Stupid Traffic Camera Cop
 

I really think that the photocops are just lame. Even lamer when someone reviews it and still thinks that this is a good one.

There is an intersection a few blocks from my work that had a red light camera installed about two years ago. I've lost count of how many times I've seen that camera light flash when a car is going through a green light, or stopped safely behind the crosswalk at a red light. I've only seen it flash one time due to someone actually running a red light. I don't know the review process that the city uses but it sure doesn't inspire any confidence. And don't even get me started on cities shortening yellow lights to increase the revenue from the cameras.
Recently the city my parents live in has been updating a lot of their traffic signals at major intersections. The pedestrian crosswalk signals now have a countdown timer so you know just how much time you have before the light changes. It is great, since I can see the timer and know if I need to punch the gas to make the light or if I have no shot of making the light so I need to lift off the gas now. Of course the city does not install these countdown timers at the intersections they have the red light cameras, so you don't know when the light is turning yellow, and when it does you have less time to get through the intersection or get stopped. The idea of red light cameras and speed cameras as a safety tool is a pathetic cover for their real purpose of revenue enhancement.

At least with the camera there's a chance of having proof that you didn't break the law. If it's just a police officer saying he saw you run the light, you're screwed.

In the US, unless a traffic enforcement camera is 100% owned and operated by a police department and has its source code published for review by anyone who wants to see it, tickets issued based on photos should be considered a violation of the Sixth Amendment. In countries that don't have that sort of protection or guarantee of being confronted by witnesses, it's still a fucking scam.

While I typically support laws protecting private and public property, I fully support those who take a risk and destroy or disable traffic cameras. They are about money, not safety, and if they aren't profitable, maybe they'll go away.

I've seen many destroyed traffic cameras, but to be honest it's a simple "don't break the fucking law" or at least "don't get caught". So long as the source code is available and there's accountability for screw ups and oversight to prevent abuse, I have no problem with them. If you don't want a ticket, leave 5 minutes earlier and you won't have to rush.

One of the many issues is that traffic cameras are not owned by the government, but by private companies making bank. So they're only "enforcing" the law because it lines their wallets.

I completely agree with this. Seattle installed red light cameras a few years ago in certain intersections and in my opinion they have made those intersections less safe.

What I have observed is that when people are driving towards these intersections, they actually slow down even if there's a green light. I've also seen people slam on their brakes when a yellow light first appears.

Also many of these intersections become clogged between 3pm -7pm everyday because the traffic is so horrible. If you are caught in the middle of the intersection blocking traffic the camera goes off. Rather than fix the problems the city chooses to profit from them.

I was examining the cameras to determine the best way to destroy/disable them, but it would simply be too difficult without the use of a firearm (which is out of the question for safety purposes). They are mounted very high up on the smooth traffic light poles.

If the cameras where located in some rural or country location I would definitely correct the government of their mistake.

"I've seen many destroyed traffic cameras, but to be honest it's a simple "don't break the fucking law" or at least "don't get caught". So long as the source code is available and there's accountability for screw ups and oversight to prevent abuse, I have no problem with them. If you don't want a ticket, leave 5 minutes earlier and you won't have to rush."
I can't add much more to this. Really not worth the risk just to arrive @ work a couple of minutes earler. Cameras or not, still not worth the risk.

Interesting line there. I recall you said that is not a valid argument when Ustwo said that about the Patriot act.

Personally I believe the Patriot Act should not be reinstated next time, and the traffic cameras should be torn down.

And traffic cameras are notoriously inaccurate -- -one in Florida clocked a palm tree doing 90.

3 words:

paint
ball
gun

wont destroy, but if they have to clean them every other day....

There's one at a major intersection near my house, and thus on my usual route home. Haven't had the misfortune of getting "caught" by it yet, and hopefully won't need to worry about that ever. It's actually a source of comedy for me, 'cause I laugh at others that get caught as they technically run the red light as they turn left. It definitely has changed my driving habits at the intersection, and I think it's mostly done a good thing.

I've heard secondhand stories of how other cities tore down erected camera stations because they were _too_ effective at catching violations, and thus people started following traffic laws to the letter, and thus revenue was not enough to pay for the camera cost.

This is a great way to get sale or ownership of paintball equipment banned.

would be no different than spray paint, which is used for graffiti (and huffing, so I've heard) by hooligans the world over. at most, you'd see cities put a minimum age limit to purchase in effect.

Destroying and vandalizing other people's property is not the answer.

Don't break the law and you're fine.

problem is frequently the cameras are installed in places where ppl accidentally go a little over eg in a dip so many ppl get caught going just a little bit over which is much more profitable than the odd person actually willingly breaking the law. i challenge people here who have ever driven a car here to honestly say that they have never, under ANY circumstance driven above the speed limit. this is why officers practise discression.

what they don´t tell you is that these cameras break a fundamental right: innocent until proven guilty. i´ve fought this case back in au and won. they don´t tell you the onus is on them that *you* were the one who broke the law.

ps yes i do support the destruction/vandalism/disabling of these cemeras as they replace actual enforcement of safe driving with distrust and create places where people know the police won´t be since there are cameras so between cameras they can do what they like.

Weren't traffic cams ruled unconstitutional because it puts non law enforcement agencies in the field of law enforcement?

Spraypaint has a whole lot of uses that mean people won't ban it. Paintball is a fun sport, but people who dont' give a shit about that will ban it, like two towns over from me where you can't sell air guns or paintball guns, both of which were banned after people went on vandalism sprees with them.
What if the law is wrong?

Then change the law. Vandalism and destroying property is not the answer. There's no excuse for property damage.

If the government is acting in a manner that is unsafe to the public (which in my experience it is) then property damage is justified.

Since when does civil disobedience cover blatant destruction of property? That just seems like it's going to create more problems than it will fix.

what problems?

I have to admit that I slow down for camera intersections because I know that I could get a camera ticket for speeding through one. I don't know if I'd call this a safety hazard, since people behind you are supposed to brake when you do. It definitely can cause congestion though.

I'd also condone someone sabotaging a traffic camera, even if it would drain public resources. The camera should be there to deter serious infractions, not generate revenue.

Redlight cameras...ah yes... Those of you saying "don't break the law; don't get a fine" have obviously never been the victim of this monetary scam between the local authorities and the third-part company who owns, operates, and collects the "administrative fees". You've never been "that guy" who had the camera go off while you legally making a right-turn-on-red. Never been "the guy" who wasn't EVEN in the damn vehicle when it went through the red light becase it was being towed to a repair shop, driven by your employess or family member or friend, or worse being driven by someone who just stole your car. "If that's the case, then fight the ticket....er...."payment voucher"... and they'll dismiss it. But you're not "the guy" who falls in this class of folks above who can't fight it, well.....because it's a CIVIL matter and there's is no court who'll see a $75 civil matter, no attorney who'll fight tooth-n-nail for you for a $75 civil matter, certainly no "criminal" attorney that's you've used a number of times because well....HE"S A CRIMINAL ATTORNEY and not a CIVIL ATTORNEY. All of the examples I've list and hundreds more actually happened. The city I live in was the first to dig it's way around Texas laws after several failed attempts in getting it passed. So they went around it through a loophole. Since then, cities around the state have followed suite. We, in this state at least, have proof that yellow lights were shortened to pump up the revenue, that my city violated state law by creating a "imaginary line" in the intercestion (see: Texas Red Light Camera Offenses Require Imagination) and (A Simple Method To Dramatically Decrease Traffic Congestion & Why Cities Aren’t Using It) and infact studies show that the cameras actually caused more accidents at those intersection they were installed in (see: Red-Light Cameras Just Don’t Work) A good website to view these and other information is The National Motorists Association Website Educate yourself...

Boston Tea Party ring a bell?

Get used to it, I'll bet its a cheap way for municipalities to generate revenue while enforcing the law. I'd love to see what the ROI is on the investment required to support traffic cameras. Probably its easy to sell to cities.

ROI? the company pays for it not the state, they upkeep it, not the state, revenue is split. where's the downside?

seems like a no brainer of just collecting funds with no outlay at all.

My opinion on this issue has changed recently, and I'm going to post in defense of traffic cameras.

I proceed with the following underlying assumptions.

First, we have to recognize that the vast majority of traffic laws are made and designed to raise revenue. There's nothing inherently evil or unsafe about speeding for example, but local municipalities make a boatload of cash off of ticketing violators.

Second, if there weren't cameras at these intersections then police officers would be employed to routinely monitor them and be expected to issue tickets to justify their jobs.

With these assumptions in mind I see traffic cameras as a positive. By removing the power and likelihood of cops pulling you over for running a red light we are actually restoring privacy rights, rather than removing them. I'd much rather just get the ticket in the mail than have to deal with some pig fuck for 10 minutes while he lectures me on the importance of road safety. Go fuck your mother copper, I'll run through red lights all I want. Send me your fucking ticket so I can pay my road maintenance fees and stop fucking with me.

Red light cameras > pig cops. Every cop left unemployed because his stupid fucking job is now obsolete thanks to a red light camera is a win for privacy and human rights.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer these local municipalities to go pound sand and stop with the bullshit annoyance crimes enforcement alltogether. I'd also like to see drugs legalized, taxes eliminated, and prostitution encouraged as a legitimate vocation, but that shit ain't gonna happen, so I'll take what I can get.

Are you SERIOUS??? :shakehead:

So you think there is nothing inherently dangerous in speeding or running a red light? How about the person who is coming through the intersection with the green light? you don't think you are endangering THEM when you run through the light going too fast? It is people who drive like you do that cause accidents at intersections all the time thinking that it is just fine to run red lights. You think that the only job for a police officer is to write you speeding tickets? WOW you are sadly misinformed. I would like to see you honestly try and justify your comment of "Every cop left unemployed because his stupid fucking job is now obsolete thanks to a red light camera is a win for privacy and human rights." Really? HOW?

As far as eliminating taxes, where would you like to see the money that is used to build the roads you like to speed on come from? How about the military who help to make sure that you even HAVE a country to call home? Where should THEIR paychecks come from?

And sure, lets legalize drugs so the drug dealers can get every kid in America high so they can overdose and die, or become vegetables. I mean seriously WTF??

Hmm... I think this is enough evidence to support the installation of traffic cameras at every intersection. Just because you can pass a road test doesn't mean that you should be on the road.

QFT!

Aside from the fact that traffic cameras are unconstituional, having police officers pull offenders over has a very strong secondary advantage. A cop gets to eyeball people. Maybe they reek of pot or alcohol. Maybe they have illegal items in their car and act nervous. Or they have no insurance or have outstanding warrants. I bet pulling offenders over helps catch a lot of those people. Cameras don't check alcohol or drugs or violence. They let criminals go.

Very good point. Also, a real life patrol officer would have given the tow truck driver the ticket, not the owner of the towed vehicle.

well they say palm trees are among the fastest of tree species