|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2001 : 18:23:44 [Permalink]
|
Weelllll, hello!, and.....that's a good idea, Deborah.
From now on when approaching and driving thru traffic signals, I think I'll don my Groucho Marx mask and Indian war bonnet. |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2001 : 18:28:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
intersections that take pictures of drivers and license plates when they run a red light. What do you think?
I think everyone should buy a Volvo and then they wouldn't have to worry about getting in an accident. I've been in two head on collisions with mine, among the others and it's not all that bad. Well, not for the driver....the car was accordioned and in the shop for a long time.
Cameras now, what else next? That's the conclusion I come to after hearing several debates about them. We here in Los Angeles have had cameras for a while. Lawyers are trying to get people out of the tickets too. My brother has a story about getting a photo and ticket in the mail. He went to court to explain and try to prove how the timing was not calibrated correctely. I think he still lost. I'll have to tell him to read these posts. ha ha.
The ones who are going to get rich off this are the lawyers and the camera company. And we the public are going to pay...with more then money, our liberty.
"It's all hype, until you prove it"
T. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2001 : 18:35:55 [Permalink]
|
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!quote:
An alternative advise could be to obey the speed-limit.
A better analogy to seatbeltless-driving would probably be freeclimbing or tightrope-walking without a net. Not wearing a seatbelt is not really increasing your chances of having an accident, it just increase your risk to injure yourself when you do.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2001 : 18:37:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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! ; )
LOL
ps. Deb, hey! It's me Snk. Send me your email address to SnkEys@aol.com. How you been?]
"It's all hype, until you prove it"
T. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2001 : 12:06:36 [Permalink]
|
snake:
quote:
The ones who are going to get rich off this are the lawyers and the camera company. And we the public are going to pay...with more then money, our liberty.
The communities here are actually making some good money with this. The public won't have to pay with money but will probably get something out of it.
I don't see what liberties you are afraid of losing. You are only photographed when you drive through a red traffic light or break the speed-limit. Otherwise you won't get noticed. And the information about those who were photographed will not automatically be shared with anybody to create a police state.
So all the liberties you will be giving up are the liberties to break traffic rules without getting caught. In return you get somewhat safer streets and a few less traffic accidents. Seems like a good deal to me.
ljbrs:
quote:
They should not test people according to their ages. They should test people who cannot drive following the ordinary rules.
Of course age is a bad indicator of whether people have the ability to drive a car. Everybody developes and deterioates at a different rate. Still most countries have a minimum age for driving a car. It is generalization and probably even discrimination, but it is a way that works. Making a profile of everybody individually and then deciding in case by case decisions, would be to much work. So we set a minimum age for taking a test, even if some people would be able to drive a car at an earlier age.
The same goes for the other end. Not everybody who has reached the age of 90 is a hazard to the public when steering a car. But enough of them are to warrant a test.
I have heard the argument, that I have had my drivers licence for twice your age and I never had an accident, very often. The problem is that it does not mean anything.
Fact is that your reflexes get slower when you get older. Some of it can be outweighed with experience, but not very much. Especially the group that never had an accident in 50 Years tends to get careless because they won't admit to themselves that they are losing some of their ability. They neglect to adjust their driving style to their abilities and become a hazard much faster then people who have less trust in their abilities.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2001 : 03:04:07 [Permalink]
|
As far as I'm concerned you should know who is driving your car or report it if it is stolen.
This means that if you can't identify who was driving your car when it gets a ticket you should have to pay it.
If you report it stolen then there is a case that you shouldn't have to pay as it probably wasn't you, a set period of time should be allowed for that (say 48 hours, longer if you notify that your going on holidays).
Those who are cheating the system like that are making everyone else suffer.
As for age based testing.
Statistically speaking young drivers cause a lot more accidents and are involved in a lot more deaths then their numbers on the road would indicate, this is often because of inexperience or overconfidence.
When they pass their drivers test they have a tendancy of then thinking they are a perfect driver, if you make them do tests say every year until they have had their licence for 3 years then it would do good to stamp out that attitude.
Older drivers are losing their reflexs and often find it harder to concentrate, as well as losing eyesight, retesting them would make it far harder for them to keep driving when they wouldn't be able to do so safely.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2001 : 08:32:56 [Permalink]
|
Here in Alabama, they are talking of treating it like a parking ticket. This way, it doesn't go on the car owner's driving record, but they are still responsible for paying the fine, whether or not they were driving.
By the way, do we as citizens have the right to cheat on our partners without having to worry about the government taking pictures of us driving around with our girlfriends/boyfriends? This is the only argument I can think of when dealing with the issue of privacy (not MY argument, you understand, I'm just trying to think from all possible angles!)
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 03:06:17 [Permalink]
|
If someone is speeding constantly then it should go on their record, as for photos being taken, they should only be taken if your actually breaking the law and should be confidential, you should be able to go in alone to check the photo if you want.
That way if a person cheats on their Partner the government wont tell thhe Partner (of course some people might rather that happen).
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 04:15:08 [Permalink]
|
I would think that sending a copy of the photo to you in the mail is sufficiently privat. If you allow a partner, you don't want to find out about some aspects of your life, to open your mail, then that is basically your problem.
Of course the photos are confidental and you basically have the right to cheat on your partner without the a state-organ blowing the whistle. But an offical letter should be enough for that. If you use a car that is registered on your partner, you are beyond help in any case.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 07:50:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course the photos are confidential...
On another board, there was a discussion about some pictures of a prostitute (mug shots, nothing naughty) being posted on a local government's web site. They also post anyone arrested in their sting operations. No trial, just arrested. They claimed it was public record, the same lame excuse the press gives for listing a suspect's entire name and address and picture, when they have only been arrested, not tried and found guilty.
This disturbs me greatly, and I wonder if they would treat traffic photos the same way?
Link to St. Paul website: http://www.ci.saint-paul.mn.us/depts/police/prostitution.html
Supposed response from St. Paul police: "Minnesota state laws make all arrest data collected public information. We are just providing that public infomation to the public."
Link to discussion, if you're interested: http://forums.delphi.com/maxcommport/messages?msg=87864.1
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/10/2001 07:52:06 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 13:46:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
snake:
I don't see what liberties you are afraid of losing. You are only photographed when you drive through a red traffic light or break the speed-limit. Otherwise you won't get noticed. And the information about those who were photographed will not automatically be shared with anybody to create a police state.
So all the liberties you will be giving up are the liberties to break traffic rules without getting caught. In return you get somewhat safer streets and a few less traffic accidents. Seems like a good deal to me.
lars, my friend, Don't you get it?
Sure I want speeders taken off the road as much as anyone but at what cost?
The point was, if they start putting cameras up for something 'innocent' like that and tell people ''Oh, we are doing good for the public, don't worry.'' What will be the next 'little' 'innocent' 'public concern' that they will want to put up or take away? People are so used to going through metal detectors at the air port, Why? Because of a few radical idiots. Kids are being expelled for bring asprin to school, why? Because people are hysterical about drugs.[there are many other examples] At what point is it when people are going to wake up and realize little by little slowly our freedom is being taking away. The income tax was, from what I understand, only supposed to be temporary and each year we pay more. Piss on the mesaly $300 Bush is giving back.
Now it's cameras for red light drivers, later it will be for something YOU do. Do you ever wear a pink shirt to work?
"It's all hype, until you prove it"
T. |
|
|
|
Tarquin
New Member
Canada
12 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 14:11:26 [Permalink]
|
Have you never heard? "The cost of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance". These cameras are part of that vigilance. We had speed radar here in Ontario for a while, and much to everyone's distaste, they worked. Speeds were down on the highways. On the other side, they were a political disaster because the voters hated them, any politician who wanted a vote had to be against them, and they were removed. Speeds are up again. I'm glad they are gone, I like to speed. Haven't been cought in over a decade, and a decade ago, I was in that hated 'under 21' demographic. I still drive the same, but I don't get hassled by the law because I look older.
I am personally against manditory testing of specific age groups, but I would not oppose a mandatory test for every driver every 5 yrs or so. The problem is, I can follow the rules for the duration of the test, then ignore them after. The test proves capable of being a good driver, not being a good driver.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 17:51:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Have you never heard? "The cost of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance". These cameras are part of that vigilance.
ROFLOL, you are joking of course!
I don't think that's the vigilance they are talking about. To be serious a min. that is the antithesis of what 'Eternal Vigilance' means, in relationship to government.
"It's all hype, until you prove it"
T. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 18:07:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By the way, do we as citizens have the right to cheat on our partners without having to worry about the government taking pictures of us driving around with our girlfriends/boyfriends? This is the only argument I can think of when dealing with the issue of privacy (not MY argument, you understand, I'm just trying to think from all possible angles!)
Cheat? Such a nasty word!
Is marrage or a relationship a TEST? Not IMO. You enjoy someones company, doesn't mean you can't also want to be with someone else.
Shhh! Don't tell my 'partner' who I've been with. But it's not like I haven't encouraged him to be with someone else too. He's just such a nurd, says he's not interested.
So to answer your question, I think we do have the right but it's an individual thing.
Man(Mankind) was not meant to have only one partner. That's religious thinking and a restriction of our freedom, IMO.
"It's all hype, until you prove it"
T. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 22:36:01 [Permalink]
|
I'm stealing a quote from Ben Franklin here originally postes by rubysue elsewhere but very appropriate.
Those who are willing to give up Liberty for Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This concept of cameras on the street corner is the giving up of liberty for safety sake. Technology can easily be used to chip away at our liberties if we aren't vigilant. This doesn't mean that cameras in public places are necessarily a refutation of liberty. However, they can be used to deny the liberty of individuals. I would be extremely cautious of any attempts to place cameras for anything outside of a record of events that occur that endanger the lives of individuals. Such as is the case with private establishments like banks and convenience stores. There are other ways to slow traffic, i.e. radar at the intersection that turns the light red when a vehicle is speeding. This has been used effectively in a couple cities where I live.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
