|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2001 : 16:10:11
|
Poll Question:
Here in good ol' Alabammy, a local issue popping up (and indeed, all over the country) is adding cameras to stop lights and intersections that take pictures of drivers and license plates when they run a red light. What do you think?
(Oddly enough, it's a Republican who is leading the effort for it, and a Democrat who is leading the opposition to it.)
|
| Results: |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 0 counted »» |
Last Vote:
never |
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
|
|
yaxxbarl
New Member
United Kingdom
7 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2001 : 17:52:47 [Permalink]
|
We've had it for years here in the UK, and there is a whole sub-culture springing up concerning the location of these things and how to avoid them. For example, when someone drives along a main road that they use frequently then they get to be able to know where the cameras are. The fact that a lot of the current ones need lines on the road to gauge how fast you're going gives it away somewhat.
Indeed, one council in the south of England has found that if such cameras are placed in a highly conspicuous and visible manner (i.e. painting them luminous orange) they act as a deterrent to speeding.
In the UK it's just that the police are trying to enforce a set of speed limits that many road users seem to take scant notice of and they're using whatever means they have at their disposal in order to augment their already stretched manpower.
The only conspiracy, if any, is against those who flout the road traffic acts.
Ta,
Yaxx. |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 20:58:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here's a link..
Yes, thanks, I had read of this earlier this week! This is a bit more worrisome than the traffic light thing, I think. I'm not sure what their procedure is going to be. Are people going to be hauled in for questioning based on a computer program's interpretation of their face?
I realized after I submitted the poll that I didn't supply an answer that fit my own stance! 
I don't think cameras at traffic lights are going to hurt anyone other than people who break the law (besides any man or woman caught driving around with anyone other than their spouse!  ).
But I think the potential for abuse down the road should at least be addressed before they become too widespread.
So my vote would be, Yes, they are a good idea for what they want to use them for, as long as they are contolled, and their use is limited to what they are designed for.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 22:15:08 [Permalink]
|
But where would this stop? Cameras are already watching you when you shop, when you are at a streetcorner etc.
If something must be done about speeders why not start by making cars that can't go more than the speed limit. My speedometer goes to 130mph. What's with that??? OK, I admit that I had it maxed out a couple of times...for testing purposes only! Maybe some roads could have some kind of sensor built in that would slow a car down when it got to the maximum speed thereby making it impossible to even get a ticket for speeding. While the cameras might work to some degree, they would not solve speeding and would add to the tension on the road. Making cars that can't go 130mph is a good start though and think of the improved mileage and reduced emissions!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 00:13:59 [Permalink]
|
I lived in Germany for nine years and got used to the cameras at stop lights. The picture taken shows the front plate and the driver. Never happened to me, but Ed really takes a lovely picture.
Megan's Dad is a cop, and he says that 3/4 of the intersection accidents he responds to are because of some fool running a red light. BTW, most of the resultant injuries are because the fools weren't wearing seat belts.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Grove
New Member
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 00:46:16 [Permalink]
|
In places like Taiwan, they have cameras and speedometers at intersections...If you are speeding, it catches you and you get mailed a ticket...I don't think things like this are a bad idea...Seems like the safer the better...
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 03:42:03 [Permalink]
|
Here in CO we have at least three radar vans with the same concept. However, they need to use these things where they will do some good. Like the school zone not too far from me where no one pays attention to the big flashing sign over the road saying 20mph.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 03:56:45 [Permalink]
|
As far as I'm concerned tailgaters, chronic red light runners, chronic speeders as well as repeat drunk or drugged drivers shouldn't be allowed to hold licences.
Recently over here there has been some talk that drivers under 21 and over 65 (if my memory is any good) would have to be retested every so often to keep the licences.
Those groups are the ones that are the most likely to cause the accident.
Victims of accidents who weren't wearing seatbelts shouldn't get any healthcare paid for by the public, if they don't have the intelligence to use seat-belts and get injured because of it then its their problem.
If they die because they didn't have a seat belt on then they might be able to win the Darwin Award.
Save the money to spend on people who didn't get their injury by breaking the law (over here not wearing a seat belt is illegal).
I probably wouldn't actually do that, but I'm sure I would get a lot of agreement if I proposed it.
Abondon Drugs, say no to Religion |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 08:51:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But where would this stop? Cameras are already watching you when you shop
Private places have the right to observe you however they want ('cept the old two-way mirror in the dressing room).
quote:
when you are at a streetcorner etc.
This is not a good idea, IMHO. Maybe it doesn't hurt anything now, but what happens when something major in government causes many to rise up in protest. Can they be assured that someone is not monitoring them on the streetcorner, giving out 'harmful propoganda' against the government?
quote:
If something must be done about speeders why not start by making cars that can't go more than the speed limit.
I've wondered about this myself...
quote:
OK, I admit that I had it maxed out a couple of times...for testing purposes only!
My dad used to say that you had to speed every once and a while "to clean out the engine". 
quote:
Maybe some roads could have some kind of sensor built in that would slow a car down when it got to the maximum speed thereby making it impossible to even get a ticket for speeding.
An even easier way, and one that just recently got shot down in court, is having cars equipped with GPS systems. A place called Acme Rent-A-Car, I believe, was charging people $150 per incident if they drove over the speed limit. The GPS system was clocking them wherever they were! Scary and funny at the same time...
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010702/tc/car_rental_gps_speeding_fines_illegal_1.html
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 12:33:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Victims of accidents who weren't wearing seatbelts shouldn't get any healthcare paid for by the public, if they don't have the intelligence to use seat-belts and get injured because of it then its their problem.
In Germany, insurance companies sometimes will not shell out if an accident victem wasn't wearing a seatbelt, even if the accident wasn't their fault.
It's illegal to drive without a seat belt here in South Dakota too, but the law is weird. A cop can't pull someone over if non-seatbelt use is the sole reason for a stop. If they're pulled over for say, a burned out tail light, and the cop notices that no seat belt is worn, only then can he write the ticket. The only exception to this is unrestrained children in a moving vehicle.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 12:54:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's illegal to drive without a seat belt here in South Dakota too, but the law is weird. A cop can't pull someone over if non-seatbelt use is the sole reason for a stop. If they're pulled over for say, a burned out tail light, and the cop notices that no seat belt is worn, only then can he write the ticket.
This is how it is in most states (it's a 'secondary violation' as opposed to 'primary'), but Kentucky just revised their law to make it a primary violation.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of accidents who weren't wearing seatbelts shouldn't get any healthcare paid for by the public, if they don't have the intelligence to use seat-belts and get injured because of it then its their problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Germany, insurance companies sometimes will not shell out if an accident victem wasn't wearing a seatbelt, even if the accident wasn't their fault.
Personally, I wear my seatbelt all the time and require my children to wear theirs, but I'm not in complete agreement with this reasoning.
Insurance companies should be allowed to write their policies as they see fit--I have no problem with that. The publicly paid healthcare is another question.
But if we refuse to pay for those who don't wear seatbelts, then where does it stop. Do we not pay for those who are injured doing high-risk activities such as skydiving or rockclimbing? If your argument is that seatbelt use is legally required whereas skydiving is not outlawed, then I have to ask why we don't outlaw skydiving? I don't know for a fact, but I would guess that skydiving is statistically more dangerous than driving without a seatbelt.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 13:49:27 [Permalink]
|
As Lisa already sad here in Germany automated cameras at Traffic lights or coupled with speedtraps are common. I don't have a problem with that as long as photos are only taken when a traffic offence occures and the Data gained from such activities is not used for anything else.
A good alternative to those cameras has recently begun cropping up in the area. Traffic Lights that automatically switch to red if cars break the tempolimit. It is very effective.
The automatic face recognition thing is a bit different. They are extremly usefull for stuff like big sport-events to sort out known troublemakers. Using them outside of special events in public areas is a bit different. Scanning the crowds for wanted criminals is another thing.
The most important part is that they do not use it for secondary purposes like keeping track of anybody who is not currently a wanted criminal. Like in any such projects many fears of Big Brother aviliated by simple data protection measures like discarding all records that did not include criminals or criminal acts. Another common measure can be to limit crossreferencing of databases that evolve from things like that.
quote:
In Germany, insurance companies sometimes will not shell out if an accident victem wasn't wearing a seatbelt, even if the accident wasn't their fault.
Insurance companies will generally attempt to keep from paying up under a number of conditions like the sky being blue or the contract having being signed on a day ending on 'y'.
But in this case I approve of their actions. The genreall idea behind this is, that you carry a part of the fault for your injuries if you failed to seek reasonable measues to prevent them.
The Skydiving/seatbeltless-driving anolgy does not work. They are to diffrent.
I doubt that skydiving is as dangerous as you make it out to be. But even if it was the law does not have to follow statistics and logic compare for example the dangers of mariuhana and cigaretts.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 14:11:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Skydiving/seatbeltless-driving anolgy does not work. They are to diffrent.
I doubt that skydiving is as dangerous as you make it out to be. But even if it was the law does not have to follow statistics and logic compare for example the dangers of mariuhana and cigaretts.
I don't follow this. Except for the part about skydiving not being that dangerous; as I said, I have no data, so it's highly possible I'm wrong.
The point is that if we will refuse publicly funded medical care to someone injured during the course of one high-risk activity, then why not all of them? (This isn't really an accurate question, I guess; not wearing a seatbelt is not a high risk activity--it is simply the failure to take one specific mitigating action during the course of the risky activity of riding in an automobile).
Regarding all the rest of your post, Lars, I agree totally. Being in the Security field and dealing with the legalities and morality of surveillance of all types, I'm well aware of the line between appropriate and inappropriate use (usually based on the 'reasonable expectation of privacy'). Your interpretation is legally and morally correct, in my opinion.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 14:18:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
not wearing a seatbelt is not a high risk activity
Compared to the results of an accident while wearing a seatbelt, not wearing a seatbelt is indeed a high risk activity. I believe your analogy is a very appropriate one.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2001 : 17:25:23 [Permalink]
|
| They have this in Portland as well. A friend of mine received a ticket in the mail.She decided to test the system out! She thought by the time it caught up to her she might look totally different so she ignored the ticket! About 18 months later when she moved and updated her voter registration card with her new address she got a letter indicating her license was suspended due to an unpaid ticket. She went to the DMV, denied all knowledge of ever receiving any notice. The 2nd notice they sent to her had been returned to them "return to sender" so that supported her denial. They forwarded a picture of the "offender" and a reply letter. She replied that it was not her, she didn't know who it could have been driving her car since it was 18 months previous and the ticket was disregarded. She did have to pay a reinstatement fee to get her driver license back, but that was a lot less than the ticket! My advice in the future is wear shades and a hat when you drive and if you happen to get a ticket in the mail, deny it! The most they can make you do is come to the office to compare the picture against you. Just make sure you don't wear the same shirt! ; ) |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
