Replies

Ok, ok. Everyone get their flame guns ready and tell me why I've lost my mind, because I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

I don't oppose the enforcement of traffic lights but I do oppose automated ticketing systems.

Why? You asked why cops spend time chasing down speeders instead of sitting at intercetions to nab people for running a red light. First off, let's be a little practical, shall we? A cop waiting for speeders is usually in a spot where you can't see him until it's too late. If you're speeding and he's got his radar on you, you won't have time to slow down (assuming you don't have a RD). They hide because obviously you would slow down if you saw him way down the road. How effective would they be at getting speeders? Not very. The idea is to catch people doing what they would be doing if they DIDN'T know a cop was present. Now then, such a scenario at a 4-way intersection is simply not possible for a number of reasons. There is no place to "hide". Who in their right mind is going to run a red light with a cop sitting there in broad daylight? Additionally, even if someone did run a red light, with traffic going in 4 different directions a cop could only practically go after offenders going in the same direction as he is pointed, or perhaps in one additional direction. What a waste. Do you REALLY want a cop sitting at an intersection waiting for people to run a red light? Wouldn't you be saying to yourself "man, what a waste! nobody is going to run a red light with him sitting there! he should be out looking for real criminals!"??? But if there was a cop who happened to be at an intersection and he saw someone nearly crash into you by running a red light, and the cop gave that person a ticket, would you have a problem with that? Or would that be "big brother" in action? And if you don't have a problem with a cop giving a ticket to someone running a red light, what difference does it make if the cop saw the infraction sitting in his car a few feet away, or on a camera in the station a few hundred feet away?

For a long time speeding tickets have been looked at for extra tax revenue instead of a real disinsentive for speeding. The lure of easy revenue has made big cities install cameras to automatically catch people and collect big bucks.

So, would you rather have YOUR taxes raised, or would you rather keep having people who break the law to pay fines? Are you opposed to traffic fines for speeding and running red lights? If there are no fines, then what incentive is there for people to obey the law? Yes, those fines pay the salaries of cops and services, but if there weren't fines, then that money would have to come from somewhere else, like your back pocket. Which is the better scenario? And if you aren't opposed to traffic fines, are you just opposed to the laws being efficiently enforced? Would you prefer inefficiency?

We must resist this "big brother" effort at all cost. In the suburbs (where there's little crime) policemen routinely camp out at 25 and 30 miles speed traps in order to wring more money from taxpayers' pockets.

The law is the law. There's a simple solution if you don't want to get a speeding ticket. Obey the law. And if you don't like the law, change it. Get the speed limit raised. Police have been pulling people over for speeding for a long time. Sherrif Taylor in Mayberry, North Carolina on the Andy Griffith show pulled people over for speeding. That's your idea of "big brother"?

Mandatory helmets for drivers and 20 mph speed limits will save lives too.

But that's not the law, is it?

The use of police as tax gatherers is causing respectable middle-class folks to develop contempt for them. This impedes legitimate law-enforcement activities.

Again, I'd much rather have law-breakers pay taxes, than have mine raised. Since when is enforcing traffic laws not a "legitimate law-enforcement activity"? Should there be no traffic laws? It makes no sense to have laws you have no intention of enforcing. If you aren't going to enforce a law, don't have it, period. Or perhaps you want traffic laws enforced, but you don't want police spending an inordinate amount of time doing it? That's understandable. After all, we can't have a cop at every intersection watching for red-light runners, can we? So...if that's not practical, but yet we want traffic laws enforced, what would a solution be? Hmmmm...let's see...what's that? You think maybe they should put a camera up at intersections where there's been trouble??? Hey, that's not a bad idea. You might be on to something...it frees the cops up for "legitimate law enforcement"...people won't run red lights anyway with a cop sitting there...people will probably do it less if they know they might get caught on camera...yeah, I think you've got a pretty good idea there.

Okay, I've got my asbestos suit on...blast away. :-)

One caution--they can be really sneaky about where your car is to say you're "running" the red light. To be at all fair, any city that starts this should publicize how the cameras work, and what the tolerances are.

Tickets by mail are pretty common in Brazil. After 6-8 weeks down there, someone I knew found out he had received five tickets in Florianopolis for "running a red light." It turned out that if the nose of the car was a few inches over the white stop line, a photo was taken and a ticket issued. Another irony of that situation was that the active ticketing lights were published every week in the newspapers, so most of the folks caught were tourists. I think publishing which cameras are on is a little too much information, but people should at least have warning of how far over the line or how long past the red light they will be ticketed.

OK, I'll try to hit the high points:

1) Under American law, an accused has the right to face his or her accuser in a court of law. If a machine gives you a ticket, who exactly stands up in court if you try to defend yourself?

2) Is the idea of issuing speeding tickets to punish speeders into slowing down or is it to generate revenue for the issuing authority? The former is a legitimate law enforcement activity, but I will maintain that the latter is a tax imposed by regulation rather than by a lawful taxing authority.

3) "Get the speed limit raised." Excuse me, but what color is the sky on the planet you're from? Here on Earth, politicians and bureaucrats set speed limits artificially low to generate revenue from speeding tickets and anyone foolish enough to try to get one raised will be blasted for opposing public safety.

4) Everywhere red light cameras have been installed, there have been complaints that the companies that operate the cameras (who get a large cut of the ticket revenues) have tinkered with the timing of the lights to CAUSE more people to accidentally run them. Generally, this can be done very easily by shortening the duration of the yellow light.

5) No one will release statistics on increases in rear-end collisions at intersections where red light cameras have been installed. However, there is at least anecdotal evidence that there have been a lot of accidents where drivers slammed on their brakes as soon as a "regulated" light turned yellow.

Cops ticket speeders because THEY determine who the offender is. They don't pull over all speeders, they point a laser/rader gun at a single car and get their number to cite him with.

Sit at a red light and you don't know IF there will be an offender (there is not one every cycle and there could be several).