Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1787 messages, Last post on Nov 06, 2009 at 9:07 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (May 13, 2009 6:29 am) It would only be fair to note the several others have also pointed out the grave constitutional issues and violations of due process that these machines raise. "Don't have to worry" is simply WRONG. 
|
|
|
|
| But the point is that photo/redlight/radar are useless for catching real problems. Our small town must be really dumb. They use real policemen making stops for little infractions and they find all kinds of things. Often the original stop would not have been a citation-given stop. But they people with warrants, drugs, improper license plates, etc. | |
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (May 13, 2009 5:45 am) I would say in order to "grossly" violate a stop sign or stop light, there would have to be another vehicle around to which you were supposed to yield to. If there isn't another vehicle around, then running the stop sign is not "really" a violation in my book, but is certainly not a GROSS violation. I can admit I've ignored stop signs, but even at the signs I routinely ignored due to their uselessness, I still obeyed them if there was another vehicle coming from another direction and yielded the right away. I only ignore the stop sign if it IS SAFE to do so. That can never be a gross violation. SAFETY should be a forced and enforced CRITERIA of any supposed/alleged traffic violation. |
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (May 13, 2009 6:29 am) Except of course, when the human officer or photo radar malfunctions, which apparently is quite often and not unusual. Also, officer's can make up any excuse they want to pull anyone over. They have over 40,000 excuses written into our CA vehicle code. Why do you think the California VC needs 40,000+ entries? Do you really think that's necessary, or is it something to give a cop an excuse to pull anyone over? I'd go with the latter explanation. |
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (May 12, 2009 9:36 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: dbenson62 (May 14, 2009 6:14 pm) I dont' run stop signs when running that stop sign would potentially cause an accident. I only do so when it is SAFE to do so, and that means no accidents. Time has proven me right. |
|
|
The discussion about stop signs would fit better in one of these: Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics Improving our Drivers, Roads, Speed Limits and Enforcement |
|
|
There is a thing called "mission creep". Once the safety argument is used to blind people at large about the real intent of cameras, along comes a new development like this: from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2791.asp Texas Senate Endorses Freeway Spy Cameras Legislation mandating federal and state police surveillance cameras on Texas state highways nears passage. The Texas state Senate voted Monday to give federal, state and local authorities the ability to track and identify every passing vehicle on state highways. The provision calling for "automatic license plate identification cameras" was slipped into the Senate version of the must-pass Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) reauthorization bill. The provision was not part of the bill introduced in the state House of Representatives, whose less sympathetic members will have to accept or reject the entire 1274-page compromise hammered out by a conference committee. The House voted yesterday to instruct its conferees to insist that the House-passed ban on red light cameras remain in the final text. The Senate's surveillance camera proposal promises taxpayer funds to the same private companies that operate photo radar and red light camera systems threatened by the House bill. License plate readers use the same basic technology as automated ticketing machines. Instead of tracking, for example, only those who exceed a certain speed threshold, the plate readers will store a video image of the front passenger compartment and rear license plate of every single passing vehicle. Optical character recognition software identifies the registered vehicle owner and allows for easy indexing of the time and location of travel for each person identified using the highway. The Senate-passed bill gives police broad authority for the first time to use this information to prosecute any state or federal crime, as long as it is not a traffic violation "punishable by fine only." The bill also specifies that the cameras may be used to find suspects in amber alert cases, missing senior citizens and those accused of killing a police officer. The capability to search for suspects is exactly what troubles one civil rights group. "Proponents will argue the readers are looking for bad guys -- drug smugglers and other criminals -- but the cameras cannot distinguish between your SUV and a drug smuggler's SUV," the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement. "The readers are technology and as with any technology, they have a tendency to make errors. In this case, the implications are traffic stops of drivers misidentified as suspects wanted for serious crimes." In some cases, those errors can turn deadly. On May 19, 2008 a Northumbria, UK police officer received an Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) alert about a passing Renault Megane automobile. Believing the vehicle could be driven by a dangerous criminal, the officer began following the Renault and hit speeds of 94 MPH in a residential neighborhood without using his siren. After cresting a hill, the police Volvo slammed into and killed sixteen-year-old pedestrian Hayley Adamson who did not see the police car coming. It turns out the database was wrong and the driver being chased was completely innocent. (View video of the incident up to the moment of the crash). British authorities have been using ANPR for several years, working to centralize ANPR data to allow police to keep tabs on criminals and political opponents. A data center in North London offers real-time, nationwide tracking capability. Australian and American red light camera companies hope to offer the same centralized tracking services in the US. The license plate provision attached to the TxDOT sunset bill passed the full Senate last month without debate as Senate Bill 1426. The language was drafted by state Senator Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands). View the full text of the surveillance camera provision in a 90k PDF file at the source link below. Source: House Bill 300 excerpt - Senate engrossed (Texas State Legislature, 5/28/2009)
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (May 29, 2009 4:00 am) That is very scary. But, maybe precedence already set by some cities, such as Chicago, having cameras placed in various parts of the city that have high crime rates. Innocent and law abiding citizens walking through these areas are watched and probably recorded. Believe that the Chicago cameras send images to a monitoring site where presumably there is some recording and retention of video. Mayor Daley authorized these. Never heard that former Chicagoan Obama, Constitution expert and now President, protested this camera system as violation of Constitutional rights. Must be OK.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
