not only red lights but speed cameras

clyde · Jul 10, 2002

The greatest need is for cameras to also pick up speeders: yes, going through a red light can kill, but speed kills even more. Let's have the cameras posted along 2/4 and issue tickets to those who think that "55" means "70".

To commisioner Parran: get over it. No privacy is invaded when your car goes through a red light. Instead you are invading the safety of others.

Clyde

Sharon · Jul 10, 2002

Sure --let's just put a chip in the car so it won't go over 55/mph! This is about money, not safety.

JDouglasParran · Jul 11, 2002

I have tried to focus on the fairness aspect of red light cameras, not necessarily the privacy issue. I have not gone so far as to say that the red light cameras reek of Big Brother, heavy- handed misuse of government authority.
- John Douglas Parran

vraiblonde · Jul 11, 2002

Let me go on record as saying I'm all for red-light cameras, speed cameras and any other camera that will get people to drive more safely and not endanger others. I hate to live in the Big Brother nation that Commissioner Parran mentioned BUT it seems to me that if you don't break the law, you won't have any problems.

I'd be curious about how other communities who've instituted this program are doing with it. Has it reduced traffic accidents? What are the numbers? Because if we have to make a choice between a few folks being inconvenienced by erroneous tickets and a significant drop in auto deaths/injuries, that's a pretty easy choice.

I'll do some research and post my findings.

Ken King · Jul 11, 2002

Vraiblonde,

Just wondering, I remember your issue with seatbelts and was wondering how long until they use cameras to cite people for not using required restraint systems and what are your thoughts on that?

vraiblonde · Jul 11, 2002

That's different. (Stop that laughing and I'll explain) My not wearing a seatbelt has nothing to do with endangering other people. The only person hurt by it would be me. Sure, you can dream up a hypothetical and extremely unlikely scenario where I got in an accident and was thrown from my car into someone else, who then wrecked because of me. But the fact is that wearing your seatbelt only affects you, not other drivers. However, speeding and running red lights DO affect other drivers.

But again, the law is the law. If it's mandatory to wear your seatbelt in the state of Maryland and I choose not to do so, I deserve the ticket. If there are enough problems with a law, you can go through the proper channels and get it changed.

Kyle · Jul 11, 2002

Sharon had it right! It's about $$$$!

If not then we wouldn't have so many idiots out there with 3, 4, 5 or even more DWI's. They'd all be in jail! :nono:

This is the states way to generate cash.

BTW....Just the Red light camera reviewers alone drag dozens if not hundreds into court unjustly because they were getting out of the way of someone about to rearend them or part of a funeral etc.

If you're going to recieve a citation, where you are guilty unil proven innocent, it should come from an actual person who witnessed the incident so they can take things like that into account.

bknarw · Jul 11, 2002

I have a couple of concerns...

There are certainly extenuating circumstances that aren't considered in these situations.
For example, suppose you're going through a yellow light (legally) and the guy in front of you slams on his brakes so you're forced to stop in the middle of an intersection? Or what if an ambulance is coming? By the camera, you'd be dead to rights, but are you, really?
And here's something that's bothered me for ages because I'm strange.

What if you're at a red light that's malfunctioning? Suppose it simply doesn't turn green. Does that mean you have to sit there until it does? Suppose it's broken for hours? If you run the red light because you've waited an inordinate amount of time, you'll get a ticket, but, hypothetically, what if it NEVER turns green? Do you legally have to sit there until you die?

Kyle · Jul 11, 2002

Re: I have a couple of concerns...

Originally posted by bknarw
..., but, hypothetically, what if it NEVER turns green? Do you legally have to sit there until you die?

Sit in front of that perpetual Red light during rush hour with thousand of honking horns behind you and it might be "your time"! :lmao:

vraiblonde · Jul 11, 2002

Listen here, you all! I wasn't aware that once you got a ticket for running a red light, you wouldn't be entitled to go before a judge and explain if you think you were wrongly ticketed. Are we talking merely about getting a ticket for running a red light or are we talking about a fascist dictatorship where they can throw you in the pokey for any reason, without a proper hearing?

Sharon · Jul 11, 2002

Actually they are hoping you will just pay the fine instead of wasting your day in court. If you weren't driving your car at the time --so what! They don't care --you still get to pay.

JDouglasParran · Jul 11, 2002

I'm as much in favor of improving highway safety as anyone else, but I am also feel that laws and enforcement actions by police need to be fair and supported by the citizens. Red light cameras ticket the innocent and the unfortunate. Some of you may say "well, so what, as long as it's somebody else getting the fine". But it may be you. It can happen to anybody, good drivers included. I got a red light camera ticket and I've been driving safely for thirty years without an accident (except for a deer that ran out in front of me a couple of years ago). The cameras, and the timing of the lights associated with the cameras, are a law enforcement device that can be adjusted to determine how many "lawbreakers" violate the law and have to pay the fine. I believe the red light camera system is harmful to our society because they create an atmosphere that it is the government and the police vs. the rest of us who feel that there are too many unneccessary laws taking away too many of our freedoms. There is no guarantee that we are to live without any risks. A life without some risk is a life that isn't doing much. I will oppose politicians who want to take away our rights in order to protect me from some imagined threat to my safety. I'm more concerned about the overzealous politiicians who want to protect me against all risks. If we're going to have cameras set up to do the work of police officers who are capable of making enforcement decisions, then I feel that they need to have the popular support from the public, not just from the politicians and the camera installation companies that are looking for a big payday.
- John Douglas Parran

vraiblonde · Jul 11, 2002

It'll be interesting to see how many people come to the hearing on July 16th to make their opinion known. Just remember, folks, if you don't speak out and let your elected officials know how you feel, you have no right to complain about the decisions they make.

Ken King · Jul 11, 2002

Originally posted by vraiblonde
That's different. (Stop that laughing and I'll explain) My not wearing a seatbelt has nothing to do with endangering other people. The only person hurt by it would be me. Sure, you can dream up a hypothetical and extremely unlikely scenario where I got in an accident and was thrown from my car into someone else, who then wrecked because of me. But the fact is that wearing your seatbelt only affects you, not other drivers. However, speeding and running red lights DO affect other drivers.

But again, the law is the law. If it's mandatory to wear your seatbelt in the state of Maryland and I choose not to do so, I deserve the ticket. If there are enough problems with a law, you can go through the proper channels and get it changed.

Vraiblonde,

I think you missed my point. Once cameras have become prevalent for red light running and speeding I expect their use to expand to possibly include seat belt violations, since it is now a primary infraction that can result in your being stopped and ticketed (as you well know, ha ha). I think if an inch is given in this methodology a mile will be taken by those that see the dollars this Gestapo technique can bring about.

vraiblonde · Jul 11, 2002

Again I say, if you're not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about. And seatbelts aren't a primary infraction anymore, I don't think. Seems to me that they got it overturned.

I think you're right about this really being all about $$$ but I also think it's nice of the Calvert guys to actually let the citizens be part of the discussion instead of just ramming it through on their own. Of course, it IS an election year...

JDouglasParran · Jul 11, 2002

The proposed public hearing for the red light cameras has been scheduled not because this is "an election year", in fact, that would be a good reason not to bring up such a controversial issue a couple of months before the election. The hearing is a legal requirement because the proposal is to spend $165,000 of your county tax dollars for these cameras. The public has a say in how our tax dollars are spent. Of course, there is no legal requirement that the Board of County Commissioners has to have a public hearing to consider every screwball idea we get for consideration. We can choose to nip it in the bud, and be done with it, or we can move forward with the spending plan. So, yes, it's good to hear from the public when the majority of the commissioners are considering such a large expenditure. It's your money.
- John Douglas Parran
Calvert County Commissioner

Crashtest80 · Jul 12, 2002

red light cameras

I feel that this is a REAL big issue for the election year...I see it this way you vote for them and you will not be in office com Jan.....you vote against them and you have a better chance of getting Re-elected. I got hit on the drivers side by a red light runner and i still think they are a bad idea. :boo:

Warron · Jul 19, 2002

I had an interesting experience the other day. I was at a crowded intersection, the first in line at a red light, when a fire truck came up behind me with lights and siren flashing. The only place I had to go was through the light. If there was a camera, I would now have to take a day off from work to go get the fine canceled or pay the fine. A loss of $250 for a day of work or a $50 (or whatever it will be) fine. This is why people don't challege fines and the major problem with automated systems. They force people to waste their time and money to defend themselves for what a live officer would recognize as a perfectly acceptable action.

Personally, I would be all for these cameras. All the government would have to do is pay back the lost wages of every person who sucessfully beats the fine in court. How long do you think the cameras would last if the money was not going into the politicians pet projects.

Larry Gude · Jul 22, 2002

Warron,

Hmmm...no internet filters but cameras OK???

I think people are always (enough to keep the scam alive anyway) gonna just send in the money; inconvenience is the real issue.

The cameras violate the 14th amendment to due process because of your experience and because of your brother/friend/neighbor/mechanic getting photographed.

It is a money scheme, pure and simple. My lone experience was at 11:30 pm all by myself (no other cars) in a truck that was gonna require some serious braking and load shifting (possibly damaging) to stop. Now, I'm distracted by the possibility and that is not safety enhancing.

I have no problem using a cam pic if it helps nail somebody in an accident or other serious issue, hit and run, etc, but jeeze, it is positively un-American to NEVER speed and NEVER go through a yellow light.

Orwellian, yes?

SmallTown · Jul 23, 2002

One thing that become apparant here is we really enjoy taking from the innocent and letting the guilty go free. People go along with their lives everyday. They go to work for their 40 hours per week and don't really complain about seeing Federal, State, and sometimes Local taxes taken from their paychecks. On the way home, they stop at McKays and pick up a few items, paying sales tax on some of the items, an even greater tax on Cigarettes. They stop off at Sheetz to fill their tank, paying an extra gasoline tax. They pay their phone bills without taking a second look at the mystifying taxes they impose. Pay all of those things you are required to just for trying to make a living (accept the cigarettes), but damn the government for collecting money from people who break the law.

Just yesterday I was going down Great Mills road and was coming up on the stoplight there at the Exxon. There was a blue car in front of me and another car in front of him. I see the light turn yellow, then red but the blue car in front of me did not seem to be slowing down at all. Apparantly he assumed the car in front of him would run the light, and he would follow along. When the car in front stopped, the blue car swerves into the other lane, almost hitting the car in front of him, then proceeds through the red light. With those kinds of people, I would love to just pull them over to the side of the road and simply ask what was going through their mind at the time (besides drugs and alcohol)

not only red lights but speed cameras

New Member

* * * * * * * * *

New Member

Board Mommy

A little rusty but not crusty

Board Mommy

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!

Attire Monitor

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!

Board Mommy

* * * * * * * * *

New Member

Board Mommy

A little rusty but not crusty

Board Mommy

New Member

New Member

Member

Strung Out

Football season!