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
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 05, 2009 6:17 am) Safety costs money, including posting officers wherever needed, simple as that. One cannot use the old "it costs too much for proper law enforcement" argument as an excuse for taking short cuts with civil liberties. Further, please keep in mind that about half of worker fatalities and injuries in work zones are caused by construction accidents, NOT drivers exceeding the speed limit. For an example reference, please see: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-128/ which states that: "Highway and street construction workers are at risk of fatal and serious nonfatal injury when working in the vicinity of passing motorists, construction vehicles, and equipment. Each year, more than 100 workers are killed and over 20,000 are injured in the highway and street construction industry. Vehicles and equipment operating in and around the work zone are involved in over half of the worker fatalities in this industry. Historically, efforts to reduce vehicle-related worker injuries in this industry have focused on improving traffic control devices and work zone configurations to minimize confusion of motorists passing through the work zone and to limit collisions involving motorists. The premise has been that by minimizing traffic collisions in work zones, worker injuries are minimized. However, fatality data indicate that workers being struck by a motorist passing through the work zone account for only half the vehicle-related fatalities among highway workers." My only concern here with reference to the posted story is that poorly written laws can and do form the basis of subsequent abuse by local officials offered corrupting monetary lures by scamera companies to maximize profits, safety and the original intent of the law be damned. Phrases like "don't know how anyone could criticize" only serve to degrade intelligent discussion and are best avoided, but that's just my opinion. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 6:40 am) Exactly right. It's being used politically since the last election and even today in articles I was reading. All it takes is a police car doing duty in a construction area. People traveling on highways from out-of-town follow the speeds of the locals. When there never are policemen in the construction areas the locals go wild. While trying to justify mailing bills or tickets to people from out-of-town for driving as do most people when traveling sounds caring, the real goal would be money-making. If they only bill local drivers that would be okay--if we're wanting to play the PC game. > is that poorly written laws can and do form the basis of subsequent abuse by local officials offered corrupting monetary lures by scamera companies to maximize profits, safety and the original intent of Many bills federal have been written with the intent of different interpretation in the future and are being interpreted differently than presented to congress originally. ADA laws, e.g., fit that bill (no pun intended). The goal of the camera companies is to get their billing abilities into each category and expand them giving pittances to the local politicians hungry for money to spend to buy votes. That's what it is. The camera companies are doing what retired policemen and detectives did for a good while. They are pseudo police agencies similar to the businesses of retired policemen which supplied undercover agents to try to induce high school students to sell them drugs. In most cases the kids wouldn't have solicited selling drugs but the agents used entrapment heavily so they could make their arrests and justify their bills to the local police or prosecutors. Camera companies are the same ilk of criminal in blue. Just put police cars out there and they will do wonders. |
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 6:40 am) Nothing wrong in using technology to help enforce laws when manpower is inadequate to continuously monitor drivers while workers active in construction zones. While there have apparently been abuses of the photo camera system, that does not mean that it should be banned. Weed out the abuses. It is up to legislatures and dots to sort out and improve the management and operation of speed camera systems wherever used. Photo camera system has been used for years on the Illinois Tollway system to document and fine toll payment violators.
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 05, 2009 6:58 am) However, technology is a double edged sword. What is wrong with photo radar is the potential for abuse that has been realised time and again and mentality of helping to "control drivers" and "continuously monitor drivers" without regard to due process and civil liberty concerns. This technology is the first step to many dangerous consequences for our society and must be stopped, in my opinion. We can agree to disagree about this for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 6:40 am) Poor management of construction sites, poorly laid out detours and signage, and a lack of adherence to standards cause most of the injuries and fatalities, for the worker as well as the drivers. There is plenty of data/research/info on how to properly do it, the industry just isn't motivated. |
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 7:34 am) about "Potential abuse". OK, so we just give up on any use of the technology? If we can land a man on the moon, can we just possibly figure out methods to manage photo radar to reduce abuse to an acceptable minimum? Could we put the police agencies in total control of the system and minimize camera vendors' involvement? Should Illinois Tollway eliminate their 24/7 camera system for catching toll violators and instead raise tolls to pay for and put in occasional manned police monitoring? Or, alternatively, go backwards and put in manned toll collection at all toll stations?
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 05, 2009 8:27 am) I am no Luddite for sure, but this is why this technology and others of similar ilk are irreconcilable with our Constitution in my opinion. Like I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this aspect.
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 8:34 am) Should we be offended by the constant surveillance when walking into a bank and going to the teller's cage? Bank I go to has many cameras and presumably operating and capturing my image on tape or dvr. I have never done anything against the law in a bank yet every time I go there I am presumably recorded on tape or dvr. |
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 05, 2009 8:40 am)  People generally have different (lower) expectations of rights on private property. |
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 05, 2009 8:40 am) We have a right to be secure in our persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. These rights cannot be violated but upon probable cause. Quite a simple but powerful concept really, but ignored by many for their own ulterior motives to the detriment of our great nation. Witness the gut wrenching issues related to the use of torture in the name of keeping us safe, and you may see the analogy. Slippery slopes indeed!
|
|
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
