Fuck public safety. .i..

great thinking

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 16th, 2012 12:36pm PDT - doublepromote requested by deathcow.

Now they need a version that will let me drive drunk and then one that will allow me to run over small children without consequences.

Wonderful idea, except I live in Massachusetts, where it's illegal to have a license plate frame.

Wow, more sifters supportive of nanny-state liberty-encroachment came out for this post than I would've guessed.
The cameras don't serve any other purposes other than as an unethical revenue stream for municipalities, and as a way to track your whereabouts.

I make a point of spending a few minutes flashing drivers heading into a speed trap.
I also have on occasion (gona get my ass beat one day) yelled out to radar cops, "couldn't you go find missing kids or something instead of catching otherwise law abiding citizens doing 10 over the limit?!"

I get dirty looks from them but I still yell it!!

>> ^TheFreak:

Now they need a version that will let me drive drunk and then one that will allow me to run over small children without consequences.


You realize that you're talking about a completely separate camera right?

There are 2 types

#1. Red Light Cameras: These camera's use flash photography to snap a photo of you
#2. Intersection Camera: These cameras are video cameras (IE No Flash)

Therefore your drunken pedophilia that you find so alluring will not be protected.

Case In Point:

http://videosift.com/video/Red-Light-Runners-Police-Video

From our own Videosift nonetheless. Watch that video you'll see that there are camera's that constantly record and then later on you'll see in the video several flashes that are from another camera.

I love that the audio track sounds like it comes from the Grand Theft Auto game franchise.

>> ^artician:

Wonderful idea, except I live in Massachusetts, where it's illegal to have a license plate frame.


Seriously? I've never heard of that before, why on earth would you not be allowed to have a frame for your license plate?

American roads have always been the venue for a Great American Arms' Race.

No flash photography makes this thing useless.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^SpaceOddity:
The cameras don't serve any other purposes other than as an unethical revenue stream for municipalities, and as a way to track your whereabouts.

Yeah, I mean who wants to stop fucking idiots running red lights or speeding through urban areas? That's just crazy.


Red light cameras neither prevent nor stop either of your examples. They have only one purpose... raising revenue after the fact.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^SpaceOddity:
The cameras don't serve any other purposes other than as an unethical revenue stream for municipalities, and as a way to track your whereabouts.

Yeah, I mean who wants to stop fucking idiots running red lights or speeding through urban areas? That's just crazy.

Red light cameras neither prevent nor stop either of your examples. They have only one purpose... raising revenue after the fact.

Bullshit, it acts as a deterrent, the same way any fine does. Plus, in a sane country, continued infringement will result in suspension of licence.

This is not some evil government conspiracy.

I do have a problem with speed cameras on open roads though. I've never seen a zipped trap in a place where it's actually needed. Instead, they're always on straight open stretches of road. Meanwhile there's a dangerous corner just up the road that's a known accident black spot, but there's no camera there.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^SpaceOddity:
The cameras don't serve any other purposes other than as an unethical revenue stream for municipalities, and as a way to track your whereabouts.

Yeah, I mean who wants to stop fucking idiots running red lights or speeding through urban areas? That's just crazy.

Red light cameras neither prevent nor stop either of your examples. They have only one purpose... raising revenue after the fact.

Bullshit, it acts as a deterrent, the same way any fine does. Plus, in a sane country, continued infringement will result in suspension of licence.
This is not some evil government conspiracy.
I do have a problem with speed cameras on open roads though. I've never seen a zipped trap in a place where it's actually needed. Instead, they're always on straight open stretches of road. Meanwhile there's a dangerous corner just up the road that's a known accident black spot, but there's no camera there.


You say "bullshit", and then give an example that demonstrates exactly the opposite. I didn't say there was an evil government conspiracy. I think it's pretty clear and in the open. No camera at the dangerous corner, but cameras where people are likely to exceed the speed limit (albeit safely)? Gee, I wonder why they would do that? Maybe because they raise more revenue putting cameras where there is little danger, but high return via fines. If speed cameras were truly a deterrent, and they chose not to put a camera at the known dangerous corner, then they either don't believe they are a deterrent and just place the cameras for maximum revenue, or they don't give a shit about public safety and, again, place the cameras for maximum revenue.

I average about one speeding ticket every two years or so, and it hasn't deterred me in any way. I just think of the fine, spread out over 24 months, as the price I pay to drive however the hell I want.

And I don't think I've ever gone through a red light. I still think red light cameras are bullshit. The cameras wouldn't be there if they didn't make money, and they wouldn't make money if they were truly deterrents. Nothing the government does, such as approving red light cameras, comes without cost/benefit considerations, and there is no benefit ($) to "fewer people running red lights".

>> ^Fletch:

You say "bullshit", and then give an example that demonstrates exactly the opposite.

That's because they are two separate issues. One is about red light cameras and speed cameras in urban areas, and the other is road traffic policing on open roads.

>> ^Fletch:

No camera at the dangerous corner, but cameras where people are likely to exceed the speed limit (albeit safely)? Gee, I wonder why they would do that? Maybe because they raise more revenue putting cameras where there is little danger, but high return via fines. If speed cameras were truly a deterrent, and they chose not to put a camera at the known dangerous corner, then they either don't believe they are a deterrent and just place the cameras for maximum revenue, or they don't give a shit about public safety and, again, place the cameras for maximum revenue.

Possible. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the revenue raised is a significant sum from a government pov. More likely, it's that the cops are under pressure to be seen to be enforcing speed limits and so do so in a place that will allow them to say "look how many people we caught".

>> ^Fletch:

I average about one speeding ticket every two years or so, and it hasn't deterred me in any way. I just think of the fine, spread out over 24 months, as the price I pay to drive however the hell I want.

Again, in any sane system, you would have your licence suspended for repeated infringement.

>> ^Fletch:

Nothing the government does, such as approving red light cameras, comes without cost/benefit considerations, and there is no benefit ($) to "fewer people running red lights".

Apart from less crashes, which couldn't possibly lead to other benefits to governments like less use of emergency services? Plus a whole bunch of knock-on effects that stem from this. Not to mention all the intangibles such as voter popularity declining in the face of an increasing road toll.