CCTV: What are your thoughts on this?

Watermark said:
Today, cameras on street corners.

Tommorrow, it's the Soviet Union! Perfectly logical connection there!


The police have no right to observe anyone anyone does. The only time they should be allowed to arrest you is whenever you admit to a crime.
Click to expand...

Who's making a reference to what tommorow brings? I'm talking about current laws and how they are enforced. Never said anything about us becoming the Soviet Union. They will most certainly not get rid of ridiculous laws ESPECIALLY if they get cameras generating government revenue through those laws. Ever wonder why police sit in spots that are hard to see when you drive down the highway? It ain't because they are trying to make you safer, its because they can give you a fine.
 
Mayor Jane Campbell hopes thousands of people running red lights will get Cleveland's budget out of the red.

The mayor wants to install cameras at some of the city's busiest intersections to photograph license plates of cars that run red lights. Tickets would then be sent to the car owners' homes.

The camera proposal is among Cleveland's latest efforts to pump up its sagging revenues.

And while it may seem like the equivalent of digging for change behind sofa cushions, Campbell has high hopes for the traffic cameras - she expects to collect an additional $6 million in fines.

That would mean a serious boost in tickets.

Running a red light typically results in a $150 fine. If the cameras are installed by spring, as Campbell hopes, the city would have to issue about 150 tickets a day to meet the mayor's $6 million goal by the end of 2005.
Click to expand...

Now, I'm not saying that running a red light should not be fined, but you clearly see the main point behind installing them was to generate income. If you want to make the argument that they were doing it for safety but the money is just a great sife-effect on making things safer, I need only point out another quote from the article.

Cincinnati, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., have used traffic-light cameras for several years and collect millions of dollars from them annually.

"Cities that have done this have been astounded by the amount collected," said Robert Baker, Cleveland's finance director.
Click to expand...

Now, if it were for safety, you would hope that the annual revenue they receive from them would decrease, but they don't. Then, you get the finance director talking, telling us how great they would be for the annual budget...

Ref:
http://www.cleveland.com/budgetcrisis/index.ssf?/budgetcrisis/more/1107167417174330.html
 
The city here was all keen to install the redlight cameras, and made the plans, bought the equipment, etc. All we heard about was how much money they expected to rake in, not a word about safety. Not a peep.

Then they found out that in Texas all revenues obtained from the red light cameras were required by law to be spent on furthering traffic safety; it wouldn't be income at all. Accounting and expenditures apparently are strictly regulated in this regard. I laughed my head off. Then the city council voted not to install the cameras after all. They did, in fact put up a few -- three or four I think, but it was a huge pin in the balloon. Now they're complaining that rearend accidents have increased dramatically because of these cameras at intersections. Here's a thought: start enforcing the traffic regulations that already exist.
 
:P

The fine laws were designed with the intention that almost no one gets caught running red lights. Therefore, the fine is very high considering the infraction. Now, if we changed the system so that everyone who runs a red light gets caught, we should reduce the fine to a more proportionate level.

If you're running ridiculously large fines just as a measure to generate income, then you're an idiot.
 
Thorn said:
The city here was all keen to install the redlight cameras, and made the plans, bought the equipment, etc. All we heard about was how much money they expected to rake in, not a word about safety. Not a peep.

Then they found out that in Texas all revenues obtained from the red light cameras were required by law to be spent on furthering traffic safety; it wouldn't be income at all. Accounting and expenditures apparently are strictly regulated in this regard. I laughed my head off. Then the city council voted not to install the cameras after all. They did, in fact put up a few -- three or four I think, but it was a huge pin in the balloon. Now they're complaining that rearend accidents have increased dramatically because of these cameras at intersections. Here's a thought: start enforcing the traffic regulations that already exist.
Click to expand...

They do something here in Ohio that says all lottery sales go to schools. What they do, is take the money from the lottery, and put it into the education budget. Then, they reduce the general funds expenditure towards education. So in effect, all monies from the lottery goes to education, but it actually goes towards the general fund to pay for all things.
 
Watermark said:
:P

The fine laws were designed with the intention that almost no one gets caught running red lights. Therefore, the fine is high considering the infraction. Now, if we changed the system so that everyone who runs a red light gets caught, we should reduce the fine to a more proportionate level.
Click to expand...

How would that make the roadways any more safe?
 
DigitalDave said:
They do something here in Ohio that says all lottery sales go to schools. What they do, is take the money from the lottery, and put it into the education budget. Then, they reduce the general funds expenditure towards education. So in effect, all monies from the lottery goes to education, but it actually goes towards the general fund to pay for all things.
Click to expand...

Yes. You can't really control state funding by having a provision that money generated from a source can ONLY go to a specific government entity. The government will just reduce another source of funding for the entity and spend the money elsewhere. It's amusing to hear layman talk about how a program is good because the money "Goes straight to our schools".
 
It's called the deterrence principal, DW. A criminal first decides to break the law based on how well it is enforced. The fine is an afterthought. Whenever the government is really terrible at enforcing something, they increase the fine to increase the deterrence. If systems are installed that means a law is enforced 100%, you shouldn't keep the fine for the action at the level that was meant for deterrence whenever enforcement was lax.
 
Watermark said:
We shouldn't ticket people who run red lights?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that, I am saying that if the goal is to improve public safety, how will installing camera's do that? In the case of Red Light cameras, it did not improve public safety and simply became a way to generate revenue. Installing camera's to moniter all of our public activities could simply be used for the same reasons. For example, you drop a piece of paper and the wind blows it away, you get fined for littering. You did indeed litter, and the camera caught you doing it. Are you going to take the time to fight that in court or just pay the fine? More often than not, a person will just pay the fine. You walk down the street drunk, public intoxication. Just pay the fine sir... we caught you on tape.

These are already things we use our current limited police force to look for, why would we think laws would change and fines be reduced? They love that extra money for their budget.
 
DigitalDave said:
I didn't say that, I am saying that if the goal is to improve public safety, how will installing camera's do that? In the case of Red Light cameras, it did not improve public safety and simply became a way to generate revenue. Installing camera's to moniter all of our public activities could simply be used for the same reasons. For example, you drop a piece of paper and the wind blows it away, you get fined for littering. You did indeed litter, and the camera caught you doing it. Are you going to take the time to fight that in court or just pay the fine? More often than not, a person will just pay the fine. You walk down the street drunk, public intoxication. Just pay the fine sir... we caught you on tape.

These are already things we use our current limited police force to look for, why would we think laws would change and fines be reduced? They love that extra money for their budget.
Click to expand...

If you know that every time you run a red light, you're going to get a 100 dollar fine, would you do it as much as you currently do it?
 
Public intoxication, lol. Is that still a law in most cities?

Anyway, there's no way they could actually get people to monitor cameras that closely, and unlike the red light thing, you couldn't get a computer to tell you if someone's drunk.
 
Watermark said:
It's called the deterrence principal, DW. A criminal first decides to break the law based on how well it is enforced. The fine is an afterthought. Whenever the government is really terrible at enforcing something, they increase the fine to increase the deterrence. If systems are installed that means a law is enforced 100%, you shouldn't keep the fine for the action at the level that was meant for deterrence whenever enforcement was lax.
Click to expand...

But the cameras are not dettering anyone. If they were, then they would not be collecting millions annually. They aren't working towards the goal of public safety.
 
DigitalDave said:
But the cameras are not dettering anyone. If they were, then they would not be collecting millions annually. They aren't working towards the goal of public safety.
Click to expand...

I don't think the fact that the cameras are installed is very well advertised. But if they installed them at every red light, put signs up advertising it, and it was generally a well known fact, it would certainly deter the action. I think the way the cities are doing it now, however, they're just trying to sneak it under the radar. People are expecting enforcement, but not 100%, and the cities are trying to take advantage of that in fines.

Basically, they aren't using it as a deterrence, but an excuse to collect funds. If it were meant to be a deterrence they wouldn't be installed so sneakily.
 
Watermark said:
If you know that every time you run a red light, you're going to get a 100 dollar fine, would you do it as much as you currently do it?
Click to expand...

Who run's red-lights on purpose anyways? Most of the time people run them thinking they have time to get through the yellow light, or aren't paying attention. So instead I'll just slam on my breaks and cause the guy behind me to rear-end me, which is what is happening now in all of those cities that implemented them.
 
DigitalDave said:
Who run's red-lights on purpose anyways? Most of the time people run them thinking they have time to get through the yellow light, or aren't paying attention. So instead I'll just slam on my breaks and cause the guy behind me to rear-end me, which is what is happening now in all of those cities that implemented them.
Click to expand...

There's an interesting thing installed at the intersection near my house on the highway. They have roadsigns near the intersection, and they flash with a warning "If flashing, be prepared to stop". And unless you're going at 90, you ain't going to beat that yellow light whenever they're flashing
 
Watermark said:
Public intoxication, lol. Is that still a law in most cities?

Anyway, there's no way they could actually get people to monitor cameras that closely, and unlike the red light thing, you couldn't get a computer to tell you if someone's drunk.
Click to expand...

No, you couldn't even prove that the person that stabbed the guy in the back alley was you on that camera, could have been a guy that looked like you. Or.... he wore a mask and didn't reveal who he was...

My point being, they will use these cameras more for revenue and it won't deter criminal activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top