Legality of red light cameras

[Robert A Whit]

I can speak only for the west but some cities, even in socialist CA are yanking down those red light cameras. Turns out they contribute to wrecks at intersections. Also, so many loopholes exist that to prosecute one takes up court time and police time only to have the so called violator let off.

[jimnyc]

I can speak only for the west but some cities, even in socialist CA are yanking down those red light cameras. Turns out they contribute to wrecks at intersections. Also, so many loopholes exist that to prosecute one takes up court time and police time only to have the so called violator let off.

Not because of a violation of privacy though, but because they feel they aren't accurate and not a tool they are comfortable in using to charge citizens with moving violations. Apples and oranges.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633188#post633188)

I can speak only for the west but some cities, even in socialist CA are yanking down those red light cameras. Turns out they contribute to wrecks at intersections. Also, so many loopholes exist that to prosecute one takes up court time and police time only to have the so called violator let off.



Not because of a violation of privacy though, but because they feel they aren't accurate and not a tool they are comfortable in using to charge citizens with moving violations. Apples and oranges.

technically, we're not discussing red light cameras. The OP is talking about surveillance cameras, on all the time. Red light cameras only go off when a car crosses a predetermined line at a red light.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633188#post633188)

I can speak only for the west but some cities, even in socialist CA are yanking down those red light cameras. Turns out they contribute to wrecks at intersections. Also, so many loopholes exist that to prosecute one takes up court time and police time only to have the so called violator let off.



Not because of a violation of privacy though, but because they feel they aren't accurate and not a tool they are comfortable in using to charge citizens with moving violations. Apples and oranges.

What? I did not mention privacy. I told you why. They have been found to be a reason for auto accidents. And there are loopholes. A driver can keep the shade down and it is very hard for cameras to see a face covered by the shade. Then a simple defense is ... i am not the driver. This works often. Apparently they were comfortable since so many of them are up. My city has disabled some of them and only uses them at a few spots. What is apples and oranges?

[jimnyc]

What? I did not mention privacy. I told you why. They have been found to be a reason for auto accidents. And there are loopholes. A driver can keep the shade down and it is very hard for cameras to see a face covered by the shade. Then a simple defense is ... i am not the driver. This works often. Apparently they were comfortable since so many of them are up. My city has disabled some of them and only uses them at a few spots. What is apples and oranges?

YOU pointed out that some places by you wanted to remove such red light cameras, I simply pointed out that those cameras aren't remotely similar to those used as CCTV like what was used in Boston.

[fj1200]

YOU pointed out that some places by you wanted to remove such red light cameras, I simply pointed out that those cameras aren't remotely similar to those used as CCTV like what was used in Boston.

One example is looking for a crime and specifically programmed to identify such while the other is used in response to crime. A distinction with a difference?

[Marcus Aurelius]

technically, we're not discussing red light cameras. The OP is talking about surveillance cameras, on all the time. Red light cameras only go off when a car crosses a predetermined line at a red light.

[jimnyc]

One example is looking for a crime and specifically programmed to identify such while the other is used in response to crime. A distinction with a difference?

Red light camera - looking for specific offense, but can't be absolutely certain it's working properly

Cameras in public settings - simply monitor public places, but certainly the video can be used if it catches a crime (placing a bomb is a lot different than judging if someone went through a red light)

[tailfins]

Not because of a violation of privacy though, but because they feel they aren't accurate and not a tool they are comfortable in using to charge citizens with moving violations. Apples and oranges.

Exactly, but not apples and oranges. What I don't want to see is "automated law enforcement". This has been a dismal failure for low impact charges such as traffic violations. Imagine automated charges for misdemeanors and felonies. We must stay away from this slippery slope. We are already too close to the practice of charged=convicted.

[Robert A Whit]

YOU pointed out that some places by you wanted to remove such red light cameras, I simply pointed out that those cameras aren't remotely similar to those used as CCTV like what was used in Boston.

By me? What are you saying? (see highlight)

I did not give a description of these cameras. But now I will.

They have video and are able to measure vehicle speed. They film the moving auto from the front and the rear. They come to the driver by mail and include still shots. The video has to been seen on the WWW and the driver gets a code to watch it on the site maintained by the red light providing company.

Cities in CA are complaining they cause wrecks. That is my claim. Nothing about privacy. Nothing about apples and oranges. Your telling me about a non video camera apparently.

You also claimed photos of the bombers putting down the bomb showed up last week on this forum. I did not see them and when I kept asking for evidence, those were never brought up.

Sunday you posted that they have photos and that is the first I had heard of that. As you may suspect, I keep the TV on and pay close attention to news.

[jimnyc]

I believe the topic here is police surveillance cameras, not traffic cameras. Can we please stay on topic, or I can separate posts and have a new thread on traffic cameras.

[Robert A Whit]

I believe the topic here is police surveillance cameras, not traffic cameras. Can we please stay on topic, or I can separate posts and have a new thread on traffic cameras.

Red light cameras are police surveillance cameras. Explain why they are not.

[jimnyc]

Red light cameras are police surveillance cameras. Explain why they are not.

Because red light cameras are not the topic and discussion of this thread. Please stick to what was being discussed prior to your post or I can split posts away.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Red light cameras are police surveillance cameras. Explain why they are not.

not in the CONTEXT of the OP... and we all know how you love to whine about CONTEXT of posts.

Discussion of red light cameras belongs in another thread... feel free to start one.

[Robert A Whit]

Red light camera - looking for specific offense, but can't be absolutely certain it's working properly

Cameras in public settings - simply monitor public places, but certainly the video can be used if it catches a crime (placing a bomb is a lot different than judging if someone went through a red light)

Maybe you guys never saw what you get with a red light camera violation. It is even more able to show more. A video is included. Radar in the system gives you other data. The point was cameras that get used by the law and what they can do.

I can't understand the urge by two posters to try to make more of this than intended. The only point is cameras are even more specialized than those at department stores.

Though they can and do contain evidence, in court, that evidence has had many problems.

Can any of you claim a photo on a department store is not able to have problems in court?

Since red light cameras have problems, i don't see why department store cameras also don't have problems.

[jimnyc]

I think it's possible for a red light camera to go off without the light having turned red yet. I have an issue with that. If they have a way of guaranteeing that with video to go along with a snapshot, then I have no problem at all with them.

[Robert A Whit]

I think it's possible for a red light camera to go off without the light having turned red yet. I have an issue with that. If they have a way of guaranteeing that with video to go along with a snapshot, then I have no problem at all with them.

I told you more than one time they do use video. I have a problem with those surveillance cameras and it is that innocents can be ordered to court or else they pay super huge fines. $500 in CA being normal. Second, it turns out they also are blamed for causing wrecks at intersections.

Sure, drivers are at fault but they want to prevent wrecks, not be a part of the blame. It is so serious some cities have cancelled the program and taken down the cameras.

What happens is the driver notices the camera too late and guns the car. A car coming down the street is suddenly hit.

So far, some cities are still using them. but according to our local news, they may be on the way out.

[Abbey Marie]

To fj's point, what is the difference between a camera mounted on an ATM, and a camera mounted on a pole in an intersection? I would posit that the only differences are the certainty and the severity of the crime each one may catch. And in both cases, they could actually be used to exculpate someone, too.

I look forward to Taft's opinion on the subject of surveillance cameras and police work.

[Robert A Whit]

To fj's point, what is the difference between a camera mounted on an ATM, and a camera mounted on a pole in an intersection? I would posit that the only differences are the certainty and the severity of the crime each one may catch. And in both cases, they could actually be used to exculpate someone, too.

I look forward to Taft's opinion on the subject of surveillance cameras and police work.

Thank you Abbey. That was my point. I don't get why it was split off given that a camera is a camera and at least the red light camera is to catch violators.

I also stated that the cameras in some cities are being removed. Maybe I can find an article. A poster did not understand my point which is that do not assume cameras are going to always win a case for you.

I found one.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> http://saferstreetsla.org/353/los-angeles-red-light-cameras-removed/

ATS, the red light camera company that ran the program for the city of Los Angeles has begun removing their cameras, controllers, and wireless communication equipment. The process will continue until January 16th when the last of the cameras will be removed. The LADOT will then begin removing the arest of the infrastructure such as the poles, housings, etc.

[Abbey Marie]

Thank you Abbey. That was my point. I don't get why it was split off given that a camera is a camera and at least the red light camera is to catch violators.

I also stated that the cameras in some cities are being removed. Maybe I can find an article. A poster did not understand my point which is that do not assume cameras are going to always win a case for you.

I found one.

http://saferstreetsla.org/353/los-angeles-red-light-cameras-removed/

ATS, the red light camera company that ran the program for the city of Los Angeles has begun removing their cameras, controllers, and wireless communication equipment. The process will continue until January 16th when the last of the cameras will be removed. The LADOT will then begin removing the arest of the infrastructure such as the poles, housings, etc.

I think the OP wanted to have a specific discussion on the use of the kind of surveillance cameras used to catch the Boston terrorists. Not make comparisons, or go off completely on the red light camera subject. There is a certain ebb and flow to discussions that happen in most threads, because everyone has their own thought patterns and often too, their own agenda. If people post in good faith, and try to address the topic at hand, things usually work out.

[jimnyc]

I don't get why it was split off given that a camera is a camera and at least the red light camera is to catch violators.

I already explained to you why. Stop with your non-stop questioning of shit nonsense and stick to the topics.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633269#post633269)

Thank you Abbey. That was my point. I don't get why it was split off given that a camera is a camera and at least the red light camera is to catch violators.

I also stated that the cameras in some cities are being removed. Maybe I can find an article. A poster did not understand my point which is that do not assume cameras are going to always win a case for you.

I found one.

http://saferstreetsla.org/353/los-an...meras-removed/ (http://saferstreetsla.org/353/los-angeles-red-light-cameras-removed/)

ATS, the red light camera company that ran the program for the city of Los Angeles has begun removing their cameras, controllers, and wireless communication equipment. The process will continue until January 16th when the last of the cameras will be removed. The LADOT will then begin removing the arest of the infrastructure such as the poles, housings, etc.




I think the OP wanted to have a specific discussion on the use of the kind of surveillance cameras used to catch the Boston terrorists. Not make comparisons, or go off completely on the red light camera subject. There is a certain ebb and flow to discussions that happen in most threads, because everyone has their own thought patterns and often too, their own agenda. If people post in good faith, and try to address the topic at hand, things usually work out.

I thought you and I agreed that a camera is a camera. My point was that even cameras operated by the law has problems standing up in court. But you wow me Abbey with your understanding of what the issue really is.

I hate to admit it but I am starting to feel strangled since there is far too much carping against my posts. Thank you again for your kind understanding.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633269#post633269)

I don't get why it was split off given that a camera is a camera and at least the red light camera is to catch violators.





I already explained to you why. Stop with your non-stop questioning of shit nonsense and stick to the topics.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jimnyc again.
:beer:

[Kathianne]

I think the OP wanted to have a specific discussion on the use of the kind of surveillance cameras used to catch the Boston terrorists. Not make comparisons, or go off completely on the red light camera subject. There is a certain ebb and flow to discussions that happen in most threads, because everyone has their own thought patterns and often too, their own agenda. If people post in good faith, and try to address the topic at hand, things usually work out.

I dunno, seems to me that in the OP it was pretty specific to traffic and efforts to end those cameras. Good reasons to do so:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Petition-to-put-Sugar-Land-red-light-cameras-to-a-4446191.php

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-20/news/38695286_1_red-light-cameras-american-traffic-solutions-right-angle-crashes

http://www.mercurynews.com/roadshow/ci_23034857?source=inthenews

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/03/18/red-light-cameras-lawsuits/1985537/

All over the country, for same and different reasons, many citizens are petitioning to have the traffic cams removed.

This issue is altogether different than companies and even local government cameras positioned for crimes beyond traffic and revenue raising. Lord & Taylor videos captured the mother of the alleged bombers of Boston marathon, shoplifting. Videos from other locales captured the walking of the brothers and dropping of the backpack. Whether from store or business or camera phones, they weren't traffic cams.

[Abbey Marie]

I dunno, seems to me that in the OP it was pretty specific to traffic and efforts to end those cameras. Good reasons to do so:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Petition-to-put-Sugar-Land-red-light-cameras-to-a-4446191.php

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-20/news/38695286_1_red-light-cameras-american-traffic-solutions-right-angle-crashes

http://www.mercurynews.com/roadshow/ci_23034857?source=inthenews

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/03/18/red-light-cameras-lawsuits/1985537/

All over the country, for same and different reasons, many citizens are petitioning to have the traffic cams removed.

This issue is altogether different than companies and even local government cameras positioned for crimes beyond traffic and revenue raising. Lord & Taylor videos captured the mother of the alleged bombers of Boston marathon, shoplifting. Videos from other locales captured the walking of the brothers and dropping of the backpack. Whether from store or business or camera phones, they weren't traffic cams.

I thought these posts were split off from the discussion on surveillance cameras. Two OPs?

[Robert A Whit]

That's okay with me.

To me, a crime is a crime.

A camera to detect crime is ...

well, a camera to detect crime.

What i was speaking of has to do with cases holding up in courts.

But somebody decided to misunderstand it.

[Kathianne]

I thought these posts were split off from the discussion on surveillance cameras. Two OPs?

I'm confused. I read your remark and went to #1, which was a Bobby post.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm confused. I read your remark and went to #1, which was a Bobby post.

My original OP, before someone tried to change the subject, was surveillance cameras specifically, not traffic cameras. Jim was nice enough to split the thread when he realized someone wasn't going to follow the rules and stay on topic.

[Kathianne]

My original OP, before someone tried to change the subject, was surveillance cameras specifically, not traffic cameras. Jim was nice enough to split the thread when he realized someone wasn't going to follow the rules and stay on topic.

thanks. Thus the problem in reference to OP. In this thread, a spin off of those that couldn't deal with topic, Bobby led.

[Robert A Whit]

thanks. Thus the problem in reference to OP. In this thread, a spin off of those that couldn't deal with topic, Bobby led.

When I tried a day or two ago, to post something new, Jim told me to knock it off and post things like that in the same thread. I noticed he moved that post by me to a thread he favored.

This time, I post in the same topic and this time it gets moved.

I give up.

[jimnyc]

When I tried a day or two ago, to post something new, Jim told me to knock it off and post things like that in the same thread. I noticed he moved that post by me to a thread he favored.

This time, I post in the same topic and this time it gets moved.

I give up.

No, you tried to start multiple threads on the same subject, I moved them into the thread already discussing that subject. I had to do that a few times, even though you bitched. Now I asked you several times to stay on topic, as per reported posts, you were changing the thread topic. To be nice, I split the thread into 2 topics instead of thread banning. Now you can just stay out of this thread too. I'm tired of your bellyaching about me.

[hjmick]

Huh... I was all set to post in this thread, but I have no idea what the topic is...

The legality of red light cameras?

The reasons some municipalities are choosing to remove them?

Do red light cameras use still photography or video?

The use of department store surveillance cameras?

The use of department store surveillance cameras as tools in the Boston murder/terrorist bombing and the subsequent capture of the perpetrators?

Robert's A tWhit arguing/playing the victim again?


To hell with it...

[Kathianne]

Huh... I was all set to post in this thread, but I have no idea what the topic is...

The legality of red light cameras?

The reasons some municipalities are choosing to remove them?

Do red light cameras use still photography or video?

The use of department store surveillance cameras?

The use of department store surveillance cameras as tools in the Boston murder/terrorist bombing and the subsequent capture of the perpetrators?

Robert's A tWhit arguing/playing the victim again?


To hell with it...

Hey, pick a topic. Personally, I'm against 'red light cams,' but that's me. ;)

[Abbey Marie]

Huh... I was all set to post in this thread, but I have no idea what the topic is...

The legality of red light cameras?

The reasons some municipalities are choosing to remove them?

Do red light cameras use still photography or video?

The use of department store surveillance cameras?

The use of department store surveillance cameras as tools in the Boston murder/terrorist bombing and the subsequent capture of the perpetrators?

Robert's A tWhit arguing/playing the victim again?


To hell with it...

What does that have to do with the price of red cabbage in Australia? :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

I'm confused. I read your remark and went to #1, which was a Bobby post.

I was replying to Robert, and his problem with being split from the original thread.

[Kathianne]

I was replying to Robert, and his problem with being split from the original thread.

I got in, when I did. Bobby's post was #1 then. Seems I'm lost now, too many OP under discussion.

[Marcus Aurelius]

deleted by poster

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

i dunno, seems to me that in the op it was pretty specific to traffic and efforts to end those cameras. Good reasons to do so:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/petition-to-put-sugar-land-red-light-cameras-to-a-4446191.php

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-20/news/38695286_1_red-light-cameras-american-traffic-solutions-right-angle-crashes

http://www.mercurynews.com/roadshow/ci_23034857?source=inthenews

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/03/18/red-light-cameras-lawsuits/1985537/

all over the country, for same and different reasons, many citizens are petitioning to have the traffic cams removed.

This issue is altogether different than companies and even local government cameras positioned for crimes beyond traffic and revenue raising. Lord & taylor videos captured the mother of the alleged bombers of boston marathon, shoplifting. Videos from other locales captured the walking of the brothers and dropping of the backpack. Whether from store or business or camera phones, they weren't traffic cams.

i am dead set against the red light cameras.
If they want to catch more violators , force the cops to stay away from the donut shops.

Install cameras there to catch the cops that refuse to stop being so damn lazy about their job.

[DragonStryk72]

Yeah, I can understand getting rid of them, and how they could cause actions. The one up by my house, when it goes off, has this insanely bright flash in order to catch the pic. Even if you're in the other lane, it is incredibly startling, so I can see how it might cause accidents.

As far as its use as a tool, it does have some, but the technology isn't the best yet, so that's gotta be worked on. As to people having the shade down, and claiming it wasn't them in the car, um, well if they didn't report the car stolen, then guess what? They can just settle up with whoever did get the ticket, since they clearly allowed them to have the car.

[glockmail]

Legal or illegal, I don't really care. I don't want to be T-boned by some dumbass running a red light. And I've been caught by one of them.

[Abbey Marie]

Legal or illegal, I don't really care. I don't want to be T-boned by some dumbass running a red light. And I've been caught by one of them.

Same here.