chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
Do you really think my name is letmetellyou?
It could be a bad joke your parents played on you?
Still think automated enforcement isnt about money
- Thread starter glhs837
- Start date
It could be a bad joke your parents played on you?
L
letmetellyou
Guest
By the way chern and g...do you really think anyone cares. Don't you think government, if they can point to the safety of the citizens and can make a little dough in the end, are going to go with the option which makes it easier on the average citizen? Keep yellin, but I bet ya I can tell which side of the coin is going to win. 
glhs837
Power with Control
Don't beat, g..... does'nt care. He IS one of the people who have an agenda. He is dragging you into this discussion by continually citing information that he has no first hand information about, just re-posting stuff that he reads by other people who have the same agenda.
So the organizations like the VDOT, and the Texas Transportation Institute, the research they produced has no information content? I do have an agenda, informing folks that emplacing these things in the name of safety won't net you any.
chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
By the way chern and g...do you really think anyone cares. Don't you think government, if they can point to the safety of the citizens and can make a little dough in the end, are going to go with the option which makes it easier on the average citizen? Keep yellin, but I bet ya I can tell which side of the coin is going to win.
Money always wins, they will focus all data, statistics, and research to gain that objective alone!
Safety will have NOTHING to do with it since they are administrative fines and doesn't assess bad driving in the court system!
bcp
In My Opinion
Money always wins, they will focus all data, statistics, and research to gain that objective alone!
Safety will have NOTHING to do with it since they are administrative fines and doesn't assess bad driving in the court system!
one has no choice but to wonder
if the cameras did cause people to slow down, even though there were just as many accidents (I would actually assume there would be less), would the injury/death rate come down due to lower speeds?
So lets say it is a money rather than safety thing. Who cares. If, by fining, "TAXING", people who break the law they are able to leave the tax rate of law abiding citizen stable, I do not have a problem with that. If people break the law, make them pay. If it does not slow them down / stop at red lights, make them pay again. If you follow the rules / laws, you have nothing to worry or complain about!
glhs837
Power with Control
But, if they are not just charging money to lawbreakers, but also increasing the amount of accidents (RLCs), or falsely charging folks who were not breaking the law, in the case of the speed cams, then there is a downside.
That's the real point. The government doing wrong by the innocent citizens in the name of dollars, and being dishonest by using safety to justify a thing that doesn't make anyone safer.
And do I really believe that these discussions here are going to change a damn thing? Not initially, no. The folks in power have looked at it like you have,m and convinced themselves the money is worth it. What I have done, I hope, is plant a seed or two of doubt, so that when folks see who these things work, the thousands of folks you never see post here, but who read this nonetheless, those folks will already know the scam for what it is, and will be able to tell others.
And eventually, the folks will get tired of being bled like hosts at a damn leech farm, and either vote them out themselves, or vote out the politicians who placed them in service. Thanks to public hearings, there will be no way to say "I didnt know the downside, nobody told me that accidents can increase", and that "Nobody told me that Optotraffic was not an accurate system" they will b be told, and given the information. And the voters of the county will decide. Like the voters of Houston, or Los Angeles, or Cincinatti, or Albuquerque, all of whom voted the RLCs out.
I would like to think that our Sheriff and elected officials would hold integrity above dollars, but I am losing that hope. But thats okay, it will all work out in the end.
That's the real point. The government doing wrong by the innocent citizens in the name of dollars, and being dishonest by using safety to justify a thing that doesn't make anyone safer.
And do I really believe that these discussions here are going to change a damn thing? Not initially, no. The folks in power have looked at it like you have,m and convinced themselves the money is worth it. What I have done, I hope, is plant a seed or two of doubt, so that when folks see who these things work, the thousands of folks you never see post here, but who read this nonetheless, those folks will already know the scam for what it is, and will be able to tell others.
And eventually, the folks will get tired of being bled like hosts at a damn leech farm, and either vote them out themselves, or vote out the politicians who placed them in service. Thanks to public hearings, there will be no way to say "I didnt know the downside, nobody told me that accidents can increase", and that "Nobody told me that Optotraffic was not an accurate system" they will b be told, and given the information. And the voters of the county will decide. Like the voters of Houston, or Los Angeles, or Cincinatti, or Albuquerque, all of whom voted the RLCs out.
I would like to think that our Sheriff and elected officials would hold integrity above dollars, but I am losing that hope. But thats okay, it will all work out in the end.
How about when the light is green and traffic is moving and it suddenly stops - you can't always see thru the vehicle in front of you to judge how many car lengths are available. Even if you could, say that person likes to leave 2 or 3 car lengths open. What are we suppose to do, sit at the stop line on a green light wating for 2 car lengths of space on the other side of the intersection. Wait, that's why 2 cars get thru that light.
dave1959
Active Member
Wouldn't be surprised if they soon lower the speed limit in some areas (e.g. from 30 mph to 15 mph) and install more cameras just to squeeze all the $$$ they can from people to stuff coffers, under the "guise" of increased safety.
Pay attention and don't speed and you won't have aproblem.
L
letmetellyou
Guest
How about when the light is green and traffic is moving and it suddenly stops - you can't always see thru the vehicle in front of you to judge how many car lengths are available. Even if you could, say that person likes to leave 2 or 3 car lengths open. What are we suppose to do, sit at the stop line on a green light wating for 2 car lengths of space on the other side of the intersection. YesWait, that's why 2 cars get thru that light.
I've been driving for thirty years and barring an accident, I have always been able to see if there is enough room for me to get through the intersection.
glhs837
Power with Control
You will if the device inaccurately measures your speed, and you have to wait a year to challenge the citation, all the while receiving threatening letters about the status of your licence and/or registration, late fees, only to be told by the judge that your only defense is to give up someone else or pay up, because the machine is infallible.
Then, dave, I would say you have a problem, even though you didn't speed. And if you think this is more made up stuff, read these.......
Business owner casts reasonable doubt on accuracy of speed cameras - Washington Times
For these, the pictures had a three decimal place timestamp on the pictures, after this, the company changed it to read only one decimal place. And the companies own literature says the pictures act as secondary proof of the speed the vehicle was travelling, but the judges just let that tidbit go on past unchallenged. Point is, they are not perfect.
Then, dave, I would say you have a problem, even though you didn't speed. And if you think this is more made up stuff, read these.......
Business owner casts reasonable doubt on accuracy of speed cameras - Washington Times
For these, the pictures had a three decimal place timestamp on the pictures, after this, the company changed it to read only one decimal place. And the companies own literature says the pictures act as secondary proof of the speed the vehicle was travelling, but the judges just let that tidbit go on past unchallenged. Point is, they are not perfect.
foodcritic
New Member
Why does it have to be either/or and not a combination of both? If the violation takes place what difference does it make whether it's enforced by a camera or a police officer? Just curious.
glhs837
Power with Control
Two different things, since we are dealing with two different systems here.
1. RLCs, they dont bring extra safety, so the only benefit is money. Thats the difference. Were we to detail 2 officers to do random shifts say at Chipotle, and down at WaWa, and other intersection doing nothing but looking for runners, that would be a more effective deterant, I think. This supposes we have a real safety issue with red light runners to begin with. Stil waiting to see numbers on that.
2. Speed cams, I know the officer has no profit motive, and has checked his equipment, and that equipment is tied to a know cal standard. And I can challenge hm in court. None of these things are true with Speed cams.
I dont challenge the need for traffic enforcement, just the doing of it for profit.
1. RLCs, they dont bring extra safety, so the only benefit is money. Thats the difference. Were we to detail 2 officers to do random shifts say at Chipotle, and down at WaWa, and other intersection doing nothing but looking for runners, that would be a more effective deterant, I think. This supposes we have a real safety issue with red light runners to begin with. Stil waiting to see numbers on that.
2. Speed cams, I know the officer has no profit motive, and has checked his equipment, and that equipment is tied to a know cal standard. And I can challenge hm in court. None of these things are true with Speed cams.
I dont challenge the need for traffic enforcement, just the doing of it for profit.
TPD
the poor dad
That's just it - this will not lower or keep our taxes stable. This money will be used for "pet" projects, the extras. You know - all officers will now need iPads to write tickets. It will not be good enough for them to walk back to the car to check all of your info. We will need to add snowmobiles to the police force for tracking criminals through the forest during a blizzard. Let's throw in a couple of speed boats to stop the drug trafficking in the Bay from Guatemala.
When I started the original thread about this issue after seeing the article in the newspaper, my point was - don't lie to me and tell me this is about safety. It isn't - it IS about the money! Either way, I think it is wrong.
Man my car goes 25 mph once you put it in drive without stepping on the gas!.. to go less than that I have to apply the brake like crazy
smibarines
New Member
Haven't we been down this road before? The "facts" that you have posted are skewed and perverted to show what you want them to show. Yes, rear-end collisions 'might' increase slightly, but overall accidents, particularly fatal collisions, will decrease sharply. As will red light offenses.
I have absolutely no problem with the County supplementing the taxed revenue with ticketing the offenders that have no respect for the law. (In case you missed it, the County is in a budget crunch just like the rest of the country.)
For everyone else, do not take these claims on face value. Read the research yourself and form your own opinion. I'm sure if you look into the validity of what certain individuals have posted, you will see the obvious bias. Don't buy into the paranoia.
As IIHS President Adrian Lund said best, “Somehow, the people who get tickets because they have broken the law have been cast as the victims. We rarely hear about the real victims — the people who are killed or injured by these lawbreakers.”
smibarines
New Member
glhs837
Power with Control
So, four studies show a definite increase in rear end collisions, but you label that possibility as "might", but the state for sure that overall accidents will sharply decrease. Talk about playing with words
Wheres your data to support that? The flawed IIHS study? I have posted a link to a legit analysis of that study explaining why its flawed, have you done the same for the research I have posted? Nope, you just say its baised and walk away People killed and injured by red light runners are indeed victims, much more so than folks ticketed by the machines. But you are not reducing the numbers of victims, just shifting the category they are in, accepting an increase in one category to get a decrease in another.
So, I ask you again, where do you draw the line at numbers of rear end collisions you are willing to accept to reduce t-bones? Three for one, five for one?
Lastly, again, how many folks have been seriously injured here in the county by folks running red lights? Lets first identify if we even have a problem that justifies putting these things in service. And are you willing to remove the profit motive and see how fast the "safety first" politicians dont care about these things?
smibarines
New Member
For every 'study' you post, there are 2 that say the opposite.
Seriously?!?!?!?!? Do you freaking read the NEWS?!?!?!?!?