Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-17-2007, 06:15 AM
 
13,134 posts, read 40,497,895 times
Reputation: 12303

Advertisements

Here's the latest installment of big brother taking our money (100 dollars a pop). Its at Wyoming and Academy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2007, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Metro Milwaukee, WI
3,198 posts, read 12,668,349 times
Reputation: 2241
Here is my question for the Mayor:

If the red light cameras are TRULY about safety enformcement - and not about further revenue collection / socialistic-big brother type activity, then why don't they prove it?

All fines collected from the cameras could be pooled, and then at the end of the year reimbursed as a "rebate" to all taxpaying citzens of the city. Furthermore, before the tax "rebate" was disbursed, the files of tax paying citizens could be cross-referenced with the files of all people who were cited in the same calendar year for running a red light...those cited are excluded from the "rebate".

As such, this would a) create a further fiscal reward for not running red lights and b) further "penalize" those who were caught runnnig the red lights.

But moreover, the city would then be easily able to demonstrate that this practice is truly about safety for the community and not revenue generation, since the city would not be generating any revenues at all from the practice.

For the issue of them needing to fund the company that handles the program / installs the lights, I would propose that they could still take those monies out of the end-of-year lump sum and still have plllllllenty left over for the reimbursement to the citizens of the city.

However, there would be plenty of reasons (see: excuses) given why this system - or something similar - could never fly. Why? Because of course this is about revenue generation, nothing more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2007, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,689 posts, read 9,138,539 times
Reputation: 2990
I would posit that the mayor's response (if one ever came) would be that there have been many similar revenue generating (and for that matter revenue losing) ordinances on the books and they're not meant to generate revenue so much as influence behavior.

Take parking meters for instance. Without them (in theory), on-street parking is constantly full of commuters and local businesses suffer. In order to force activity in those spaces, revenue (from meter feeding and enforcement) has to be collected. There's not really any obviously appropriate use for that funding.

I've never gotten a red light citation (knock on wood) and I think it's safe to say that if a three-shift full time police officer was stationed at each of these locations, a fine would be appropriate for the offenders caught. The fact a robot (basically what it is) has been deputized, with a city-paid human looking over the results, is a question of form rather than substance as far as I'm concerned.

It's also nice to not have to wait 10 extra seconds after the light turns green to wait for all the red light runners anymore. To me, that's payment enough for those $100 tickets. I'd bet, for 90% of those red light running instances, there's an inconvenienced driver across the street who'd press charges if he could; "big brother" just automates the process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2007, 12:33 PM
 
35 posts, read 237,217 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
I would posit that the mayor's response (if one ever came) would be that there have been many similar revenue generating (and for that matter revenue losing) ordinances on the books and they're not meant to generate revenue so much as influence behavior.

Take parking meters for instance. Without them (in theory), on-street parking is constantly full of commuters and local businesses suffer. In order to force activity in those spaces, revenue (from meter feeding and enforcement) has to be collected. There's not really any obviously appropriate use for that funding.

I've never gotten a red light citation (knock on wood) and I think it's safe to say that if a three-shift full time police officer was stationed at each of these locations, a fine would be appropriate for the offenders caught. The fact a robot (basically what it is) has been deputized, with a city-paid human looking over the results, is a question of form rather than substance as far as I'm concerned.

It's also nice to not have to wait 10 extra seconds after the light turns green to wait for all the red light runners anymore. To me, that's payment enough for those $100 tickets. I'd bet, for 90% of those red light running instances, there's an inconvenienced driver across the street who'd press charges if he could; "big brother" just automates the process.
I couldn't agree more, Zoidberg. Not to mention that people who run red lights don't just inconvenience other drivers, they often kill. Why would anyone object to charging a $100 fine to someone who does something that could easily result in death, or at least serious damage and injury? Why should it matter if it's a camera or a cop?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2007, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Metro Milwaukee, WI
3,198 posts, read 12,668,349 times
Reputation: 2241
I just have to respectfully disagree. I can see your sides of the debate, but I just personally go the other way.

Yes, red light runners pose a safety hazard in our society. But the problem is that I feel many people overlook is that when you start putting cameras up, etc., in the name of "keeping the public safe", you crack open a major pandora's box that I surely do not want to live in a society filled with.

First off, as I stated above, I have less of a problem with this practice if the money (eg: "revenue") did not go straight to line the government's pockets. That is why this is being treated as a "civil" violation...if it was treated the way traffic citations are treated when given by actual police officers, the "revenue" would then have to go into a "black hole" at the state (Mayor's words)...well, why would he care??! If it was truly for the "safety of the public" and not revenue generation, then why would he care where the money actually went?

Furthermore, now that the pandora's box is opened, why don't we next start putting cameras in everyone's house? Plenty of illegal activities occur in homes that then in turn can harm others in the general public. Sure, roadways are public areas and homes - at least for now are considered private properties - but hey, since some unsavory folks might do illegal activities at home that could then cause physical harm to the general public, why not throw a camera up in every home?

It just depends how one wishes to live. I personally, as horrified and angered as I undoubtedly would be, would rather "run the risk" of a irresponsible, foolish red light runner running a light and crashing into me, possibly causing serious injury (or death), and live relatively free (surely with some laws and police enforcement) than live under big brother monitoring more and more of my every move.

To me, the more and more you rely on the government to try to take any harmful risk out of life, the less enjoyment life can bring as well, also. We ALL make mistakes on the road...we are all human. There is no perfect driver...we've all sped - accidently or not, accidently got into a light on red rather than yellow, etc. In the overwhelming majority of these incidents, they would happen whether there were cameras "watching" or not, do you really want to give the govt. $100 because a camera saw you at what they clocked as 6 over the speed limit? Some wouldn't mind...me, personally, that just isn't the type society I wish to live in, even if it puts me personally at a negligible amout more of risk.

You could take this to all sorts of extremes, which cameras start a precedence for. Why not make the speed limit throughout the state of NM 15 miles per hour standard? I bet then that would make the roads much safer. Why not just not allow anyone to drive on the road from 7pm - 7am? That would make things incredibly safer too I suppose. Obviously these are ridiculous extremes, however, I would argue that allowing our almost-every action to be filmed on the road start down that road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2007, 05:57 PM
 
13,134 posts, read 40,497,895 times
Reputation: 12303
Also beleive if we are going to put cameras up at intersections in Albuquerque then every city in the United States should have one at every red light in the United States to be fair at this. Infact lets even have one at the one stop light in Carrizozo or San Antonio NM. Of course i'm be facetious but you see where this could go.........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2007, 06:14 PM
 
35 posts, read 237,217 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry o View Post
Also beleive if we are going to put cameras up at intersections in Albuquerque then every city in the United States should have one at every red light in the United States to be fair at this. Infact lets even have one at the one stop light in Carrizozo or San Antonio NM. Of course i'm be facetious but you see where this could go.........
We have lots of them here where I live. It's not just Albuquerque.

I almost got creamed by a red light-runner a few weeks ago. I had to slam on my brakes to avoid him, and in turn almost got hit from behind because of stopping so suddenly. I almost had a heart attack I was so shaken up. I wish there had been a camera at THAT intersection. Although $100 isn't nearly enough punishment for the recklessness and potential lethality of running a light. I don't like government intrusion into personal business or private places, but this isn't personal or in a private place. In fact, I'd rather have a camera than a human being doing the catching--if it's a cop it's just your word against his or hers; if they lie or are mistaken you still get blamed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2007, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,689 posts, read 9,138,539 times
Reputation: 2990
Of course there are concerns that society is becoming like George Orwell thought it might be in 1984.

While vigilance is necessary on the part of the citizenry against threats to civil liberties, the reality of traffic makes adequate enforcement without technological aids impossible. Pull over someone doing 20 over on Paseo during rush hour, clog Paseo behind him for 2 hours.

I think the cameras in people's houses is a bit too much of a slippery slope fallacy for me to worry about it; even 9 George W. Bush-appointed supreme court justices would declare that a violation of fourth amendment rights.

Between a gruff police officer pulling me over when I'm in a hurry and a letter in the mail after the fact, I'll choose the latter for now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2007, 10:50 PM
 
68 posts, read 354,393 times
Reputation: 50
Default thats it?? 100 bucks??

there is about 15, 20 of those red light cameras in los angeles,,,,,100 bucks is nothing i paid $350 back in 2002 for running the red light...guilty as charged, and have never and will never do it again!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2007, 01:00 PM
 
13,134 posts, read 40,497,895 times
Reputation: 12303
Just noticed cameras at Menaul and Wyoming intersection. Wasn't sure if i could turn right on red light after stop....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top