Red Light Camera Ticket Thrown Out In CA.

gimmesometruth27

pjhawks wrote:

so surveillance is ok based on severity of crime? except of course terrorism which many seem to be against :roll:

nobody said anything about surveillance being ok based on severity of the crime.

you are missing the point of my post. i am against these cameras because it is lazy police work and is a cash grab. if i am going to pay taxes to employ police officers, they are gonna fucking actually do something like patrol the streets and actually pull people over and issue tickets. they are gonna do their job. what they were trained to do, and what they are paid to do. they are not gonna sit back and "watch the money roll right in" by having red light cameras take pictures triggering tickets to be issued and mailed.

you brought up the example of me being robbed at gun point. if this happened at a place of business like a gas station or a store or a parking lot and it is recorded on camera, that is the business owner recording what happens on their private property. that is not the police putting up cameras everywhere. that footage taken on private property would be turned over to police if the police request it, but it is not the police setting up sting operations without probable cause like the red light cameras would be.

additionally, are you for or against the surveillance to prevent terrorism?

pjhawks

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

so surveillance is ok based on severity of crime? except of course terrorism which many seem to be against :roll:

nobody said anything about surveillance being ok based on severity of the crime.

you are missing the point of my post. i am against these cameras because it is lazy police work and is a cash grab. if i am going to pay taxes to employ police officers, they are gonna fucking actually do something like patrol the streets and actually pull people over and issue tickets. they are gonna do their job. what they were trained to do, and what they are paid to do. they are not gonna sit back and "watch the money roll right in" by having red light cameras take pictures triggering tickets to be issued and mailed.

you brought up the example of me being robbed at gun point. if this happened at a place of business like a gas station or a store or a parking lot and it is recorded on camera, that is the business owner recording what happens on their private property. that is not the police putting up cameras everywhere. that footage taken on private property would be turned over to police if the police request it, but it is not the police setting up sting operations without probable cause like the red light cameras would be.

additionally, are you for or against the surveillance to prevent terrorism?

absolutely I support surveillance to stop terrorism.

I live in the Philly area and most, if not all, of those camera's are on city streets. Id much rather have my tax dollars going to police doing actual police work than having to sit at a light so douche bags don't run a red light. and getting money out of douche bags running said red lights allows for MORE police work by putting more money into the city.

i don't see an issue with a camera stopping people from running red lights. it just makes sense. how can anyone argue it's not a good thing is beyond me.

F Me In The Brain

pjhawks wrote:

I live in the Philly area and most, if not all, of those camera's are on city streets. Id much rather have my tax dollars going to police doing actual police work than having to sit at a light so douche bags don't run a red light. and getting money out of douche bags running said red lights allows for MORE police work by putting more money into the city.

i don't see an issue with a camera stopping people from running red lights. it just makes sense. how can anyone argue it's not a good thing is beyond me.

I agree with this -- just this AM someone went through a red light as I was driving my nephew to school and if I hadn't seen it coming it may have been close to being a jackhole running into me because they didn't get up early enough to get where they were going and felt like this made it everyone else's problem and it was then cool for them to blow through a red light at full speed.
I don't care for Big Brother to be watching everything we do but I also would like to feel safe that when a light turns green I am not going to get a 2000 pound missle launched into my door.
(And no, these cameras do not fix that....but I think they help.)

cincybearcat

F Me In The Brain wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

I live in the Philly area and most, if not all, of those camera's are on city streets. Id much rather have my tax dollars going to police doing actual police work than having to sit at a light so douche bags don't run a red light. and getting money out of douche bags running said red lights allows for MORE police work by putting more money into the city.

i don't see an issue with a camera stopping people from running red lights. it just makes sense. how can anyone argue it's not a good thing is beyond me.

I agree with this -- just this AM someone went through a red light as I was driving my nephew to school and if I hadn't seen it coming it may have been close to being a jackhole running into me because they didn't get up early enough to get where they were going and felt like this made it everyone else's problem and it was then cool for them to blow through a red light at full speed.
I don't care for Big Brother to be watching everything we do but I also would like to feel safe that when a light turns green I am not going to get a 2000 pound missle launched into my door.
(And no, these cameras do not fix that....but I think they help.)

So tell me, if there was a camera there, how does it exactly stop someone from running a red light?

mikepegg44

pjhawks wrote:

absolutely I support surveillance to stop terrorism.

I live in the Philly area and most, if not all, of those camera's are on city streets. Id much rather have my tax dollars going to police doing actual police work than having to sit at a light so douche bags don't run a red light. and getting money out of douche bags running said red lights allows for MORE police work by putting more money into the city.

i don't see an issue with a camera stopping people from running red lights. it just makes sense. how can anyone argue it's not a good thing is beyond me.

Moving violations are supposed to be given to the driver and go on the driver's record. The owner of the car may not be the driver. Drivers should not be ticketed without proof they were driving the car.
camera or no camera.

Most people who pay attention enough to know the cameras are there probably would never knowingly run a red light anyway

JimmyV

cincybearcat wrote:

F Me In The Brain wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

I live in the Philly area and most, if not all, of those camera's are on city streets. Id much rather have my tax dollars going to police doing actual police work than having to sit at a light so douche bags don't run a red light. and getting money out of douche bags running said red lights allows for MORE police work by putting more money into the city.

i don't see an issue with a camera stopping people from running red lights. it just makes sense. how can anyone argue it's not a good thing is beyond me.

I agree with this -- just this AM someone went through a red light as I was driving my nephew to school and if I hadn't seen it coming it may have been close to being a jackhole running into me because they didn't get up early enough to get where they were going and felt like this made it everyone else's problem and it was then cool for them to blow through a red light at full speed.
I don't care for Big Brother to be watching everything we do but I also would like to feel safe that when a light turns green I am not going to get a 2000 pound missle launched into my door.
(And no, these cameras do not fix that....but I think they help.)

So tell me, if there was a camera there, how does it exactly stop someone from running a red light?

It doesn't stop them that time, no, but it does show them there is a consequence for running a red light and hopefully stops them in the future. A police officer pulling them over and writing a ticket does not stop them either, it just punishes them after the light has been run.

I don't see a lot of difference between being pulled over and being caught on camera. At least if cameras are doing this job it frees up cops to protect and serve in more productive ways.

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

absolutely I support surveillance to stop terrorism.

I live in the Philly area and most, if not all, of those camera's are on city streets. Id much rather have my tax dollars going to police doing actual police work than having to sit at a light so douche bags don't run a red light. and getting money out of douche bags running said red lights allows for MORE police work by putting more money into the city.

i don't see an issue with a camera stopping people from running red lights. it just makes sense. how can anyone argue it's not a good thing is beyond me.

Moving violations are supposed to be given to the driver and go on the driver's record. The owner of the car may not be the driver. Drivers should not be ticketed without proof they were driving the car.
camera or no camera.

Most people who pay attention enough to know the cameras are there probably would never knowingly run a red light anyway

You make a good point about the driver's identity. It should be the driver and not the vehicle's owner who is punished.

cincybearcat

JimmyV wrote:

I don't see a lot of difference between being pulled over and being caught on camera. At least if cameras are doing this job it frees up cops to protect and serve in more productive ways.

It addresses the faulty behavior right at the moment. Other people see if happening. There are a lot more positives out of a police officer stopping someone rather than sending a ticket in the mail. Likely the people don't even remember running the red light. Their is no behavior modification (or very little) from a red light camera. And that is, or should be, the entire goal. It's not to be punitive, it's to change people's behaviors.

JimmyV

cincybearcat wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I don't see a lot of difference between being pulled over and being caught on camera. At least if cameras are doing this job it frees up cops to protect and serve in more productive ways.

It addresses the faulty behavior right at the moment. Other people see if happening. There are a lot more positives out of a police officer stopping someone rather than sending a ticket in the mail. Likely the people don't even remember running the red light. Their is no behavior modification (or very little) from a red light camera. And that is, or should be, the entire goal. It's not to be punitive, it's to change people's behaviors.

I'm not sure that is true. I have been pulled over but have never gotten a ticket through the mail, so I don't know for sure. I almost feel like getting a ticket weeks later would be more effective because you would never again know if there was or was not a camera. You would always be wondering and maybe that would cause you to drive safer? I am not saying that is definitely true, just suggesting it as a possibility.

F Me In The Brain

cincybearcat wrote:

F Me In The Brain wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

I live in the Philly area and most, if not all, of those camera's are on city streets. Id much rather have my tax dollars going to police doing actual police work than having to sit at a light so douche bags don't run a red light. and getting money out of douche bags running said red lights allows for MORE police work by putting more money into the city.

i don't see an issue with a camera stopping people from running red lights. it just makes sense. how can anyone argue it's not a good thing is beyond me.

I agree with this -- just this AM someone went through a red light as I was driving my nephew to school and if I hadn't seen it coming it may have been close to being a jackhole running into me because they didn't get up early enough to get where they were going and felt like this made it everyone else's problem and it was then cool for them to blow through a red light at full speed.
I don't care for Big Brother to be watching everything we do but I also would like to feel safe that when a light turns green I am not going to get a 2000 pound missle launched into my door.
(And no, these cameras do not fix that....but I think they help.)

So tell me, if there was a camera there, how does it exactly stop someone from running a red light?

Yeah I closed my post with saying that cameras didnt fix the problem but I feel they help with the problem. People are more cautious faced with the penalty vs. the concept of plowing into a bus full of pre-schoolers when they 'drop the hammer' as the reach a yellow light instead of stop.

F Me In The Brain

JimmyV wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

absolutely I support surveillance to stop terrorism.

I live in the Philly area and most, if not all, of those camera's are on city streets. Id much rather have my tax dollars going to police doing actual police work than having to sit at a light so douche bags don't run a red light. and getting money out of douche bags running said red lights allows for MORE police work by putting more money into the city.

i don't see an issue with a camera stopping people from running red lights. it just makes sense. how can anyone argue it's not a good thing is beyond me.

Moving violations are supposed to be given to the driver and go on the driver's record. The owner of the car may not be the driver. Drivers should not be ticketed without proof they were driving the car.
camera or no camera.

Most people who pay attention enough to know the cameras are there probably would never knowingly run a red light anyway

You make a good point about the driver's identity. It should be the driver and not the vehicle's owner who is punished.

I know in CA, where this event happened, that if the driver in the picture is not you, you do not end up paying the fine. You do have to go to court to have the judge note it is not you and dismiss. This is a hassle of course.
(I actually got one when I lived there and sold my car to the dealer when I got a new car. The person they sold it to went through a light but the DMV hadn't processed the change of ownership yet and I had to go to court. Judge looked at me, at the ticket and said 'Dismissed.' I didn't even have to/get to explain the scenario.)

cincybearcat

JimmyV wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I don't see a lot of difference between being pulled over and being caught on camera. At least if cameras are doing this job it frees up cops to protect and serve in more productive ways.

It addresses the faulty behavior right at the moment. Other people see if happening. There are a lot more positives out of a police officer stopping someone rather than sending a ticket in the mail. Likely the people don't even remember running the red light. Their is no behavior modification (or very little) from a red light camera. And that is, or should be, the entire goal. It's not to be punitive, it's to change people's behaviors.

I'm not sure that is true. I have been pulled over but have never gotten a ticket through the mail, so I don't know for sure. I almost feel like getting a ticket weeks later would be more effective because you would never again know if there was or was not a camera. You would always be wondering and maybe that would cause you to drive safer? I am not saying that is definitely true, just suggesting it as a possibility.

Trust me, if you study behavior, you would see that while getting a ticket from a cop or in the mail are both not effective at all, the immediate response of being stopped by a police officer has a much better likelyhood of effecting future behavior.