I-95 cameras snap speeders, spark controversy

steveox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
7,499
Location
Way Down South
RIDGELAND, S.C. – As Interstate 95 sweeps past this small town along South Carolina's coastal plain, motorists encounter cameras that catch speeding cars, the only such devices on the open interstate for almost 2,000 miles from Canada to Miami.

The cameras have nabbed thousands of motorists, won accolades from highway safety advocates, attracted heated opposition from state lawmakers and sparked a federal court challenge.

Ridgeland Mayor Gary Hodges said the cameras in his town about 20 miles north of the Georgia line do what they are designed to do: slow people down, reduce accidents and, most importantly, save lives.

But lawmakers who want to unplug them argue the system is just a money-maker and amounts to unconstitutional selective law enforcement.

"We're absolutely shutting it down," said state Sen. Larry Grooms, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

Earlier this month, Ridgeland Police Officer David Swinehamer sat in a van beneath an overpass as a radar gun in a thicket of electronic equipment outside clocked passing vehicles: 60, 72, 73, 67.

Then a Mercedes with South Carolina tags sped by going 83 — 13 mph over the speed limit. A camera fired and pictures of the tag and driver appeared on a monitor in the van. The unaware motorist continued north, but could expect a $133 ticket in the mail in a couple of weeks.

"I just don't think it's right," said James Gain of Kissimmee, Fla., one of the lawsuit plaintiffs who got a ticket last year while driving between his home and Greensboro, N.C. "If you get a ticket you should be stopped by an officer, know you have been stopped and have an opportunity to state your case."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_on_re_us/us_speed_camera_spat

Now if everyone bought this
http://www.phantomplate.com/photoshield.html
You wouldnt get a ticket.I got one and never got a ticket on speeding or running though a red light.
 
Werbung:
So what is it with people breaking laws and complaining when they get caught? This "I should be able to break the law and get away with it" entitlement nonsense started when the U.S. government decided to allow our country to be invaded by 20 million illegal aliens who have crossed our borders, gotten jobs, committed crimes, gotten free medical care, food stamps, and all the other "perks" that come from living in the United States.

Why bother having laws at all if they are unenforceable?

The "slippery slope" rule definitely applies here.
 
I got one before. :D It's true the motivation is to make money, but if you break the law, you pay the price. My big gripe in CA is the cost of tickets - they are HUGE, and of course to help bail out the state from the $40 billion debt due to democrat spending on illegal aliens and greedy government unions.
 
Rick get those license plate refectors. If Cameras cant read your plate you cant get a ticket :D

Great idea! Sidestep speeding laws by tricking the cameras. That way, you can go as fast as you want, and you'll only get caught when you slam into a family traveling in a mini-van, or broadside a gas truck, or maybe just wrap your vehicle around a power pole.

Lots of "tools" out there for the lawbreakers in our society.
 
Great idea! Sidestep speeding laws by tricking the cameras. That way, you can go as fast as you want, and you'll only get caught when you slam into a family traveling in a mini-van, or broadside a gas truck, or maybe just wrap your vehicle around a power pole.

Lots of "tools" out there for the lawbreakers in our society.

I suspect such reflectors are illegal. But if one had a legal way to trick the cameras, not because they wanted to evade speeding fines, but because they wanted the state to see that the immoral camera system should be abandoned, then that would be good.

Hypothetically? If the cameras work well to catch speeders (good) and to raise revenue (abusive) and the system is expanded to the point that there is no public place in which one is not watched - would that be a violation of privacy rights?
 
I suspect such reflectors are illegal. But if one had a legal way to trick the cameras, not because they wanted to evade speeding fines, but because they wanted the state to see that the immoral camera system should be abandoned, then that would be good.

Hypothetically? If the cameras work well to catch speeders (good) and to raise revenue (abusive) and the system is expanded to the point that there is no public place in which one is not watched - would that be a violation of privacy rights?

What "privacy right" do you suppose you have if you are breaking the law in a public place?

I have one for you. If I murder somebody inside my home, can I claim my "right to privacy" when the police knock on my door? That seems more plausible than your silly "privacy right" argument, and my analogy is ridiculous.

I have another one for you. Do you believe that women should be allowed to legally kill their unborn babies based on their "right to privacy"? That's what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973. Sounds absurd to me, also.
 
What "privacy right" do you suppose you have if you are breaking the law in a public place?

I have one for you. If I murder somebody inside my home, can I claim my "right to privacy" when the police knock on my door? That seems more plausible than your silly "privacy right" argument, and my analogy is ridiculous.

I have another one for you. Do you believe that women should be allowed to legally kill their unborn babies based on their "right to privacy"? That's what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973. Sounds absurd to me, also.

And the U.S Supreme Court says you can disrupt somebodys funeral with hate speech.
 
And the U.S Supreme Court says you can disrupt somebodys funeral with hate speech.

There's plenty of hate speech going on in our society, by all kinds of wack jobs, from the left and from the extreme right. The never-ending question with "freedom of speech" is, where do you draw the line?

What many of us may find reprehensible and disrespectful and hateful is allowed to fall under the umbrella of "freedom of speech".
 
What "privacy right" do you suppose you have if you are breaking the law in a public place?

Actually I meant for the hypothetical situation to refer to the fact that all citizens would be watched in public at all times regardless of whether or not they had broken any laws.

I have one for you. If I murder somebody inside my home, can I claim my "right to privacy" when the police knock on my door? That seems more plausible than your silly "privacy right" argument, and my analogy is ridiculous.

Murderers do have privacy rights. That is the purpose of the need for a warrant.

I have another one for you. Do you believe that women should be allowed to legally kill their unborn babies based on their "right to privacy"? That's what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973. Sounds absurd to me, also.

No.
 
Cause the ACLU says its invasion of Privacy. And Speed and red light cameras are invasion of Privacy too. The consitution says government cannot invade your Privacy. Business are excempt on invasion of your Privacy
 
Werbung:
I suspect such reflectors are illegal. But if one had a legal way to trick the cameras, not because they wanted to evade speeding fines, but because they wanted the state to see that the immoral camera system should be abandoned, then that would be good.

I don't remember where it happened but about 2 years ago a local radio host shared a news story about some youngsters who had a bright idea on how to prank a buddy of theirs... They made copies of their buddy's license plate, put them on their cars, then drove through all the camera speed traps in town. About a week later, their buddy recieved several hundred dollars worth of speeding tickets by mail.

The radio host suggested that people who dislike speed cameras might consider using the same tactic to get speed cameras removed... Make copies of the license plates of people with the power to remove the speed cameras, like the mayor and police chief of your town, and then race through camera speed traps. After they get smacked with a barrage of speeding tickets, they might reconsider their stance on the morality of speed cameras.
 
Back
Top