i am truly sorry about your friend.  however, in all fairness, red light
camera's don't stop people from running red lights!  they can only catch
them after the fact.  this last fall a very good friend of ours was
killed when an idiot ran a stop sign at a "T" intersection (meaning they
were headed off the end of the road) and into the side of their jeep.
it killed him instantly, his wife was seriously injured and is still
facing a lot of rehab.  yeah, like i said, life's a F**king bitch
sometimes, if no one drove your friend would be fine, and so would both
of ours, but you don't get something for nothing!  as i said, all rights
are eventually paid for in blood, and it is truly, truly sad when that
payment is randomly extracted as it often is.  and we're not talking
about "15" people a year being harassed, or even 15 a day, were
potentially talking about a lot more people, and we're talking about
sustained harassment.

again, i'm really, really sorry about your friend, just as i'm sorry for
my friend and his wife, but bad things do happen in life, even if you
stop all the speeders and red light runners, or catch them afterwards.
chances are whoever ran that red light into your friend would have done
it in any case.  my second car was totaled by someone running a red
light in the second lane, they went right past at least 10 stopped cars
in the other lane and hadn't even slowed down, during full daylight, and
they weren't intoxicated.  had i been less lucky i would have been
seriously injured or killed, another driver nearly was.  if every
intersection in the city had a cop car and 100 cameras it still would
have happened.  i got lucky, i'm sorry your friend didn't.  i've also
nearly been run down exactly the same way, outside lane with many
stopped cars, someone bombing through in the center lane, i just
happened to look and stop, and the car went by within 6 inches of me!
if i had died, i still wouldn't want my friends arguing for these
systems which wouldn't have helped anyone.  i'm currently disabled,
largely due to another driver running a stop sign and plowing into me,
believe me, nothing would have stopped here other than her license
already having been suspended, and it may well have been the first time
she made that mistakes.  people make mistakes, when they make them in
cars people can and do get hurt or killed, i know this all too well
myself, but it's not something the legal system can fix effectively.
there are far, far more serious and correctable things society should be
worrying about, and motivation is important.

Jake Anderson wrote:
>
> My best friend from childhood was brain damaged when somebody ran a red
> light and hit their mini he was 16.
> He was in the tryout team for a major football team here and was a shoo in.
> He is 24 now, lives with his mother and a full time carer, he cant see
> properly,
> he has learnt basically how to speak again (kinda) though so he is making
> progress.
> recently he has learnt to walk with the aid of a crutch, but is limited to
> about 10 meters before he falls over.
>
> you still want your freedom to run red lights?
>
> if people obeyed the speed limit then they wouldn't be slamming their brakes
> on when their radar detector went off.
> if people obeyed the law then they wouldn't slam the brakes on when they
> passed a cop on the side of the road either.
> if people didn't run red lights my friend wouldn't be the near vegetable he
> currently is.
>
> People however are as a rule stupid.
> A person can be smart, but people are stupid.
> You need laws so that stupid people know what is common sense and actually
> do it.
>
> When Australians talk about speeding fines its different to what I have
> heard of American fines.
> a 0-15km/h ticket here is around $150
> if you are doing 16km km over the speed limit on a long weekend or similar
> you loose 6 points off your license and a $500 fine
> licenses have 12 points and you gain 2 points per year up to 12.
> 30k over and its a $1000 fine.
> As far as I'm aware we have one of the lowest rates of road deaths per
> capita in the world. It seems to me that aside from Australians being
> naturally better than everybody else it may have something to do with the
> system working.
>
> Americans seem to have funny ideas about freedom.
> Free to shoot people and run them over in our SUV's.
> Is it any wonder why your free state has such problems?
>
> here is a counter argument to your spiel against red light cameras.
> ok say the system is abused, 15 people per year are "harassed" unfairly cos
> they I dunno drive oddly
> now with a red light camera on every intersection (presumably doing plate
> checks for stolen, unregistered, and wanted cars and checking for speeding)
> you are going to cut the number of people running those reds and speeding
> drastically no? now even if we say that only a small percentage of
> fatalities and injuries are due to speeding, you have still removed those
> fatalities and the other people who obey they law are no worse off. Now of
> the 43,220 people who died in 2003 (in America) say 5% of those were speed
> related and were stopped. you just saved 2000 lives.
>
> now I know people are going to die on the roads, fact of life. My friend is
> one of those statistics, and I still drive my car so don't bitch to me about
> that. but don't get on your high horse talking "freedom" this and "spy's"
> that until one of your friends or family has had their life and the lives of
> their family destroyed, (the mother is now basically a full time nurse and
> the sister couldn't hack it and moved 3000km away) by what you are saying
> its your right in life to do.
>
> I drive at the speed limit, not above, not below (unless the conditions
> warrant driving slower). I obey all the road rules. If I can safely stop for
> an orange light I do so. I am generally peaceful and relaxed. I am
> courteous. after all those "freedoms" have been taken away yaknow what,
> sometimes I get to places 10 minutes after friends who do speed, and
> generally have a disregard for the road rules. but when I arrive I have a
> clean conscience, I'm calmer and not stressed, and my fuel bill is around
> half that of the other peoples.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Philip Stortz
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:03 AM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OT]: detecting emergency vehicles. Radar fools & Red light
> cams
>
> the transmitters you describe are highly illegal, and it's a federal
> offense.  the police tried this when radar detectors first came out.
> they were hooking speed guns to car batteries and hiding them on the
> side of the road.  they were taken to court somewhere and it was ruled a
> violation of their operating license.  it's also obnoxious as hell to be
> putting out microwaves at everyone.  rf exposure is not good for you,
> nidgets with cell phones are bad enough.  also consider the increased
> likely hood of accidents as you are encouraging people to suddenly slam
> on the brakes and creating a greater speed differential on the road as
> those with radar detectors slow down and the majority with out them do
> not.  speed differential correlates very strongly with accident rate.
> you are actually endangering drivers, both those speeding with radar
> detectors and those without them speeding or otherwise.
>
> as far as the camera's, do you honestly want such a system?  if so
> please move to singapore, you do not deserve to live in the U.S. and
> clearly don't value your freedom or privacy.  how long do you suppose it
> would take for such a system to be abused to track people's movement and
> then harass those with "unusual" or "suspicious" movement patterns.  how
> long before it is abused to black male people who see prostitutes or???
> the police are sadly some of the least trust worthy people out there.
> in NY state last year 3 fbi agents were arrested, they were collecting
> sensitive information on wealthy individuals and then either black
> mailing them or making the information public to manipulate stock prices
> - after speculating on them (it somehow seems contrary to the function
> of the stock market and economy that you can make money betting a
> company will lose value).  seriously, city police are sadly some of the
> most dishonest and dangerous people out there.  according to readers
> digest (hardly a left wing publication, in fact rather conservative)
> amongst blue collar workers police are the most likely to be child
> molesters!  this from a study designed to determine which group of
> people were best and worst in terms of trusting them for child care.
> and, consider the cost of these systems, you could indeed have many more
> properly trained police on the street for the same price.  they are not
> cheap to operate.
>
> in london england where they were dumb enough to put in a massive camera
> system designed and sold as a counter terrorism measure a recent audit
> found that the officers monitoring the cameras spend most of there time
> electronically "stalking" or watching attractive young women!  hardly
> what the citizens intended the system for.  the system has not caught
> any terrorist with it's facial recognition software, but several false
> positives have resulted in innocent people being harassed.  facial
> recognition software is actually still very, very poor despite industry
> claims otherwise.  reading license plates is easier, but you will still
> get false positives.  how many innocent people have to be pulled over at
> gun point before it's a bad idea?  how much freedom and privacy is it
> worth?  it's true that in the uk petty crimes like muggings have gone
> down, which is good, but i hardly think it's worth the lost privacy and
> the probability of the system being abused by officers.  such systems
> are extremely useful for dishonest officers who want to steal or rape
> people, and sadly there are many such people who have badges.  a
> surveillance society is not a good thing.  power corrupts, absolute, and
> these are very powerful systems for abuse.  in fact i'd say they are
> more useful for abuse than they are for legitimate law enforcement.
> it's bad enough already.  right here in casper wyoming, where i live a
> city cop was arrested last year, he was using police surveillance
> equipment to spy on his ex girl friend, who was a county sheriffs
> deputy!  and the deputy had a restraining order.  just imagine how he
> could have followed or harassed her with a wide spread camera system
> with license plate or facial recognition.  and it's not an isolated
> occurrence, this type of thing happens all over, all the time.  the cost
> to the individuals who's privacy is violated is a serious thing.  again,
> i'd actually like to see more police, but they must be paid and trained
> better, and they must be accountable to the people they police!
>
> i actually trust the insurance companies not to abuse this equipment
> more than i would trust the police, especially if it's in a mobil van
> rather than a bunch of stationary points.  for one the the insurance
> company expects results which reduces the time operators have to abuse
> the system.
>
> as far as yanking vehicles from the road for excessive violations, you
> seem to misunderstand the law.  vehicles do not violate the law, drivers
> do.  if someone violates the driving laws excessively their license is
> revoked/suspended, not the vehicles.  do you really think it a good
> thing to have other family members constantly pulled over or harassed
> just because someone else used that vehicle to violate the law?  it's
> very common for more than one person to drive a given vehicle at
> different times.  do you honestly want people pulled over and harassed
> several times on their way to the grocery store because of what a spouse
> or child did?  do you really want to waste scarce police resources on
> this rather than having them concentrate on pulling over people who are
> seriously violating the law in real time?  do you have any idea of the
> difference between real crime and minor offenses?  do you think the
> police do or should have unlimited resources and powers?  if so, again
> please move to china or singapore, you will like the fascism that is
> sadly present in these countries.
>
> today's computer and video technology is not cheap, it's not cheap to
> install, or operate.  that takes people and computers and systems that
> are maintained not by the police but by expensive third parties.  it's a
> gross waste and misdirection of resources.  and it's just the type of
> system that lends itself to easy abuse.
>
> if you want to live in a surveillance society, move to china where half
> the population is literally spying on their neighbors for the government
> on a part time basis. where every apartment building has a "private"
> citizen working and reporting directly to the government on any
> suspicious activities, political or otherwise, of the residents, a
> person who the residents feel obligated to invite to diner regularly to
> demonstrate that they "have nothing to hide".  believe me, if you like
> freedom you have a lot to hide in such a society.
>
> current systems are already being grossly abused.  airlines have a "no
> fly" list provided by the government, with bush and aschroft in power
> those who have criticized them publicly have been put on this list.
> people have been put on the no fly list for legal political activity
> (dissent is the most important thing to have in a democracy), not
> because they are a threat to the plane or other passengers, but because
> those in power perceive them to be a poetical threat.  just imagine if
> they could also target these people for more vigorous enforcement of
> traffic laws and other misdemeanors.  do you understand the difference
> between a violent felon and a non violent misdemeanor?  do you really
> think we need to keep letting violent criminals out of prison early to
> make room for non violent offenders?  do you really want a country with
> political prisoners?  if so, get the hell out.  it's not "america love
> it or leave it", it's "love freedom or get the hell out of the U.S.".
> if you want a police state move to one, don't make a free state into
> your fascist dream land (and i promise you you'll seen realize it's a
> nightmare).
>
> besides, contrary to popular belief, giving up freedoms does not make
> you more secure.  it simply moves the threat from the anonymous and
> poorly funded to the known and well funded government.  this is not an
> improvement.
>
> Robert Rolf wrote:
> >
> > Dwayne Reid wrote:
-------------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads