Gee Mike, I must have missed something when I studied the Constitution of these United States. I don't recall anything written in it having to do with a person's right to freedom from traffic enforcement through the use of closed-circuit TV cameras.

Even where I live in the liberal Northern California wine country we have cameras on some intersections to catch red light runners. I personally don't think we have enough, and that we should add more until people stop running redlights and rolling through stopsigns.

Give the local law enforcement people a break. The cops in D.C. (just like most communities) are overworked, understaffed, and also have the pleasure of dealing with diplomatic yahoos from all over the globe claiming diplomatic immunity from prosecution of the laws of this nation. Personally, I'd rather have them available to guard the citizens of D.C. from harm than to waste such a valuable limited asset on "speed patrol" that could easily be handled by a camera and computer.

And whenever someone whines about law enforcement, I wonder if they have ever been on a "ride-along", or volunteered any time working with their local police so they have any understanding of the services their local police provide to our communities at the risk of their own lives. Didn't 9-11 give you an appreciation of what the police actually do for us?

It isn't about money, it's about traffic safety. Your opinion would change dramatically if you lost a loved one as a result of a speeding car. Trust me, I've seen it happen way too often.

As for cameras and Big Brother, it is we who are Big Brother thanks to the internet. Our wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters and mothers have webcams where they ply their "special" trade. We have webcams where you can watch paint dry, grass grow, traffic flow, sunrise, sunset, or someone's cat take a poop. And most of that is there just to raise money for someone with no actual benefit to mankind other than mindless entertainment...

__________________

Scott Longston
Northern California Wine Country...
"Turbos whistle, grapes wine..."

Scott, I must respectfully disagree with you on the camera issue...It is a very unfair system of enforcement for traffic violations...there is no way to allow for circumstances, driving conditions, etc. It has been proven MANY times in many places around the country that local government officials and police deptartments use speed traps, radar/laser, and cameras as revenue generators, and personal "piggy-banks", in some cases to ridiculous excess! There was a tiny town here in Georgia recently that was generating a laughably disproportionate percentage of their city's operating budget from ONE SPEEDTRAP! And that was not an isolated incident. The cameras Mike mentioned...There's a $100 fine, but no points on your license???? If that's not an obvious money-grab, I don't know what is!!! If you are a person of healthy financial resources, then what incentive would you have to stop violating the law in this particular location??? As long as you don't mind paying the fines, you can keep right on violating over and over and over with no consequence!

A couple of hypotheticals: What if another car is about to hit me, and I step on it and run a red light to AVOID an accident? The camera will still photograph my license plate, I will receive a ticket, and I WILL NOT pay it, because I was simply being alert and avoiding an accident. Nor will I have any proof that events occurred as they did, so I will have no ground to stand on when contesting the fine! An actual human officer on the scene would have witnessed the incident, and I would not be penalized for ensuring my own safety.

Consider also: what happens when you lend SOMEONE ELSE your car, they speed or run a light, and YOU get a ticket in the mail. Am I now responsible for anyone who breaks a law in my vehicle, even if I was not anywhere near? That's bulls**t.

Contrary to the propaganda that most politicians, police departments and insurance companies want us all to believe, there has never been a direct, statistically proven link established between the number of speeding violations a person receives and number of accidents/injuries/insurance risk of a given driver. UNSKILLED, CARELESS and INATTENTIVE driving kills people, regardless of speed, type of car, etc. Instead of trying to legislate idiot-proof solutions for everything, America should TEACH people to drive before unleashing them on the roadways, so such extreme and controversial means of enforcement would not need to be such an issue.

Our government has long been FAR FAR TOO INVASIVE in the average American's personal lives, and this is just another way they are increasing thier reach and tightening their already too firm grasp on your freedoms. Writing more and more laws solves nothing. Education and reasonable, common-sense enforcement of practical existing laws can solve a lot.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

YES I HAVE! One time unintentional for climbing up and down a building just to get a workout, one time on the 101 with my friend Val who is a CHP officer. It's amazing what a police presence can do to the flow of traffic. In California, especially on the 101 between Malibu and Burbank people are always in a hurry. People weave in and out of traffic like crazy at 90mph. We pulled up behind this one car going about 80mph and it automatically slowed. It's quite a thrill actually. Pretty cool if you ask me

Kuan

The good things most policemen do for our communities is not in question. I think we're all aware that most of them do great work and our lives are better and safer because of it. It's not always a good cop/bad cop issue. Police have a duty to enforce whatever laws are on the books, whether they think the laws are practical and fair or not. Unfortunately, a large percentage of those laws are written by out-of-touch, reactionist, greedy politicians.

Sorry to keep ranting on about the same issue, but it really angers me to watch/read the news everyday and learn of another new way the government has found to intrude on our lives and chip away tiny pieces of our liberties, under the guise of "saving us from ourselves."T

They hope that if they do it in small enough increments, we won't notice and/or won't do anything about it. So far, it appears that they are right...


Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Mike, please feel free to always disagree with me. All of what you are saying may be true. I don't dispute that, but we need to deal with those abuses on a case-by-case basis, and not take up a vigilante mentality about the entire issue as a whole by dismissing every use of traffic enforcement via CCTV as an infringement on of some right we think we have to abuse our driving privilege. Remember - driving is a privilege, and not a right guaranteed by any law. And it's up to common citizens to exercise their right to vote to control these situations.

Not true. The $100 fine is obviously an introductory offer, and is subject to change without prior notice. This is actually how most CCTV-based speed enforcement begins, but trust me, it doesn't last forever, and there is no honest traffic court judge who is going to ignore repeat offenders with deep pockets. They just can't. The penalities will increase to fit the crime proportionally. The CCTV either serves its purpose and is no longer required, or it doesn't, and the fines and points increase. Another possibility is that the traffic code in D.C. is written in such a way that a point count violation can only be issued by an actual police officer.

Then the only answer is to vote in legislation to provide funding for more police officers to patrol these intersections in lieu of the CCTV system. But that means more government control and higher taxes. Besides, if someone is truly alert and a real defensive driver, they don't get into a position where they would need to use acceleration to put themselves in greater jeopardy as a means of avoiding being part of someone else's poor driving about to manifest itself in a collision. If they are in that first situation already, they got there by their own poor driving habits and lack of attention. Rapid acceleration into harm's way is just taking another misguided chance. The statistics bear out my own personal experience. Accelerating to avoid a collision only increases your chances of being in another accident that's likely to be worse than the one you are trying to avoid, and running a red light puts you in a position of even greater risk of sustaining/inflicting a greater injury. And remember, as far as accidents are concerned, it's not how good a driver you think you are. What causes the collision is how good a driver the other guy thinks he is when he gets you involved in his collision by over-driving his abilities.

No, Mike, that's poor judgment. We need to be responsible for our own actions and hold others accountable for theirs. Everyone knows when they lent someone their car, and how long that person had it. You simply match the time and date to your "friend", and have them admit their responsibility for the infraction. And, yes, in fact, you are responsible by law for anyone's actions in that vehicle while using it with your prior consent and knowledge, especially if they broke the law while it was in their possession. Let's say your friend is a wacko and holds up a liquor store using your car to flee the scene. The police have a description of your car and a license plate number. The wacko friend skips town, and you don't have an ironclad alibi as to your whereabouts. You are likely to do some time.

That's not true. As an example, if you own a vehicle with 4-wheel drive, the insurance companies charge you a higher rate because you have the ability to drive off road with it, even if you never do. It's the accessibility of additional roadways that is a factor in their decision to charge higher premiums, not your ability to drive properly off-road. That's an established fact. The same applies to the risk factor of a driver who has documented episodes of speeding over the limit. It's an indicator of disregard for traffic laws, inattentiveness, poor judgment, and a personality type that will cost them money in the long run. If you are a great driver, you should be able to speed with impunity, because you have the good judgment and skill to know when, where, and under what circumstances you can speed s-a-f-e-l-y without that event being documented. The fact that you get caught is clearly evidence to the insurer of your poor judgment and lack of common sense. Remember, if you see the officer in time, and slow down, you stand a much better chance of not being cited than if he has to "surprise" you...

No, people are basically functional idiots. Otherwise there would be no need for stupid product warning labels. And speed, type of car, etc. all do contribute to accidents. Otherwise, I can't agree more. There isn't enough money being spent on proper driver education in our schools, or for the general public. The licensing system should echo the stringency of other English-speaking countries and former crown colonies. We should have to prove proficiency before being licensed, and there should be type-ratings for cars like there are for aircraft. The traffic violator school system needs to be standardized, and there should be a requirement of in-car training, as well as a need to show an improvement in driver skills before being allowed to continue to drive once someone is sent to a TVS. Unfortunately, all of this is contrary to your next issue.

Well, that may be a truly ideal utopian philosophy, Mike, but the reality is that laws are made and product warning labels are written for the same reason: most people are idiots and inherently corrupt.

We live in a sophisticated world with sophisticated laws that have become so complex that we have created an entire structure of government and individuals to manage and interpret those laws. This process took thousands of years. We can't run the 21st century on B.C. principles anymore than we can run cars on tree bark.

__________________

Scott Longston
Northern California Wine Country...
"Turbos whistle, grapes wine..."

Ted, I have to disagree with you on this, and specifically about the fourth ammendment to the Constitution, surveillance does not constitute search. The wording of Artice IV of The Constitution of the United States is as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Your person is not being searched by being observed by a CCTV, even if it is monitored by an officer of the law, and/or recorded on videotape. There is no difference between being watched by other citizens while you are in public and being observed via CCTV while in public, other than the simple fact that your actions may be being recorded on tape by the CCTV.

We are subject to surveillance everytime we leave our homes. There are CCTV security systems in most stores to prevent "inventory shrinkage". There are private agencies who monitor traffic flow (both vehicular and pedestrian), people in public who monitor individuals and the actions of those around them (private investigators hired for personal injury, divorce, and worker's compensation cases), and even those who monitor us for marketing purposes. Yes, marketing. There are actually marketers who visually monitor and record people in shopping malls to see what brand name is on their subject's shopping bags.

The Brits (and the Japanese) have CCTV on streets only where there is a high incidence of crime. These systems are monitored by a dispatcher who can bring assets to bear to apprehend pickpockets, purse snatchers, child abductors, and even suspected terrorists. I say this is a good thing, not a violation of our rights.

When the government wants to install a CCTV system in my home, car, or place of business, I may have an issue with that. Meanwhile, I say, shoot away. Unless, that is, you want to use my likemness for entertainment purposes without a signed release. I am an honest citizen with nothing to hide, and am not afraid of being seen and observed by a CCTV system. It happens to us all every day. Just send me the good footage...

__________________

Scott Longston
Northern California Wine Country...
"Turbos whistle, grapes wine..."