Red light camera’s

@OmSigDAVID,

Big Overbearing Retail Giant? I used to visit a woodworking site, and that's what BORG meant there. Somehow, I'm having trouble relating it to red light cameras.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Law enforcement is no longer about serving the people, it is becoming a for profit industry. They no longer do anything unless there money to be made.

So who is getting the money?

2 Replies

@trying2learn,

In Canada, all traffic ticket fines usually go to either the city/town or provincial coffers, depending on where the infraction occurred.. Police forces are usually given a budget out of the general revenue. However, a portion from every red light/speed camera ticket goes to the company that makes the equipment.
Camera's are set to only give a red light ticket when you cross the threshold at a speed over 20km/h. At least that is the standard in my city, it could be less in others.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

so the key to running red lights successfully is to do it real slowly.

or so damn fast the camera can't focus...

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

That was funny!!!! Love your answer

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Absolutely.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Sure, and never forget, if the lights are times for 30 mph, they're also timed for 60 mph.

0 Replies

@trying2learn,

Krumple wrote:

Law enforcement is no longer about serving the people, it is becoming a for profit industry. They no longer do anything unless there money to be made.

trying2learn wrote:

So who is getting the money?

Well it depends on the case. In the case of the red light cameras, the company that installed them makes the most out of it. The city/state makes very little off of them. It is a corporation that drives it and they in turn pay lobbysts in their states to endorce them. This in turn pumps money back into the pockets of all those in government.

When I talk about the police only doing things that generate revenue I was referring directly to ticketing people for driving and not actually committing a crime. In my state they no longer respond to traffic accidents or theft under 10 thousand dollars. All they do is trap people going 5 miles over the speed limit and it seems every two years they double the fine because they know that a huge majority of people will just pay the fine and not contest them in court. Almost everyone who contests a speeding ticket in the right way will get the case dropped and have to pay nothing. But very few people actually contest because they don't want to take the time to do it and they know this.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

When I talk about the police only doing things that generate revenue I was referring directly to ticketing people for driving and not actually committing a crime.

People don't get tickets for driving unless they break a law.

What ever happened to taking responsibility for your actions? If I get a ticket for running a red light or speeding and I am guilty, then I will accept the consequences.

1 Reply

@trying2learn,

trying2learn wrote:

People don't get tickets for driving unless they break a law.

Not every law is reasonable. A person driving a little faster who causes no harm shouldn't be punished. If you want to punish for "potentially" causing harm then you should constantly be given tickets daily because every thing you do has the potential to cause harm. Speeding is a victimless non-crime yet people pay for it. These are not crimes.

trying2learn wrote:

What ever happened to taking responsibility for your actions? If I get a ticket for running a red light or speeding and I am guilty, then I will accept the consequences.

Why should you pay when you caused no harm? If you harmed someone or damaged someone's property then okay, you make a valid point of being responsble for your actions. But if no one is hurt and no property damaged then where is the crime? Why are you paying for a non-crime? Once again potential? Everything has a potential, so why don't we ticket for everything then?

The problem is, you have been sold on the idea that laws are always just. Just because there is a law it does not mean it is reasonable. When no one is hurt and nothing is damaged, where is the crime?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

No, not every law is reasonable so I agree with you on that point.

Wow, cause no harm? I wrote take responsibility for your actions. If you, I or anyone breaks a law, then pay the price. You actually want to wait until harm is caused before you are held accountable?

I am sold on the idea that laws are always just? You don't know me if you want to make that assumption.

1 Reply

@trying2learn,

trying2learn wrote:

Wow, cause no harm? I wrote take responsibility for your actions. If you, I or anyone breaks a law, then pay the price.

Pay the price? Is that why you can contest the ticket and get the case dropped in court by using the law? You don't think they actually expect people to just pay the fine rather than trouble themselves with going to court? Why is it those who contest often get their cases dropped if it is about being responsable? You don't see a conflict of interest here?

trying2learn wrote:

You actually want to wait until harm is caused before you are held accountable?

Yes as it should be. Why be punished for not harming or causing damage?

trying2learn wrote:

I am sold on the idea that laws are always just? You don't know me if you want to make that assumption.

Well what you said above supports that you are sold on the idea that laws are just and should therefore you/i should be responsible for breaking a law regardless of it being just or not.

I am not making assumptions, I am inferring something by what you say. I see the consequences in what you say. You might not realize that you imply things you might not intend to by how you say them, but I tend to take notice of them.

So if you are not harming/hurting anyone or causing damage to anyone's property then you should pay a fine for that? Well right now I bet you aren't doing either one of those, so why not mail off some money to the city? This is what I mean by you are sold on the idea that it is just.

If it is our responsibility to pay a fine for a non-crime, why is it we can contest these tickets and have them dropped? Doesn't that seem contradictory? I have had several speeding tickets, but never had to pay a fine because I contested them all. No speeding infringment on my driving record and no increase in car insurrance because of it. But the city doesn't care about me, they only strike the people who don't want to contest and the insurrance companies love these people as well because they make more money off them. The only thing criminal here is the city and the insurrance companies for preying on people for doing nothing wrong.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I did not write or imply that all laws are just. What I think is if you break the law, pay the price.

Krumple wrote:

So if you are not harming/hurting anyone or causing damage to anyone's property then you should pay a fine for that? Well right now I bet you aren't doing either one of those, so why not mail off some money to the city? This is what I mean by you are sold on the idea that it is just.

How much will you bet?

Krumple wrote:

I have had several speeding tickets, but never had to pay a fine because I contested them all.

Good for you and I can only hope you never hurt anyone if you were speeding.

1 Reply

@trying2learn,

trying2learn wrote:

I did not write or imply that all laws are just. What I think is if you break the law, pay the price.

So if anything were a law it wouldn't matter to you? Even if it were absurd and caused no problems? People should still pay regardless of causing no harm?

Krumple wrote:

So if you are not harming/hurting anyone or causing damage to anyone's property then you should pay a fine for that? Well right now I bet you aren't doing either one of those, so why not mail off some money to the city? This is what I mean by you are sold on the idea that it is just.

trying2learn wrote:

How much will you bet?

ten thousand dollars... pay up

Krumple wrote:

I have had several speeding tickets, but never had to pay a fine because I contested them all.

trying2learn wrote:

Good for you and I can only hope you never hurt anyone if you were speeding.

If someone gets injured, then, I will take responsiblity and pay for it, but if I am not hurting anyone by speeding, I shouldn't have to pay. It is criminalizing a person who hasn't actually caused any harm. In otherwords it is abuse of power.

1 Reply

If they're going to fine for speeding there should be equal fines for not keeping up. Nothing is as dangerous as the freaks driving 20 under on a highway.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Probably trying not to be noticed because they're drunk. Drunk logic is a bit, well, skewed.

1 Reply

@roger,

I had a friend, well that's stretching it -a lot.. He was married to this loudmouth woman I knew. I had to follow him out to a ballgame in the country once. He drove 40k the entire way. I just about killed him. The next weekend a cop pulled him over for driving 50 on an 80k road. The cop called him an asshole and let him go with a warning.. WHAT? If I was doing 30 over, I'd be charged with stunting. Warning please, I'd have laid the boots to him.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Yes, you pay up! Insurance companies base their prices on accidents in a given area, at least where I live. That means people who drive like idiots and cause accidents directly impact me by charging more in insurance.

0 Replies

(Yes, I'm going to politicize this.) Red-light cameras are run by for-profit companies, not the county government or the police department. You are presumed guilty and are forced to prove your innocence. It's not a "tax", it's a "fine" which means only "bad" people have to pay it.

It also "creates jobs" at the company that runs the system. Privatized, for-profit law enforcement. This is what Republicans want. Anything that reduces evil government jobs and creates private profits is seen as a good thing by conservatives, even if a few innocent people have to suffer an injustice like this.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/jul/02/13/his-car-was-stolen-but-red-light-tickets-kept-comi-ar-423136/

Quote:

TAMPA --
Rianey "Bud" Nelson woke up one morning in October to find his 2006 Lincoln Towncar had been stolen from his driveway. He reported the theft to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's office and figured that was the last he'd see of it.

But he was wrong.

0 Replies

What business does the government have watching citizens on the streets who are not suspected of having already violated a law? How about mind reading machines, with computers poring through the thoughts looking for the intention to commit a crime? Hey, if you're not planning to commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about. How about cameras saturating every street, public building and park looking for law breakers?

How can people have grown up in a country with the greatest constitution and Bill of Rights in the world and reached adulthood with no freaking conception of the ideas contained therein? The government was supposed to be this small entity which protects the nation and stops crime, not Big Brother studying you at every moment to make sure you're pure. As Thomas Jefferson said, "That government governs best which governs least."

2 Replies

Red light camera’s

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know