-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Email
Print
Digg
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: Jim_Brown on 1/8/10
Quote:
"Police investigated 189 crashes between July 2008 and June 2009, an increase of 16 crashes from the previous year at red-light camera intersections.
Rear-end crashes increased by 23.5 percent while side-angle crashes decreased 11.2 percent, said spokesman Kyle Evans."
More crashes, imagine that?
Join our facebook group google "kill Tennessee traffic cameras". Next week there will be a bill written to deal with these blood-sucking vampires. Tell'em take the cameras and shove'em.
Quote:
"Police investigated 189 crashes between July 2008 and June 2009, an increase of 16 crashes from the previous year at red-light camera intersections.
Rear-end crashes increased by 23.5 percent while side-angle crashes decreased 11.2 percent, said spokesman Kyle Evans."
More crashes, imagine that?
Join our facebook group google "kill Tennessee traffic cameras". Next week there will be a bill written to deal with these blood-sucking vampires. Tell'em take the cameras and shove'em.
By: attagirl on 1/8/10
I'm with ya, Jim.
I'm with ya, Jim.
By: redbird on 1/8/10
All the cameras are fore is revenue enhancement, I think they are illegal and probably immoral.
All the cameras are fore is revenue enhancement, I think they are illegal and probably immoral.
By: aeckfam on 1/8/10
I like the red light cameras. Maybe they don't bother me because I have always stopped at red lights (even when right turning, I come to a complete stop first), so nothing has changed for me?? And I like that it brings in revenue for the city (better than raising taxes). Rear end crashes are obviously a negative part of the cameras- but I don't really see it as the cameras fault. If you are following at a safe distance and paying attention, you won't rear end someone. People need to stop tailgating- maybe something cops need to write more tickets for???
I like the red light cameras. Maybe they don't bother me because I have always stopped at red lights (even when right turning, I come to a complete stop first), so nothing has changed for me?? And I like that it brings in revenue for the city (better than raising taxes). Rear end crashes are obviously a negative part of the cameras- but I don't really see it as the cameras fault. If you are following at a safe distance and paying attention, you won't rear end someone. People need to stop tailgating- maybe something cops need to write more tickets for???
By: Boo on 1/9/10
aeckfam- You hit that nail right on the head!
aeckfam- You hit that nail right on the head!
By: cmac on 1/9/10
An increase of 16 crashes from the previous year at red-light camera intersections. Why is there no mention of the number of additional drivers on Murfreesboro's roads during the same period of time? If we are going to use statistics to argue for cameras, let us include all of the data pertaining to the study. I suspect an increase of 16 crashes at intersections merely reflects the number of new and additional drivers that have moved onto Rutherford County roads during the past year. If this is the case, the argument that cameras reduce accidents is null and void. In the mean time, eyes in the sky are not a bad source of county revenue for a program that seems to have made so little difference. As for camera fines reducing taxes - really? Where?
An increase of 16 crashes from the previous year at red-light camera intersections. Why is there no mention of the number of additional drivers on Murfreesboro's roads during the same period of time? If we are going to use statistics to argue for cameras, let us include all of the data pertaining to the study. I suspect an increase of 16 crashes at intersections merely reflects the number of new and additional drivers that have moved onto Rutherford County roads during the past year. If this is the case, the argument that cameras reduce accidents is null and void. In the mean time, eyes in the sky are not a bad source of county revenue for a program that seems to have made so little difference. As for camera fines reducing taxes - really? Where?
By: Jim_Brown on 1/9/10
Quote:
"I suspect an increase of 16 crashes at intersections merely reflects the number of new and additional drivers that have moved onto Rutherford County roads during the past year."
You are wrong last year people drove less NOT more.
Quote:
"I suspect an increase of 16 crashes at intersections merely reflects the number of new and additional drivers that have moved onto Rutherford County roads during the past year."
You are wrong last year people drove less NOT more.
By: Jim_Brown on 1/9/10
Quote:
"I like the red light cameras. Maybe they don't bother me because I have always stopped at red lights (even when right turning, I come to a complete stop first), so nothing has changed for me?? And I like that it brings in revenue for the city (better than raising taxes). Rear end crashes are obviously a negative part of the cameras- but I don't really see it as the cameras fault. If you are following at a safe distance and paying attention, you won't rear end someone. People need to stop tailgating- maybe something cops need to write more tickets for??? "
Obviously, you don't understand the constitutional implications of these citations.
Quote:
"I like the red light cameras. Maybe they don't bother me because I have always stopped at red lights (even when right turning, I come to a complete stop first), so nothing has changed for me?? And I like that it brings in revenue for the city (better than raising taxes). Rear end crashes are obviously a negative part of the cameras- but I don't really see it as the cameras fault. If you are following at a safe distance and paying attention, you won't rear end someone. People need to stop tailgating- maybe something cops need to write more tickets for??? "
Obviously, you don't understand the constitutional implications of these citations.
By: Jim_Brown on 1/9/10
Americans Still Driving Less
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/americans-still-driving-less
Americans Still Driving Less
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/americans-still-driving-less
By: Macgyver on 1/9/10
What amazes me is there is no mention of the money that was sent out of state to the Virgina company that is maintaining the cameras. How many police officers did they take off the road to watch these cameras? This city has real problems and it needs people who care, not money hungry bank execs and developers. The only thing that is going to change the citys' policy of cameras is to vote the people out who put them there.
What amazes me is there is no mention of the money that was sent out of state to the Virgina company that is maintaining the cameras. How many police officers did they take off the road to watch these cameras? This city has real problems and it needs people who care, not money hungry bank execs and developers. The only thing that is going to change the citys' policy of cameras is to vote the people out who put them there.
By: Jim_Brown on 1/9/10
They should be voted out you're right about that and that's next. These cameras are taking money that would normally be spent in restaurants and other local businesses and giving to the government to waste.
They should be voted out you're right about that and that's next. These cameras are taking money that would normally be spent in restaurants and other local businesses and giving to the government to waste.
By: publius on 1/9/10
When My children were young I became more responsible I don't accelerate through yellow lights, I take it a little slower, I don't scream at other drivers who are inconsiderate. When I get cut off by an inconsiderate driver I let them go. I know having a camera at a light changes nothing about how I drive. It shouldn't change anything for any one else unless I guess you are so special that the rules do not apply to you.
I do agree with MacGuyver, How about everyone drive according to the laws of the road so the camera's are not needed.
How many of you who have complained have been to a voting booth or a council meeting. It is easy to complain.
Jim Brown has some good idea how about running for office.
When My children were young I became more responsible I don't accelerate through yellow lights, I take it a little slower, I don't scream at other drivers who are inconsiderate. When I get cut off by an inconsiderate driver I let them go. I know having a camera at a light changes nothing about how I drive. It shouldn't change anything for any one else unless I guess you are so special that the rules do not apply to you.
I do agree with MacGuyver, How about everyone drive according to the laws of the road so the camera's are not needed.
How many of you who have complained have been to a voting booth or a council meeting. It is easy to complain.
Jim Brown has some good idea how about running for office.
By: aeckfam on 1/9/10
Jim,
I am an educated person and I do understand our constitutional rights- and you have NO right to privacy on public roads.
Obviously you are not aware of the fact that you are being recorded everywhere in public- the bank, the gas station, the traffic lights for channel 3, etc. The reason lawsuits against the red light cameras have all failed in the past is because there is nothing legally wrong with them.
Jim,
I am an educated person and I do understand our constitutional rights- and you have NO right to privacy on public roads.
Obviously you are not aware of the fact that you are being recorded everywhere in public- the bank, the gas station, the traffic lights for channel 3, etc. The reason lawsuits against the red light cameras have all failed in the past is because there is nothing legally wrong with them.
By: aeckfam on 1/9/10
As for the money, you can get the information from the city. As of the last publication of it in the paper, there is still a profit for the city. They are making more money each month than what they are spending in costs/maintenance. The argument "People won't eat out or spend money at local businesses because they have to pay a red light ticket"...is extreme to say the least.
As for the money, you can get the information from the city. As of the last publication of it in the paper, there is still a profit for the city. They are making more money each month than what they are spending in costs/maintenance. The argument "People won't eat out or spend money at local businesses because they have to pay a red light ticket"...is extreme to say the least.
By: Curious on 1/9/10
The net gain in crashes is interesting.
It would be a very interesting exercise to remove the camera from the intersection with the highest number of crashes and recalibrate the traffic signal there with a longer duration yellow light. After a year, look at the statistics again to determine if a simple, revenue neutral solution improves driver safety.
The net gain in crashes is interesting.
It would be a very interesting exercise to remove the camera from the intersection with the highest number of crashes and recalibrate the traffic signal there with a longer duration yellow light. After a year, look at the statistics again to determine if a simple, revenue neutral solution improves driver safety.
By: SocEtTuem on 1/9/10
Out with the red light cameras. They are nothing more than a revenue generator. All indications are that they are causing more accidents than they are preventing.
Out with the red light cameras. They are nothing more than a revenue generator. All indications are that they are causing more accidents than they are preventing.
By: ojt on 1/9/10
I am tired of people running thru red lights. I happens way too much in this area. When the light turns green you have to sit and wait a minute just to make sure everyone else has decided to stop before you can go. I do not mind the cameras if it will stop people from this dangerous behavior.
I am tired of people running thru red lights. I happens way too much in this area. When the light turns green you have to sit and wait a minute just to make sure everyone else has decided to stop before you can go. I do not mind the cameras if it will stop people from this dangerous behavior.
By: Jim_Brown on 1/9/10
Quote aechfam:
"I am an educated person and I do understand our constitutional rights- and you have NO right to privacy on public roads."
The process by which the tickets are issued is a violation of due process. The burden of burden is on the government to prove who the driver is NOT the owner.
Quote aechfam:
"I am an educated person and I do understand our constitutional rights- and you have NO right to privacy on public roads."
The process by which the tickets are issued is a violation of due process. The burden of burden is on the government to prove who the driver is NOT the owner.
By: Jim_Brown on 1/9/10
All you have to do is google red light cameras and read the reports that say the cameras increase crashes. Google VDOT red light camera report 2007. It was a 7 year study that proved the cameras increased crashes at ALL intersections.
All you have to do is google red light cameras and read the reports that say the cameras increase crashes. Google VDOT red light camera report 2007. It was a 7 year study that proved the cameras increased crashes at ALL intersections.
By: attagirl on 1/9/10
From aechfam: "I am an educated person and I do understand our constitutional rights- and you have NO right to privacy on public roads."
Um, the constitutional problem with the tickets has nothing to do with privacy rights. It has to do with the right to confront your accuser. You can't cross-examine a photograph.
From aechfam: "I am an educated person and I do understand our constitutional rights- and you have NO right to privacy on public roads."
Um, the constitutional problem with the tickets has nothing to do with privacy rights. It has to do with the right to confront your accuser. You can't cross-examine a photograph.
By: bota on 1/9/10
I like the red light cameras. Given the number of people I still see running lightd I wiah that we had twice as many so all these jerks could whine about their "privacy" to the judge.
I like the red light cameras. Given the number of people I still see running lightd I wiah that we had twice as many so all these jerks could whine about their "privacy" to the judge.
By: Macgyver on 1/9/10
Bota, please read "1984" by George Orwell, then decide if this is how you want to live your life. Its a wash as to pay the fine or court costs to fight it in court thats not fair at all.
If you want to go by the facts then here it is; HIGHER ACCIDENT RATES TO CREATE A NEW REVENUE STREAM FOR THE CITY. Doesn't sound too good to me.
Bota, please read "1984" by George Orwell, then decide if this is how you want to live your life. Its a wash as to pay the fine or court costs to fight it in court thats not fair at all.
If you want to go by the facts then here it is; HIGHER ACCIDENT RATES TO CREATE A NEW REVENUE STREAM FOR THE CITY. Doesn't sound too good to me.
By: Opining on 1/10/10
"...confront your accuser..." The camera is not your accuser. The police officer who examines them is. Its just as though you threw a rock through a jewelry store window when no one was watching. They would use the store's security cameras to identify, charge and then convict you. Same thing here. The photos and videos are simply evidence.
"...confront your accuser..." The camera is not your accuser. The police officer who examines them is. Its just as though you threw a rock through a jewelry store window when no one was watching. They would use the store's security cameras to identify, charge and then convict you. Same thing here. The photos and videos are simply evidence.
By: Jim_Brown on 1/10/10
There are several constitutional issues.
1. The burden of proof lies with the government and the only thing the government knows is who the owner is NOT the driver.
2. Chain of evidence
Here are a few more arguments
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/
A VDOT report that finds cameras are causing crashes
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf
There are several constitutional issues.
1. The burden of proof lies with the government and the only thing the government knows is who the owner is NOT the driver.
2. Chain of evidence
Here are a few more arguments
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/
A VDOT report that finds cameras are causing crashes
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf
By: aeckfam on 1/10/10
Umm attagirl, Opining is correct. Your accuser is not a photograph, it is the officer reviewing the photographs and video of your civil infraction. And you can challenge your ticket in court. So, no constitutional problem there.
And Jim, for #1: this is not a criminal matter, it is civil so the government can give a citation to the owner of the vehicle. Just like parking violations- the owner of the car is responsible. The person writing the ticket didn't see who parked it illegally. There are many other instances where the owner of the vehicle is responsible too. Don't lend your car out. Or if you do, have a written contract with the person that states any tickets and fines incurred while the vehicle was with that person will be payed by that person. Now if your car was stolen against your will, you could bring that up in court.
#2 Chain of evidence- Would you like to ellaborate on how the collection of these photos/videos is illegal?
And again, your arguments about cameras causing more crashes aren't going to convince me...cameras don't cause crashes. Bad drivers? Yes. A deer darting in front of your car? Yes. Ice/snow? Sure. A camera sitting up high on a pole on the side of the intersection? No. Keep a safe following distance and you won't rear end someone who slams on their breaks.
Umm attagirl, Opining is correct. Your accuser is not a photograph, it is the officer reviewing the photographs and video of your civil infraction. And you can challenge your ticket in court. So, no constitutional problem there.
And Jim, for #1: this is not a criminal matter, it is civil so the government can give a citation to the owner of the vehicle. Just like parking violations- the owner of the car is responsible. The person writing the ticket didn't see who parked it illegally. There are many other instances where the owner of the vehicle is responsible too. Don't lend your car out. Or if you do, have a written contract with the person that states any tickets and fines incurred while the vehicle was with that person will be payed by that person. Now if your car was stolen against your will, you could bring that up in court.
#2 Chain of evidence- Would you like to ellaborate on how the collection of these photos/videos is illegal?
And again, your arguments about cameras causing more crashes aren't going to convince me...cameras don't cause crashes. Bad drivers? Yes. A deer darting in front of your car? Yes. Ice/snow? Sure. A camera sitting up high on a pole on the side of the intersection? No. Keep a safe following distance and you won't rear end someone who slams on their breaks.
By: aeckfam on 1/10/10
Here is the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of red light cameras.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/081363p.pdf
Here is the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of red light cameras.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/081363p.pdf
By: Jim_Brown on 1/10/10
"And again, your arguments about cameras causing more crashes aren't going to convince me"
Well, I guess I win.
"Chain of evidence- Would you like to ellaborate on how the collection of these photos/videos is illegal?"
The camera vendors are not licensed by the state.
"Just like parking violations- the owner of the car is responsible."
No, they are not like parking tickets when someone parks illegally they recieve the ticket when they return to the vehicle unlike the cameras citation which come in the mail weeks later with no proof of who was driving the vehicle.
The process by which the citations are issued are unconstitutional the right case and the right judge haven't met yet but they will.
If you believe the cameras are about safety here are a few questions.
Why are traffic camera issued citations non-moving violations? Why aren't points added to driving records when the citation is issued by a traffic camera? Why is the same traffic offence treated differently depending on how\who issued the citation?
The process by which the citations are issued are unconstitutional because it denies due process. The owner of the vehicle receives the citation whether they were driving or not. If the owner denies they were driving, then the owner must tell the court who was driving. The burden of proof
lies with the court NOT the owner. If the courts cannot prove who the driver was, then they have NO case. If safety is the issue why doesn't running a red light count as points on the driver's record? Shouldn't habitual red light runners have their
license pull? It is the state and local government's duty to fix unsafe roads NOT to profit from them. If we don't stop these
cameras now, then every one-horse town in this state will have one every mile and there's no law to stop them.
"And again, your arguments about cameras causing more crashes aren't going to convince me"
Well, I guess I win.
"Chain of evidence- Would you like to ellaborate on how the collection of these photos/videos is illegal?"
The camera vendors are not licensed by the state.
"Just like parking violations- the owner of the car is responsible."
No, they are not like parking tickets when someone parks illegally they recieve the ticket when they return to the vehicle unlike the cameras citation which come in the mail weeks later with no proof of who was driving the vehicle.
The process by which the citations are issued are unconstitutional the right case and the right judge haven't met yet but they will.
If you believe the cameras are about safety here are a few questions.
Why are traffic camera issued citations non-moving violations? Why aren't points added to driving records when the citation is issued by a traffic camera? Why is the same traffic offence treated differently depending on how\who issued the citation?
The process by which the citations are issued are unconstitutional because it denies due process. The owner of the vehicle receives the citation whether they were driving or not. If the owner denies they were driving, then the owner must tell the court who was driving. The burden of proof
lies with the court NOT the owner. If the courts cannot prove who the driver was, then they have NO case. If safety is the issue why doesn't running a red light count as points on the driver's record? Shouldn't habitual red light runners have their
license pull? It is the state and local government's duty to fix unsafe roads NOT to profit from them. If we don't stop these
cameras now, then every one-horse town in this state will have one every mile and there's no law to stop them.
By: Jim_Brown on 1/10/10
"Don't lend your car out. Or if you do, have a written contract with the person"
LOL! Thats too funny. How about the cops actually doing their jobs an issuing the tickets themselves.
Join us
http://www.facebook.com/killtncams
Tell money grubbing Big Brother to take these cameras and shove'em tomorrow Monday 11th call your rep and the TN House Transportation comm.
The lobbyist are out in full force for the local governments and the Red Light camera companies. Let your voice be heard!
"Don't lend your car out. Or if you do, have a written contract with the person"
LOL! Thats too funny. How about the cops actually doing their jobs an issuing the tickets themselves.
Join us
http://www.facebook.com/killtncams
Tell money grubbing Big Brother to take these cameras and shove'em tomorrow Monday 11th call your rep and the TN House Transportation comm.
The lobbyist are out in full force for the local governments and the Red Light camera companies. Let your voice be heard!
By: Jim_Brown on 1/10/10
"And again, your arguments about cameras causing more crashes aren't going to convince me"
They aren't my arguments the study is from the Virginia Department of Transportation. If you don't believe their study maybe you should speak with them.
"And again, your arguments about cameras causing more crashes aren't going to convince me"
They aren't my arguments the study is from the Virginia Department of Transportation. If you don't believe their study maybe you should speak with them.
By: cmac on 1/10/10
Jim Brown - care to give us your official evidence that people in Rutherford County "drove less NOT more" last year? I would be interested to see the data.
Jim Brown - care to give us your official evidence that people in Rutherford County "drove less NOT more" last year? I would be interested to see the data.
By: Jim_Brown on 1/10/10
@cmac
Since unemployment rose steadily throughout 2009 that would mean less people driving. Also, it would mean less commercial activity as well. Goolge Rutherford county unemployment.
@cmac
Since unemployment rose steadily throughout 2009 that would mean less people driving. Also, it would mean less commercial activity as well. Goolge Rutherford county unemployment.
By: Farmall on 1/11/10
I was against the cameras at first. I have found myself driving a little better since they came out. Just don't follow to close behind me, because I will slam on the brakes if it turns yellow any real distance in front of me.
I was against the cameras at first. I have found myself driving a little better since they came out. Just don't follow to close behind me, because I will slam on the brakes if it turns yellow any real distance in front of me.
By: willis5038 on 1/11/10
I work in Law Enforcement and I can definately see the constitution concerns about these cameras.
For example, Lets say that I witness a vehicle run a red light. However I don't get a good enough look at the driver of the vehicle to positively identify them and I'm unable to catch up with that vehicle to conduct a traffic stop at the time of the offense.
A few minutes later I make contact with the vehicle in a parking lot and the car is unoccupied. As I understand it, I can't just write a ticket and leave it on the car. You have to issue a citation for a moving violation to a driver.
I understand that these cameras bypass that issue by not reporting the violations to the state. That doesnt seem right. It seems as though common sense would dictate that if an officer cant issue a citation in the situation I described above then he couldn't issue one by watching film of an offense.
I haven't done a lot of research on the legality of these cameras and could very possibly be wrong in my interpretation of the law here.
Does anyone know of any case law regarding Traffic cameras? I'm sure these issues have been raised in the past.
I work in Law Enforcement and I can definately see the constitution concerns about these cameras.
For example, Lets say that I witness a vehicle run a red light. However I don't get a good enough look at the driver of the vehicle to positively identify them and I'm unable to catch up with that vehicle to conduct a traffic stop at the time of the offense.
A few minutes later I make contact with the vehicle in a parking lot and the car is unoccupied. As I understand it, I can't just write a ticket and leave it on the car. You have to issue a citation for a moving violation to a driver.
I understand that these cameras bypass that issue by not reporting the violations to the state. That doesnt seem right. It seems as though common sense would dictate that if an officer cant issue a citation in the situation I described above then he couldn't issue one by watching film of an offense.
I haven't done a lot of research on the legality of these cameras and could very possibly be wrong in my interpretation of the law here.
Does anyone know of any case law regarding Traffic cameras? I'm sure these issues have been raised in the past.
By: driveguy on 1/11/10
Jim Brown,
Have you received one of these little presents in the mail? You sound a little bitter. A hit and run driver was recorded on one of these cameras and gave an innocent victim recourse. The photo was supeoned and a clear violation was recorded as to the car running a blatantly red light. I own 4 vehicles, 1 for me, 1 for my wife and 2 for my kids. I am responsible for those vehicles period. Cameras are not the issue here, it's what is done when citations are issued. What the citation is for and whether or not you are the driver.
willis5038,
Your eyewitness is not evidence after the fact. The photograph would be.
Jim Brown,
Have you received one of these little presents in the mail? You sound a little bitter. A hit and run driver was recorded on one of these cameras and gave an innocent victim recourse. The photo was supeoned and a clear violation was recorded as to the car running a blatantly red light. I own 4 vehicles, 1 for me, 1 for my wife and 2 for my kids. I am responsible for those vehicles period. Cameras are not the issue here, it's what is done when citations are issued. What the citation is for and whether or not you are the driver.
willis5038,
Your eyewitness is not evidence after the fact. The photograph would be.
By: Jim_Brown on 1/11/10
@driveguy
I tend to get bitter when my liberty is being trampled on. The process is flawed.
@driveguy
I tend to get bitter when my liberty is being trampled on. The process is flawed.
By: OlDave on 1/11/10
Seems to me that those opposed are those that consider themselves "Above the law".
You know the one that goes through school zones at 30-40mph.
OlDave
Seems to me that those opposed are those that consider themselves "Above the law".
You know the one that goes through school zones at 30-40mph.
OlDave
By: willis5038 on 1/11/10
Driveguy,
I see your point in being responsible for your vehicles, but my point is that if your wife or child were to be involved in an accident were one of their actions caused property damage or the injury of another, you would not be held criminally responsible simply because your name is on the vehicle's registration. The driver is responsible for the operation of the vehcile and also to make sure that the vehcile is functioning within the bounds of the law. The only exception to this would perhaps be the DUI by allowance statute.
The photograph would in fact be evidence that the crime had been committed, but not that the registered owner of the vehicle committed the crime.
I don't think that I'm quite as upset about the situation as Mr. Brown, but I must agree that the process is flawed.
Driveguy,
I see your point in being responsible for your vehicles, but my point is that if your wife or child were to be involved in an accident were one of their actions caused property damage or the injury of another, you would not be held criminally responsible simply because your name is on the vehicle's registration. The driver is responsible for the operation of the vehcile and also to make sure that the vehcile is functioning within the bounds of the law. The only exception to this would perhaps be the DUI by allowance statute.
The photograph would in fact be evidence that the crime had been committed, but not that the registered owner of the vehicle committed the crime.
I don't think that I'm quite as upset about the situation as Mr. Brown, but I must agree that the process is flawed.
By: willis5038 on 1/11/10
If the cameras were able to catch a photograph of the driver then I would feel differently about them.
If the cameras were able to catch a photograph of the driver then I would feel differently about them.
By: cmac on 1/12/10
Jim B - Thank you for playing. Tennessee is one of the fastest growing (population increase) states in the union. Rutherford County is one of the fastest growing (population increase) counties in the state. Now, give us your verifiable evidence that fewer drivers are on Rutherford County roads. Remember, one cannot prove a negative. Statistically speaking, the reduction in traffic accidents at intersections compared to population increase in the county equals a negative. Simply put, red light cameras put money in camera company and county revenue pockets while having a negative impact on traffic accidents at intersections. Any questions?
Jim B - Thank you for playing. Tennessee is one of the fastest growing (population increase) states in the union. Rutherford County is one of the fastest growing (population increase) counties in the state. Now, give us your verifiable evidence that fewer drivers are on Rutherford County roads. Remember, one cannot prove a negative. Statistically speaking, the reduction in traffic accidents at intersections compared to population increase in the county equals a negative. Simply put, red light cameras put money in camera company and county revenue pockets while having a negative impact on traffic accidents at intersections. Any questions?
By: Emptypockets on 1/13/10
Jim Brown,Attagirl,Socettuem,
Wow ya'll need to lay off the Hooka Pipe and come back to reality!! The answer to this problem is simple, Everyone obey the law and stop for Red Lights, revenue goes away and so does the cameras. Maybe the next time you two travel down Old Fort parkway you get lucky and meet one of these law violators. Have a beautiful day and happy motoring.
Jim Brown,Attagirl,Socettuem,
Wow ya'll need to lay off the Hooka Pipe and come back to reality!! The answer to this problem is simple, Everyone obey the law and stop for Red Lights, revenue goes away and so does the cameras. Maybe the next time you two travel down Old Fort parkway you get lucky and meet one of these law violators. Have a beautiful day and happy motoring.
By: vdanr on 1/13/10
It is clear to me that some people have WAY too much time on their hands. I agree with Emptypockets... just obey the law, it's just that simple. With all of the information some of you are finding, it makes me question whether or not you should run for some type of government office. It is clear that this is the only way to get the results you want!!! Stop complaining so much and just obey the law!!!
It is clear to me that some people have WAY too much time on their hands. I agree with Emptypockets... just obey the law, it's just that simple. With all of the information some of you are finding, it makes me question whether or not you should run for some type of government office. It is clear that this is the only way to get the results you want!!! Stop complaining so much and just obey the law!!!
By: driveguy on 1/13/10
willis5038,
I agree that this system is flawed however, I do not feel that it infringes on my personal rights as Mr. Brown would have me think. Follow the law and obey traffic signals as you should.
I think the forward facing camera as well as the camera that identifies the vehicle so we could at least know the operator is a great idea but, cost is the issue and I would rather see that money go to paying our officers a competetive rate.
Not sure there is a clear option here but, a camera that catches a vehicle I own running a red light does not infringe on my personal rights. As far as the vehicle goes, unless it has been stolen, I am going to know who is driving my vehicle.
willis5038,
I agree that this system is flawed however, I do not feel that it infringes on my personal rights as Mr. Brown would have me think. Follow the law and obey traffic signals as you should.
I think the forward facing camera as well as the camera that identifies the vehicle so we could at least know the operator is a great idea but, cost is the issue and I would rather see that money go to paying our officers a competetive rate.
Not sure there is a clear option here but, a camera that catches a vehicle I own running a red light does not infringe on my personal rights. As far as the vehicle goes, unless it has been stolen, I am going to know who is driving my vehicle.
Login and voice your opinion!