Seatbelt Enforcement

[TrainTrac]

Geez, why didn't the Navy just put you in a bubble suit?



The reflective vest is really over the top...

Did you serve, KL? The only reason I mention this is that those of us who do/have realize that we pretty much give up the Creator-endowed rights guaranteed in the very Constitution that we swear to uphold and defend. That's just, to paraphrase Uncle Walter, "the way it is".



And the Navy, along with the rest of the Armed Forces, invests a great deal of time and money to train service members. So I guess you could say that regulations such as these are in place to help ensure that the gov't (American taxpayers) get a good return on their investment. Along the same lines, if an accident occurs and it's determined that the service member consumed alchohol, the gov't often refuses payment of medical expenses/SGLI benefits. Even if the member was under the legal limits, because it's still deemed to be an "alcohol-related" incident.

 

[Kevin Lang]

TT, I realize that it makes sense, I'd want to protect my hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in each service member as well, were I in that position....but the idea of seeing a bunch of sailors running around with reflective vests on was hilarious...also, I don't recall ever seeing that :banana:

 

[Robert Thomas]

Should those people also pay higher premiums for life and health insurance?

No. I am glad to have my tax money go to support this type of action. Having them pay would be like taxing cigarettes. We should not interfere with nature's way of cleaning the gene pool.



:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

KL,



I'm just asking the question. Obese people and people that smoke already pay higher insurance premiums (life insurance, anyway), because the statistics show they are at higher risks.



If we accept that practice, then why not charge people people that engage in a practice that increases their risks (like not wearing helmets or seat belts) also pay higher insurance rates?



Just asking. Not baiting. Just wondering what people think about the subject.



We are "free" to do such things; but being free to do something doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have to "pay" to do it.



P.S. I've recently lost 12 pounds in 3+ weeks, eating healthier and exercising more at the request of my doctor. It can be done, but it is hard. I had the freedom to eat bad and exercise infrequently before, and I was PAYING for it.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

lost 12 pounds in 3+ weeks

:supercool::supercool::supercool::supercool::supercool:

 

[Les]

If we accept that practice, then why not charge people people that engage in a practice that increases their risks (like not wearing helmets or seat belts) also pay higher insurance rates?

I've got no problem with that, but not using these devices also helps thin the herd...

 

[TomT]

I say the auto manufacturers should be required to wire up the air bag to deploy if the seatbelt is not buckled within say 1 minute. I'll bet that would get your attention.

:banana:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Put sharp metal spikes in the middle of the steering wheel instead of airbags and seatbelt use would go up, I suspect.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

KL,

It is not impossible to only use red light cameras for monitoring people running red lights. The cameras are still phot cameras, they do not take videos. The cameras are triggerd by sensors in the pavement that are only armed when the traffic light turns red. They cannot be used to spy on anyother activity because they are a single function, single triggered system.



The cameras at red lights have radar that not only photographs you going through the red light but also indicates the date, time, elapse time from when the light turned red until you entered the intersection, as well as the speed you were going.



Special radar equiped cameras can detect your speed, and if you are over the limit, the camera takes a picture of you, the car, the license plate, date time and speed. You get your ticket in the mail addressed to the registered owner of the vehicle.



You can argue all you want about the technology they use but it has stood up in any court. As they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words". The most interesting part is, they don't need to know who was driving the vehicle, nor get a recognizable photo of the driver. If you are the registered owner, you are responsible for paying the fine.



In Germany initially had issues with people wearing sunglasses and disquises, but the fact that the vehilce was registered to you makes you responsible for who drives your car...as it should be.



...Rich

 

[Les]

You can argue all you want about the technology they use but it has stood up in any court. As they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words". The most interesting part is, they don't need to know who was driving the vehicle, nor get a recognizable photo of the driver. If you are the registered owner, you are responsible for paying the fine.

Richard, not entirely true. Last week in Hallandale, Florida, a judge issued a ruling that these cameras violate a requirement of law. The ticket is issued as a code violation, not a moving violation, which circumvents the requirements that an officer must see you run the light. The cities argue these lights promote safety and are not being used a revenue bearing devices. The judge indicated that since the cities are not requiring law enforcement to visually see the infraction, they are revenue bearing and are illegal. Since then, some of the other local cities have stopped issuing tickets until further rulings are available.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les,



Stupid judge!



Judges are supposed to help society.



His ruling, essentially is saying you can't write tickets unless law enforcement officials (humans) are in the loop in the infraction. That is crazy.



Technology can remove the human element and thereby the liklihood of human error/abuse from the equation, often saving tax dollars in the process. Requiring that humans stay in the loop with precedents like this is a BAD idea, IMHO.



TJR

 

[Les]

Don't consider the judge stupid, he see's the cameras for what they are, revenue bearing devices, not safety devices. His ruling is based on law that says a LEO cannot arbitrarily just hand out tickets, he must witness the infraction. There is no proof these cameras save lives, but plenty of proof they generate revenue by circumventing the law.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les,



C'mon. Really? I must be confused by what you are saying.



It seems to me that you and the judge are saying that if a human observes someone running a red light and gives them a ticket it is okay, but if a camera does the same thing it is somehow different.



Is that the case?



Clearly that's what the judge is saying. It seems that is what you are saying.



In one case (the human involved) the judge says it passes the "for safety" smell test. But the same practice done by technology fails that smell test and stinks of "for revenue generation?"



Why?



Why does the human in the mix make the practice MORE "for safety" and LESS "for revenue generation" (and conversely, the use of the camera flip that perception)? Why, exactly?



As for your point that "there is no proof that these cameras saves lives", well that's an argument that I don't see the point of. LEOs give tickets for infractions all the time and that practice may or may not be saving lives. Are they held to the same "must save lives" standard to be considered NOT revenue generating? I doubt it.



As for the point that: "His ruling is based on law that says a LEO cannot arbitrarily just hand out tickets, he must witness the infraction." Well, to me that basis REINFORCES the use of cameras. A camera won't do anything arbitrarily. A human will, and does.





TJR

 

[Les]

It seems to me that you and the judge are saying that if a human observes someone running a red light and gives them a ticket it is okay, but if a camera does the same thing it is somehow different.

It is different, that is how many traffic laws are written. We are not discussing who is better, man or technology, we are discussing the legality of the cameras.

As for your point that "there is no proof that these cameras saves lives", well that's an argument that I don't see the point of. LEOs give tickets for infractions all the time and that practice may or may not be saving lives.

That is exactly the point, the cameras were installed to generate revenue outside of the current laws which have certain requirements to maintain guilt, not to create safer enviroments for drivers. In simplier terms, many cities found a way to tax people that otherwise would not be taxed. You do not receive a traffic ticket, you receive a "code violation" and this is why the judge ruled as he did.

 

[Richard L]

Les,

If you want to get really technical, does any traffic ticket promote Safety. If you are a millionaire and you get a $200 ticket for speeding...is that really going to stimulate your conscience to drive slower?? Maybe, but certainly not as much as the guy wo only makes $300 a week. Nobody likes getting tickets, but they surely do not promote safe driving



Police have been giving traffic tickets since first time vehicles started to move on our roads or buggy paths. Has that done anything to improve safety on the highways.



Instead of a fine, why don't they make everyone attend an 8 hour long driving safety course for every ticket and a small fine that is just enough to pay for the class and any administrative costs. That would do more to promote safety for everyone because the millionaire will be forced to endure the same classes as the rest of the speeders and his money will not allow him to buy his way out of the ticket.



In Germany, they fine people for traffic violations based on their ability to pay. One wealthy guy was fined the equivilant of $10K just for giving another driver the bird (you are not allowed to give hand gestures in Germany)



If trafic violations were such a promotor of safety, they would have far better signage and notification of speed limits, and upcoming changes in the speed limits.



Some area in Texas are actually putting speed limits signs up with a Yellow diamond background warning you that there is reduction in about 1/4 mile ahead. Some even put the signs both sides of the approaching traffic lanes so you are less likely to miss seeing a sign because of being next to a taller vehicle like an 18 wheeler.



That happened to me in Texarkana, Tx where the speed limit on I-30 dropped from 70 mph down to 60 mph and there is only that one sign for about 4-5 miles. I was doing 70, I saw the cop, my radar/laser detector picked him up, and I continued to drive 70 because I did not see the one 60 mph sign. The thing that convinces me it was a deliberate trap was the fact that the police man was from the city of Texarkana and not the State Trooper. Also, the ticket never hit my drivers license record (MVR) so that meant that Texarkana kept all the money from that fine which is illegal. Texas passed a law a few years ago that discouraged the city and county police from patroling the state highways and if they ticket a violator, they had to send that revenue to the state ond could only keep a small administrative fee. Obviously Texarkana did not report it to the state or I would have seen the points on my MVR



So my assesment is that 99% of all traffic tickets are issued for Revenue purposes and not to promote Safety. That was also very obvious when the recession started to impact the cities and towns in Texas you would see speed traps everywhere and cops pulling vehicles over left and right. I suspect that their majors and police chief's told them that if they did not bring in a lot more revenue, some police officers would be laid off. Sounds like a strong motivational factor to me.



...Rich

 

[TrainTrac]

In Germany, they fine people for traffic violations based on their ability to pay. One wealthy guy was fined the equivilant of $10K just for giving another driver the bird (you are not allowed to give hand gestures in Germany)

Sounds like a progressive tax to me!

 

[Mark K 2]

Some area in Texas are actually putting speed limits signs up with a Yellow diamond background warning you that there is reduction in about 1/4 mile ahead

Those are replacing the "reduced speed ahead" signs. Wisconsin has had them for a few years.

 

[Robert Thomas]

Rich,



I worked on a National Parkway for a number of years. They tracked speed enforcement verses accidents and death. When tickets were up accidents were down and when tickets were down accidents were up. The studies were undertaken because every fatal accident underwent a Board of Review, if the incidents went sharply up in any given clusters of years one of the factors identified was always reduced enforcement. Additionally, if you are fined in a federal system the funds go directly to the US Treasury. No funds that I know of are kicked back to the Agency. No Manager of a Federal enforcement area has any interest in traffic enforcement other that the safety of individuals using the area. The same occurs with collection of user fees, other that collection positions, all fees go the the Treasury. It cost area Managers time and appropriated funds to enforce laws and collect funds.



States, Cities, and Counties are different. If any State, City, or County is doing enforcement for revenue a judge should consider this in there findings. If the judge is a official of the State or County and does not identify this they should be voted out of office as should the Managers of the State, City, or County. We like to blame the Cops. They are doing what someone tells them to do.



I do not want to start a good cop bad cop argument. Please. If one hates the cops so be it. If the cop hates the public, they should be removed.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les stated:

That is exactly the point, the cameras were installed to generate revenue outside of the current laws which have certain requirements to maintain guilt, not to create safer enviroments for drivers.

I think you are combining a few things there and I will paraphrase them:



A: The camera system generates tickets for infractions the guilt of which haven't been established by the same burden of proof as current laws.



and



B: The intent of installing the cameras was to generate revenue and not to create safer roads.



If you ARE in fact saying A and B, *then* I will will agree that a judge can and should rule the camera systems as illegal IF he can prove the case of point A (doesn't provide the same established proof of guilt as the existing laws).



I'm skeptical of the legal precedence of ruling on point A as described (requiring a law enforcement officer to observe to be valid). As I said, if it truly is the case that such is the burden then I think its a bad precedent....backwards, not embracing of technology.



If the judge can rule given point A then point B is moot, seemingly added to the debate and to the topic emotionally and without real bearing.



Les, you yourself said that the legality of the cameras is the issue. If that is the case, then point A alone has bearing (IMHO). I'd like to better understand WHY the judge feels they are illegal. I simply DO NOT BUY that because they are perceived as revenue generating and not safety aids is a reason they are illegal. I'm simply not buying that.



TJR

 

[Les]

Why does the human in the mix make the practice MORE "for safety" and LESS "for revenue generation" (and conversely, the use of the camera flip that perception)? Why, exactly?

Tom, no one said it did. All I said was, "a judge issued a ruling that these cameras violate a requirement of law. The ticket is issued as a code violation, not a moving violation, which circumvents the requirements that an officer must see you run the light."

If you want to get really technical, does any traffic ticket promote Safety.

Rich, I was not discussing the safety factor, I was commenting that cameras placed at intersections were not installed for safety, but for the local community to generate money and that a judge in S. Florida had ruled it was illegal. I have no idea whether his ruling will stand following appeal, but it has slowed down the installation of additional devices.