-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Email
Print
Digg
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: Bluesman on 2/28/10
Murfreesboro Police spokesman Kyle Evans said the program isn’t about the money.
"BULL...."
Murfreesboro Police spokesman Kyle Evans said the program isn’t about the money.
"BULL...."
By: tengun on 2/28/10
Are you kidding? The city is spending over a half million to generate a quarter million in revenue. Sounds like the city's version of new math. So other than adding to the city's revenue (-$250K) what do these lights do for the city? If you paid attention it gave the city an operating expense that is higher than the revenue it generates. Then we are told that the amount of tickets (I.e.revenue) will go down over time. I guess this is no more of a waste to our tax dollars than the camera system the city pays for to monitor traffic. If the problems with congestion are a measure of theit success they were a great investment. Oh I forgot without these cameras they wouldn't have anything to put on channel 3 in the morning. That is worth the cost of operating and maintaining. Come on people start asking the hard questions.
Are you kidding? The city is spending over a half million to generate a quarter million in revenue. Sounds like the city's version of new math. So other than adding to the city's revenue (-$250K) what do these lights do for the city? If you paid attention it gave the city an operating expense that is higher than the revenue it generates. Then we are told that the amount of tickets (I.e.revenue) will go down over time. I guess this is no more of a waste to our tax dollars than the camera system the city pays for to monitor traffic. If the problems with congestion are a measure of theit success they were a great investment. Oh I forgot without these cameras they wouldn't have anything to put on channel 3 in the morning. That is worth the cost of operating and maintaining. Come on people start asking the hard questions.
By: bota on 2/28/10
Red light cameras are a good thing. I wish we had more of them to nail those jerks who "conga line " through the red in the left turn lane from Old Fort to Cason Lane.
Red light cameras are a good thing. I wish we had more of them to nail those jerks who "conga line " through the red in the left turn lane from Old Fort to Cason Lane.
By: attagirl on 2/28/10
Yeah, who cares about the infringement of our constitutional rights so long as it make life easier for you.
Yeah, who cares about the infringement of our constitutional rights so long as it make life easier for you.
By: attagirl on 2/28/10
Boy it's a good thing they had a redlight camera at the intersection shown on that video. It sure did a lot to prevent that wreck, didn't it?
Boy it's a good thing they had a redlight camera at the intersection shown on that video. It sure did a lot to prevent that wreck, didn't it?
By: SocEtTuem on 2/28/10
This is about revenue generation. All the Bull about reducing injury accidents and keeping people safe is just so much hyperbole. Wrecks increased, which is exactly what opponents to this predicted would happen. This was and is about generating money. Any other explanation is self serving tripe.
This is about revenue generation. All the Bull about reducing injury accidents and keeping people safe is just so much hyperbole. Wrecks increased, which is exactly what opponents to this predicted would happen. This was and is about generating money. Any other explanation is self serving tripe.
By: Ponycar on 2/28/10
There have been 2 major crashes at the intersection of Northfield and memorial in the past 2 months. This intersection has a traffic light camera. It's aweful funny how these 2 crashes didn't make the news, but every crash before the traffic light cameras did.
There have been 2 major crashes at the intersection of Northfield and memorial in the past 2 months. This intersection has a traffic light camera. It's aweful funny how these 2 crashes didn't make the news, but every crash before the traffic light cameras did.
By: attagirl on 2/28/10
I think it's funny that the headline for this story is about the profit and not the safety. They tell us it's for our own good, and then gloat about the profits.
They gloss over the fact that rear-end accidents are increased (by a larger number than side-impacts are decreased).
While I don't wish anyone harm, I sure hope a good case of a rear-end accident caused directly by these cameras makes it into the courts.
I think it's funny that the headline for this story is about the profit and not the safety. They tell us it's for our own good, and then gloat about the profits.
They gloss over the fact that rear-end accidents are increased (by a larger number than side-impacts are decreased).
While I don't wish anyone harm, I sure hope a good case of a rear-end accident caused directly by these cameras makes it into the courts.
By: bota on 2/28/10
The cameras at Northfield & Memorial may not have prevented these 2 accidents but they sure didn't cause them.rather they showed who was at fault. That cuts the lying down a whole lot.
The cameras at Northfield & Memorial may not have prevented these 2 accidents but they sure didn't cause them.rather they showed who was at fault. That cuts the lying down a whole lot.
By: mrdrummond on 2/28/10
These are not the same cameras the city airs on Channel 3. Those cameras were put in several years ago to monitor traffic flow. .
These are not the same cameras the city airs on Channel 3. Those cameras were put in several years ago to monitor traffic flow. .
By: Opining on 2/28/10
I don't understand all the whining. I think of these cameras as the equivalent of having a police officer sitting at these intersections 24/7 ticketing the most flagrant offenders. The point of this story is that we're getting this service without committing officers to it and it is paying for itself (read carefully +$250K). No rights violations. The State of TN is always the accuser. With an officer, its his word against the driver. With the cameras, the video is simply the evidence. We all have the same rights to argue our defense in either case.
I don't understand all the whining. I think of these cameras as the equivalent of having a police officer sitting at these intersections 24/7 ticketing the most flagrant offenders. The point of this story is that we're getting this service without committing officers to it and it is paying for itself (read carefully +$250K). No rights violations. The State of TN is always the accuser. With an officer, its his word against the driver. With the cameras, the video is simply the evidence. We all have the same rights to argue our defense in either case.
By: attagirl on 2/28/10
No, Opining, it is NOT the same as having an officer. If an officer were there (as the law requires), he would be in court prosecuting the offense, and he would be subject to cross-examination by the defendant, AS OUR CONSTITUTION REQUIRES.
It is impossible to cross-examine a photograph. There is no state prosecutor. Our constitution places the burden of proving guilt on the state (prosecutor) beyond a reasonable doubt. Our constitution also guarantees us a fair trial.
Using only a photograph for prosecution, with no prosecutor and no cross-examination is an absolute, blatant violation of our constitutional right to be proven guilty by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, Opining, it is NOT the same as having an officer. If an officer were there (as the law requires), he would be in court prosecuting the offense, and he would be subject to cross-examination by the defendant, AS OUR CONSTITUTION REQUIRES.
It is impossible to cross-examine a photograph. There is no state prosecutor. Our constitution places the burden of proving guilt on the state (prosecutor) beyond a reasonable doubt. Our constitution also guarantees us a fair trial.
Using only a photograph for prosecution, with no prosecutor and no cross-examination is an absolute, blatant violation of our constitutional right to be proven guilty by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.
By: srd275 on 2/28/10
So let me get this right IT CAUSED MORE WRECKS BUT some how improved safety.
Tell ya what lets see all the t-bone collisions before and after. HOW MANY WERE DUI's, To credit RLC for stopping a drunk is just plain dishonest! (In fact DUI deaths nationwide are down due to recession). Even MADD was commenting on that!
Further if the paper does a FOIA request you will find most "violations".
1. non dangerous right turns on red.
2. stopping over the stopline.
3. split second violations that when you get too many point to the need for longer ambers.
So let me get this right IT CAUSED MORE WRECKS BUT some how improved safety.
Tell ya what lets see all the t-bone collisions before and after. HOW MANY WERE DUI's, To credit RLC for stopping a drunk is just plain dishonest! (In fact DUI deaths nationwide are down due to recession). Even MADD was commenting on that!
Further if the paper does a FOIA request you will find most "violations".
1. non dangerous right turns on red.
2. stopping over the stopline.
3. split second violations that when you get too many point to the need for longer ambers.
By: ItsGood on 2/28/10
attagirl, are you saying a photo - a snapshot of what happened is illegal?
Geez, you violated the law - face the lawmaker.
attagirl, are you saying a photo - a snapshot of what happened is illegal?
Geez, you violated the law - face the lawmaker.
By: attagirl on 3/1/10
No, the photo is not illegal. We have no expectation of privacy in public and I'm okay with that.
What's illegal is using it in court as the only evidence for conviction with no prosecutor and no opportunity to cross-examine your accuser.
No, the photo is not illegal. We have no expectation of privacy in public and I'm okay with that.
What's illegal is using it in court as the only evidence for conviction with no prosecutor and no opportunity to cross-examine your accuser.
By: attagirl on 3/1/10
And btw, ItsGood, TraffixPix is NOT the "lawmaker."
And btw, ItsGood, TraffixPix is NOT the "lawmaker."
By: Farmall on 3/1/10
So let me get this straight, we have a few more wrecks, but the camera's are not the cause. Mind you wrecks across the country are down this year, except where we have redlight cameras. Well I haven't been rear eneded yet. I have stoped suddenly a few times.
So let me get this straight, we have a few more wrecks, but the camera's are not the cause. Mind you wrecks across the country are down this year, except where we have redlight cameras. Well I haven't been rear eneded yet. I have stoped suddenly a few times.
By: Opining on 3/1/10
What law requires an officer be present? There are lots of crimes prosecuted where there are no live witnesses. If you break the window of a jewelry store and do a grab and dash, the state may prosecute you based solely on the store's video surveillance. The only evidence is the video. The accuser is the state. You can argue in court that it wasn't you, or that you were just borrowing the stuff. Same with the video evidence from the traffic cameras.
What law requires an officer be present? There are lots of crimes prosecuted where there are no live witnesses. If you break the window of a jewelry store and do a grab and dash, the state may prosecute you based solely on the store's video surveillance. The only evidence is the video. The accuser is the state. You can argue in court that it wasn't you, or that you were just borrowing the stuff. Same with the video evidence from the traffic cameras.
By: josef on 3/1/10
If they are accusing you of a crime an officer must be present.
It's all about the MONEY, can't you get this through your HEAD?????
If they are accusing you of a crime an officer must be present.
It's all about the MONEY, can't you get this through your HEAD?????
By: attagirl on 3/1/10
Opining, all misdemeanors prosecuted by the state REQUIRE an officer's presence. The scenerio you described is not the same at all. The defendant you describe would have an opportunity to present an alibi defense; he would have an opportunity to cross-examine the store owner, and he likely would have had to be caught with the goods to be convicted.
Plus, THE STATE OF TENNESSEE would be prosecuting the jewelry store robbery. The photo itself would not be submitted as the ONLY prosecuting evidence. There MUST be other evidence.
Opining, all misdemeanors prosecuted by the state REQUIRE an officer's presence. The scenerio you described is not the same at all. The defendant you describe would have an opportunity to present an alibi defense; he would have an opportunity to cross-examine the store owner, and he likely would have had to be caught with the goods to be convicted.
Plus, THE STATE OF TENNESSEE would be prosecuting the jewelry store robbery. The photo itself would not be submitted as the ONLY prosecuting evidence. There MUST be other evidence.
By: emmarae on 3/1/10
Not all misdemeanors REQUIRE an officer's presents, if I witness a misdemeanor, E.G. if someone assaults me or one of my friends, I can make a citizens arrest on that person without an officer witnessing it. Also, the red light cameras are the EVIDENCE.
Not all misdemeanors REQUIRE an officer's presents, if I witness a misdemeanor, E.G. if someone assaults me or one of my friends, I can make a citizens arrest on that person without an officer witnessing it. Also, the red light cameras are the EVIDENCE.
By: attagirl on 3/1/10
Yes, emmarae, they do. If you decide to make a "citizen's arrest" (whatever in the heck that is), then you still have to show up in court and prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. You would be subjec tto cross-examination on what you witnessed. Where is the prosecutor for the traffic pics?
I just went through the redlight at Church and Broad a few minutes ago. I watched a schoolbus almost rear end a car that slammed on its brakes when the light turned yellow. The bus wasn't anticipating the car to stop and almost hit it. If it wasn't one of those flat-front-end buses, it would have hit her.
That lady should have never stopped. She had plenty of room and time to make the turn, but she didn't. My guess is because of the cameras, and she almost caused an accident with a school bus.
Are the cameras worth that?
Yes, emmarae, they do. If you decide to make a "citizen's arrest" (whatever in the heck that is), then you still have to show up in court and prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. You would be subjec tto cross-examination on what you witnessed. Where is the prosecutor for the traffic pics?
I just went through the redlight at Church and Broad a few minutes ago. I watched a schoolbus almost rear end a car that slammed on its brakes when the light turned yellow. The bus wasn't anticipating the car to stop and almost hit it. If it wasn't one of those flat-front-end buses, it would have hit her.
That lady should have never stopped. She had plenty of room and time to make the turn, but she didn't. My guess is because of the cameras, and she almost caused an accident with a school bus.
Are the cameras worth that?
By: Catman411 on 3/1/10
If you looked at a picture of a car clearly running the red light, what reasonable doubt would there be?? The driver us clearly guilty. Why waste time and money cross examining??
If you looked at a picture of a car clearly running the red light, what reasonable doubt would there be?? The driver us clearly guilty. Why waste time and money cross examining??
By: redbird on 3/1/10
I hope the legislature bans the redlight cameras and makes the city pay back all money collected with interest.
I hope the legislature bans the redlight cameras and makes the city pay back all money collected with interest.
By: attagirl on 3/1/10
Why waste time and money cross-examining???? Really???
So what you're saying is, Why bother with the Constitution. Just so long as you don't ever turn right on red or go through a redlight to give an ambulance room, so be it, right? So long as somebody else is not driving your car and gets their picture taken, then it doesn't affect you, right?
What if you had put your car in the shop that morning and it was the mechanic who ran the red light? What if the car was stolen? Don't you think you should have the opportunity to defend yourself?
Jeez, Catman, I can't believe you actually said "why waste time and money cross examining." You call yourself American?
Why waste time and money cross-examining???? Really???
So what you're saying is, Why bother with the Constitution. Just so long as you don't ever turn right on red or go through a redlight to give an ambulance room, so be it, right? So long as somebody else is not driving your car and gets their picture taken, then it doesn't affect you, right?
What if you had put your car in the shop that morning and it was the mechanic who ran the red light? What if the car was stolen? Don't you think you should have the opportunity to defend yourself?
Jeez, Catman, I can't believe you actually said "why waste time and money cross examining." You call yourself American?
By: parkerq on 3/1/10
Well I am against the cameras attagirl but you dont get a ticket if someone else is driving your car or at least so says the article. It says you can fill out paper work to show who was driving.
Well I am against the cameras attagirl but you dont get a ticket if someone else is driving your car or at least so says the article. It says you can fill out paper work to show who was driving.
By: joe.harleyrider on 3/2/10
Great video, that only serves to PROVE, that the DANGEROUS red light runner that we all need to be concerned about is the DISTRACTED DRIVER! You know, the kind that blows through an intersection like it's not even there, no less that the light is RED! And, this video PROVES, that red light cameras do NOTHING to stop this kind of DANGEROUS red light running!
So, someone tell me again that red light cameras are really about SAFETY?
By the way, about this having to tell who was driving your car if you claim it wasn't you; what if was your spouse? I'm no Perry Mason here, but isn't there some Constitutional protection from having to implicate your spouse in the commission of a crime? So, since it "might be" your spouse driving the car, couldn't you refuse to tell "who" it was, because it "might" have been your spouse?
Great video, that only serves to PROVE, that the DANGEROUS red light runner that we all need to be concerned about is the DISTRACTED DRIVER! You know, the kind that blows through an intersection like it's not even there, no less that the light is RED! And, this video PROVES, that red light cameras do NOTHING to stop this kind of DANGEROUS red light running!
So, someone tell me again that red light cameras are really about SAFETY?
By the way, about this having to tell who was driving your car if you claim it wasn't you; what if was your spouse? I'm no Perry Mason here, but isn't there some Constitutional protection from having to implicate your spouse in the commission of a crime? So, since it "might be" your spouse driving the car, couldn't you refuse to tell "who" it was, because it "might" have been your spouse?
By: attagirl on 3/2/10
Joe, no spouse can be compelled to testify against the other, but that is only in criminal cases. Traffic tickets are traditionally criminal in nature, but by calling this a "civil offense" they get around the constitutional altogether.
Joe, no spouse can be compelled to testify against the other, but that is only in criminal cases. Traffic tickets are traditionally criminal in nature, but by calling this a "civil offense" they get around the constitutional altogether.
By: Farmall on 3/2/10
Hmmm, so you have to prove yourself innocent. Why does that sound wrong to me.
Hmmm, so you have to prove yourself innocent. Why does that sound wrong to me.
By: attagirl on 3/2/10
Because it IS wrong!
Because it IS wrong!
By: Macgyver on 3/2/10
Alright everyone, I need you to smile for the pictures. Can you say 'unconstitutional money maker'!"
Alright everyone, I need you to smile for the pictures. Can you say 'unconstitutional money maker'!"
By: tdoggie1 on 3/2/10
There a lot of a--holes that run red lights in this town and something needed to be done about it...if it cost someone, who has a habit of running these lights...because they are a selfish all fired hurry to get to where they are going....then more power to the city.
There a lot of a--holes that run red lights in this town and something needed to be done about it...if it cost someone, who has a habit of running these lights...because they are a selfish all fired hurry to get to where they are going....then more power to the city.
By: ajr3p_mtsu_s10 on 3/2/10
Red-light cameras are a resourceful income for the city of Murfreesboro, but they also capture the drivers who are at fault with the law. There was an increase with fender benders, which would make sense because drivers do not want to be caught on camera running a red light. Despite rear end wrecks, side collisions have been decreased. I’m not saying the traffic cameras are the source of this cause, but I do believe this type of monitoring is not hurting anything. The cameras clearly did not prevent the driver in the video above from being completely oblivious to his or her surroundings. A friend and I ran a red light on Old Fort Parkway and Thompson Lane, and I received a ticket in the mail with a photograph of proof. As well as, I was able to view a video of it online that was hilarious, but unfortunately after you pay the ticket the video is erased. The point of my testimony is that the traffic cameras did nothing for me except that I knew I was definitely getting a ticket because I clearly had made a traffic violation. The cameras can be a positive thing because Murfreesboro has a heavy traffic flow, and officers cannot be everywhere. Hopefully rear end run ins will digress due to the awareness of traffic cameras, and maybe the revenue generated from these red light tickets will be used to better Rutherford.
Red-light cameras are a resourceful income for the city of Murfreesboro, but they also capture the drivers who are at fault with the law. There was an increase with fender benders, which would make sense because drivers do not want to be caught on camera running a red light. Despite rear end wrecks, side collisions have been decreased. I’m not saying the traffic cameras are the source of this cause, but I do believe this type of monitoring is not hurting anything. The cameras clearly did not prevent the driver in the video above from being completely oblivious to his or her surroundings. A friend and I ran a red light on Old Fort Parkway and Thompson Lane, and I received a ticket in the mail with a photograph of proof. As well as, I was able to view a video of it online that was hilarious, but unfortunately after you pay the ticket the video is erased. The point of my testimony is that the traffic cameras did nothing for me except that I knew I was definitely getting a ticket because I clearly had made a traffic violation. The cameras can be a positive thing because Murfreesboro has a heavy traffic flow, and officers cannot be everywhere. Hopefully rear end run ins will digress due to the awareness of traffic cameras, and maybe the revenue generated from these red light tickets will be used to better Rutherford.
By: attagirl on 3/2/10
The profit doesn't make up for the violation of the constitution. Nothing justifies that.
The profit doesn't make up for the violation of the constitution. Nothing justifies that.
By: driveguy on 3/2/10
WOW!
I don't think I have ever seen more response to an issue on this site. Good arguments both ways but, I am a little fuzzy on the constitutional infringement. Which right are we talking about exactly? Is it your right to confront your accuser? Well, the city or county is your accuser and if you feel that a picture of your vehicle commiting a violation is not enough evidence to convict then, go to court and argue that. If it is an invasion of your privacy your concerned with then I pose this question to you, if the camera was located in a public place and captured a photo of a thief commiting a robbery against you, would you want that photo admitted as evidence in a trial? Whose rights are violated in that case? How many people who are against these cameras have been issued a citation? I guess I don't understand the passion displayed in some of the post's I am reading here. I for one will take responsibilty for any violation I commit, that's not being an American, that's being an adult. If I was not driving the vehicle then, the photo's are date and time stamped so, as a responsible adult, I will know who was operating my vehicle at that time and if it had been stolen, then I would have reported this to the proper authorities and that too will have a time associated with it. Red light cameras very well could be saving lives but that is hard to estimate since how can you tell if accidents have been avoided? they didn't happen!! People get a grip, this issue does not warrant the amount of response we are all wasting our time commenting on.
WOW!
I don't think I have ever seen more response to an issue on this site. Good arguments both ways but, I am a little fuzzy on the constitutional infringement. Which right are we talking about exactly? Is it your right to confront your accuser? Well, the city or county is your accuser and if you feel that a picture of your vehicle commiting a violation is not enough evidence to convict then, go to court and argue that. If it is an invasion of your privacy your concerned with then I pose this question to you, if the camera was located in a public place and captured a photo of a thief commiting a robbery against you, would you want that photo admitted as evidence in a trial? Whose rights are violated in that case? How many people who are against these cameras have been issued a citation? I guess I don't understand the passion displayed in some of the post's I am reading here. I for one will take responsibilty for any violation I commit, that's not being an American, that's being an adult. If I was not driving the vehicle then, the photo's are date and time stamped so, as a responsible adult, I will know who was operating my vehicle at that time and if it had been stolen, then I would have reported this to the proper authorities and that too will have a time associated with it. Red light cameras very well could be saving lives but that is hard to estimate since how can you tell if accidents have been avoided? they didn't happen!! People get a grip, this issue does not warrant the amount of response we are all wasting our time commenting on.
By: attagirl on 3/2/10
driveguy, the constitutional infringement is indeed the loss of the right to confront your accuser. You can't confront a photograph; you can't question it. In ANY other criminal case, there must be one person (an actual human being) who brings the charges. That person MUST have FIRST-HAND knowledge of the facts.
No one in the traffic cam cases has first hand knowledge.
The burden should not be on the defendant to prove his innocence. This is American! The burden should ALWAYS be on the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what our constitution REQUIRES.
We have no constitutional expectation of privacy in public, so the cameras themselves are not an invasion of privacy.
I have a hard time accepting that people are so willing to give up constitutional rights in exchange for false safety. These cameras actually cause more accidents, but because we're all so full of road rage, nobody seems to care.
driveguy, the constitutional infringement is indeed the loss of the right to confront your accuser. You can't confront a photograph; you can't question it. In ANY other criminal case, there must be one person (an actual human being) who brings the charges. That person MUST have FIRST-HAND knowledge of the facts.
No one in the traffic cam cases has first hand knowledge.
The burden should not be on the defendant to prove his innocence. This is American! The burden should ALWAYS be on the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what our constitution REQUIRES.
We have no constitutional expectation of privacy in public, so the cameras themselves are not an invasion of privacy.
I have a hard time accepting that people are so willing to give up constitutional rights in exchange for false safety. These cameras actually cause more accidents, but because we're all so full of road rage, nobody seems to care.
By: attagirl on 3/2/10
I wish we could organize a protest where we all drive through the redlights en masse (planned safely, of course). I mean thousands of people every day for about 2-3 days. Make them send out thousands of tickets, which no one will pay, and the city is still on the hook to the camera company.
I can't believe driveguy believes this issue is a waste of time. That's the complacency I'm talking about. Since when should we accept the government infringing on the only rights we can actually count on in this country? When is a constitutional violation okay?
I wish we could organize a protest where we all drive through the redlights en masse (planned safely, of course). I mean thousands of people every day for about 2-3 days. Make them send out thousands of tickets, which no one will pay, and the city is still on the hook to the camera company.
I can't believe driveguy believes this issue is a waste of time. That's the complacency I'm talking about. Since when should we accept the government infringing on the only rights we can actually count on in this country? When is a constitutional violation okay?
By: abide on 3/3/10
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, INCREASED REVENUE INCREASED WASTE.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, INCREASED REVENUE INCREASED WASTE.
By: justdance on 3/3/10
Totally agree with you driveguy....some people just like to get on a soapbox.....the cameras are obviously here to stay, so just do your part, drive with caution when you know you are coming up on one of those intersections and prepare yourself for whatever action you may need to take. Get over it for cryin' out loud! This is bordering on beating a dead horse!
Totally agree with you driveguy....some people just like to get on a soapbox.....the cameras are obviously here to stay, so just do your part, drive with caution when you know you are coming up on one of those intersections and prepare yourself for whatever action you may need to take. Get over it for cryin' out loud! This is bordering on beating a dead horse!
By: driveguy on 3/3/10
Attagirl,
Tell the truth here now, Have you been cited for running a light at one of these cameras?
Where do you get the fact that they cause more accidents? If I have a choice, I would rather have a car rearend my vehicle at 15 MPH than T-Bone me at 55 MPH. C'mon, there are so many other issues to be passionate about, Organize a protest that will feed the homeless or help the veterans of our community, have your "thousands" of people donate $5.00 for 2 or 3 days and give the money to the police department to stage an officer at the light to catch your butt rather than the camera, face him in court. Let's give this up, as stated in today's article "THE CAMERAS ARE HERE TO STAY!! Get off it.
Attagirl,
Tell the truth here now, Have you been cited for running a light at one of these cameras?
Where do you get the fact that they cause more accidents? If I have a choice, I would rather have a car rearend my vehicle at 15 MPH than T-Bone me at 55 MPH. C'mon, there are so many other issues to be passionate about, Organize a protest that will feed the homeless or help the veterans of our community, have your "thousands" of people donate $5.00 for 2 or 3 days and give the money to the police department to stage an officer at the light to catch your butt rather than the camera, face him in court. Let's give this up, as stated in today's article "THE CAMERAS ARE HERE TO STAY!! Get off it.
By: attagirl on 3/3/10
No, driveguy, I have not received a ticket, nor has anyone in my family that I know of. I get the fact that they cause more accidents from the statistics. Rear-end accidents increased.
These cameras will not stop the 55 mph side-impact crashes (or didn't you watch the video?).
And while you people may not think that the government blatantly violating the constitution is a big deal, I most certainly do.
When you find yourself in a court of law with the burden of proof on your shoulders instead of the prosecution's shoulders, you may think differently.
No, driveguy, I have not received a ticket, nor has anyone in my family that I know of. I get the fact that they cause more accidents from the statistics. Rear-end accidents increased.
These cameras will not stop the 55 mph side-impact crashes (or didn't you watch the video?).
And while you people may not think that the government blatantly violating the constitution is a big deal, I most certainly do.
When you find yourself in a court of law with the burden of proof on your shoulders instead of the prosecution's shoulders, you may think differently.
By: driveguy on 3/4/10
Attagirl,
Please give me the location of the statistical data you speak of so I can look at that also, not just what is wriiten here but the location of actual data that shows a compilation of all accidents at camera equipped red lights. Yes, I did watch the video and my question is, does this data you speak of show a reduction of side impact crashes at these locations? Did not say they would stop the crashes but, who's rights were violated in that video? If I was the person driving the vehicle which was impacted, I would be glad that the evidence was recorded.
If one of my vehicles, registered in my name, not stolen, is recorded on this camera then guess what, "I AM RESPONSIBLE" I will not use the constitution as a crutch and say my rights were violated because I can't cross examine a camera. These are not murder trials, or rape trials, It's a traffic violation!!
Attagirl,
Please give me the location of the statistical data you speak of so I can look at that also, not just what is wriiten here but the location of actual data that shows a compilation of all accidents at camera equipped red lights. Yes, I did watch the video and my question is, does this data you speak of show a reduction of side impact crashes at these locations? Did not say they would stop the crashes but, who's rights were violated in that video? If I was the person driving the vehicle which was impacted, I would be glad that the evidence was recorded.
If one of my vehicles, registered in my name, not stolen, is recorded on this camera then guess what, "I AM RESPONSIBLE" I will not use the constitution as a crutch and say my rights were violated because I can't cross examine a camera. These are not murder trials, or rape trials, It's a traffic violation!!
By: attagirl on 3/4/10
driveguy, you just don't get it. Any violation of the constitution should be a major concern for each and every citizen. I just can't understand people who don't see the harm in the government instituting a process whereby the burden of proof is on the defendant and not the accuser.
Even if it is just a traffic violation, how are you okay with "guilty until proven innocent?" It goes against the very core of our country.
Search the post site or the dnj site for the stats. They were just published a few weeks ago. And yes, side impacts were slightly decreased, but rear-end accidents were significantly increased.
The video of this accident is useless, really. Sure it cuts out a lot of the "he said/she said" but the proof would have clearly shown who was at fault. Plenty of witnesses, and no way could he have hit two cars without running the red light. It is quite clear who is at fault. The video may make it easier, but it certainly doesn't make or break the case.
driveguy, you just don't get it. Any violation of the constitution should be a major concern for each and every citizen. I just can't understand people who don't see the harm in the government instituting a process whereby the burden of proof is on the defendant and not the accuser.
Even if it is just a traffic violation, how are you okay with "guilty until proven innocent?" It goes against the very core of our country.
Search the post site or the dnj site for the stats. They were just published a few weeks ago. And yes, side impacts were slightly decreased, but rear-end accidents were significantly increased.
The video of this accident is useless, really. Sure it cuts out a lot of the "he said/she said" but the proof would have clearly shown who was at fault. Plenty of witnesses, and no way could he have hit two cars without running the red light. It is quite clear who is at fault. The video may make it easier, but it certainly doesn't make or break the case.
By: attagirl on 3/4/10
From the article .....
"For the first year at the monitored intersections the number of crashes increased by 16 and rear end crashes rose by 24."
From the article .....
"For the first year at the monitored intersections the number of crashes increased by 16 and rear end crashes rose by 24."
By: driveguy on 3/5/10
Attagirl,
In the statistics you quote, population growth nor the increase of vehicles at these locations are taken into consideration during the same period of time so these numbers are skewed. Look, I agree that the contitution is for "the people" but, we can't use it as a crutch either. We must pick and choose our battles when constitutional law is involved. These cameras are placed here for protection of peoples rights in court as much as they are to (1) generate revenue and we all know that is what is at the core here. (2) give people in accidents who are not at fault when there are no witnesses, some evidence. (3) Slow down vehicles at this intersection. I really don't think that disallowing cross examination by a violator of a law was at the heart of implementation of the cameras.
Attagirl,
In the statistics you quote, population growth nor the increase of vehicles at these locations are taken into consideration during the same period of time so these numbers are skewed. Look, I agree that the contitution is for "the people" but, we can't use it as a crutch either. We must pick and choose our battles when constitutional law is involved. These cameras are placed here for protection of peoples rights in court as much as they are to (1) generate revenue and we all know that is what is at the core here. (2) give people in accidents who are not at fault when there are no witnesses, some evidence. (3) Slow down vehicles at this intersection. I really don't think that disallowing cross examination by a violator of a law was at the heart of implementation of the cameras.
By: attagirl on 3/6/10
driveguy, I guess we could go around in circles on this forever, but I continue to be astounded by your lazy attitude towards the united states constitution. We must NEVER "pick and choose our battles when constitutional law is involved."
The constitution must be enforced and protected in all instances, because once a right is eroded, that erosion will grow. There is no dispute about that.
One of the very, very basic and backbone of our law is that the burden to prove guilt must ALWAYS be on the prosecution, and NEVER on the defendant (popularly known as "innocent until proven guilty").
When we take that right away from redlight violators, we take it away from ALL of us, and I for one am not willing to give up my constitutional rights for some propaganda-laden bullcrap about "safety" when we all know it is about money.
You may be willing to sell your constitutional rights, but I'm not.
driveguy, I guess we could go around in circles on this forever, but I continue to be astounded by your lazy attitude towards the united states constitution. We must NEVER "pick and choose our battles when constitutional law is involved."
The constitution must be enforced and protected in all instances, because once a right is eroded, that erosion will grow. There is no dispute about that.
One of the very, very basic and backbone of our law is that the burden to prove guilt must ALWAYS be on the prosecution, and NEVER on the defendant (popularly known as "innocent until proven guilty").
When we take that right away from redlight violators, we take it away from ALL of us, and I for one am not willing to give up my constitutional rights for some propaganda-laden bullcrap about "safety" when we all know it is about money.
You may be willing to sell your constitutional rights, but I'm not.
Login and voice your opinion!