Got a problem w/ speeders? How about posting some officers w/ radar guns in problem areas? Or ‘dummy’ cop cars to slow down traffic flows?
They’ll probably just end up giving a sizeable contract to a donor contractor who gets a big cut of the ticket revenues, then complain about how their revenues are down because of the speed cameras.
This legislative session Maryland has attempted to usurp the rights of a majority of its citizens who travel the public roadways (Yes, motorist do have the right to confront their accusers). Yet, they have succeeded in expanding the ‘rights’ of citizens who choose to form ‘domestic partnerships’ thereby striping the inherent rights of the parents of adult children. Way to go!
Scott, I don’t think the Bill of Rights mentions the right to drive on public highways, or the right to break laws covering speed limits. As far as being confronted by your accuser, I suppose the technican could testify as far as validity of the computer software that tagged the driver. Kinda like a breathalizer – where you have a “machine” that says you are guilty. Bottom line: sounds like you are an advocate of breaking the speed limit laws?????
Maybe the Maryland Courts would like to decide that? Oh wait, they deferred. And what have the Federal Courts said, why don’t you look it up. I believe there are several cases still pending too. I’m not for breaking any laws but I would like for Maryland to stop acting like the Gestapo. Stopping motorists and searching drivers and passengers without probably cause is way out of line. If you don’t care that your rights are being stripped year after year that’s your business, I do care. Enough is enough. Remember the seat belt law? Remember they said it would never be used as a primary reason to stop motorists? What’s the reality today? No smoking in private businesses, what’s next? What’s next? Automated enforcement, sorry, I’m against it.
You must be right Bob, Scott thinks he has a right to speed. He had to bring in all of these other factors that have nothing to do with the subject. The cameras do nothing to take away a right you have Scott.
I’m torn between using technology as an inexpensive means to stretch our own protection forces and the advancement and encroachment of technology operated by the government into my life. I’m okay with speed and red light cameras, but can see how the slippery slope argument applies. Especially given that many public places are now currently monitored remotely 24/7 by hidden cameras.
I guess for me it ultimately comes down to – is there a law against it? If there’s a law against it, and the technology is proven, I’m okay with using technology to extend the resources of those that enforce the law. If the law comes after the technology then I’m against it.
And the right to face your accuser argument is bogus in these cases. Your accuser is the State. The officer is merely a representative of the State (or municipality). That role can be filled by anyone.
Revenue-rasing is clearly what these camera systems are all about.
If it were about safety in certain zones, why tiny black-on-white signs, not flashing warning lights? Further, recent reports show that many of the cameras are placed at “safe” spots with historically low accident rates but lots of traffic moving at high speed (underposted speed limits) that bring in lots of tickets for the county and the camera makers, which apparently get a significant kickback from each, sometimes in violation of the law (see Washington Times articles about Rockville, Md.’s payments to the camera makers)
Furthermore, cameras inherently pose serious and unwarranted (pun unintended) civil liberties concerns. Especially in this time when the Federal government has been violating the constitution willy-nilly and wiretapping, eavesdroppingon citizens, we must be extra-vigilant about any program that could result in more government monitoring.
(the program in DC that connects private security cameras with govenment-installed ones to spy on citizens live — even children in school — should be stopped in its tracks and eliminated — the public should ask the simple question: FOR WHAT???)
The government works for the people — not vice versa — and We the People must insist that it respect our autonomy and freedom.
If a person is driving negligently that driver should be pulled over by a human officer with discretion and judgment on the spot; whereas, a law-abiding citizen driving carefully (as is the solemn responsibility of everyone who gets behind the wheel of a car) exercising judgment in accordance with traditional principles of motoring should not be subjected to the indignity of being stalked by (eventually ubiquitous) cameras and having every action second-guessed and potentially subjected to a multitude of highly revenue-generating penalties.
Perhaps we need a system of cameras or surveillance equipment to monitor our government officials — who after all work for us — so we can watch them to be sure they do their jobs and do not sell out our rights, freedoms, or interests to camera companies, insurance industry, the security-industrial complex, or corporate lobbyists who make big campaign contributions to buy expensive toys (e.g. speed cameras) without public consent that makes us less free and less, not more safe, and put their profits ahead of safety, freedom, or democracy.
Maybe we should photograph and issue citations to every public official found to be in violation of democratic principles payable to their constituents — we’d all be rich!
Until then, let’s return to reason and pull the plug on unwanted and unnecessary surveillance of the public — by, of, and for whom this government is supposed to operate — and on the unwise, illegitimate, unfair, scam of the rigid “gotcha” style of traffic enforcement not by human cop with judgment, discretion, and humanity but by inhuman automated cash-generating robot.
Wrong. Don’t complain when an army of automatons is issuing citizens citations for every possible infraction. You don’t seem to care about the right to face your accuser so just pay the fine and shut up. I choose to rebel against this Stalinist repression before it spins out of control. I have no desire to speed or break the law but I have no desire to be forcible controlled either.
It’s not that I don’t care about my right to face my accuser; I just know who my accuser is in this case. I can ask for maintenance and calibration logs just like I would with an officer using a radar gun, and actually have better luck. With a machine I can say it wasn’t calibrated properly and win. With an officer they can say they know how fast I was going despite their radar or laser not working, and they win.
This is not “Minority Report” (bad movie, great premise). And while I do worry about the government encroaching on my freedoms and my rights, I currently do not have a right to speed and get away with it – I merely have the opportunity. If you never speed, if you never run a red light, you don’t have to worry. If you do need to speed, or do need to run a red light, you can tell it to the judge just like you can now.
Got a problem w/ speeders? How about posting some officers w/ radar guns in problem areas? Or ‘dummy’ cop cars to slow down traffic flows?
They’ll probably just end up giving a sizeable contract to a donor contractor who gets a big cut of the ticket revenues, then complain about how their revenues are down because of the speed cameras.
Wake up, sheeple!
This legislative session Maryland has attempted to usurp the rights of a majority of its citizens who travel the public roadways (Yes, motorist do have the right to confront their accusers). Yet, they have succeeded in expanding the ‘rights’ of citizens who choose to form ‘domestic partnerships’ thereby striping the inherent rights of the parents of adult children. Way to go!
Here’s a radical thought, don’t speed. If you do, be prepared to pay the fine.
Scott, I don’t think the Bill of Rights mentions the right to drive on public highways, or the right to break laws covering speed limits. As far as being confronted by your accuser, I suppose the technican could testify as far as validity of the computer software that tagged the driver. Kinda like a breathalizer – where you have a “machine” that says you are guilty. Bottom line: sounds like you are an advocate of breaking the speed limit laws?????
Maybe the Maryland Courts would like to decide that? Oh wait, they deferred. And what have the Federal Courts said, why don’t you look it up. I believe there are several cases still pending too. I’m not for breaking any laws but I would like for Maryland to stop acting like the Gestapo. Stopping motorists and searching drivers and passengers without probably cause is way out of line. If you don’t care that your rights are being stripped year after year that’s your business, I do care. Enough is enough. Remember the seat belt law? Remember they said it would never be used as a primary reason to stop motorists? What’s the reality today? No smoking in private businesses, what’s next? What’s next? Automated enforcement, sorry, I’m against it.
You must be right Bob, Scott thinks he has a right to speed. He had to bring in all of these other factors that have nothing to do with the subject. The cameras do nothing to take away a right you have Scott.
I’m torn between using technology as an inexpensive means to stretch our own protection forces and the advancement and encroachment of technology operated by the government into my life. I’m okay with speed and red light cameras, but can see how the slippery slope argument applies. Especially given that many public places are now currently monitored remotely 24/7 by hidden cameras.
I guess for me it ultimately comes down to – is there a law against it? If there’s a law against it, and the technology is proven, I’m okay with using technology to extend the resources of those that enforce the law. If the law comes after the technology then I’m against it.
And the right to face your accuser argument is bogus in these cases. Your accuser is the State. The officer is merely a representative of the State (or municipality). That role can be filled by anyone.
Revenue-rasing is clearly what these camera systems are all about.
If it were about safety in certain zones, why tiny black-on-white signs, not flashing warning lights? Further, recent reports show that many of the cameras are placed at “safe” spots with historically low accident rates but lots of traffic moving at high speed (underposted speed limits) that bring in lots of tickets for the county and the camera makers, which apparently get a significant kickback from each, sometimes in violation of the law (see Washington Times articles about Rockville, Md.’s payments to the camera makers)
Furthermore, cameras inherently pose serious and unwarranted (pun unintended) civil liberties concerns. Especially in this time when the Federal government has been violating the constitution willy-nilly and wiretapping, eavesdroppingon citizens, we must be extra-vigilant about any program that could result in more government monitoring.
(the program in DC that connects private security cameras with govenment-installed ones to spy on citizens live — even children in school — should be stopped in its tracks and eliminated — the public should ask the simple question: FOR WHAT???)
The government works for the people — not vice versa — and We the People must insist that it respect our autonomy and freedom.
If a person is driving negligently that driver should be pulled over by a human officer with discretion and judgment on the spot; whereas, a law-abiding citizen driving carefully (as is the solemn responsibility of everyone who gets behind the wheel of a car) exercising judgment in accordance with traditional principles of motoring should not be subjected to the indignity of being stalked by (eventually ubiquitous) cameras and having every action second-guessed and potentially subjected to a multitude of highly revenue-generating penalties.
Perhaps we need a system of cameras or surveillance equipment to monitor our government officials — who after all work for us — so we can watch them to be sure they do their jobs and do not sell out our rights, freedoms, or interests to camera companies, insurance industry, the security-industrial complex, or corporate lobbyists who make big campaign contributions to buy expensive toys (e.g. speed cameras) without public consent that makes us less free and less, not more safe, and put their profits ahead of safety, freedom, or democracy.
Maybe we should photograph and issue citations to every public official found to be in violation of democratic principles payable to their constituents — we’d all be rich!
Until then, let’s return to reason and pull the plug on unwanted and unnecessary surveillance of the public — by, of, and for whom this government is supposed to operate — and on the unwise, illegitimate, unfair, scam of the rigid “gotcha” style of traffic enforcement not by human cop with judgment, discretion, and humanity but by inhuman automated cash-generating robot.
Wrong. Don’t complain when an army of automatons is issuing citizens citations for every possible infraction. You don’t seem to care about the right to face your accuser so just pay the fine and shut up. I choose to rebel against this Stalinist repression before it spins out of control. I have no desire to speed or break the law but I have no desire to be forcible controlled either.
Scott,
It’s not that I don’t care about my right to face my accuser; I just know who my accuser is in this case. I can ask for maintenance and calibration logs just like I would with an officer using a radar gun, and actually have better luck. With a machine I can say it wasn’t calibrated properly and win. With an officer they can say they know how fast I was going despite their radar or laser not working, and they win.
This is not “Minority Report” (bad movie, great premise). And while I do worry about the government encroaching on my freedoms and my rights, I currently do not have a right to speed and get away with it – I merely have the opportunity. If you never speed, if you never run a red light, you don’t have to worry. If you do need to speed, or do need to run a red light, you can tell it to the judge just like you can now.