Speed camera

It's not, but it's a simple liberty. There's other things like if the owner isn't driving and has to go through the hassle when the ticket shows up in the mail. As mentioned I typically do 78 in 70s but on plenty of drives between KC and DSM when there's no traffic I'll bump that up to 83 or so. I don't see it any different than driving across South Dakota with the 80 limit as long as there isn't traffic around. Speed cameras don't do anything, officers patrolling at least make people pay attention/think about they're driving.

Do you also complain about parking tickets for the same reason?

Also, is that 9 minutes of savings worth the risk of a ticket. Plus probably a couple extra gallons of gas?
 
You could just not speed, or run red lights, or park illegally and then the parasite gets nothing. They're pretty clear in what you shouldn't do, they put signs on the road every so often.

Yeah but the guy who has someone doing 90 in a 25 hit his kitchen during morning coffee should have chosen to live elsewhere.

Probably.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 06_CY
Yeah but the guy who has someone doing 90 in a 25 hit his kitchen during morning coffee should have chosen to live elsewhere.

Probably.
Or needed to diddle the Titanic because "I have the $$$$".
 
Cameras don't catch drunks and distracted drivers, two things I believe to be way more dangerous. This is a straight up money grab. Don't civil infractions go to the municipality while criminal fines go to state?
Curious. Would you be OK with speed cameras if they also alerted police of a potential drunk or distracted driver? Or you got a ticket in the mail for phone in the hand while driving. I have seen some countries testing that concept out.
 
Curious. Would you be OK with speed cameras if they also alerted police of a potential drunk or distracted driver? Or you got a ticket in the mail for phone in the hand while driving. I have seen some countries testing that concept out.
Cameras are cheap. I would rather you were required to have a dashcam in your vehicle and every infraction be recorded with the caveat that the DRIVER is immediately notified of the infraction and the impending fine, not a postcard 2 weeks later saying mail your check to a PO box in AZ.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: 06_CY
Curious. Would you be OK with speed cameras if they also alerted police of a potential drunk or distracted driver? Or you got a ticket in the mail for phone in the hand while driving. I have seen some countries testing that concept out.
Knocking on wood... I haven't had a moving violation in 25 years.
 
Otherwise it would violate the constitutional right to face your accuser
Say somebody steals something from your porch and your doorbell camera clearly shows who did it. If that is the only proof you have do they get away with it because they can't "face their accuser"? Aren't you the accuser and just using video as a piece of evidence? How is that different from somebody watching a traffic video and issuing a ticket? Isn't that person the accuser and the video is just evidence?
 
Cameras are cheap. I would rather you were required to have a dashcam in your vehicle and every infraction be recorded with the caveat that the DRIVER is immediately notified of the infraction and the impending fine, not a postcard 2 weeks later saying mail your check to a PO box in AZ.
You’d rather dash cam in your car ticketing you instantly?

 
Say somebody steals something from your porch and your doorbell camera clearly shows who did it. If that is the only proof you have do they get away with it because they can't "face their accuser"? Aren't you the accuser and just using video as a piece of evidence? How is that different from somebody watching a traffic video and issuing a ticket? Isn't that person the accuser and the video is just evidence?
Do speed cameras clearly identify who is actually driving?
 
Say somebody steals something from your porch and your doorbell camera clearly shows who did it. If that is the only proof you have do they get away with it because they can't "face their accuser"? Aren't you the accuser and just using video as a piece of evidence? How is that different from somebody watching a traffic video and issuing a ticket? Isn't that person the accuser and the video is just evidence?
Would the ticket in this case go to the owner of the porch since the porch is used during the commission of a crime? The owner of the porch is responsible for who uses their porch.
 
I got hit for a 100 dollars for not coming to a complete stop in Clive. When I sent the money I wrote a message with it. I told them, “you can take away my rights to meet my accuser in court but you can’t take away my first amendment right…. ef you.”
 
  • Dumb
  • Haha
Reactions: 06_CY and 3TrueFans
Full disclosure, I regrettably started one of these threads.

Among other things, I was mad that I got the ticket 4 or 5 weeks after it happened, so I didn't remember the offense. It was coming out of some small town in NE IA on a state highway. I went back and looked and I'm guessing I started to accelerate to get back to highway speed too early. It was my bad and I paid the ticket.

I still contend that many of these cameras aren't going up because there have been safety issues due to the speed of traffic. Many of these are victimless offenses, so it isn't the same as stealing a package off of a neighbor's doorstep and getting caught on the Ring doorbell. It's more like Ring strikes a deal with your city and sends a ticket when it records someone pulling into your driveway without a turn signal on.

Yes I get it, don't speed and you won't get a ticket. I'm glad to know there are so many CF'ers that when they get pulled over and the officer asks why they are going so fast, they will answer; "it doesn't matter, if I wasn't speeding you wouldn't have pulled me over." :jimlad:
 
  • Like
Reactions: NWICY

Help Support Us

Become a patron