https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIunyWxXrXU <-- video
I'm a less government kind of guy, but I have to say the above video shows a good case for red light cameras, and here's why.
I'm on my way to work, the green light was lit at least 20 seconds before this guy whips around the corner, and although it may not seem it in the video if you look for the subtle clues, he slightly over steers and bounces over a low spot on the road.
I really expected to see police cars any second following along, he looked like he was running from something. If he was, and before the cops found whatever he did, the photo from a red light camera might be able to ID the guy.
Funny thing is though, PA law prohibits a red light cam generated photo to be used for anything other than verifying a violation of the traffic light, including helping in another crime, without a court order.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, camera equipment deployed as part of an automated red light enforcement system as provided in this section must be incapable of automated or user-controlled remote intersection surveillance by means of recorded video images. Recorded images collected as part of the automated red light enforcement system must only record traffic violations and may not be used for any other surveillance purposes. The restrictions set forth in this paragraph shall not be deemed to preclude a court of competent jurisdiction from issuing an order directing that the information be provided to law enforcement officials if the information is reasonably described and is requested solely in
It's a good thing you weren't there a few seconds earlier.
I'm struggling to give the law the benefit of the doubt. It's logic isn't obvious to me. Is the use of license plate readers for enforcement of non-traffic laws acceptable? If someone can be tied to a certain location at a certain time by a cell tower or a license plate reader why not a red light camera?
My personal beliefs include the feeling that our privacy is wrongly violated all the time. Nevertheless I am only asking for this to be treated as a logical issue.
If you're referring to the logic of the PA law, privacy is the very reason for it.
ETA: When this bill (allowing RLC) was being discussed in the PA legislature privacy was discussed a lot and that's why the law was written the way it was.
Perhaps it should be noted that the law also reads
"The restrictions set forth in this paragraph shall not be deemed to preclude a court of competent jurisdiction from issuing an order directing that the information be provided to law enforcement officials if the information is reasonably described and is requested solely in connection with a criminal law enforcement action."
Redlights only apply to some drivers.... Not this one.
I was getting on the hwy the other day, it was one of those clover leaf type interchanges where cars get off, others get on using the same merge lane.
As I'm approaching (west to east), there's a driver from the southbound lane getting off eastbound. Only problem, when you get off you're supposed to stay in that merge lane until it's safe to merge over to the through traffic lane. This @sshole gets off right into the throughlane, nearly side swiping me.
Note, this is not the highway, but the road the highway exits to.
Clearly the merge lane concept doesn't apply to this imbecile. Lesson for me, never be next to a car getting off, expecting them to stay in their lane.
Yes, my copy paste did not include this (by mistake) "connection with a criminal law enforcement action." at the end, the rest was there, but I also included a link to the entire statute, which goes into even more detail.
Side comment: what cam you using and how do you like it?
It's a "Rove R2-4K". There is a newer version of the Rove camera out. It's a few years old and takes decent video, one of the better night vision ones I've seen, but, the way it's designed, the cam can be rotated 360 degrees to film inside your vehicle, not sure why you'd need that but it was a big selling feature, which creates a weak spot in the neck and causes the video to appear shaky. Also the 4K in the model name is misleading, it's not true 4K capable. The new Rove is true 4K but the neck still has the flaw (as far as I am concerned) which is why I didn't upgrade to it.
I'm for cams, that vid is for your protection if anything had happened, good thing nothing did.
Cameras are here to stay. I don't have one but some folks already have iPhone 13 Pros as of Friday. It's like a movie studio in one's pocket. We're no longer in that JC Penney mode where security guards are using the system to film employees that they find good looking. Cameras are recording everybody in very high resolution, good looking or not.
There are people on YouTube making tons of money portending to be auditors. They film people sometimes with 3 cameras in public, until they get under an entity's skin and then a lawsuit ensues and they get tens of thousands of dollars as a result.
So if cameras can be used for the above, why can't they be used to enforce the law?
I don't even give my dash cam a second thought, but a coworker who rode in my car last week said what's that for? It had dawned on me our conversation is being recorded, so I said that's in case you try to blackmail me.
PA is the wild wild west. It's like a retro amusement park, ever see NYC in the 70's/80's in the movies, that's PA in 2021. What happens when there is no police presence nor enforcement. We have these signs in the burbs saying $142 fine for rolling stop signs. Yeah, whatever, it's about 95% of the cars, I don't see any fines being issued. Put cams in place? Now you have 100% enforcement.
Just last week my son and I had to cross a busy intersection leaving karate. I told him we have to wait for a signal (this isn't Toronto or Cali., so it's not for the violation aspect, it's for safety). We begin to cross and a woman in a Nissan Altima blows the light and we have to jump back. I was thinking that he doesn't understand yet why the woman would do that. How do I explain to a 7 y.o., you cross only when the signal says you can, and when you don't see an adult running the light and brushing you back
Let's get more cams and maybe make them integral to vehicles, and if you're like me, I've had a dash cam 3 years and never needed to use a video.
p.s. if anybody knows, why do joggers and walkers, walk down the center of the road (at least they do where I live). When I am biking, it makes it very difficult for me to get past. They are exactly down the center--I tend to just go past on their right. One time a woman yelled at me as if I were too close to her. If I or she had a GoPro, then there's no he said/she said. PA sure is a strange place at times.
This is an excellent topic. Thanks for posting. My minor was law while studying for my Bachelors of Science in Journalism many years ago at the University of Florida. So this is very interesting to me.
The RLC might be able to ID the guy. Yes, it could be used for that, just need to provide probable cause of a related crime to a judge so a court order could be issued. Privacy is the reason a court order is required. As it is, the registered owner will get a citation in the mail.
my cos property management banned 2 people from the co garage.
Posted high res pics of their cars and plates--I suppose to shame them.
What I wonder is if that happens to an exec with a nice car, what now? I bet his co. gets him back in.
They have repeatedly told everyone slow the **** down, and follow signage for direction of travel. Again, there's this type of person who says that applies to others, not me. I guess it's not the case.
Since it is against PA law to photograph the front of a vehicle they might be able to ID a car, but unlikely the driver, court order or not. PA's RLC only face the rear of a vehicle, and are only activated if a vehicle crosses the stop line after the light turns red.
Does the garage have an attendant(s) at the entrance? If so, it's probably to allow them to ID the vehicle.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2021