Today I received a letter in the mail from the Abbotsford Police Department. Needless to say, I was a little dumbfounded when I read the following..."On January 30, 2003 your vehicle bearing license #xxxxxx was monitored from the area of Matsqui Village to the area of the Abbotsford-Langley border, a distance of 12.1 kms. The speed limit in this area ranges between 50 kmh and 60 kmh, however, your average speed exceeded 79 kmh. Your average speed was determined through a series of calculations based on the time you were seen at one location to the time you appeared at the next observation location. In each instance your license plate number and vehicle description was recorded along with the time and date. The time it takes to travel between these points should not exceed 14 minutes and 11 seconds but your vehicle travelled this distance in 11 minutes and 9 seconds, substantially less than the time it takes to LEGALLY travel the length of roadway that you were monitored upon. This means that you were travelling substantially faster than the speed limit."
The letter goes on to state that as the owner of this vehicle you are legally liable under the motor vehicle act for any violations whether you were driving or not. It also states that they reserve the right to prosecute any time within the next twelve months should it be deemed necessary. If only I had known that I was in a time distance rally!:D

Man, that is some absolute "Big Brother Bull$h!t"...That crap better not come to US roads...People will be on the side of the road with a mask and a hammer, smashing those Orwellian devices! The red-light cameras and photo-radar have not gone over well in the US either.

Especially holding the OWNER responsible, whether he/she was driving or not? That is crap. What happened to the premise of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Mike

Holy crap! The gestapo is even in Canada!:eek: I've never heard of this ploy. Hope our finest don't get wind of this. All I've seen here so far is the cute little trailers they park along the road with a built in radar and a big readout of how fast your going. So far, they aren't using them to issue tickets, just as a "reminder":rolleyes:

You guys better wake up. If you ever travel on the PA Turnpike read the back of the ticket. It states something like " If your travel time is less than the minimum travel time as indicated by your ticket, you can be prosecuted".
Ever heard of the frog in boiling water??

Great editorial about it in Car & Driver. Red light cameras bring Washington, DC $66,300 in revenues - EVERY DAY!!
If you try to contest the ticket it will cost you a non-refundable $20. Neat Scam, isn't it?? If you request camera maint. records to se if it was properly calibrated, you WILL BE DENIED!!
The funniest part is that the cameras actually increased the number of accidents. One jurisdiction actually decreased the number of accidents AND the number of peolple running the red lights to a 1/10th of it's previous rate. How?? They increased the yellow light interval from 4.1 to 5.5 seconds. Needless to say that the revenue from the tickets was never the same.

This is not a slippery slope. We have crashed down the bank and are drowning in the pool.

Right to privacy has basically been tossed into the garbage post 9-11. One big excuse to take away our rights. Bin Laden wins again.

I agree with smashing those damn cameras. However, wouldn't that be a criminal act, Mike? Hhhhmmm.

Back to B.C. You fools elected Campbell. Kick that tyrant out of office.

The big problem with these cameras is they leave no margin of error to the drivers....Every wrong move you make = ticket..:rolleyes:

I don't believe they were using cameras but I have noticed a couple of cars parked at the Abb-Langley border and just outside of Matsqui village.In fact this morning a Pathfinder in front of me pulled off and drove up beside the cars.There would seem to be two people at each end,I don't think they're police,maybe some auxillary Barney Fife wanna-be's.I wonder if the Pathfinder received his letter yesterday (and who knows how many more commuters going with the flow),and stopped to ,umm,have a word with them.I wonder how many more letters I'll receive:rolleyes: ,tomorrow I'm modifying my route to avoid the Gestapo.
John, I did NOT vote for our DUI Premier (what's with Hawaii's laws anyways,DUI a misdemeanor?), though he and your Ralph could keep each other company in the drunk tank somewhere far away.

Originally posted by Kyle Blackmore

John, I did NOT vote for our DUI Premier (what's with Hawaii's laws anyways,DUI a misdemeanor?), though he and your Ralph could keep each other company in the drunk tank somewhere far away.

Ralph is a drunken buffoon, plain and simple. The problem is that we have the "red-neck" factor at work here, and since they are all drunks too, they vote for Ralph. Campbell should have resigned after all the stupid speaches he gave about "accountability."

What an A$$.

actually, some people (reportedly) are getting tickets for being in two places at the same time :D

These tickets are dismissed. I still don't get how these cameras pass the muster of "innocent untill proven guilty."
Agreed on loss of privacy after 9/11, although it's nothing new.
BTW- we were "guilty without a chance of proving innocence" for both the IRS and Insurances for years now... :(

Just be glad that they haven't declared speeders enemy combatents yet.

Stewing about it all night and now my blood's just boiling:mad: !!I can't believe our taxes are being wasted in this totalitarian manner.This should get the editor's page going in the local paper,lord knows how many people are getting these letters.I'm a slowpoke in the Turtle,getting passed by 5-10 people along this route every morning.It's not a highway, just a two lane country road with curves and hollows, lined with farm and home driveways that commuters use.I received a laser speeding ticket along this route about 5 years ago and was offered the chance to avoid the demerit points and fine ($181)if I attended 'Bad Drivers' school.I had to read a manual and take a 10 question test,all of 30 minutes :rolleyes: .Apparently the Abbotsford Police take 'Aggressive driving' seriously.
John,doesn't Canada have a long history of drunken politicians going back to Sir John A, too much pressure,eh?:D
Mike, if it comes to court I'll use you as my defense."No really Judge,I was just driving along when that Doubledrive song came on the radio and it just made me drive faster and faster till I was almost catching up to the guy in front of me.":D

They already issue citations based on photo images here in California. Just get caught on film using one of the "Fastlane" toll lanes without the fastpass transponder. This ticket will even find you if you are driving a rental. Bummer part is, the registered owner (or rentor in the case of a rental) gets the pinch, whether the owner was driving or not.

Here in Denmark we have had these camera-vans for a while now. (a van with black tinted windows with a laser and a camera pointing out the back, parked road-side) -They're EVERYWHERE!

If you get caught doing 51 km/h in 50 km/h zone, you get a $75 ticket. -There's NO slack!
Worst thing is that the owner of the vehicle can be forced by law to give up the name of the driver. -Basically they make you rat out your own family or friends.. That really sux!

The thing is.. These vans (and the threat of not knowing where they are) are supposed to increase the safety of traffic by making people drive slower. But what happens is, that whenever a driver see a van parked road-side, he/she slams the brakes a creates a dangerous situation. That's not very cool..

Freestyler

Kyle wrote:

"The letter goes on to state that as the owner of this vehicle you are legally liable under the motor vehicle act for any violations "

Has any one challenged this yet?

How can they make you responsible for the speed of your vehicle if you may not be the driver?

What about company "Pool" cars, do the companies just pay up? What about busses or trucks, the owner is unlikely to also be the driver.

The only way you could (should) be prosecuted is if the police can prove the car was in your control 24 hours a day....this is a rediculous situation, your wife/son/daughter/nieghbour/guy at the repair shop could all have been driving it, maybe without your knowledge.

This definately needs challenging. In the UK the police need to prove who the driver was before they can prosecute.

Originally posted by PaulG
Has any one challenged this yet?

How can they make you responsible for the speed of your vehicle if you may not be the driver?

Yes! It has been challenged. Only two weeks ago the danish supreme court made it clear that the owner of the vehicle can be forced by law to give up names of relatives or friends who was driving the car when the photo was taken. -And the guy who took this to supreme court was a police officer..!

This is the ONLY law that can force you to actually witness against your close family. -Not even in a murder case is this possible. -And i think it stinks!

Freestyler

Wow:eek: Interesting thread.....and scary too.

I suppose it's about time to check into those "Bond-style" rotating license plates:confused:

Well, they still sell these things don't they?

anti-photo shields (http://www.jammersstore.com/anti_photo.htm)

In some places they are illegal but I also came across a wax that produces the same effect. Can't find the link for that one though...

Originally posted by Freestyler
The thing is.. These vans (and the threat of not knowing where they are) are supposed to increase the safety of traffic by making people drive slower. But what happens is, that whenever a driver see a van parked road-side, he/she slams the brakes a creates a dangerous situation. That's not very cool..

Freestyler

Here too! We have photo radar, and they use mostly mini-vans. When ever you see a mini-van parked on the side of the road, brake lights come on and traffic slows like crazy. Is this safe? NO. Everyone is in such a bloody panic over the photo-buggy that driving goes out the window. Traffic that was flowing nicely has become compressed and dangerous. Also, those not seeing the van can't figure out what the heck everyone else is doing.

I tried one day on the freeway of following the speed-limit instead of driving with traffic flow. That was SCARY. People rushing by me, making it impossible to change lanes at on-ramps. Everyone was frustrated and angry with me. So, what should we do? Drive the limit and create an unsafe environment? Why is everyone driving 15 km/h over the speed limit? Is it the speed limits are too low? Good question.

I feel that hidden photo-radar vans are cash collectors. Ones in plain view slow people down, but only while the van is in sight. The REAL problems on the road are aggressive drivers, tailgating, cutting people off, and generally road raging. Just yesterday I saw a fellow in a truck raging through traffic cause a collision. We have no enforcement when it comes to true dangerous behaviour.

Now, we have cameras and "stations" to determine our average speeds. Nice. Orwell is smiling at us now. Anyone read 1984 lately? It is scary just how close we are to the society he portrayed in the novel. The cameras. The non-independant media. The complete lack of privacy. Wonder what George would have thought about Canada's government talking about "National ID cards" that would carry your biometric information and be required to pretty much walk through any door?

We are letting the government trample our privacy rights in the interest of "safety" (traffic) or "security" (everywhere else). 9-11 was just the excuse they were waiting for.

Originally posted by blackmercedes
This is not a slippery slope. We have crashed down the bank and are drowning in the pool.

Right to privacy has basically been tossed into the garbage post 9-11. One big excuse to take away our rights. Bin Laden wins again.

I agree with smashing those damn cameras. However, wouldn't that be a criminal act, Mike? Hhhhmmm.

Back to B.C. You fools elected Campbell. Kick that tyrant out of office.

Wow, John...ANOTHER thing that we agree on?! The planets must be aligned or something! ;)

Yes, that would be a crime...I didn't say I'd be doing it, although I might...but regardless...it would be a response to a crime against the public. I dunno...Call it "justifiable vandalism" or "temporary public sanity" or something. :D

Mike

Some guy in England got out of his car and went to town on one of these cameras with a baseball bat (cricket bat if you please;)).

Small towns and rural subs are more likely to use these cameras. Its much cheaper for them, its not very labour intensive and you can collect a ridiculous amount of revenue from them.

By the way there was special on one of the networks here about this, the camera system was fitted to a crown victoria. They basically pull up in the morning, set the car up, then leave it there till evening. Its a huge cash cow and in today's budgets strapped districts this could be coming to a two lane road near you.

Well, they still sell these things don't they?

And did you notice that the license plate covered by the shield said "Beautiful British Columbia" on it?

Buy one of those, put it on, and just claim "Oh, it came with the car when I bought it (if used). I keep it on to keep my license plate clean."

-Sam

..." 'presumed' innocent until proven guilty. " Semantically and logically there is a big difference between the concept of a person being "presumed" innocent until proven guilty and a person "being" innocent till proven guilty. You can't believe how much time I spend trying to educate jurors on the difference.

The other misused phrase that gets to me is "...the prosecution has to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt." The correct terms is, "...the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

The "shadow of a doubt" phrase got started with Raymond Burr and Perry Mason (for you Gen-Xers, that's the original version of The Practice :D )

And as far as the speed measuring devices are concerned, they'd probably be illegal here in the U.S. One of the big differences between traffic cameras and the devices apparently being used in Canada, is that with the camera, one can clearly see (at least under most lighting conditions) who the driver is. They are like the cameras installed at the end of rollercoaster rides. With the speed-device, there is no way for the driver to establish that SODDI (some other dude did it).

The biggest "problem" with traffic cameras is when the police department sends the pic home along with the traffic citation. Your spouse opens the envelope lo and behold, there you are, busy driving with SOP (some other person), on the "wrong" side of town and at the "wrong" time of the day. OUCH!!!:eek:

The State of Florida has used the 'rallye' method for years to issue citations on the Florida Turnpike. If you speed then you'd better stop somewhere and let the clock catch up with you. Also the VASCAR airplanes time you in just about every state. Ever wonder what those big white stripes on the freeways are for? They're start\finish lines an exact distance apart. They catch you from the air and radio a ground cop to write the ticket. But I suppose my question would be, why were you speeding to start with? If you play catch me/f#$k me then don't complain when you get caught!;)

Kyle -

I would fight the ticket in court. What they quoted you on the back of the ticket could be taken out of context in a legal manner, in a deliberate move to throw you off balance. Cops do it all the time.

Unless the motor vehicle laws in Canada have changed since I was last in court for a traffic offence, it is the individual, NOT the car, that is fined for a traffic offence.

A motor vehicle cannot be charged with an offence. Only a PERSON can. Regardless of what your ticket says, the prosecution has to charge a person with the offence. Thus, they have to prove that the person being charged was actually present and driving at the time of the offence. As far as I know, there is no legal exception to this rule.

For you to be fined for this violation, the prosecution has to prove that YOU were, in fact, driving the vehicle at the time. Whether you actually were or not is not the point here. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove without a doubt, that you were driving. If they simply photographed your plate, they cannot prove that and you should be able to win.

I'm just glad the conservative government finally dumped photo radar in Ontario.

Good luck!

"People Power" worked in Hawaii last year. The legislature approved the "van cam" and "red light cam" and they went through the two week "we're just issuing warnings" period, the the sh*t hit the proverbial fan. The outrage dominated the news for weeks, the police hated it (they even ticketed a van cam for speeding and unauthorized parking on highway!); traffic court judges threw out cases and publicly stated that there was an unwritten 9 mph margin of error before they would convict.

Under withering public outrage, the state finally pulled the plug on the program and got hit with a million dollar contract cancellation penalty from the contractor. I believe that the public was outraged at the "zero tolerance" stance the state was taking and the financial arrangement with the contractor that gave them a cut of the fines.

Originally posted by BENZ-LGB
The the biggest "problem" with traffic cameras is when the department sends the pic home along with the traffic citation. Your spouse opens the envelope and sees a picture of the offednig driver, busy driving with SOP (some other person), driving on the "wrong" side of town and at the "wrong" time of the day. OUCH!!!:eek:

Actually not.
When you recieve the ticket there IS a nice picture of the car and the driver. But the entire passenger side is manually blacked out in the picture, regardless if someone was sitting there or not.
This is to avoid the scenario you mentioned.

Now.. How would i know all this?:rolleyes:

For a great laugh.. check out THIS (http://www.speedcam.co.uk/index2.htm) site. The british are actually DOING something about it! (choose the button "Gatso" on the menu - then choose "Page 2 - Vandalized Gatsos". Very entertaining. :D


Freestyler

Originally posted by Benzoman
...But I suppose my question would be, why were you speeding to start with? If you play catch me/f#$k me then don't complain when you get caught!;)

Because such low speed limits on the open highway are just another example of government revenue-grubbing and idiot-proofing!

A LOT more lives could be saved by actually TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO DRIVE!!!!!!!!! :mad:

But that approach won't stuff nearly as much money into the local/state government pockets...so it will probably never happen. :rolleyes:

Mike

And as far as the speed measuring devices are concerned, they'd probably be illegal here in the U.S. One of the big differences between traffic cameras and the devices apparently being used in Canada, is that with the camera, one can clearly see (at least under most lighting conditions) who the driver is.


The intersections I go by in Maryland and Virginia that have red-light cameras take pictures of the BACK of the car. This gets the license plate - the ticket is sent to the owner of the car no matter who was driving.

At one intersection I go through every day on the way to work, they shortened the yellow time - more revenue I suppose. When the light turns yellow you'd DARNED well better slam on the brakes to stop if you don't want a ticket.

Ken300D

Originally posted by mikemover


A LOT more lives could be saved by actually TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO DRIVE!!!!!!!!! :mad:
Mike

I agree! But that would be lesson #2, right after we teach people how to THINK!! ;)

Boy I'm real glad we don't have that here my liesnce would be gone so quickly. Can you fight these with any success in court?

I wonder how many Gatsos would be left if they used them in the rural US during duck or pheasant season?

Regards; Double Barrel Darryl

Try Phx esp scottsdale AZ lots of photo radar suvs and vans all over the place. Best are the portable smog sniffers they set up along the highway with you got it photo evidence.

On the PA/NJ/NY tpk speed like hell and take a nice cuppajo break at the rest stop in the median!

Them there plate hiding covers come in handy not to mention those AOL CDs on the hood and roof rack to screw up the camera. In Phx my auto pic did not capture the driver therefore I did not have to pay!

Lookout in NewO, they catch you and take your lic till you show up the next day at the court to pay! If you want a hearing its a few weeks out!

The Pts got so bad as did the insurance rates that I had to give up driving hurriedly!

Those outa sync lights drive me batty though.

Well they weren't there this morning,guess the heat got to them.I haven't received a ticket YET but they reserve the right to prosecute for a year.In B.C. the onus is on the registered owner of the motor vehicle to either take the ticket themselves or have the person who's responsible accept it.Either way it's demerit points and a fine for someone.I realize I was guilty but I'm not an aggressive driver (anymore;) ) and if I slowed to the speed limit I would become a hazard to navigation.We did away with photo-radar vans last year but still have red light cameras,the police still use X and K band radar as well as laser.I've used a radar detector for 20 years and at least you were aware when your speed is being checked, now I have to be on the look-out for occupied vehicles parked along the roadside also ? And then alter my course so I don't hit the next checkpoint too,what an abuse of the law:mad:

They were back again this morning,so I paused just ahead (and out of sight)of "Checkpoint Bravo" for about 3 minutes and then proceeded through."Checkpoint Alpha" was staffed by two young women,possibly volunteers, but more than likely minimum wage workers,sitting in their private car.It just boggles my mind why they would go to all this trouble to catch a few speeders when there is much more serious crime to throw tax dollars at.The photo-radar tickets cost more to issue than they collected,the provincial gov't axed that as an election promise so I guess the city of Abbotsford thought they would get some money this way:rolleyes: .Whats next????

What's next, transponders using GPS to transmit any speed over the limit using the next generation of OBD, ODB-1984!

Or another scenario, emissions testing which hooks the ECU, OBD-II and up, to the states central computer and downloads all the maximin speed info for ticketing.

They want our money.

Originally posted by wbain5280
What's next, transponders using GPS to transmit any speed over the limit using the next generation of OBD, ODB-1984!

Or another scenario, emissions testing which hooks the ECU, OBD-II and up, to the states central computer and downloads all the maximin speed info for ticketing.

They want our money.

That would be easy to do. Digital maps containing speed limit info would coordinate with your on-board GPS unit. Every time you exceed the limit even by 1 km/h, you get a ticket in the mail. EVERY TIME.

Of course, a cottage industry in disabling your GPS will crop up. Then, laws will be passed stating that it is illegal to drive without your "transponder" operating.

Software to intercept the signal and alter it? Hhhmmm.

Or, we could punish any politician that even mentions anything like it by booting their sorry a$$ out of office. Of course, it's a technology that's slowly introduced to keep us from acting up.

George called us "Proles." He had no idea that his book would become the playbook for those that would take away our rights. He assumed we would read it, take heed, and NOT let it happen. Sorry George. Thank God he's not alive to see where we're going, and fast...

From the other side . . . is it that hard not to run a red light or drive over the speed limit?:D

Well no, actually.

That's not the issue. Why don't we let the government put cameras in our homes? Do YOU do illegal things in your home? It doesn't matter. We have an expectation to rights of privacy, even in a public place.

Public places are not owned by the people occupying office in our gov't. They are owned by ALL of us. We have rights and obligations, and I fell that one of rights is some degree of privacy, even in those public spaces. Our obligations include not breaking the law (generally) and maintaining some social order WITHOUT the need to have the police present at every moment.

I suppose some of the US states still have anti-sodomy laws. Well, we should install cameras in bedrooms to ensure laws are not broken. Don't like it? Don't break the law. Now, that's not the same you say. It's private property. So what? So you have rights only when in your own home?

It's not about law enforcement, it's about surviellance.

The loss of true public spaces becomes a real issue when we talk about privacy. Our "public" spaces are more and more becoming real private property. Shopping malls are one good example. As a private property, the owner has the right to invade our privacy. But, shopping malls are fast replacing former real public spaces.

Our communities are being built with fewer and fewer real public spaces. It's seen as "wasteful."

Now, we allow ourselves to be duped into accepting all this watching. We use the excuse of "public safety" to justify things like random drug testing. Allowing companies to invade your privacy in ways that even the police cannot should be criminal. Somehow it's become okay to suspend our rights when we're at work. But, we are confronted with "public safety" when we oppose such invasions. Crap.

They start with photo-radar and red-light cameras. Then it spreads to one higher rung. Before you know it, we're wired 24/7. People think I'm paranoid. But, look at the decrease in our privacy in the last 20 years alone. Can you imagine what will take place as devices become microscopic and data transmission becomes universal?

Ah, but all we have to do is not break the law. No matter what the law says, you won't be able to break it without instant "punishment." Remember that next time you ease a bit over the posted limit to pass an 18-wheeler safely...

Mike,

This is an issue that should be unifying the left, the right, and the middle. It's a threat to all of us...

Quite the rant . . . ;)

"We have an expectation to rights of privacy, even in a public place."

Well, no we don't. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. That's what "public place" means. Steven Wright still smiles for the satellite photos!

"Before you know it, we're wired 24/7."

We already are. No expectation of privacy in e-mail. EZ Pay toll booth systems track when and where you hit the booth or bridge. FCC requires that all mobile phone systems be able to locate a caller to within a few meters. Do I even have to mention grocery store "membership" cards or web "cookies."

We have one of these revenue generating traffic lights that was just recently put up. The light, from about midnight, to 0600 (0700 on weekends) defaults RED for the highway, and GREEN for a school parking lot and spur road out of a partially built subdivision. The red light cameras were installed as part of the traffic light, and of course, out of reach of would be irate citizens.

Words that come to my mind cannot be spoken here. :mad:

Originally posted by MTI
Quite the rant . . . ;)

"We have an expectation to rights of privacy, even in a public place."

Well, no we don't. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. That's what "public place" means. Steven Wright still smiles for the satellite photos!



Public place does not mean "completely not private." It means that it's owned by the public, and there is a different level of privacy. Should the police be able to search you anytime they want when you are in public? Ask you to empty your pockets without any reason? Most places still allow surveillance cameras only if sound is not recorded. There are some expectations of privacy in public, or better yet, common spaces.

We already are. No expectation of privacy in e-mail. EZ Pay toll booth systems track when and where you hit the booth or bridge. FCC requires that all mobile phone systems be able to locate a caller to within a few meters. Do I even have to mention grocery store "membership" cards or web "cookies."

And this is good? It's alright that our e-mail is not private? I don't have a grocery store membership card. They won't pay me enough for my shopping information. At least that is optional. Just because something is so, does not mean that it is right.

Originally posted by blackmercedes
Mike,

This is an issue that should be unifying the left, the right, and the middle. It's a threat to all of us...

Yes, I agree with that ENTIRE last post of yours! Excellent points all around! :) Agreeing with you so much lately is making me feel kinda' wierd! ;)

Mike

Originally posted by blackmercedes
Just because something is so, does not mean that it is right.

VERY VERY VERY VERY true! A person should be able to walk down the street and/or talk to someone without having to worry about being photographed, satellite-imaged, recorded, searched, x-rayed, DNA-analyzed.... Whatever happened to "reasonable cause"? If someone has not given reason to be suspected of something, they should be able to expect to be left alone!

Mike

Breathing is a right, everything else is a "privilege".

Originally posted by rbn3
Breathing is a right, everything else is a "privilege".

Since when?

Perhaps you should review the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution...

Mike

sarcasm is lost on Mike.

OMG! DO I dare type this? "What Mike said!"

Democracy has lost it's meaning. Often, our elected officials seem to think their role is to represent the government's position to us, not represent us in government.

Canada and the US are democratic due-process nations that have rights enshrined in law. There are serious moves to circumvent those documents through "special circumstances" like the so-called war-against-terror and "public safety."

It's amazing the numer of people that would readily accept living in a police state. Not me.

Originally posted by rbn3
sarcasm is lost on Mike.

Yes, it is.

Much inflection and expression and subtlety is lost to this medium. That's what the "emoticons" to your left are for! Use them!

:p
Mike

Originally posted by mikemover
VERY VERY VERY VERY true! A person should be able to walk down the street and/or talk to someone without having to worry about being photographed, satellite-imaged, recorded, searched, x-rayed, DNA-analyzed.... Whatever happened to "reasonable cause"? If someone has not given reason to be suspected of something, they should be able to expect to be left alone!

Mike

I whole heartedly agree with mike, traffic cam's are nothing more than cheap cop's. However I don’t mid them being posted at intersection’s busting red-light runner’s on the basis that they are the most dangerous.

Originally posted by blackmercedes
OMG! DO I dare type this? "What Mike said!"


Holy $h!T!!!! :D The planets MUST be aligned! ;) Or maybe it's the "in response to TLJ" thread bringing us together! We've found a LOT of common ground there! :)

Mike

Originally posted by rsbiomedical
...However I don’t mid them being posted at intersection’s busting red-light runner’s on the basis that they are the most dangerous.

True, but there is still the issue of the camera obviously having a complete lack of discretion.

In certain traffic and/or weather conditions, it IS better to continue thru a yellow/red light, rather than to "lock 'em up" and skid uncontrollably, or cause a driver behind you to rear-end you. A camera cannot discern this, wheras an officer might.

Also, the BIG issue of "who was driving" has already been talked about.

Mike

Originally posted by mikemover
True, but there is still the issue of the camera obviously having a complete lack of discretion.

In certain traffic and/or weather conditions, it IS better to continue thru a yellow/red light, rather than to "lock 'em up" and skid uncontrollably, or cause a driver behind you to rear-end you. A camera cannot discern this, wheras an officer might.

Also, the BIG issue of "who was driving" has already been talked about.

Mike

Agreed~

This is the END!!!! the left, right, and the middle agrees. Forget it, I'm taking my plastic sheeting (or is it sh**tting?), my roll of a duct tape, roll of toilet paper, and taping myself in the basement.

BTW, I'm in trouble, since my Index files keep my every move on the internet (go to Google and type Index.dat + internet + record). Microsoft cannot explain why this file is self-regenerating (you cannot delet it), cannot be access by the user (the only one in your operating system), and why would somebody need to keep a record of your every move on the internet at five different places in your operating system at your own (private property) computer, if you DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME???? How about "reasonable cause"?? Am I under suspicion because I use internet??????

Oh, yeah, to add to that, at work I tried to access my Index.dat file (don't know why, it's encoded), and got a message " in use by other user". Can you spell S-N-I-F-F-E-R???? I'm glad my employer trusts me...

Originally posted by mikemover
In certain traffic and/or weather conditions, it IS better to continue thru a yellow/red light, rather than to "lock 'em up" and skid uncontrollably, or cause a driver behind you to rear-end you. A camera cannot discern this, wheras an officer might.

I can't speak to all red light camera installations, but the system that they tried to set up in Hawaii would only photograph cars that tripped the intersection sensor while the red light was lit, not if it entered the intersection on a yellow.

Originally posted by Piotr
The funniest part is that the cameras actually increased the number of accidents. One jurisdiction actually decreased the number of accidents AND the number of peolple running the red lights to a 1/10th of it's previous rate. How?? They increased the yellow light interval from 4.1 to 5.5 seconds. Needless to say that the revenue from the tickets was never the same.

Don't get me started!!

The DC Chief of Police was asked about how the red light cameras were causing people to slam on their brakes to avoid a ticket and were being rear-ended by other drivers. His response was merely that the people coming up on the rear should be more attentive to their driving. What a LOAD of CR*P!!

I read an article that pointed out that most of the "numbers" that say the incidences of accidents drop are NOT accounting for these rear end accidents. They only use the total number of broadside accidents in their data. Yup, what a LOAD of CR*P!!

Originally posted by sflori
Don't get me started!!

The DC Chief of Police was asked about how the red light cameras were causing people to slam on their brakes to avoid a ticket and were being rear-ended by other drivers. His response was merely that the people coming up on the rear should be more attentive to their driving. What a LOAD of CR*P!!

I read an article that pointed out that most of the "numbers" that say the incidences of accidents drop are NOT accounting for these rear end accidents. They only use the total number of broadside accidents in their data. Yup, what a LOAD of CR*P!!

Yup, you're exactly right...The numbers they publish about decreasing T-bone type accidents look impressive, but they don't account for the LARGE increase in rear-end accidents CAUSED by the things! In most of the cases, if you include those accidents, the numbers stay about the same, at best...In many cases they actually INCREASED the number of accidents overall.

Mike

We have whacks of those red-light cameras, and so far police have done little to show results other than $$ earned.

At first blush, I thought "hey, good idea." But, do they REALLY stop red-light runners? Think about why people run lights - the ones that cause crashes. Are they the "yellow-pushers?" I don't think so. I see those people all the time, and while it's illegal, and they should be ticketed, it seems to rarely cause a collision.

The really-late runners are the people that are drunk, stoned, or just plain completely tuned-out. Would they be thinking "camera-stop!?" No.

We have "high-collision" signs around the city in locations where there are the most collisions. At the bottom of the sign, the reason is given. Almost all are "follow-too-close." This I HAVE seen. Tailgaiting morons. I have seen dozens of crashes caused by this behaviour.

The other thing that disturbs me is the tactics that are used when red-light cameras are employed. In St. Albert, we have a major intersection just as you enter the city from the south. The intersection has a red-light camera. It USED to have a set of amber flashing lights a ways before the intersection to let you know that the light would change before you got there. Those lights were a great thing, as it allowed people to slow in anticipation of the light. I rarely saw people "gun-it" to make the light, and the typical behaviour seemed to be to slow. When we got the infernal red-light camera, those lights disappeared.

Yellow light intervals are often decreased when red-light cameras are installed. This is a revenue grab, pure and simple. And it actually INCREASES the number of crashes. Revenue-addicited government agencies couldn't care about that, though.

We need better driver training/testing. We need graduated licensing. We need re-testing at periodic intervals. We need mandatory jail time for first time drunk driving. Notice that those things actually COST money, and raise little in the way of revenues. Safety? Find me a municipal government truly interested in safety...

When I lived in Maryland and drove into DC I used to pass a cop parked up on the grass on North Captial Street every day. His car was fixed up with a radar gun to catch speeders. Sure, he was in the car to monitor the equipment and all, but usually he was reading the paper or sleeping....

Here are a couple arguments I've heard that may be used in court:

1. the red light cameras are unconstitutional because every citizen has a right to face his accuser in court. Red light cameras can't show up for a court date. You know the rest...

2. (better argument) Only the government can issue a moving violation. The red light cameras are owned and operated by a private company. They're unconstitutional in the first place.

Haven't tried either one (and haven't paid the tickets to DC either), but maybe they'd work.

Lockheed Martin doesn't have the same deal in Canada that they do in the US. Hopefully, it'll remain that way.

Originally posted by blackmercedes
Yellow light intervals are often decreased when red-light cameras are installed. This is a revenue grab, pure and simple. And it actually INCREASES the number of crashes. Revenue-addicited government agencies couldn't care about that, though.

We need better driver training/testing. We need graduated licensing. We need re-testing at periodic intervals. We need mandatory jail time for first time drunk driving. Notice that those things actually COST money, and raise little in the way of revenues. Safety? Find me a municipal government truly interested in safety...

Dammit, John...stop saying things that I AGREE with! ;) This is no fun! :D

Mike

Guys,

At least you have a Constitution to use to argue against these Human Rights issues............


No such luxuries here........but the cameras are still spreading like mobile phones through a High School.

The real insidious thing about the cameras is that they can easily be abused by the police. For example once the camera achieves its goal to reduce the number of offenders on a stretch of road, especially on a local road where the majority of drivers have gotten wise to the camera, the revenue from the instrument will begin to drop. Then, as described by some people on this thread, the police start to manipulate things to keep the revenue coming in like changing locations of said camera or delaying and speeding up the lights to entrap drivers.
In NY we have had several cases in which police officers were reprimanded for using their technical knowledge for and access to traffic signal boxes to entrap drivers. The moveable camera placed in a vehicle is the same kind of thing, or has the potential to be used in this way, if you ask me and should be banned or challenged in court.
Couple these cameras with ticket quotas and a public that is fearful of license seizures linked to tickets not paid and you've got yourself one beautifully running revenue generating machine.

Meanwhile drunks and suspended license drivers get a slap on the hand and a get out of jail free card....after all we got to keep them out there generating revenue;)

Man you people in the UK and Europe are being monitored to death :rolleyes: See below. Notice how this technology is introduced as a way to reduce crime and benefit the consumer in the long run:)



A Radio Chip in Every Consumer Product
By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH and BARNABY J. FEDER
NYTIMES.COM (go there to see the whole article)

Here's a tip to thieves: If you are bent on stealing packages of Gillette Mach3 razor blades, go someplace other than Tesco's Newmarket Road store in Cambridge, England. There, a "smart shelf" continuously queries tiny radio chips embedded in the packages it holds, and senses the silence when one is removed. The system may soon be programmed to alert security when several are taken at once, Greg Sage, a Tesco spokesman, said.

And, yes, Procter & Gamble will notice if a case of Pantene shampoo does not make it to the Wal-mart Supercenter in Broken Arrow, Okla. Its truck is equipped to monitor signals continuously from chips hidden in each case. If any case stops sending its "Hi, I'm still here" signal, a monitor in the "smart truck" will record exactly when and where.

Such technology, known as radio-frequency identification — the same techniques that enable an electronic sensor to record data from an E-ZPass tag or an office door to open for people with chip-equipped cards in their pockets — could one day stymie pilferers. But it is also capable of doing much more for commerce. Beyond Gillette and Procter & Gamble, companies as diverse as International Paper and Canon USA are teaming up with retailers and customers to apply R.F.I.D., as it is known, to tracking products from the time they leave an assembly line to the time they leave the store.

The companies are tagging clothes, drugs, auto parts, copy machines and even mail with chips laden with information about content, origin and destination. They are also equipping shelves, doors and walls with sensors that can record that data when the products are near. "We want to track all of our merchandise, and that includes items that people are unlikely to steal," William C. Wertz, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores, said.

Chip manufacturers are busily spreading that gospel. "That need to have the right product on the right shelf in the right store at the right time — ultimately, that's what will drive our business," said Karsten Ottenberg, a senior vice president at Philips Semiconductor, the leading maker of radio frequency chips and a unit of Royal Philips Electronics.

Early tests are encouraging. For three months in 2001, Gap tested radio frequency tags on denim clothes at a store in Atlanta. Sales jumped because the tags prevented the store from running out of popular items, and the tags made it quicker to find any items in stock.

Typically, 15 percent of shoppers leave clothing stores without getting what they want; during the test, fewer than 1 percent of Gap shoppers left empty-handed.

Radio frequency identification still has too many kinks, however, to be an immediate panacea for retailers. Cordless phones, two-way radios, local wireless networks and other communications devices that are widely deployed in factories, warehouses and stores can interfere with the signals. And, although radio tag readers can, under ideal conditions, identify well over 100 tagged items every second from quite a distance, radio waves have a hard time penetrating metals and liquids — something that Procter & Gamble is addressing with the Pantene test.

And costs are still prohibitive. The electronic tags cost at least 30 cents apiece; most experts think anything above 5 cents is too expensive to be widely used for individual packaged goods. Prices would have to fall to less than a penny for virtually everything in stores to be tagged. Sensors, which can be either hand-held or built into walls, can cost $1,000 each.

But costs are coming down fast. Alien Technology, for one, says that it can now sell radio frequency identification tags profitably at 5 cents each for orders of a billion tags or more. Just last month, Gillette said it would buy up to 500 million tags over the next few years from Alien.

But Alien's manufacturing capacity is currently just a small fraction of what it would need to fill orders over a billion quickly. And experts warn that while the silicon chips continue to shrink in size and fall in price, making the attached antennas small enough and cheap enough is much harder.

Moreover, most retailers say they are reluctant to invest in the technology until product tags are universally readable, as bar codes are today. That means that every retailer, manufacturer and carrier must agree to standards, and use tags and sensors that speak the same language.

"It's one thing to say something is a great technology, but quite another to say that you're ready to scrap existing systems to accommodate it," said Daniel Butler, vice president for retail operations at the National Retail Federation, a trade association based in Washington.

Consumer privacy is also an issue. It would be easy to combine credit card data with information from the retail chips to know who bought what, and when — and, conceivably, track the product even after it left the store.

Good thread.

I worked for the private firm in the DC metro area (a Lockheed subsidiary) analyzing red light and radar camera data for DC, Fairfax, VA and Alexandria, VA.

There are a fixed number of cameras rotated among different locations so that drivers don't necessarily know where they all are, or will assume they are in the same place all the time and drive carefully in that area. (If you live in No. Virginia, you may know that drivers have been conditioned to slow down and clear the left lane of westbound Rt. 66 between Fair Oaks and Centreville in anticipation of the two State Police cruisers that are usually, but not always, sitting together on the median. The same shift in behavior occurs where people know there is a camera – whether it is actually there or not.)

I would agree that DC sees them as a source of revenue, which really sucks ass. Alexandria does not -- they have only two cameras, in fact – and use them for safety reasons. As for Fairfax, I am unsure. And as annoying as the cameras may be, they do indeed work to decrease incidents of red light running and speeding. (And the private firm is paid a flat rate – their revenue is not based on the number of tickets issued.)

More important, drivers have a LOT of leeway. Only about two thirds (if that many) of the violators photographed are actually mailed summonses. Reasons range from impossible to read plates, to judgment calls by the photo reviewer that suggests there was justification or extenuating circumstances for the violation. Even if you are caught, it is still a free ride; just pay the fine and you are done. There are no points, no insurance company notification. If, however, a cop pulls you over, there will be points for sure.

FYI: Those beige plastic license plate covers do NOT work to hide your plate. Indeed, they make it easier for the camera to read your plate by reducing the reflection of the flash. (Use a digital camera to take a flash photo of the back of your car, and then try to read the plate in the pic. 9 times out of 10, you can't.) The only thing that does work is an invisible aerosol spray that makes your plate super-reflective, completely blinding the camera.

>>When the light turns yellow you'd DARNED well better slam on
>>the brakes to stop if you don't want a ticket.

In my time analyzing camera data, I never saw a photo with a yellow light. You can still run the yellow, but if the light turns red before you pass under it, you are probably busted. Just check your rear view mirror for the two flash strobes. :eek:

There are actually two photos that a decision is based on (and which I believe you receive in the mail with your ticket.) They record your speed, location and the time at the first and second camera flashes. Given those facts, you are armed to begin some creative BS-ing. :D

If you are indicating 60 mph, you're f**ked. If you are crawling through, for whatever bizarre reason, at say 5 mph, and are not too deep into the intersection, you can probably successfully argue that you came to a full stop or had some other credible reason for your action. But in all likelihood, that ticket would be tossed before it could even get to you in the first place.

If there is a large truck or SUV directly in front of you, simply point out that your view of the traffic light was obstucted, and given the choice of stopping abruptly or following traffic in front of you, you chose to err on the side of caution, and cruised on through. :cool:

I should add that in DC/VA (not sure about MD) you get a 10 mph cushion on radar cams. In a 55 zone you are busted at 64 or 65.