Red light cameras...

[Max Casey]

A recent exchange between a fellow "liberty lover" (his words in italics) and myself concerning the nature of Red Light Camera's and coercion by fine.  Thoughts?

I just watched the after effect of another PO scum running a red light, he got side-swiped by a young black girl. Hispanic guy apparently decided the light only meant pink and not red and she clobbered him pretty good, she was shaken up.

You may disagree with me but I wish those f****** red light cameras we're still in effect. I know Houston and other cities lost lawsuits against the red light cameras, but I'm so darn tired the people running the lights and there's no cops there to catch them. This lady nearly got killed by a moron.



Why would anyone move into an intersection without looking in advance?  I, as you know, completely disagree with the red light money making scam. We have them in Humble, we have gotten two tickets, one, turning right on red and the other when the light turned red while I was in the intersection, the light turned yellow as I crossed the cross walk (yes, they have shortened the yellow by half).  The fines were upheld disputed my protest.

When you start arguing for mass surveillance under the guise that it will save lives or stop people from breaking laws, then you have officially become a statist and have validated every argument on behalf of the NSA and surveillance state.


LOL!

The "PO scum" I pointed out below was, in MY opinion, obvioulsy(?/opinion) neither rational, nor 'reasoning' anything other than his personal, 'selfish' intention to enter the intersection, and that such "intention" (of his) was of greater relative value to himself than to any other person he might encounter - in this case by causing(!) an accident.  I don't think the young woman was hurt, but I did see what appeared to have been mild 'shock.'  The "perp" did exit his vehicle, but had to from the right side of his car. Almost the entirety of the left side of his car was crushed.

You miss my points entirely, however:
1. The fact that the various cities, yes plural,  have lost numerous lawsuits, ending as you call it "a money-making scam," [I think] dis-incetivizes the over-abundant population of our fellow citizens who are incapable of consistent, and (!) deliberate rational thought.
2. Someday,  when some fuck-tard runs a red light and injures you, your wife, your daughters, or worse, kills 1 or all, I promise you (!), you will undergo a shift in perspective.
3) "Riddle-me this, Batman," if the usage of those cameras is so (generally (?)) unjust, how is it that the Courts DO allow entry of "evidence" gathered by these same cameras into civil and criminal proceedings? I'm quite confident if some fuck-tard were to hurt you/your family you would full-well support your attorney's effort to acquire and have such evidence admitted on your behalf.  No?

For this, I remain of the "opinion", my "opinion,  of which I have every 'right' - correct, or otherwise - these cameras, properly utilized, programmed, maintained, and monitored may be of "value."  I did not say, nor have I submitted that they are proven to save lives.  That "argument" is both distinct and separate from my opinion.

For example: I hate wearing seat belts (& my motorcycle helmets)! HOWEVER, twice they have saved my life, and many other times, the lives of family and friends. Did I perceive the law - not unlike the motorcycle helmet laws, and countless others - as intrusive?

Hell yes!

I'm alive today because I  put my emotios & ego (& then... ignorance of valid logic) aside, decided to accept a premise outside my own, and - you're going to laugh! - I 'conformed!'  ;-)

I already acknowledged our differing opinions regarding the "money-making scam," as you like to call it.  I cant say you were correct or not regarding your own situations, I was not there to witness, either in support of your assertions,  or otherwise.  I tend to associate similar thinking of 'how right I am/was' with sports fanatics, those who refuse to objectively watch their chosen events, calling 'officials' all sorts of nonsense, swearing up and down the 'ref' was wrong, blaming "cameras' & camera angles as incorrect when the evidence is clear to anyone not subject to such irrational displays of emotion...support for their team, the "evidence" is quite to the contrary.  :-)

Most people have very clouded and selfish, self-serving modes of perceiving their world. While you are hardly "most people," no person is 100% immune from errors in perception.

I also have run "red lights," & had a couple of close calls I could have caused. In each instance,  it was largely due to (my) lack of focus, or some urgent (selfish) desire to put my(!) needs above others. (That last part remains a 'failing,' even in my "old age.")  ;-)


If you use technology to force protection of the stupid from themselves or to protect others from the stupidity of the many you will have used technology to enslave the planet to coddle what evolution naturally weeds out.  One cannot live 100 percent insulated from danger, or for that matter stupidity.  One cannot force good decisions through laws, fines, or threats.  People commit crimes all over the place, in full view of camera systems.  They speed by cops on the freeway at rates of speed that will pulverize their meat sacks if they get a flat tire.

True Freedom is the antithesis of creating laws to protect ourselves from stupidity.  To live free you have to be vigilant, all the time, for stupidity never rests.  If you sacrifice freedom for security, which is 100% what you are doing in this case, then you will get neither, for while you may be free from that idiot in a car, you will not be free from the Tyranny of the masses as they will always be able to “justify” something for the sake of others.

By your logic, guns should be outlawed, b/c if you have ever had a loved one be a victim of gun violence… or perhaps you had a family member prematurely expire due to dihydrogen monoxide poisoning; therefore, we should do away with all backyard pools.  I believe in traffic rules, I believe in enforcement of penalties if you break the rule AND you hurt someone or their property.  I don’t however believe in coercion by force or threat of financial encumbrance, i.e. deduction of life at a flat rate, where the penalty is less for the financially successful and more for the financially retarded in order to coerce what should otherwise be common sense.

 

[Adam Kokesh]

The problem isn't the cameras, it's how and who does the enforcing of a violation. If the roads are privatized, the problem is solved automatically: the owner of the road is allowed to record people passing through their property on their terms. Personally, I would want there to be that kind of accountability, not for people who "break traffic rules" but for people who cause damages, whether they're breaking rules or not. That's why I have a dashcam in my car, so maybe the market won't support cameras on the roads when everyone has these. Of course the point is really moot and not even worth getting into, when we know if it weren't for government, we'd all have self-driving if not flying cars by now. We'd also have a much better system of holding people accountable for damages caused to others so the idea of "regulations" to prevent damages would be obsolete.

[Max Casey]

Agreed.

[Savefreedomtoday]

Blowing a red light on purpose or accidentally is neither a crime or a punishable offense if there is no victim in the matter. Now if you blow the light and hit someone or there is some sort of damage involved yes the cameras make sense in making said parties whole. Yes there will be times that human life will be lost but since when has a camera stopped that?

 These cameras are the equivalent of those pesky fine printers on the movie Demolition Man. Next thing you know that's exactly what we will have and the statists will be dancing in the streets at the extortion monster that they had created. I guess we won't have to worry about the toilet paper shortage but I have yet to find Adam explaining how to use those three sea shells. Have to add that to a survival topic lol.

I have no intention of living underground in hiding from cowardly tyrants decended from the land of unicorns and rainbows. Like Adam says technology will render governments obsolete. I have had cameras at my doors and around my property since 2012 after some shady happenings went on because of lies. I also keep a gopro in my dash and on the back of my vehicle. Video is hard to deny when needed.

I'll leave it at that I just wanted to state the fact that the cameras if used in the correct manner could be useful but as it sits they are just another tool of oppression and extortion.

Trapper vs the man

[Slow poke]

The cameras are like police they prevent nothing and save nobody. They are there for investigation purposes and revenue. If you want to stop someone from running a red light then how bout roadblocks that go up and down just like the ones at train crossings but reinforced to stop vehicles. People would eventually pay alot better attention when they realized their lives are on the line instead of someone elses. You've now prevented a victim from being hit by a runner and and introduced self awareness and self accountability..

[BaRbArIaN]

Just have spike strips that pop up and down depending on the light status for intersections with heavy traffic, problem solved in a short time. 

Also, isnt the same logic used to justify red light cameras the one that will be used in the future to deny you the right to drive at all?  I'm sure they will say that self driving cars (by then not as they are now) will be 'so much safer' for everyone, so driving your own car is akin to attempted assault with a deadly weapon.  The extreme ends of this logic is to keep everyone a micromanaged pet of the state who isn't allowed to live outside the permitted box.