MouthBQ98 said:

---

Only for Nissan sedans with paper plates, Challenger or chargers, and 4+ inch lifted 3/4 ton trunks.

---

Good with that if we can add semi trucks too.

Driven one specifc stretch of i35 3 times lately. This one specific spot has a no trucks left lane sign over lane 1. Each time ive gone past that sign, ive witnessed a semi going under it.

I was just pondering this whole topic in the traffic jam that i got to sit in 10miles further down the road.

No. The answer to "are you okay with any government increase, in any facet of society, for any reason whatsoever", is no.

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

No. The answer to "are you okay with any government increase, in any facet of society, for any reason whatsoever", is no.

---

So "no" to more border security/walls too? I share your sentiment on most things... but kind of a short sided to make it "for any reason whatsoever"

agAngeldad said:

---

I support cameras for intersection violations. People are running red lights at an alarming rate. Officers cannot watch every intersection. There are other states that utilize cameras. If you dont want big brother watching you, start by ditching your online and wifi service.

---

The red light camera experiment in Texas did little to nothing to reduce accidents though it did increase revenue. TTI has shown pretty clearly that a 4 second delay goes significantly farther in preventing accidents than the threat of a ticket from a camera. If you really want to reduce accidents that's the answer.

Im seeing 2-4 cars go throught intersection when the crossing green light is on.

taxpreparer said:

---

I will never understand why some people think their desire to break the law by speeding takes precedence over my desire to break the law by driving in the smoother (left) lane.

---

Not sure if sarcasm... but a ticket or even warnings would fix this oblivious behavior, and this is exactly why this post was made.

Seems to be a prereq for driving a prius.

LOYAL AG said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

I support cameras for intersection violations. People are running red lights at an alarming rate. Officers cannot watch every intersection. There are other states that utilize cameras. If you dont want big brother watching you, start by ditching your online and wifi service.

---

The red light camera experiment in Texas did little to nothing to reduce accidents though it did increase revenue. TTI has shown pretty clearly that a 4 second delay goes significantly farther in preventing accidents than the threat of a ticket from a camera. If you really want to reduce accidents that's the answer.

---

Start seizing vehicles like you do to these street takeovers and people will start getting the message eventually.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

I have no problems with traffic cameras as long as there are strict conditions.

1. Traffic lights... No short orange timed lights to "catch" runners.
i.e. Only catch those that blatantly run a red.
2. Traffic cameras on highways.. Only ticket those who exceed the speed limit by a set amount also give the driver leeway to drive safely. e.g. passing slower cars etc.
3. All traffic camera violations are subject to civil trials just like all other violations.
4. No for profit companies running the whole system.

taxpreparer said:

---

I will never understand why some people think their desire to break the law by speeding takes precedence over my desire to break the law by driving in the smoother (left) lane.

---

It's not about the law, it's about common courtesy. It's like my parents taught me. Don't be an inconvenience to other people.

Left lane drivers are the same people that take too long to order at Chic Fil A and don't put their shopping carts away. Basically inconsiderate.

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

So, like all rationalizations, whether it be speeding, left lane driving, right on red without stopping, or standing in a fire lane while waiting on a passenger to shop, it is all about "me" and "my convenience."

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

---

So all shop lifters (or other criminals) caught on cameras cannot be prosecuted, if there are no eye-witnesses? I'll keep that in mind.

taxpreparer said:

---

So, like all rationalizations, whether it be speeding, left lane driving, right on red without stopping, or standing in a fire lane while waiting on a passenger to shop, it is all about "me" and "my convenience."

---

I'm not following you. And I'll add parking your F250 in the fire lane while your wife runs in to pick up some Pinot for the night. Hey buddy you forcing everyone to have to wait on oncoming traffic to just go around you and your wife could probably use the extra steps from the back of the lot.

Quit clogging the left lane. It's inconsiderate. Pretty simple.

Problem is we had red lights cameras before. No matter how good the intent, too many municipalities couldn't handle it and started short cycling yellow lights, giving ticket for too close to stop line, etc.

They just can't help themselves. So make it illegal to stop them.

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

---

So all shop lifters (or other criminals) caught on cameras cannot be prosecuted, if there are no eye-witnesses? I'll keep that in mind.

---

Pretty sure shoplifting and running a red light without causing a collision aren't the same thing but I'm guessing you knew that. Answer me this. If the store owner doesn't press charges is that camera going to be used to prosecute the thief?

If we're going to use cameras to justify red light tickets why haven't we seen municipalities out cameras on those little radar trailers to generate speeding tickets?

LOYAL AG said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

---

So all shop lifters (or other criminals) caught on cameras cannot be prosecuted, if there are no eye-witnesses? I'll keep that in mind.

---

Pretty sure shoplifting and running a red light without causing a collision aren't the same thing but I'm guessing you knew that. Answer me this. If the store owner doesn't press charges is that camera going to be used to prosecute the thief?

---

To answer your question, let us take it a step further. If the thief is caught on camera murdering the shop owner (the only eye-witness, other than the murderer) then the thief/murder cannot be prosecuted? In this case a camera can accuse a person of committing the crime. In fact a video can be used as evidence of a crime, no matter how you slice it.

Iowaggie said:

---

No opinion on the camera, but I am close to the death penalty for those that hang out in the left lanes while not passing

---

Them and cyclists on streets/roads.

LOYAL AG said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

---

So all shop lifters (or other criminals) caught on cameras cannot be prosecuted, if there are no eye-witnesses? I'll keep that in mind.

---

Pretty sure shoplifting and running a red light without causing a collision aren't the same thing but I'm guessing you knew that. Answer me this. If the store owner doesn't press charges is that camera going to be used to prosecute the thief?

If we're going to use cameras to justify red light tickets why haven't we seen municipalities out cameras on those little radar trailers to generate speeding tickets?

---

By that logic, radar guns can't 'accuse a person' either. And no one has to 'press charges.' If a law is broken, the State of Texas presses charges, not the victim. Now, it is difficult to prosecute the case if the victim is uncooperative, but they don't have to 'press charges.'

taxpreparer said:

---

So, like all rationalizations, whether it be speeding, left lane driving, right on red without stopping, or standing in a fire lane while waiting on a passenger to shop, it is all about "me" and "my convenience."

---

Actually, the driver going slower than other traffic in the left lane is causing a danger to others because they have to change lanes to get around them. That's when most accidents occur.

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

---

So all shop lifters (or other criminals) caught on cameras cannot be prosecuted, if there are no eye-witnesses? I'll keep that in mind.

---

Pretty sure shoplifting and running a red light without causing a collision aren't the same thing but I'm guessing you knew that. Answer me this. If the store owner doesn't press charges is that camera going to be used to prosecute the thief?

---

To answer your question, let us take it a step further. If the thief is caught on camera murdering the shop owner (the only eye-witness, other than the murderer) then the thief/murder cannot be prosecuted? In this case a camera can accuse a person of committing the crime. In fact a video can be used as evidence of a crime, no matter how you slice it.

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

Ag with kids said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

---

So all shop lifters (or other criminals) caught on cameras cannot be prosecuted, if there are no eye-witnesses? I'll keep that in mind.

---

Pretty sure shoplifting and running a red light without causing a collision aren't the same thing but I'm guessing you knew that. Answer me this. If the store owner doesn't press charges is that camera going to be used to prosecute the thief?

---

To answer your question, let us take it a step further. If the thief is caught on camera murdering the shop owner (the only eye-witness, other than the murderer) then the thief/murder cannot be prosecuted? In this case a camera can accuse a person of committing the crime. In fact a video can be used as evidence of a crime, no matter how you slice it.

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

---

Not necessarily true. Most of those cameras are sophisticated enough to take frame-worthy pictures of the driver.

Ag with kids said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

---

So all shop lifters (or other criminals) caught on cameras cannot be prosecuted, if there are no eye-witnesses? I'll keep that in mind.

---

Pretty sure shoplifting and running a red light without causing a collision aren't the same thing but I'm guessing you knew that. Answer me this. If the store owner doesn't press charges is that camera going to be used to prosecute the thief?

---

To answer your question, let us take it a step further. If the thief is caught on camera murdering the shop owner (the only eye-witness, other than the murderer) then the thief/murder cannot be prosecuted? In this case a camera can accuse a person of committing the crime. In fact a video can be used as evidence of a crime, no matter how you slice it.

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

---

Agreed. That is why will need a court of law to review and judge the violation.

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

---

So all shop lifters (or other criminals) caught on cameras cannot be prosecuted, if there are no eye-witnesses? I'll keep that in mind.

---

Pretty sure shoplifting and running a red light without causing a collision aren't the same thing but I'm guessing you knew that. Answer me this. If the store owner doesn't press charges is that camera going to be used to prosecute the thief?

---

To answer your question, let us take it a step further. If the thief is caught on camera murdering the shop owner (the only eye-witness, other than the murderer) then the thief/murder cannot be prosecuted? In this case a camera can accuse a person of committing the crime. In fact a video can be used as evidence of a crime, no matter how you slice it.

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

---

Not necessarily true. Most of those cameras are sophisticated enough to take frame-worthy pictures of the driver.

---

Does the company that runs the red light camera company have any LE or DA people look at the pics to determine that they have a clear view of the driver?

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

doubledog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

They are all civil violations so there are no constitutional concerns. If the video is good, I have no issues with them

---

The courts disagree with you fortunately.

---

You are wrong about that. Two cases that went in front of the 7th circuit and the DC circuit all said that there is no constitutional due process issue with red light cameras.

---

Sounds like it's a blue court/red court question. They died in Texas in part because of court cases over constitutionality before the state legislature banned them. Sounds like eventually it'll end up in SCOTUS and I'm confident this court will agree that a camera can't accuse a person of committing a crime. We'll see obviously.

---

So all shop lifters (or other criminals) caught on cameras cannot be prosecuted, if there are no eye-witnesses? I'll keep that in mind.

---

Pretty sure shoplifting and running a red light without causing a collision aren't the same thing but I'm guessing you knew that. Answer me this. If the store owner doesn't press charges is that camera going to be used to prosecute the thief?

---

To answer your question, let us take it a step further. If the thief is caught on camera murdering the shop owner (the only eye-witness, other than the murderer) then the thief/murder cannot be prosecuted? In this case a camera can accuse a person of committing the crime. In fact a video can be used as evidence of a crime, no matter how you slice it.

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

---

Not necessarily true. Most of those cameras are sophisticated enough to take frame-worthy pictures of the driver.

---

Does the company that runs the red light camera company have any LE or DA people look at the pics to determine that they have a clear view of the driver?

---

How do I know the images aren't faked with AI. I'd like to face my accuser.

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

---

Not necessarily true. Most of those cameras are sophisticated enough to take frame-worthy pictures of the driver.

---

Does the company that runs the red light camera company have any LE or DA people look at the pics to determine that they have a clear view of the driver?

---

Doubt it. That's the prosecutor's job.

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

---

Not necessarily true. Most of those cameras are sophisticated enough to take frame-worthy pictures of the driver.

---

Does the company that runs the red light camera company have any LE or DA people look at the pics to determine that they have a clear view of the driver?

---

Doubt it. That's the prosecutor's job.

---

So, the ticket is potentially issued to the wrong person?

Is it even a ticket (I don't know the details on that)?

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

---

Not necessarily true. Most of those cameras are sophisticated enough to take frame-worthy pictures of the driver.

---

Does the company that runs the red light camera company have any LE or DA people look at the pics to determine that they have a clear view of the driver?

---

Doubt it. That's the prosecutor's job.

---

So, the ticket is potentially issued to the wrong person?

Is it even a ticket (I don't know the details on that)?

---

Not sure. I suspect the PD retrieves the video, reviews to see which ones can actually be ID'd and sends them the ticket.

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

---

Not necessarily true. Most of those cameras are sophisticated enough to take frame-worthy pictures of the driver.

---

Does the company that runs the red light camera company have any LE or DA people look at the pics to determine that they have a clear view of the driver?

---

Doubt it. That's the prosecutor's job.

---

So, the ticket is potentially issued to the wrong person?

Is it even a ticket (I don't know the details on that)?

---

Not sure. I suspect the PD retrieves the video, reviews to see which ones can actually be ID'd and sends them the ticket.

---

If that is the case then the ticket can be appealed and the case tried in a court of law.

doubledog said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

The issue is that the camera typically catches just the VEHICLE, not the driver, in the picture.

So, punishing the owner of the vehicle, who may have not been driving, is a problem.

---

Not necessarily true. Most of those cameras are sophisticated enough to take frame-worthy pictures of the driver.

---

Does the company that runs the red light camera company have any LE or DA people look at the pics to determine that they have a clear view of the driver?

---

Doubt it. That's the prosecutor's job.

---

So, the ticket is potentially issued to the wrong person?

Is it even a ticket (I don't know the details on that)?

---

Not sure. I suspect the PD retrieves the video, reviews to see which ones can actually be ID'd and sends them the ticket.

---

If that is the case then the ticket can be appealed and the case tried in a court of law.

---

It's always tried in a court of law. You get a ticket in the mail to appear at municipal court or possibly JP. You appear, pay the ticket, ask for defensive driving, or ask for a trial - bench or jury. Just like any other ticket.

The original speed camera locations had a place for the owner to identify the driver and mail it back in. A new citation would then be issued to the identified driver.

Most of the time.

If it identified a driver but with an address outside of the country, the ticket was dismissed.

If it was a rental car company, the ticket would be dismissed because they could never identify the driver. Eventually, we got a mailing address for the proper offices at the rental car companies that could identify the drivers.

In some cases, there was a time limit specified in the contract that the final citation had to be issued by. If the owner waited as long as possible to identify the driver in those jurisdictions, we couldn't issue a new citation before the time limit and so those were dismissed.

This was about 1990 or so. I don't know how such situations are handled now.

As far as the pictures, back then the pictures were often pretty bad. But there was a bit of psychology. The driver would go to the court to see the picture. In nearly every case, they would admit that was their picture even when we couldn't see the likeness at all. So they paid the citation.

One thing I learned back then was to always ask for defense driving. Sure, you are only entitled to on defensive driving class to dismiss a ticket every so often, but if you ask for it and the judge says yes, you can take it again. I knew one guy who was a pretty bad speeder. Even though he had had a speeding ticket dismissed by taking defense driving a month before, he asked for it for a speeding ticket in Bellaire, Texas and the judge there let him take it again. It probably helped in his case in that when he went to the court in Bellaire, Texas, he was represented by lawyer.

lead said:

---

This is a very specific - and seemingly trivial - issue that you are willing to give up privacy for.

---

What part about driving on a public roadway is private for you? There is no expectation of privacy driving on a public roadway.

taxpreparer said:

---

I will never understand why some people think their desire to break the law by speeding takes precedence over my desire to break the law by driving in the smoother (left) lane.

---

This ^^^