photo speed enforcement equipment

[fury2neon]

I agree completely with the Demolishman reference. Each new surveillance tool against supposed free people is one step closer to Orwell's 1984.

We already have "new speak" where the meaning of terms are changed to hide the agendas of the various political parties and change how we think about news stories.

Everything that strips liberty from us is always for the children or the elderly or our own good. We need a lot less government and lot more personal responsibility. People who are not responsible for themselves are owned by those who are responsible for them. Our nation has moved from freedom to dependence (slavery). I fear for my kids and what kind of chance they will have just to live their own lives without government interference.

I know this post is just about traffic cameras but every inch we move toward totalitarianism is the wrong direction.

[Caster]

When they mail you a picture of your car speeding with a ticket, you should mail them a picture of the money they're demanding.

[Timestepper]

When they mail you a picture of your car speeding with a ticket, you should mail them a picture of the money they're demanding.

Had a buddy that did that - they mailed him a picture of handcuffs. (He paid the fine!)

[Alleycat72]

Speeding is not the problem, wreckless driving is.

[Timestepper]

Kinda' strikes me as funny that if you ask 5 people if they are a good singer, maybe 1 will claim to be. But if you ask those same 5 people if they're good drivers about 4 1/2 of them will claim to be above average... and 3 of them will have been involved in an accident within the past 3 - 5 years.

[TMF]

Excessive speeding IS reckless. If someone can explain to me how using a camera to document a person breaking the law on public property is violating the Constitution I would appreciate it.

Lots of other crimes that are caught on tape are used in the court of law as evidence so I don't see how this is different. If it isn't legal then I should be able to rape someone in a public park that has video surveillance, then fight charges in court claiming the camera is a machine and, therefore, isn't a valid witness.

At the end of the day this only affects those that are breaking the law. So long as the government isn't breaking the law in their collection of evidence I don't see the problem.

[DaveTN]

Kinda' strikes me as funny that if you ask 5 people if they are a good singer, maybe 1 will claim to be. But if you ask those same 5 people if they're good drivers about 4 1/2 of them will claim to be above average... and 3 of them will have been involved in an accident within the past 3 - 5 years.

That’s because it’s always the other guys fault.

[Timestepper]

Excessive speeding IS reckless. If someone can explain to me how using a camera to document a person breaking the law on public property is violating the Constitution I would appreciate it.

Lots of other crimes that are caught on tape are used in the court of law as evidence so I don't see how this is different. If it isn't legal then I should be able to rape someone in a public park that has video surveillance, then fight charges in court claiming the camera is a machine and, therefore, isn't a valid witness.

At the end of the day this only affects those that are breaking the law. So long as the government isn't breaking the law in their collection of evidence I don't see the problem.

Bingo! Ding, ding, ding, ding ding! We have a winner!

Very well put, Sir!

[Timestepper]

That’s because it’s always the other guys fault.

That's because no one wants to take personal responsibility anymore.

[NRA]

ahhhhhhhhh........... BIG BROTHER ..........ahhhhhhhhhh....... ahhhhhhhhhh

[DaveTN]

If someone can explain to me how using a camera to document a person breaking the law on public property is violating the Constitution I would appreciate it.

I don’t think it is.

But years ago (70’s or 80’s?) California outlawed the use of radar. They said that randomly checking the speed of everyone that came by was an “unreasonable search†because there was no cause to be checking them. I think CA uses radar now, so maybe their was a SCOTUS decision on it; I don’t know.

I know we were trained that “radar is an aid to what we visually observeâ€.

Edited May 25, 2012 by DaveTN

[Guest bkelm18]

The photos are reviewed and approved by an officer, so it's not like the camera takes your picture and spits out a ticket.

[Guest bkelm18]

Excessive speeding IS reckless. If someone can explain to me how using a camera to document a person breaking the law on public property is violating the Constitution I would appreciate it.

Lots of other crimes that are caught on tape are used in the court of law as evidence so I don't see how this is different. If it isn't legal then I should be able to rape someone in a public park that has video surveillance, then fight charges in court claiming the camera is a machine and, therefore, isn't a valid witness.

At the end of the day this only affects those that are breaking the law. So long as the government isn't breaking the law in their collection of evidence I don't see the problem.

Nonsense! This is unconstitutional! The internet said so!

[TMF]

Nonsense! This is unconstitutional! The internet said so!

Blast it! Internet, you may have won this round but I will return

[Patton]

What is so wrong with putting the burden of paying for police protection on the backs of theVIOLATORS? BTW there is not a set amount that you must be over to get a mailed ticket but the guys that do ours have them set for 5 over in the school zones and about 15 over in other places. It really just depends on the location. The most dangerous road in our County gets the speed setting at 11 over but they often set up there just to deter and not have a officer sit with it. By TN law a officer must be watching the camera to mail citations. Chattanooga has some Perm-Mounted ones grandfathered in.

These trailers and trucks will be obsolete in 2-4 yrs. new technology is a handheld LIDAR with a camera built in that takes you picture as your speeding away. Same principal but a lot more mobile and the officer holds it. The same as a officer witnessing you speed but he mails the ticket rather than stopping.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/feb/22/hamilton-county-deputies-testing-speed-detector/

[JohnC]

So let me get this right.....

Police write tickets and check out drivers during stops for warrants, drugs and being under the influence, etc. Their tickets cost a driver points on their record. Too many points and you are a habitual offender and your license will be suspended.

But with the government revenue generator (red light and speed cameras), it does not add points and it is cheaper? So a person can pay their cheap ticket by mail or online and keep on driving like an ass? How does this do anything for public safety?

It also can't catch drunks, DWI's, drug runners, warrants, etc.The DWI drivers would be the more likely people to run redlight and drive recklessly.

I just see this as a plain revenue generator and it does absolutely nothing to make the road any more safe, slow down drivers and catch crooks.

Another scenario is, what if someone has a medical emergency, hazards on, driving a pregnant wife to the hospital, etc., and gets a ticket whereas cop would let them go on unticketed?

I'd much rather have uniformed officers doing this job for obvious reasons. But I understand we'll all never agree on this issue.

[Sam1]

They said the same thing about Oak Ridge. And it hasn't made a difference. Everyone makes a big deal of these cameras and how it will ruin everything but when they're installed nothing changes. Don't speed and you won't have to worry.

hasn't there been more accidents in the vicinity of the cameras since their implementation though? I thought The local gov. had the right turn on red (rolling stop) cameras turned off because they were causing more accidents, even though they are sold to the public as a "safety feature". On top of that, the company that owns the equipment is in court suing the city because they are losing revenue since the city disabled that part of the cameras.

They are installed solely for revenue generation and some states have voted to ban them because they are causing more accidents... TN needs to be next on the banned list. If these were actually used to raise safety awareness, a private company wouldn't be involved and TDOT would own every system in the state.

[Sam1]

Excessive speeding IS reckless.

I disagree, most of these posted speed limits were put into place in the 60's-70's when a small car weighed 5000 pounds and went from 60-0 in half a mile and not 105 feet. Argument can be used on 129 up by the gap, they lowered the speed to 45 mph telling everyone it would save lives. They increased the ticket writing substantially and more people died. They said if we lower it to 35mph it will save lives, their ticket writing increased substantially again and more people die every year.

[Timestepper]

I disagree, most of these posted speed limits were put into place in the 60's-70's when a small car weighed 5000 pounds and went from 60-0 in half a mile and not 105 feet. Argument can be used on 129 up by the gap, they lowered the speed to 45 mph telling everyone it would save lives. They increased the ticket writing substantially and more people died. They said if we lower it to 35mph it will save lives, their ticket writing increased substantially again and more people die every year.

Sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold up.

The fact that "more people die every year" has nothing to do with the posted speed limit and everything to do with the reckless drivers who think that the posted speed limit doesn't or shouldn't apply to them. They are also the ones who don't take into account that not everyone shares their belief and so leave themselves no time to react when they suddenly come upon someone who is driving the posted limit.

Edited to add: I've never rear-ended anyone while I was driving the posted speed limit. However, I have been rear-ended while driving the posted limit by someone who was not driving at the posted speed limit.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Timestepper

[Guest bkelm18]

hasn't there been more accidents in the vicinity of the cameras since their implementation though? I thought The local gov. had the right turn on red (rolling stop) cameras turned off because they were causing more accidents, even though they are sold to the public as a "safety feature". On top of that, the company that owns the equipment is in court suing the city because they are losing revenue since the city disabled that part of the cameras.

They are installed solely for revenue generation and some states have voted to ban them because they are causing more accidents... TN needs to be next on the banned list. If these were actually used to raise safety awareness, a private company wouldn't be involved and TDOT would own every system in the state.

So you are blaming the cameras for the increased accidents and not the people for breaking the law to begin with? For the record I have not seen anything indicating that the accidents have increased. They may have or they may have not. I'm not sure.

Of course they are for revenue. Any traffic ticket is for revenue. That's why they cost money. Do you think police officers set up speed traps, checkpoints, or cruise the streets purely for their own pleasure? Don't break the law and you won't have to pay. It's quite simple. I never understood why people can't wrap their heads around that.

Edited May 26, 2012 by bkelm18

[Timestepper]

Blaming traffic cameras for speeding tickets and accidents is kinda' like blaming the spoon because you're fat. Don't wanna' be fat? Don't eat so freakin' much! Don't wanna' get ticketed by a speed camera? Don't speed! Don't wanna' have an accident? Turn the stereo off, throw your gawd-damned cell phone out the window and PAY SOME FREAKIN' ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH YOUR 2,000 POUND PERSONAL MISSILE!!!

:wall:

"But I got a ticket I didn't deserve!" :cry:

Bull####! You let your attention lapse and got caught doing the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time!

"But cameras are an invasion of my privacy!" :cry:

So don't do anything in private that you shouldn't do in public and you won't have to worry about it!

Come on people! I know it's politically incorrect, but grow some balls and start taking some personal responsibility! Your sucky life is not the world's fault, it's YOUR fault! Don't like it? Pull up your big girl panties and change it! Or leave it the way it is, but quit blaming everyone and everything because you lack the back bone to exercise some personal pride and initiative!!!

Ok, rant off.

[NRA]

Good stuff Timestepper

[Guest bkelm18]

Ya wanna know how to get rid of the cameras? It's not through legislation. That simply won't happen. It's all about the $$$. You wanna know how to get rid of them? Stop speeding. Stop running red lights. As long as they generate revenue they will continue to exist. When they stop generating revenue and the city starts taking a loss on them, they will be taken down. Shockingly simple.

[DaveTN]

Now I’m curious…

I knew Murfreesboro has red light cameras, but I just looked at a web site that says they have speed detection cameras also… I did not know that.

I wonder what the revenues really are after all the costs. I wonder if sworn Police Officers monitor the equipment and issue the tickets. Is the limit their discretion or do they have set limits? Do they have quotas or “acceptable standards� Do cities get to monkey with the timing on red light cameras or is it covered by state law or procedure?

Do we have anyone on here that is involved with the operation of these enforcement cameras?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[TMF]

I disagree, most of these posted speed limits were put into place in the 60's-70's when a small car weighed 5000 pounds and went from 60-0 in half a mile and not 105 feet. Argument can be used on 129 up by the gap, they lowered the speed to 45 mph telling everyone it would save lives.

Speed is THE leading factor in traffic fatalities. My son figured this out when he was two. He discovered that if you run into objects going fast it hurts more than when you're going slow. This is simple physics.