point of view.

Maybe if someday a mistake based on a combination of factors originating with a perceived "threat" detected and conveyed by an automated computerized system that human beings became too complacent about not questioning the validity of, results in a SWAT team shooting up your house ("OOPS, sorry about that, we acted in good faith based on what we thought was credible information") and kills one or more members of your family, maybe that will be enough to get the point across. It seems to me that will be about the only way you will ever get it.

Think stuff like I've just described above never happens? Think again. Or more appropriately, get out you google search keywords and do your homework. But I still doubt that will be enough unless you learn it the hard way.

And your point is that we revert to the Good Old Days with a policeman on point duty . No thanks, I'll go with automated traffic lights AND rlcs.

--
nuvi 855. Life is not fair. I don't care who told you it is.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Hard-core opponents of RLCs often cite the abuses that can result from their use as justification for an outright ban. As usual, such absolutist arguments (on both sides) lose sight of the practical realities.

I was out driving in the real world yesterday and was approaching a green light when it turned amber. There were five (5) cars ahead of me when that happened. #1 proceeded through, which was fair enough because he was essentially at the stop line when the signal changed. #2 followed, and that was reasonable too. But #3 AND #4 continued through as well. I don't know whether #3 managed to get his front wheel over the line before the light changed to red, but #4 definitely had plenty of time to stop and just blew through the (then) fully-RED light because he could.

A*holes like #4 deserve tickets, and if a camera connected to a computer can do it then I support that.

ezpass

GoneNomad wrote:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-loui...

County Police Chief Tim Fitch — already an outspoken critic of police departments in communities too small to support a professional force — said he thinks speed cameras are used mainly to keep struggling municipalities financially afloat

Struggling municipalities afloat, like Washington DC? You cannot run a red light or speed there. Conventional wisdom would say it's the nation's capital, and order needs to be maintained.

Toll booth attendants are against EZPass and high speed camera tolling as well. Personally I'm glad the cams are there--someone tailgated me through a lane and the additional axles were tolled on my tag. If it weren't for the cams, the a**h**** would have gotten away with it.

There are times when I think this is just the internet and there are anonymous folks behind a keyboard. I highly doubt anyone here would be against a cam if they were a victim of a crime.

Oh no, we don't want the perps privacy invaded, let's pretend we don't have the footage of him/her robbing you...

Not limited to enforcement

blake7mstr wrote:
jgermann wrote:

...
There are lots of people who believe that they are "free" to break laws and they do indeed need to be watched. I hope you are not one of them. Running red lights often lead to harm to others.

where has anyone said they were against enforcement camera so they can be 'free' to break the law????

To my knowledge, I have not said that someone has said they were against enforcement cameras because they should be "free" to break the law.

I was responding to a statement by TMK

TMK wrote:

...this Big Brotherism remains a constant threat to our freedom as it [encourages] people to believe that free men need to be watched...sickening really.

Whether a red light has an enforcement camera or not, too many people do not stop at red lights. If queried, I doubt these persons would say they had the "freedom" to blow through red lights. However, their actions demonstrate that they think they do. When a person is accelerating to get through the intersection (having seen the light turn red before they reach the intersection), what went through their minds, one wonders? They are putting themselves before others. Whether they think they are "free" to do so is something they would have to comment on.

Thank heaven my city has a 2 second all red interval. Yesterday and today, I have seen a total of 3 large pickup trucks run red lights after I was sitting stopped at the red light. In one case, the 2 second interval was over and the perpendicular traffic was in motion.

Given that some people continue to run red lights, I feel they indeed need to be watched by enforcement cameras and fined for the violation recorded.

Having some background in statistics

"Having some background in statistics" may explain why you think the expression "Happens all the time" means "happening close to 100% of the time." when to anyone with any common sense "Happens all the time" does not mean "Happens EVERY time," it means that it happens routinely, every day, day in, day out.

"Having some background in statistics" also explains a lot of other things about your black-or-white viewpoint, and why any "reasonable discussion" with you is pointless.

Read the linked article

johnnatash4 wrote:
GoneNomad wrote:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-loui...

County Police Chief Tim Fitch — already an outspoken critic of police departments in communities too small to support a professional force — said he thinks speed cameras are used mainly to keep struggling municipalities financially afloat

Struggling municipalities afloat, like Washington DC? You cannot run a red light or speed there.

Read the linked article (which was not about Washington DC), and see if you discover the connection the Police chief cited.

You should be the one leaving

jgermann wrote:
GoneNomad wrote:
jgermann wrote:

...they do indeed need to be watched.

Sounds like you agree with this slogan:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Do your usual google search and see who that belongs to.

...

There is a good essay on this concept at
http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...

As you say:
"The concept of 'no expectation of privacy in a public space' is a relatively recent judicial construct,"
but it is now the law of the land and I basically agree with it.

You did it again - "anything goes". I'm surprised you haven't moved to a country whose government is better given the absoluteness of your disdain for ours.

No, my disdain is for people like you who support the deterioration of what were supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed liberties. People like you are the reason Ben Franklin's famous quote is applicable here.

You should be the one leaving, to a place where you and your Stazi-like mindset would fit right in. You'd feel much safer and more secure in 1980s East Germany. But this is a point that will driven home to you unless you end up being the one constantly surveilled just "for your own safety." But maybe you wouldn't mind that.

you aren't interested in debate.

jgermann wrote:

Now, if you would like to debate what level of #@#@# infraction should have been the dividing line for arrest, I will be willing to do so.

Obviously that one was not over the line. A ticket was issued to the car, not the driver, and all the transactions were dependent upon un-proven delivery by mail. And no matter how many times you claim you are, you aren't interested in debate.

People who blow thru intersections

VersatileGuy wrote:

Hard-core opponents of RLCs often cite the abuses that can result from their use as justification for an outright ban. As usual, such absolutist arguments (on both sides) lose sight of the practical realities.

...
A*holes like #4 deserve tickets, and if a camera connected to a computer can do it then I support that.

People who blow thru intersections deserve tickets. I am not arguing against that. If they are a dangerous driver, pull them over, and issue a moving violation. But don't play this stupid game of pretending that issuing thousands of fines to people who didn't quite stop in time (and yes, jgerman, that happens "ALL THE TIME" too, as in, routinely, not as in "100% of all tickets issued") is all about safety, or that they deserve the same treatment as people who blast thru an intersection as if it wasn't even there (which it wasn't, to them, because they somehow weren't aware of it).

But not the cars they are driving. And especially not a ticket delivered by mail for which there is no proof of delivery, and which may arrive weeks later, or as in the case of rental car drivers, maybe a lot more delay than that. That's why cities in Florida (vacation areas where rental cars are commonplace) finally realized that their tourism business was being negatively impacted by people avoiding RLC areas. I'm sure the usual poster who considers himself the statistics expert will claim there is not data to support that. Of course, he claims there's no data to support a lot of things that should be obvious at face value, to wit: 'who you gonna believe? the data or your lying eyes?'

There are several fundamental problems:

1. The vast majority of RLC tickets are issued to cars whose drivers would never be cited by a normal in person enforcement regime. This amounts to a drastic expansion of scope. Anybody who doesn't realize this is is being naive (perhaps intentionally so, in order to avoid having their argument invalidated, even thought they really do know better. Then again, maybe they really are that naive). And THAT is a very "practical reality."

2. In most cases, there is no proof the registered owner who gets the ticket was the one driving the car.

3. There is no proof the registered owner is even notified (no proof of delivery of the notice).

4. RLC venders and municipalities have a financial incentive to promote these for financial gain. Take that away and watch how fast these disappear. What happened to all the safety concerns then?

Any system that:
A. Doesn't identify the driver, and
B. Doesn't provide immediate notification, and
C. Can't even prove the owner of the vehicle was ever notified
D. Has the capability to conduct broad, non-targeted surveillance, with the potential capability to retain records indefinitely

...is an automatic failure, a non-starter. Period.

Want to use a triggering device to notify a cop pull somebody over when they "blow through" an intersection? I have no problem with that, as long as there is no indefinite records retention. This would be an inherently self-limiting system, rather than the current RLC scheme which can issue as many citations as can be printed (effectively unlimited).

If red light running is such a dangerous problem at certain intersections, one that if light timing doesn't seem to solve (which may even include some cases where people intentionally keep going though the intersection after the light is clearly red, because it may be a situation where the cycle timing apportionment of one direction vs the other isn't correct. If there are a lot more people backed up in one direction, and very few or none in the cross direction, then the apportionment needs to be changed. It is simply human nature to get aggravated at having to sit at a red light when there is no cross traffic), then the solution is to have cops pull over the bad drivers and issue "real" moving violation tickets to them, period. Stop doing the easy stuff just because it's easy, and oh, by the way, it also just happens to have the side "benefit" of raking in a lot of revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.

???

GoneNomad wrote:
jgermann wrote:

Now, if you would like to debate what level of #@#@# infraction should have been the dividing line for arrest, I will be willing to do so.

Obviously that one was not over the line. A ticket was issued to the car, not the driver, and all the transactions were dependent upon un-proven delivery by mail. And no matter how many times you claim you are, you aren't interested in debate.

Sorry, I am still not understanding. I thought we were discussing a particular arrest resulting from a ticket whose validity was admitted.

You start out by saying "Obviously that one was not over the line." That is the conclusion I reached when the St. Peters article said

Quote:

Brazil, R-Defiance, isn’t disputing the ticket, saying he mailed in the fine before his arrest. But he says it’s overkill for the city to spend police time on arrests for offenses that don’t add penalty points to a drivers license under state law. Red-light camera violations are in that category.

“I think it’s a complete waste of police resources,” Brazil said Thursday. “They’re overdoing it.”

But - then you speak of the ticket being issued to the car and transactions dependent on unproven delivery by mail. What did you mean? Was the arrest over the line or not?

Emoticons might help you understand

Emoticons might help you understand sarcasm when you see it, but I doubt it.

Chalk it up to a typo if you want.

You will never get it because you don't WANT to get it.
Maybe you really cannot see shades of gray in anything.
But it comes across as more like intentional obstinance.

"fuzzy logic"

jgermann wrote:

fuzzy logic

You say that as if it that was a bad thing (of course you'll deny that too). But you should try it sometime.
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
"Fuzzy logic allows for approximate values and inferences as well as incomplete or ambiguous data (fuzzy data) as opposed to only relying on crisp data (binary yes/no choices)."

See that last part (and just to be clear what I mean by "last part" - it's in parentheses.)? That's YOU.

After you learn how fuzzy logic works, you might want to move on the Heuristic problem solving, as applied to this issue.

Life is probably more about fuzzy logic than it is a box of chocolates, or a google search for cut and dried answers by someone who can't even see the entire scope of the question/issue (even after it has repeatedly been explained to him).

Comments on Problems

GoneNomad wrote:

...

There are several fundamental problems:
1. The vast majority of RLC tickets are issued to cars whose drivers would never be cited by a normal in person enforcement regime. This amounts to a drastic expansion of scope. Anybody who doesn't realize this is is being naive (perhaps intentionally so, in order to avoid having their argument invalidated, even thought they really do know better. Then again, maybe they really are that naive).
2. In most cases, there is no proof the registered owner who gets the ticket was the one driving the car.
3. There is no proof the registered owner is even notified (no proof of delivery of the notice).
4. RLC venders and municipalities have a financial incentive to promote these for financial gain. Take that away and watch how fast these disappear. What happened to all the safety concerns then?

...

Response to:
1. Ok, this is true.
a.
Most municipalities do not station officers at red light intersections because it is so difficult for them to pull offenders over. They would have to be waiting on the other side of an intersection to safely give chase so most municipalities use the officer for other policing duties.
b.
I am a believer in having some "grace period" for red-light straight thru or left turn violations. One half second is what I think would be reasonable unless the reviewing officer saw pedestrians or bicyclists close around. I think that rolling right turns done in a "careful and prudent manner" (as I think some red-light camera laws require) should not be ticketed. Once again the presence of pedestrians or bicyclists would be a factor.
2.
These are civil violations. Whether the owner of the car was the driver or not is usually covered by the law that tickets the car and its owner. This is consistent with parking tickets. The owner of the car is responsible. Unless the owner says that the car was stolen, the owner was the person who authorized the actual driver (assuming it was other than the owner) to use the car. The car generated the violation. The owner must pay.
3.
Regardless, the violation occurred. In the St. Peters case, a second notice was sent. This was ignored and an arrest warrant issued. I am sure that a lot of people ignore tickets received in the mail - but those who ignore them might later come to regret it.
4.
It is true that RLC venders and municipalities have a financial incentive to promote cameras for financial gain. If there are safety results then the cameras become a win-win for the municipality and its citizens. When I started this thread, I was voicing my support for legal provisions in Florida that would eliminate the "letter of the law" issuing of tickets.

Eliminating cameras will, in my opinion based on the recent data I have seen, reduce safety. Having cameras that issue tickets for the same kind of offenses that an officer would issue would significantly reduce opposition to cameras - even though revenue was generated in addition to safety benefits.

As I have mentioned before, most of us grew up realizing that parking tickets would be given if we illegally parked because we knew that an enforcement officer could appear at any time.

It would be nice if driver behavior could be changed relative to running red lights by reasonable and enlightened use of traffic cameras.

You don't see the irony, in that, do you?

johnnatash4 wrote:

Personally I'm glad the cams are there--someone tailgated me through a lane and the additional axles were tolled on my tag. If it weren't for the cams, the a**h**** would have gotten away with it.

Stop and think about how that happened, and tell me you don't see the irony. Yet I'll bet it isn't even immediately obvious to you is it? Think it over... maybe it will come to you.

johnnatash4 wrote:

Oh no, we don't want the perps privacy invaded, let's pretend we don't have the footage of him/her robbing you...

It isn't about perp's privacy.
I'll refer you to Ben Franklin's famous quote on this subject. And also point out that the cities with the most strict gun control also have the highest rates of violent crimes committed with guns. But you don't see the applicability to this issue, do you?

NO, they are NOT civil violations..

jgermann wrote:

2.
These are civil violations....

NO, they are NOT. They are moving violations.
In most case, the RLC tickets had to be redefined as " civil violations" merely in order to implement the automated scheme.

Of course you will say: 'BBBBBBut.. it's written right there in the code.'

Pay attention: That doesn't change what they ARE. Lies are codified into "law" "all the time" (in case you've forgotten already, that means "routinely"), and this is one of them.

This particular bit of weasel-worded scammery is now proving to be the undoing in the local St. Louis jurisdictions, at least for speed cameras, since it's difficult for even the most hidebound jurist to conclude they aren't moving violations. Obviously, red light infractions are moving violations too (even if the vehicle did stop at some point), but for now no local judge has had the honesty to admit it.

take a break...

It looks like we're stuck in a back and forth argument that's not going to change either side's opinion, so let's take a break and give these issues a rest.

JM

Works for me. This is a

Works for me. This is a waste of time.

I am a grown man>>>

jgermann wrote:
TMK wrote:

...this Big Brotherism remains a constant threat to our freedom as it [encourages] people to believe that free men need to be watched...sickening really.

Perhaps you will tell us why cameras threaten your freedom.

I do not ever remember any opponent of Automated Traffic Enforcement saying that red-light running did not exist or even that it was not a problem. What is sickening is that people think they should be granted the freedom to run red lights or speed simply because they are in a hurry.

There are lots of people who believe that they are "free" to break laws and they do indeed need to be watched. I hope you are not one of them. Running red lights often lead to harm to others.

I pay my bills, my taxes and generally obey the law...I do so whether or not I am being watched. I have been driving for 36+ years, long before the advent of red light cameras, and I always stopped at stop signs and red lights. I grew up in a country and at a time where free men were trusted with their freedom. Now, politically and socially, we are slipping deeper and deeper into the nanny state. I cannot explain freedom to those who are not able to comprehend the inherent evil of a government watching its citizens...it is a state of mind and being that either you get or you do not. I don't buy the you use a credit card or ezpass and thus you have to accept being traced, tracked, watched BS...I can opt out of any of those choices at any time I choose...unlike RLC, etc. I am genuinely sorry if you feel that you cannot be trusted with your freedom...I am sad that you who doesn't know me think that I need to be watched.

--
"You can't get there from here"

density

jgermann wrote:
TMK wrote:

...this Big Brotherism remains a constant threat to our freedom as it [encourages] people to believe that free men need to be watched...sickening really.

Perhaps you will tell us why cameras threaten your freedom.

I do not ever remember any opponent of Automated Traffic Enforcement saying that red-light running did not exist or even that it was not a problem. What is sickening is that people think they should be granted the freedom to run red lights or speed simply because they are in a hurry.

There are lots of people who believe that they are "free" to break laws and they do indeed need to be watched. I hope you are not one of them. Running red lights often lead to harm to others.

I agree. Sometimes I wonder if people who are against RLCs live in sparsely populated places? Yesterday I went somewhere that reminded me of the South Bronx in the late 80's when I was a teen. People were blowing lights left and right. Yes, it is a problem, because in these types of neighborhoods, el hit and run is not that uncommon. While the RLC is not designed to prevent hit and run, every little bit helps.