Microsoft Patents ?Avoid Ghetto? Feature For GPS Devices

[Christians4LessGvt]

As far as i know, red lights are not suggestions. They mean stop.
So if people obeyed the laws the lives touted in this study as being
saved would be saved anyway.

As far as I know laws against driving under the influence, speed limits,
stop signs, ect x 100....are not suggestions, they mean what they mean,
so if people just obeyed laws the lives saved by police watching for these
type of violations would be saved anyway. 

What the cameras do is add another layer of big brother and more firmly entrench
the nanny state, which I'm pretty sure you are not in favor of.

What the cameras do is allow law violators that are injuring, maiming, and killing
innocent people to be caught and fined for their reckless behavior when in the past
it was just the rare threat of a policeman seeing the violation and giving the
violator a ticket....in other words enforcement was "hit and miss".
It's like now when you buy a fishing license it shows if you arent paying child support.
Technology is helping expose the reckless, scam artists, and law violators.
Now the "free ride" of recklessness is over"!
And it is saving lives. It's rather simple, dont want a traffic cam ticket?
Don't run red lights that endanger innocent people and children!

[Christians4LessGvt]

The traffic cam companies take over HALF the fine money. This is a democracy. The people were never offered a chance to vote on some bunch of overcharging scoundrels ripping them off.

And the people were never offered a chance to vote on ObamaCare.

The traffic cam company takes half the money?
Do you have a source for that?
Also even if they do take half the money, what do you think the costs are to develop, install, repair, operate thousands of cameras, keep cameras exposed to the elements in precise
working order? And do you really think the gvt could do all that cheaper?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The traffic cam company takes half the money?
Do you have a source for that?
=========================
That was what the Miami Herald said, quoting the Mayor of Coral Gables.

[BT]

What the cameras do is allow law violators that are injuring, maiming, and killing
innocent people to be caught and fined for their reckless behavior when in the past
it was just the rare threat of a policeman seeing the violation and giving the
violator a ticket.

And yet the article states that in LA at least the tickets are unenforceable if contested. So what do they accomplish? Other than a means of ripping off those who do not know of the laws constitutional flaws.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Apparently they are not contestable in Florida, while they are in California.  I bet there are different laws in each state. Or perhaps dumber lawyers.

[Christians4LessGvt]

So what do they accomplish? Other than a means of ripping off those who do not
know of the laws constitutional flaws.

ha ha...."ripping off" reckless people sailing
through red lights killing and maiming people... 
 
if....big "if"....the cameras are unconstitutional
they wont be long.....this is a no-brainer

oh it's constitutional if a cop is at the corner and sees the person run the light
but somehow...."oh no this is horrible, unjust, and a ripoff" if a camera catches
the person running the red light!

[BT]

Yeah it's a nice feature of the constitution to be able to challenge your accuser in court.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is bloody obvious that much of the time running a red light will not endanger anyone. It is also obvious that in some circumstances NOT running one could endanger some drivers in some situations.

The camera sees none of that, it just sends out a ticket.
'That is unfair.

[Christians4LessGvt]

It is bloody obvious that much of the time running a red light will not endanger anyone.

It is bloody obvious that because one can do something illegal and
cause no harm does not mean the law is any less important.

Someone could fire their gun into the air in a major city
and most of the time no one would get hurt, but sometimes
the bullet will kill someone.

It is also bloody obvious that almost anything has some degree of downside,
but we dont throw everything out because it has some degree of badside.

It is also obvious that in some circumstances NOT running one could endanger some drivers in some situations.

It is also obvious that in some circumstances locking your front door of you house could endanger someone in some situations like if an elderly person was having a heart attack and a locked door caused delays for paramedics entering the house.

But what dumbass is going to live for the rare exception and leave their house unlocked all the time?

The camera sees none of that, it just sends out a ticket. 'That is unfair.

Just like a cop many times does not see the whole story and gives a driver a ticket.
"But officer I sware I thought the guy behind wasnt going to stop so thats why I ran
the stop-sign".....TELL IT TO THE JUDGE!

[Christians4LessGvt]

Yeah it's a nice feature of the constitution to be able to challenge your accuser in court.

Traffic cams do not prohibit challenge in court.
Of course a traffic cam can't be cross-examined
but neither can a photograph and photographs
have often been used in trials and court cases.

Eventually this issue will be settled in court.
Many judges see the "confrontation clauses" as referring
only to witness testimony, not physical evidence such as photographs, film, ect....
And other judges dont see it that way.
We'll see....
But I betcha if we're around in 2030 most tickets will be issued this way including speeding.

[BT]

The other use of stop light cameras could be to track citizens movements. Cop cars now are equipped with cameras that can read license plates and determine who owns the car and whether there are warrants against the driver or whether that vehicle has been stolen or not. We also know that storage and processing power is getting cheaper by the second. Wouldn't be hard for the authorities or even non authorized personnel to figure out your daily routine for good or ill use.

Not a big fan of big brother

[Xavier_Onassis]

Several years ago, I was returning from visiting a friend over on Miami Beach and was pulled over by a cop. He asked to see my registration and license and insurance and I handed over registrations for the past four years and my license and registration. Then he sat in his car for over half an hour yakking away on the microphone and doing something with his computer. Finally he gave back all my stuff and let me go. His only explanation was that he claimed that my license plate showed that my car was stolen.

I was driving a 1989 Hyundai Excel, which was 16 years old and fully paid for. All the lights were operational and I was going about 25 mph, slower than most of the rest of the traffic. All the papers were in order. I have no idea why he thought that he needed to verify anything for half an hour or why any respectable car thief would bother to steal an ancient cheapo Hyundai like mine.

[Amianthus]

Lots of interstate highways run right through the middle of "ghettos". I-95 does. If you stay on the turnpikes and interstates and such, you are probably not in much danger from hoodlums. Certainly not if you are in a moving vehicle.

The article specified that it is for use with pedestrian modes of GPS travel (which many phones have).

[Amianthus]

There is no doubt in my mind that people aware of traffic cams are less likely
to chance sailing thru yellow or run thru just changed red lights any more.

And in many cases cause more traffic accidents because they slam on their breaks as soon as the yellow comes on, causing people behind them to hit them. Many intersections with traffic cameras have *higher* rates of accidents than they had before the cameras were installed.

Traffic cameras are nothing more than a "revenue source" for the cities installing them. They are currently illegal in Minnesota because a state judge said they violated various rights.

[sirs]

Traffic cameras are nothing more than a "revenue source" for the cities installing them.

BINGO