Go ahead, boys.

Change the title to 'speed cameras' because I have no idea what a Red Light Camera is and they don't have anything to do with running red lights

Originally posted by DeviousJ
don't have anything to do with running red lights uh, yes they do... :erm

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
uh, yes they do... :erm

I thought we were talking about speed cameras in the other thread?

Either way, i dont see the problem with em. Im really at a loss as to the objections to them.

<font color="dab9ea">Our old city manager decided he wanted them, and then they put them on just about every light at busy intersections spending, god only knows how much money, and then the city council decided that they weren't going to allow them.

My mom said they were all over Europe while she was there and thinks they're a good idea.

I don't really have an opinion. I see both the good and bad aspects to them.</font>

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
uh, yes they do... :erm

What Colin posted in the other thread was a UK speed camera (I'm assuming you guys don't have ones which look like that, or at least that he was making a comment about UK legislation by talking about the UK cameras) and they're there to automatically detect speeding cars and photograph them for evidence. They even have tracking marks on the road surface sometimes to make them more accurate

I don't like them

I think they're a good deterent for bad drivers like myself. See, for me the yellow light basically means "speed up," and I'm pretty sure trying to beat that red light creates a traffic hazard. But this is just in theory. I can see how cities might make it harder (by shortening the length the yellow light is) for drivers to beat a red light so they can increase their revenue via tickets while increasing traffic hazards at the same time. I think it's a good system if it's not abused.

I don't think this really had to go on this board but whatever.

The only problem with Red Light cameras or Photo Radar is that it doesn't actually catch the person who is behind the wheel, it only penalizes the owner of the car.

So if someone else is driving your car and runs a red light or speeds on the hiway then you end up paying for it even if you didn't do it.

The majority of the time it most likely is you however there can be many cases where it wasn't you driving.

The idea might be good in theory but a lot of governments just like to use it as an easy cash grab.

Originally posted by Andrew_Pakula
The only problem with Red Light cameras or Photo Radar is that it doesn't actually catch the person who is behind the wheel, it only penalizes the owner of the car.

So if someone else is driving your car and runs a red light or speeds on the hiway then you end up paying for it even if you didn't do it.

The majority of the time it most likely is you however there can be many cases where it wasn't you driving.

The idea might be good in theory but a lot of governments just like to use it as an easy cash grab.

yeah they tried them here for a while. it might seem like it makes the roads safer because the average person is wary of them but fatal car accidents don't decrease. the real dangerous fuckers, drunk drivers and rich speed racer brats just don't give a fuck. therefore it does reek of a cash grab.

although your reason is pretty weak. as the owner of your car you're liable for whoever you let drive your car especially if whoever's driving it isn't insured to... obviously.

Originally posted by christian zombie vampires

although your reason is pretty weak. as the owner of your car you're liable for whoever you let drive your car especially if whoever's driving it isn't insured to... obviously.


yeah this is a good point. so say someone else is driving my car and gets a ticket....all my car's info is on the ticket right?

what if that person doesn't pay the ticket? what next? who is liable for it?

Speeding cameras and/or red light cameras suck because they are symptomatic of a pedantic and tattletale society, like Germany.

Who cares if I'm going 40 instead of 35, or whatever. Most cops don't bat an eye unless you're going at least 10 over anyway. It's really just a travel tax in disguise.

I don't really view this as a Big Brother issue either. I don't care if the government puts cameras in public squares, for example, because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public anyway. I'm just sick of these bullshit laws that treat us like babies, like the seatbelt laws. Their primary function is generating revenue for the state.

- Dave

Originally posted by MadManMead
Speeding cameras and/or red light cameras suck because they are symptomatic of a pedantic and tattletale society, like Germany.

Who cares if I'm going 40 instead of 35, or whatever. Most cops don't bat an eye unless you're going at least 10 over anyway. It's really just a travel tax in disguise.

I don't really view this as a Big Brother issue either. I don't care if the government puts cameras in public squares, for example, because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public anyway. I'm just sick of these bullshit laws that treat us like babies, like the seatbelt laws. Their primary function is generating revenue for the state.

- Dave

It's because you're much more likely to kill someone if you hit them at 40 instead of 30. If you don't agree with the speed limits then I can see why you'd disagree with cameras enforcing them, but hey.

Originally posted by DeviousJ
It's because you're much more likely to kill someone if you hit them at 40 instead of 30. If you don't agree with the speed limits then I can see why you'd disagree with cameras enforcing them, but hey. Oh, so you drive the speed limit 100% of the time? It must be a pain in your ass constantly resetting the cruise control.

I don't need the government to babysit me. I drive just fine, thank you.

- Dave

i recently got a $350 ticket for running a red, thanks to a camera


it sucked

Originally posted by MadManMead
Oh, so you drive the speed limit 100% of the time? It must be a pain in your ass constantly resetting the cruise control.

I don't need the government to babysit me. I drive just fine, thank you.
Speed limits aren't there to protect you from your own driving. They are there to protect everyone from each other's driving.

On the surface, I'd agree speed limits, helmet laws, and seatbelt laws and the like come off as government nannyism. I think they should be optional. But the caveat should be that if you opt out, then you're responsible for the costs of your own injuries should you get in a wreck. Your insurance wouldn't have to pay you jack, and then everyone else's rates won't go up because you didn't want to reset the cruise control. If you hurt someone else, then the insurance company pays the people you hurt, but then can jack up the price on you as far as they want to make up the cost. If that means you can't afford insurance anymore, tough. One more unsafe driver off the road.

Originally posted by disslunker



yeah this is a good point. so say someone else is driving my car and gets a ticket....all my car's info is on the ticket right?
this happened with me. i was driving a car registered to my parents. they got the ticket. i contacted the court, let them know it was my problem and they readressed the claim to me

wasn't that big a deal

Originally posted by MadManMead
Oh, so you drive the speed limit 100% of the time? It must be a pain in your ass constantly resetting the cruise control.

I don't need the government to babysit me. I drive just fine, thank you.

- Dave

Yeah I do pretty much. I also drive by operating the pedals! This means I'm in control of the car and aware of everything on the road, which helps me to not get into accidents (including cruising into rapidly-braking cars at 40). And call me crazy but isn't cruise control actually ideally suited to observing speed limits?

The government aren't babysitting you - they're trying to make you less of a danger to others

Just a way for the government to make money off of something that doesn't really concern me. Doubt that installing them actually prevents accidents. Pretty much everyone runs lights that just turned red. I probably do on a daily basis. It's anecdotal, but I've never seen any problem as a result of this habit.

Identifying the driver is a really big problem. I got snapped by a speed camera at 156km/h in a 100km/h zone in my dads car. The ticket went to him but it took so long for them to identify me as the driver that I got away with no penalty because of the 6 month statute of limitation on speed offences. Good for me but bad for society.

Originally posted by Corganist

Speed limits aren't there to protect you from your own driving. They are there to protect everyone from each other's driving.

On the surface, I'd agree speed limits, helmet laws, and seatbelt laws and the like come off as government nannyism. I think they should be optional. But the caveat should be that if you opt out, then you're responsible for the costs of your own injuries should you get in a wreck. Your insurance wouldn't have to pay you jack, and then everyone else's rates won't go up because you didn't want to reset the cruise control. If you hurt someone else, then the insurance company pays the people you hurt, but then can jack up the price on you as far as they want to make up the cost. If that means you can't afford insurance anymore, tough. One more unsafe driver off the road.

I didn't see this. We're agreeing again! What a wonderful day