I like it.
I may not be OK with cameras inside my home or trained inside my windows, but if there were cameras that tracked my path all the way from work to the front door, I’m fine with it. They wanna see me pick my nose when I think no one’s looking, “they” can go right ahead. If the guy who tries to mug me gets caught because he was seen on camera, that’s OK too. I still think people who use the presence of cameras as an excuse to whine about privacy have something to hide.
No, I just spit on the sidewalk when no one is around.
That’s an issue for the court to decide, not an officer on the street.
I’m sure this will seem totally big-brotherish until your car is stolen.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
It’s a traffic device on a traffic cop’s car. It’s a fundraiser, a way to collect that $150 fine that need not have been issued to begin with.
[/QUOTE]
What was the $150 fine issued for, and what justifiable excuse do you propose to suggest that it wasn’t legitimate?
I bet a good percentage of suspects would never get arrested if they just didn’t drive.
I used to be paranoid and whinge about surveillance cameras, well into my twenties – mainly because I the only time I ever thought of The Man was in an adversarial context with regard to my desire to smoke weed without being harassed.
Now that I’m in comfortable middle age, I still like herb but don’t have any anxiety about it, and have a little broader view with regard to the enforcement of laws - no doubt my twenty year old self would call me a fascist, because here’s a technology I would dearly love to see standard on every automobile:
Multiple cameras giving as close to possible as a 360 degree range of vision. These record continually the entire time the car is in operation, overwriting as the media fills. Single button operation uploads the most recent minute or so to the local police, with GPS information overlaid, with the opportunity to record a comment. Insta-grass. Guy in front of you sails through an occupied crosswalk? Zap - that’s a grass’n. Just drove past some prick who’s parked his monster truck on the wrong side of the stop sign, obscuring your view of oncoming traffic from the cross-street? Zap - that’s a grass’n. Some idiot’s weaving in and out of traffic on an ether binge? Zap… Moron just ran over a kid on a bike while turning right, because his field of vision was limited on that side by the cell phone he’s holding up to his head, and finished his conversation before checking to see if the kid was okay? Bet your ass that’s a zap.
Number of taps might indicate severity, one for a parking violation and three for a drive-by. If you are arsed to rat someone out for their malfeasance, you understand that you may have to go to court to testify.
Traffic fines not necessary? Nailing people’s heads to the floor for being a self-absorbed hazard is not necessary. Attractive, but not necessary. We’re just going to have to make do with the fines - and the penalties would do a lot more actual good if they were meted out much more frequently.
Arresting suspected felons is wonderful, but harassing the idiot with outstanding parking tickets is abuse of governmental authority. Both are unquestionably legal.
This tech has been around for a few years now and has been used by repo men (women?) who can mount it on a car and go through a huge parking lot to find a car or three and call a tow truck quick. I’m surprised that it took the cops that long to catch on. I think it will save lives of cops, which I’m generally in favor of.
On the other hand, I spent an afternoon in traffic court today on behalf of a client who wanted to get even with the system for screwing around with him (fining him extra for not cashing his check until a month after they received it.) Traffic court is a kangaroo system. The officers all read their testimony and the commissioner tries to trick the accused into misremembering how many tickets they have. It’s frankly disgusting.
I’ve never been given a ticket for speeding that I didn’t deserve.* I’ve always paid the damn things on time and in full. I this new camera device caught me because I hadn’t pain my tickets, I might be madder than hell but I would have to admit I had it coming.
*Except in Dallas, Texas when I was a teenager; it was an easy ticket for a cop and the cop was always right in the courtroom. I will say that I picked up a few more in my early twenties because I drove a TR-3 for a couple of years. Cops couldn’t stand sport cars back then. For that reason, I was meticulous about speed limits. Got ticketed anyway.
I think it’s pretty poor customer service on the part of the camera company to warn about using automatic car washes, without providing guidance or a solution. Except, they probably said to hand-wash the car, right? Maybe you can call the camera company and ask their opinion of your work-around. You wouldn’t want to violate any warrantys.
I want to say that in the state of Texas, the drivers’ licenses include a notice that by signing the driver’s license, you are consenting to being pulled over and having a blood-alcohol test run on you. Of course, the cop does his visual-survey routine when he gets to the car.
Don’t want to consent? Don’t sign the license. Of course, if you don’t sign the license, you’re not allowed to operate a motor vehicle in the State of Texas, and I’m pretty sure that alone is grounds for being pulled over by a police officer…
I don’t personally have a problem with this. Sure, traffic fines are, as a rule, exorbitant (really? A $90 fine for not signalling before a lane change?), it is at least generally straight forward to find out what the traffic laws are where you are so you can avoid breaking them. If you live in a place where the cops routinely give fraudulent tickets and the courts back them up without question, then that’s a separate problem from their ability to read your license plate automatically.
So you’re acknowledging that the cameras merely automate and speed up a process that the officer is already going to do anyway.
You can roll your eyes all you want, Airman, but so far you’re rolling nothing but gutter balls.
mmm
Yes, god forbid we fund our police departments by fining some jerk who drives like a jackass or blocks half the street double-parking their car.
As an aside, these discussions amuse me because they are typically a total reversal of roles from the participants. Usually I’m the law-and-order type on a board with a regularly expressed distrust of police.
I agree. It’s up to the manufacturer of the camera to offer a workable solution.
Thanks. Why isn’t it considered a search? Under conditions where the officer cannot physically see some license plates, a new technology has been introduced that can systematically record ALL license plates and submit them to computerized searching. In the increased ability to gather information, the increased speed, and the extreme thoroughness, could it not be said to be unreasonably efficient? Certainly it was inconceivable ten years ago.
It comes down to “reasonable expectation of privacy”. No one in their right mind expects their license plate to be private. Here’s the wiki on it
Airman, just admit it. You don’t have a problem with the existance of improved cameras on cop cars - you don’t seem to be railing against the old ones. Your only problem is with the existance of traffic laws themselves.
Gladly. I’ve railed against traffic cops and their fundraising for years. You act like this is something new, whereas I’ve never tried to hide it. I don’t believe that this is something new and innovative intended to protect the public, I believe that this is a way for municipalities short on cash to shore up their budgets. It’s happened too often and in too many places for me to believe otherwise.
So here’s a simple solution to what I perceive to be a problem: ALL ticket money goes to the state, to be distributed equitably throughout the state. If it’s about safety nobody should have a problem with that, right? The police will cost everybody money whether or not they ever write a ticket, so the state distributes the ticket money to offset that cost while simultaneously destroying the incentive to write tickets for the sake of raising funds.
Who wants to bet that the traditional ticket-trap towns the number of tickets written drops precipitously? I’ll take that bet in a second.
I think one thing people forget is that driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. You have to sign papers, pay money, and get permission to do it; there are people who aren’t allowed to drive. As part of that privilege you have to follow the rules.
Also notice that the majority of the rules out there are for safety. You might not like getting a ticket just because you didn’t use your turn signal to change lanes, but how many times have you been pissed at someone who almost hit you doing just that?
Ehh, never mind. I’ll just :rolleyes:
Airman, I hate speed traps, too, but… and listen closely… we are not talking about speed traps. These cameras aren’t really designed for traffic violation enforcement anyway. Sure, it may grab a few people with warrants out for them for parking tickets, but its intended purpose is people who have already committed crimes - not to harass some poor driver for going 3 miles over. The old method is better at doing that. Besides, the municipalities that do set up speed traps likely can’t afford these cameras anyway. You are trying to hi-jack the thread for your own personal crusade and every roll eyes you post diminishes your position.
I wonder if their database also includes data on people with suspended licenses. Too often we hear about accidents caused by repeat offenders who already had their license suspended, but kept driving.