Slashdot Mirror
Law Enforcement by Machines
Inst1gator writes "Nowadays, it seems as if more and more law enforcement is being done by machines. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be up to the job. And the humans don't want to take responsibility, either. This is a great "wakeup call" for those of you who are not aware."
But the Robocop was good!
I am a genius; therefore, you suck.
Unfortunately, [the machines] don't seem to be up to the job. And the humans don't want to take responsibility, either.
:)
So the machines don't do a great job. The people aren't up to the task either. It seems to me we need a combination of the two if we are to police our country efficiently.
Some sort of "Robo-cop" if you will.
And in order to fund such a venture we should probably move the police force into the private sector.
The purpose of using automation for anything, even law enforcement, is to gain efficiency while not losing accuracy.
Since people conceive of these devices, and people are by turns greedy, mistake-prone, and downright incompentent at times, we can expect the devices to share these same characteristics.
By the same token, a tool in the wrong hands can become a weapon. Imagine the guy/gal who installs traffic cameras hooking up their own little transmitter to surveil the intersection looking for their boyfriend/girlfriend/hermaphrodite riding in someone else's car! Better yet, imagine the CIA or FBI doing the same.
We need to enforce the laws on the enforcers of laws or the Constitution goes right out the window.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
"Please put down your keyboard, you have 20 seconds to comply."
Computers Don't Argue, by Gordon Dickson, is a short story I found in the first Nebula award stories, is particularly apropos to this. It is a short, humorous, and satiric look at this particular role of computers in society, and while a bit dated, still is quite effective at illustrating the point found in the article.
Intellectual property law is going to be a big chunk of automated law enforcement. Check out this : Intellectual Property Bots Wonder if IBM found this eBay auction for IBMLinux.com with it yet.
One of the bots mentioned is one that searched around of "Harrison" and got some preteen images.
Another bot mentioned looks for people who search for preteen images.
We need to get these two bots to cross paths. Then their owners will be so busy sueing each other they won't care what the rest of us do.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Not only does the robots need to get better at law enforcement,
... testified that an IP address is, "in very simple terms, a Social Security number. Only one person at one specific time can have that number." In fact, an IP address identifies a computer, rather than a person, and may not even consistently map to a particular machine in networks that use dynamic IP addressing.
... is not authorized by Warner Bros. ... or the law."
so do the Humans involved
At the bail hearing for Johnston, Tinney and three other defendants in Houston, the FBI's Kristen Sheldon
any one that is even allowed to even get near law enforcement in this area show have some kind of technology background, judges and jury included
The brief also identifies a file entitled "harry potter book report.rtf" whose name and tiny size (1K) make obvious that it is not an illegal copy of the Harry Potter movie. Obvious to anyone who looks, anyway. But why should the record and movie companies bother to look? They're unlikely to suffer any damages if ISPs take down the wrong files, and the consumers involved are unlikely to sue them. (In filing with the Internet Service Providers, a company representative even certified in writing "that we have a good faith belief that use of the material
a person was definately involved in this situation, yet it was allowed to get this far
this should let everyone know that we have a problem, and that the "general public" is not as informed as we had hoped/thought
Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking - H.L. Mencken
There is one of these devices near my house. Although it does not give tickets still ellicits a Pavlovian response. Going more than 5 milez per hour over the speed limit, triggers a siren noise, and a "strobe" light until you decrease speed back to the psudo-legal range (Max MPH+5).
For the first few weeks of it being there, brake lights were flashing like none other (people tend to go very fast in this area), but now about 4 months later, the speeds in the area are back to the legal (and slow) speeds.
.noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI
In my local town, we have a new system that is this giant red box thats a combo mug shot taker, fingerprint scanner, and general data entry system. I got arrested recently for posession and i noticed how inaccurate it kept records of me, screwed up my photo a few times, and how compared with previous ink fingerprints i've had done in the past, it picked up the smallest details, like the incredably small scar thats hard to see by eye and made it a HUGE black line across my print, almost to the point that it could have voided that print invalid due to lack of comparison points. Technology should be curtailed to jobs they can do well
Go with humans, who are known fallable and subjective, or machines, who are known fallable and too objective. In the name of jusice (being blind and all) I think most of us would agree we would prefer an emotionally-inert policing force. The problem is then this: how do we trust them? Are they just being unilaterally fair or inept?
Cops now might pick up someone for Driving while Black but a machine wouldn't differentiate between the lunatic going 125 and the man rushing to get his dying wife to the hospital.
In the end we all assume we have a good idea how people are going to act. Thus we will always distrust machines to watch over us. These story remind me of Skynet from the Terminator. "Afterwards all stealth bombers flew with perfect operational records."
How did that story turn out? Man, out of fear, turns against the Machine. The Machine retaliates. Funny thing is that I think most people would agree with the story. In our heart of hearts all of us are Luddites. Heck, just read the poster's last comment: "This is a great "wakeup call" for those of you who are not aware."
What is music when you despise all sound?
The article uses the example of a web crawler that uses a simple match of keywords to identify copyrighted material. But it's not the web crawler itself that's the problem... the problem is that the people who are running the operation are unwilling to invest the time and resources to (1) improve their software, and (2) verify results by human experts.
Like so many other things, it comes down to human laziness and apathy. We use automated systems to help generate solutions to problems in science and engineering... but all results are verified by intelligent people before they are put to real use. Software and other automation tricks are used to HELP people decide, not to replace people in the decision process.
machines are too easy to deploy in large numbers to stop simple violations (speeding, jaywalking, stop sign rolling, etc).
.02
I actually believe this to be a Bad Thing. We are getting to the point were we are:
1. coming to accept this as acceptable.
2. actually making jokes about it.
I agree that it will allow for manpower to be directed towards more violent crime, but it will also threaten the rest of us and our pockets and our records.
I am COMPLETELY against automated traffic control (red-light monitors and the like). If the cop isn't there to see it then tough noogies for them. I got away w/a minor violation.
That's my worthless
The motorcyclists in Europe have been hit hard by the ticketing machines, or so I've heard.
Not only do they have limits by age and displacement, now this big brother stuff...cameras mounted in trees, etc.
From what I've heard, some people are wearing masks and sneaking up to the cams and wrenching them...black spray paint over the lens or a strategic hammer blow, etc.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Isnt this what Lawrence Lessig was talking about in his big code is law rant?
Its makes sense, that if some piece of software is going to make legally binding judgements against you, that you should at least get to see the source code.
If not, then how the hell do you really know what the law is...
If the light turns red while you're in the intersection then you are completly legal.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
This is the point of the 1st amendment. Injustice can only go so far in a society that has free and open communications before someone points it out.
This is one of the greatest questions I have on "trusted computing", it so limits the ability to diseminate information. I might not have a problem if it could *only* be applied to Disney Movies, but once it exists for one it can be used for any.
It isn't enough to bitch here, its important to shake some of your local gov't's cages, not to mention the feds.
most auto ticket things dont take into acount time ware you have no choice but to run a red light, for example if your sitting in the middle of an intersection tring to turn and the light turns red you have to turn or else your holding up trafic, the camera will take your pic
Poor example: you shouldn't move into the middle of the intersection until you can leave it safely too. The middle of an intersection is a really dangerous place to stop, which is why you shouldn't stop there. If you do, then you are (in most states) in violation of the traffic regulations and you should get a ticket, whether its from a camera or a cop.
Sailing over the event horizon
Screw cameras.
Under Canadian law, Manitoba law atleast, it is a legal requirement that you proceed into an intersection on a green light if you are making a left turn and it is safe to enter the intersection.
It is NOT relevent whether it is safe to proceed THROUGH the intersection.
I know of more than 1 person who failed their drivers test for not following this particular requirement.
On the other hand, it is a rare occasion when you cannot leave the intersection on the yellow/amber, asuming your stuck making a left for that long.
Me: Officer, I don't think you're supposed to be drinking while on duty...
Officer: Bite my shiny metal ass
A computer won't shake you down for bribes, or plant evidence. A computer won't selectively enforce the law, unless told to, but then it becomes its own proof of corruption. A computer will not lie in court, unless its records are modified, but the maliable nature of digital files ensures greater standards for repudiation.
I trust machines over cops for the same reasons I trust Amazon over shifty checkout clerks.
When the US was a somewhat free country, with a constution of not insignificant meaning. Where justice was somewhat Just...
The accused was considered innocent until proven guilty, and had a right to face the accuser.
Now a days, all bets are off.
Is there anyone with a valid plan to re-seize our freedoms from the Tyranical Police State we have spawned?
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
AFAIK, the camera takes two or more pictures a second or two apart, to establish that you are moving and not just sitting in the middle of the intersection. In your example, you do leave the intersection through the red light, but there won't be a picture of your car entering the intersection on red, so no action will be taken.
Don't confuse this with a news story about IP law or anything else: its an editorial by Glenn Reynolds, who also runs www.instapundit.com, a Republican blog. I'm not disagreeing with his point in the article, but be sure to take it with a grain of salt.
Note to slashdot editors: It would be super if you could post these stories with some mention that it is an editorial.
The last time I was in traffic survival school (I can't help it that all the speed limits are 20 MPH below what they shold be ;), the teacher mentioned this situation specifically. In Arizona, in controlled intersections without a left turn arrow, when there is too much oncoming traffic to turn, the correct thing to do is to pull into the intersection and wait for the light to turn yellow. When oncoming traffic stops you can make your turn. To wait behind the line means you'll never get to turn.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
I worked in a computer vision lab that was commissioned to invent a vision system for downtown Orlando that would detect violence or possibly disturbing behavior. Actually, about all we got was a heck of a lot of publicity, and an agreement that when we finished our research, the city would buy the hardware.
Anyway, we called it the downtown project because most of the rest of our work was for the academic community, Darpa, or Lockheed-Martin.
Our goal was similar to most such projects: to allow policemen to focus on suspicious activity, and to ignore what isn't. You've heard the phrase "a policeman on every street corner?" Why have them there if nothing is happening?
We're not talking about putting these in neighborhoods; not it private areas - in fact, this came up during the conversations we had with local government and they were very much against it -we're talking about putting them in very public places. This is a measure which is intended to save lives and potentially lower the cost of law enforcement.
One of the things I like best about this is that unlike policemen, cameras are colorblind. They don't care if you're homeless, or a minority, rich or poor. They only look at what you're doing. A policemen's attention won't be tuned to an area because he doesn't like the color of skin of its inhabitants (which has a lot to do with how it works right now), he'll be doing it because he got an impartial warning. Seems like a good idea to me.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
You know you're being exposed to quality journalism when it contants the word "Puhleez." Was this FOX News article written by a 12 year old?
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
A computer will always ticket you, arrest you, etc. A human can make (for better or for worse) judgement calls. Lets say your racing to hospital with your wife in labor, or your parent having a heart attack. Robocop pulls you over and arrests you on the spot for reckless driving. A human would more then likely give you a lights and siren escort.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
There are laws on the books today which, if they were regularly enforced, might be considered opressive. The reason they continute to be on the books is that detection is currently fairly difficult, so they are enforced infrequently. Also it is MUCH harder to repeal laws than to pass them.
If we create an aparatus of total detection and enforcement with automatic penalties, then these laws will suddenly be enforced completely. The net effect will be almost like suddenly passing a large number of intrusive laws. In short, the enforcement regime will have changed to something that was not envisioned by the original authors of the law, and the change of regime will not be subject to any real legislative review. Also, many people (esp those who lean the libertarian way) may have objected to the law when it was first passed, but decided that since it was unenforceable, there was no point in protesting it.
Another problem is that technological systems always have a human element which can lead to the very same corruption that you fear, only in the machine enforcement case, it is much harder to demonstrate the human corruption element to a jury. (I assume you still want a jury?)
--
MM
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Slow Down Cowboy!
You have violated HighLordTaco's speed typing statute. Step away from the keyboard for 20 seconds. Now.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Here in San Diego we have the automated traffic light enforcement. For these devices to take pictures at dusk and dark they employ a strobe. One night some cross traffic was in the intersection when the lights switched, prompting the camera into action. When it did this, as I start moving on my green, I am hit by three bright flashes that virtually rendered me blind.
I had to slow down and it took a few moments to regain my sight. Fortunately those behind me where understanding, most likely victums themselves, and didn't honk. The point is that this automation could have caused damage to property.
Later they had to be shut down by court order due to false results. San Diego sued its local enforcement, as well as the operator (lockheed I believe) for "rigging" them to improve revenue.
Ever since they had been installed I wondered where all the teenage hooligans had gone that would bash them at a HIGH cost to the city. Even if it comes out of my pocket at the end of the day, I wouldn't have shed a tear, nor the vast majority of San Diego. In fact there had been a vote or a petition to remove them completely, of course ignored by those who run our city who obviously know best (cough gag hack).
Ben Franklin warned us that, "He who gives up liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."
It is amazing how far from the constitution America has wandered.
I ripped the following from the TAFA website but it is right on
Due Process:
DEFINITION: The legal process by which U.S. citizens are promised a fair trial in the U.S. Constitution Article XVI Paragraph 1. U.S. Citizens are promised "The Equal Protection of Law" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These rights have been reaffirmed in numerous federal court cases. A successful civil rights lawsuit against the "State" for unlawful deprivation of law was reaffirmed in "Gault vs Arizona," 87 SupCt 1428
1. The RIGHT to receive notice of charges.
2. The RIGHT of the assistance of Counsel.
3. The RIGHT to confront your accuser and to cross-examination of the complainants.
4. The RIGHT to exercise a privilege against self-incrimination.
5. The RIGHT to a transcript of the proceedings and,
6. The RIGHT to appellate review.
7. The RIGHT to subpoena witnesses and subpoena documentary evidence to support your position or contradict evidence presented against you.
8. The RIGHT to "Trial by Jury of Citizens at Common Law."
9. The RIGHT to receive Equal Protection of the Law.
10. The RIGHT to a "Presumption of Innocence" prior to trial.
11. The RIGHT to raise as an "Affirmative Defense" the protection of the U.S. and State Constitution Bill of Rights.
12. The RIGHT to raise as an "Affirmative Defense" any defense expressly created in statute and case law precedent.
13. The RIGHT to sue any U.S. citizen for "Unlawful Deprivation of any constitutional, statutory, or administrative right."
14. The RIGHT of access and use of any taxpayer-funded law library, government building, and courtroom.
P.S. can anyone show me where in teh constitution it says anything about seperation of church and state? There is that statement that congress shall make no law
A little Constitutional law will go a long way
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Nope. At least not where I learned to drive (Ontario). On the driving test, turning left at a light, I stopped before entering the intersection. The examiner told me to pull out far enough to block the cross traffic so that I could proceed when the oncoming traffic stopped. (He didn't flunk me for not doing that in the first place.) The point being that with heavy oncoming traffic (and no left turn arrow on the signals), if you don't edge out into the intersection you might be sitting waiting to turn left for a long time (many cycles).
However, you should only complete the turn when it's clear, i.e. you don't want to be blocking the oncoming traffic lanes.
I suppose it comes down to the exact wording of the traffic regs in each state/province, and where in the intersection you stop your car.
-- Alastair
How many people here have visited warez sites that pop up banners advertising "sexy lolitas", "nude swedish girls", etc. Some of these pics seem to aim at the below 18 mark, which I've always found disgusting. Now, though, it seems that if I were to have been caught with these in my browser cache I could have been (in US law anyways) charged with possession of kiddy porn?
We need to stick a judge and jury on a computer for a day with low-key words that, while not indicative of this type of illegal smut, seem to for some reason end up with a million pop-up banners. Then let's see what's in that PC's cache.
Internet porn laws, saving hundreds of children from innocent users everyday - phorm
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
You are not against machines enforcing the code. You are against the code itself.
Most people who think speed limits should not be enforced by automated photoradar also think that the speed limits are unreasonably low. And I agree.
The Right Thing(tm) is to fix the stupid laws. There are several minor things such as jaywalking that should not be considered offences. However, I am all for automated enforcement when people run red lights, etc.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Can't remember the name of the story though.
- adam
Nowadays, it seems as if more and more law enforcement is being done by machines. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be up to the job.
I thought we had already gotten rid of that "computer's fault" argument. Well, the same goes for any other type of machine, it doesn't have a free will so it can't be held accountable.
Machines do exactly what they are constructed to do, and they are wery good at it!
It's the people who run those machines that are "not up to the job".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I'll bet it's real easy to spoof the speed traps into handing out false tickets with something like an electric fan. Just think, every time a politician drives by...
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Given the amount of gridlock in many cities, I would very much welcome red light cameras. People driving into the intersection when they shouldn't are a major nuisance.
However, to prevent abuses, ownership and revenue from such systems has to be handled correctly. The systems should be owned and operated by non-police city employees, and any excess revenue should go to the state government, not the city.
Also, such automatic enforcement should never be used for significant fines and it should not lead to "points" on your license either--a mistake on a $50 or $100 ticket is something most people can live with--stuff happens. But losing your license or paying $1000s more in insurance is another matter and really should require more careful determination of guilt (like, who the driver really was).
In my country (Belgium) these machines are really breaking through. Many crossroads are equipped with radar/cameras making pictures of cars driving through red lights and cars speeding. One of the problems that occured is the limited number of pictures that can be put on a film - this film must be replaced manually! - making that after a couple of hours these films are full. They solved it ... by using bigger films. Yesterday the government announced that, after a "minor" change in the software these cameras would be able to register other infractions as well: driving over a white line for example.
An interesting point is that since these devices were installed these crossroads actualy have become safer. And the politicians that put these things in place still are quite popular.
In the great state of California, enter on yellow and the intersection is yours. I have frieds who work for the state and who have taken the training required for drivers of state vehicles and the point is made that entry on yellow is legal. If this is not true in other states I can see where some real confusion could be arising. Sort of like the Californian right turn on red after a stop used to net a traffic fine in Oregon. Of course it can be really interesting over seas. In Israel, there are yellow lights preceding both red AND green lights. If you don't start to creep as soon as the yellow before green appears horns start to blow. Count your blessings.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
The law is in no way code in the sense of "source code". Perhaps you are being confused by the usage of the word "code" which is sometimes used in a legal context.
A machine will not let you off of a speeding ticket if you are caught racing to take your wife to the hospital while she is in the throes of labor. It wont sit with your runaway son at a soda fountain while you come to fetch him. They dont have judgement.
The law is made by people and for people. It needs to be flexible, malleable and powered by human compassion and understanding.
If there are not enough people to manage (not enforce) it then we need more police not machines to take thier place. Certainly, if money can be constantly found to bomb other countries and pay trillions for the arms that they need to do it, this is a realistic option.
Anyone that has been cought by a speed camera at 4AM on a country road knows this to be true, by experience. Giving autonamous machines the power to enforce the law is a very bad idea.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
This does indeed violate the traffic laws in many places -- for example, in California. The problem is that you often cannot hope to make a left turn at all if you follow this rule, as when there's no left-turn signal (that is, no protected left). So you can wait five hours for your chance to make a legal left turn, with other cars stacking up behind you the whole time, or you can do the "wrong" thing because it's the only practical thing to do. (Or you can make three right turns instead -- uh, yeah.) Guess what everyone does.
This is one of the problems with delegating law enforcement to a machine: a cop knows better than to ticket people for this, a camera doesn't.
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
The software behind the cameras will do whatever you tell it to do. If someone decides the cameras should racially profile for some reason, they can be made to do it. (E.g., in principle, they could be told something like this: "If there are too many people in view to spy on them all at once, process the data for dark-skinned people first.") Cameras may not be racist, but they don't have a conscience, either.
Plus there's the issue of where the cameras are installed. I expect we'll just happen to see a lot more of them installed in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. Note that I'm not saying that this is ipso facto the wrong choice, if that's where your city's street crime happens to be. But the fact that City X's cameras don't preferentially spy on black people instead of white people matters less if they're installed only in 99%-black neighborhoods.
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
Did you hear what I wrote about the neighborhoods? They won't put them in neighborhoods.
And keep in mind that governing bodies have an official policy of neutrality; they're not going to build AIs that aren't neutral.
By the way, there's another way that the algorithms are a "colorblind": skin detection algorithms detect everyone as almost exactly the same skin color (but with different intensity). (One notable exception is asiatic skin tones, which are slightly different - but only slightly - almost not even statistically different).
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
We already have that in the UK :-)
An acquaintance has been told by his boyfriend's parents not to see him, and if said boyfriend appears on the CCTVs in that part of town (where acquaintance works) it will go badly for him :-(
Boyfriend's web page is very gushing (of course he is now banned from net) but who knows what may happen?
I think it would be most sensible to wait until he leaves home of course. But does the CCTV culture here make people change their courses of action?
A society where law is code, is no longer a *human* society. Strict laws do not really fix the problems. They are human problems, which requires human solutions. When you treat humans inhumanly, they become inhuman. You don't want that, because that is the end of our civilisation. We are human beings, not machines.
Look at USA today. The privatization of jail-camps has made it attractive to have a jailhouse near your city. It creates workplaces and steady income, thus halting the problem of urbanisation for a while. What it has created, is a monster. Now, more people in the US are jailed than in any other country! It has created a boom in the industry, and the police is litterally forced to jail more people in order to keep that boom going. Jailhouses are being built before there are even one prisoner to fill them!! Many jailhouses in the US are empty, demanding an further increases in prisoner-population. The prisoners themselves are litterally slaves, a very cheap workforce for the community. USA, the land of the free, indeed. Pride will eventually fall into the opposite it seems.
Now USA is the land of the slaves and it is constantly creating frustrated prisoners that will eventually come back into society where they will vent out their frustration and abuse.
The so-called solution to the problems, prison, is feeding on the further problems it creates => more prisoners, by privatization. It's people's income. It's really very, very, very sick.
It is not too late. Start treating people humanly, and you break the cycle.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I believe that you believe all of this is true of the Orlando project. You know more about it than I do. I hope it remains true, and I hope it will be true for all other similar projects. I just don't think it will (in the general case, I mean); once the tech is in place, the smart money says that it will be abused eventually.
OK, that's interesting, and I didn't know it. I don't think it changes much, though. If my eyes can tell the difference, a computer's eyes will be able to tell the difference -- if not now, then some day.
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
"Over in High Point, North Carolina, lawyer Marshall Hurley is trying to make a judge see things similarly, but may have a tougher go of it in what appears to be the most ethically-compromised system in the nation. High Point contracts with Electronic Data Systems, which subcontracts with PEEK Traffic. A big, happy family, the three entities have formed SafeLight. If a High Point citizen wants to appeal a photo ticket, he first has to pay a $50 "bond" (presumption of innocence be damned). But when a motorist heads into traffic adjudication, he meets not a judge or even a lawyer, but rather a college professor, hired to appear disinterested in the outcome. The professors are paid from the funds generated by red-light camera tickets, and the hearings are held not in court, but at SafeLight's offices, a fact that even a disinterested professor might find interesting. "
....." Well, that's 3 on 1 ..No thanks, I'll take a jury.
Of course, the system is always weighted against the common citizen. I once decided to fight a ticket and I'm in Missouri so all matters that could cost me more than $20 allow me to have a jury present (in the state constitution). So the judge ask me if I want to waive my right to jury? I ask him "Who pays your salary?" he says "The state". "Who pays the prosecutors salary?" "The state". "Who pays the police officers salary?" "The state". "What does my case read?" "The state V
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
This is all good and well, except there are many situations where you have to pull out, at least somewhat, in order to determine weather it is safe to turn or not. Think about a top of a hill, or having a long line of people coming the other direction waiting to turn that happen to block your line of sight. Chicken or egg.
Where I live the traffic gurus have decided that the longer the light the better. 6,7,8 minutes are the norm. No Joke. 8 minute red lights. Get stuck at a few of them and you can see why people blow through them. You might not make it home in time for dinner, or next week for that matter.
And then we have this zero tolerance nonsense where cops only roost to write tickets where and if local neighbors complain regardless of the actual traffic situation. Since the cops are 'invited' there they write everyone for any violation - 2-3mph over is the thresshold.
So the net effect is that higway drivers are at least 15mph over the limit on average (and the limit around here is 65-70) and local traffic is stopped. Just stopped. Total complete endless refugee gridlock.
The UK has a proliferation of speed and traffic light cameras.
The later I agree with having been almost in collision with drivers who have jumped the lights both at the start and end of the sequence. Here in the UK the sequence is red, red+amber, green, amber red. The rules of the road state the following meanings:
o Red means stop
o Amber means stop if it is safe to do so
o Green means proceed if it is safe to do so.
So you shouldn't enter an intersection if you'll just block it.
We also have what's known as a box junction. These have yellow hashing on the road and you are only allowed to enter the box if your exit is clear. In London they have started putting cameras on these too.
As for speed cameras. Many of these are inappropriately set and positioned. The speed someone drives at should be appropriate to the road and conditions. A motor/freeway with a speed limit of 70mph doesn't mean you should drive at 70mph in the rain and fog on that road. Cameras don't generally take advantage of this.
There is one exception. The London orbital motorway has cameras linked to the speed limit which is adjustable with road conditions. These are fair.
Our older cameras use film which run out. There was also a problem that you need to identify the driver as well as the car and the old cameras point at the rear of the car. New digital cameras have been introduced which can fine you before you even realise (using image recognition to read the number/licence plate). These point at the front of the car to recognise the driver.
There are a small number of individuals who have a campaign against cameras, they spray the lenses, set fire to them and in some cases cut through the pole with a grinder and steal them!
As for me. I'm a biker. By pulling along side a car while going through the camera zone you can confuse it. You can dummy them in to taking pictures of the car behind. The new digital ones are useless as bikes don't have a front plate and can't see your face through your visor (full face helmet of course). I have some friends who purposely set them off by wheelying at speed through the camera zone with digitus impudicous aloft. There must be many of these photos laying on police desks. Finally, it's stupid, but the fine for not having a licence plate on your vehicle is less that the one for speeding and it doesn't affect your driving licence, so if you plan on having some fun, take it off.
Business is all about providing maximum profit for minimum expenditure.
Can you say "Rent-A-Cop"?
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Dude, I don't care who taught you physics, but in ENGINEERING we learned that a standard automobile is not designed to run at 140MPH. Where where your roll bars? How about the 5 point belt? Your nomex suit? I'm curious as to how you managed to calibrate your tires to the road surface over a distance of 2 states?
How about the fact that your braking distance is measured in MILES at that speed, and even if you saw trouble you would be lucky to be down to a speed where your air bag might actually do you some good?
All the training in the world cannot help a ninja dodge a bullet. A little card in your wallet does not exempt you from the laws of physics.
(This coming from a wreck diver, with a little card from NAUI saying that I am qualified to do it. When I go down, I have a map of the wreck in my mind, a buddy or 10, a person trained on administering oxygen or 2 in the party, and a radio to call the coast guard in an emergency. Not to mention all of the safety/rescue gear that is strapped to me and my dive companions.)
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
In the UK there are several organised groups going around destroying speed cameras, such as MAD (Motorists Against Detection). (You can take a look at http://www.speedcam.co.uk/welcome.htm ).
It is a general feeling that speed cameras are not being used to improve safety, but as a means of raising extra revenue (i.e. tax) for the government. Indeed a lot of people feel that speed cameras cause accidents as everyone slams on the brakes to avoid getting caught by the cameras (often "hidden" behind trees or road signs) and immediately speeds up again afterwards. I know I do!
What's the goverment's response to this? Well it's to have a huge increase in the number of speed cameras. (Sorry I don't have the figures to hand, but it's a lot).
MAD are not an isolated group, there are several groups around the country, they are probably just the best known.
More stories, here and here.
There are just a *few* sites on the internet that can help with this :)
most auto ticket things dont take into acount time ware you have no choice but to run a red light, for example if your sitting in the middle of an intersection tring to turn and the light turns red you have to turn or else your holding up trafic, the camera will take your pic
If you do, then you are (in most states) in violation of the traffic regulations and you should get a ticket, whether its from a camera or a cop.
Actually, (in AZ) it is legal to pull out into the intersection and turn left on red if traffic doesn't stop up until then. However, you won't get your picture taken if you're already across the "magic line" that marks the boundary for the intersection. Red light cams sense movement across that imaginary line, so if you're already across it when the light turns red...
Why have them there if nothing is happening?
Prevention.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Actually, drivers must yield to pedestrians at all times, and right on red requires a complete stop at the light before turning right. It's not like the red light can simply be ignored by right-turn drivers, and not stopping before turning earns the same citation as running the light straight through.
Virg
Given the current laws, anyone speeding on a country road at 4AM should be given a ticket. It is the fact that police officers selectively enforce laws that make them so bad in the first place. If laws were enforced to the letter, to anyone violating them, there would be no more bad laws very quickly.
Imagine if everyone in Virginia who committed sodomy (defined as anal OR oral sex) was arrested and convicted of a felony. Imagine if everyone who didn't disassemble their car when being passed by a horse-drawn buggy in Pennsylvania were arrested. Imagine if everyone who made a mix CD of love songs for their high school crush were arrested.
These laws would be repealed, immediately. As some old dead white guy said (perhaps Franklin), "The best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them."
Unfortunately, the current way that laws are enforced means that police can selectively pick and choose who to arrest/fine for various crimes in order to keep the public relatively passive.
So yeah - computer enforcement of speeding laws is a good thing. Although, I am sorry for the first few million unfortunate drivers who will get fines before the law is repealed.
-Alison
That was a "Rogerian" psychologist.
The psychologist program was named Doctor.
The paranoid program was named Parry.
They were both descendants of Eliza.
(I.e., not all that much intelligence was involved on either side.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Send us a picture of your arrest record, or maybe a mug shot.
Virg
odd that the page cited in the post, and almost all of the subsequent reference pages all come from conservative news sources. hmmm...
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
No. Those laws are left on the books because it is difficult to challenge them, and because they are sometimes quite useful when the authorities decide to "get" someone, and don't have any legitimate reason.
I didn't say good, I said and meant useful. And the ones that they are useful to are the ones that would need to remove them. Perhaps actual enforcement would be desireable, because it might eventually get rid of them. The cost would, however, be a bit high.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I wrote an article on Kuro5hin that addresses many of these concerns, specifically related to traffic law enforcement. Give it a read..
In the great state of California, enter on yellow and the intersection is yours. I have frieds who work for the state and who have taken the training required for drivers of state vehicles and the point is made that entry on yellow is legal ...
a nd rules.htm#traffic
As the previous post said, this is a common misconception. The intersection is yours in that the cross traffic has to let you go but you can be cited for blocking them and making them do so. From the CA Driver's Handbook, the bold emphasis is the DMV's:
GREENA green light means "GO," but first let any vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians remaining in the intersection get through before you move ahead. If you are turning left, make the turn only if you have enough space to complete the turn before any oncoming vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian becomes a hazard.
Do not enter an intersection, even when the light is green, unless you can get completely across before the light turns red. If you block the intersection, you can be cited.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs16thru17laws
And security cameras don't print out a warrant for your arrest and have it sent to your place of residence based on your (face, license plate, etc. )
Not really the same thing.
Security cameras are evidence. Radar guns are evidence but these "machines" encapsulate this and then make judgements based on the data they have (speed, picture, OCR ) and then react to that. As such they are giving "witness" that they noted these events ( you speeding, yes it was you in the car, yes it was tuesday, yes it was dark ) and such. However, with a person you can ask them ( did you really see me? Was it too dark? could you have been mistaken? ) you can't do that with these things. Hence the dilema.
So have you ever had the nerve to judge the road clear and cross the street? Ever seen and used a stop sign? How about simply crossed the street, gasp, where there is no cross gaurd? It's people like you telling us that we can't think for ourselves that sell us this crap.
Issues of due process are being ignored as people's time and money are taken on the basis of flawed, imperfect and even fruadulent evidence. Sorry, that sucks and only a slave would desires it. We have only courts to protect us from such violations, but they will follow public oppinion eventually.
Fight this BS now. Robots are no good at law enforcement and never will be.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
GREENA green light means "GO," but first let any vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians remaining in the intersection get through before you move ahead. If you are turning left, make the turn only if you have enough space to complete the turn before any oncoming vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian becomes a hazard.
Do not enter an intersection, even when the light is green, unless you can get completely across before the light turns red. If you block the intersection, you can be cited.
Correct, so far as it goes. However, "blocking" the intersection is entering when you will have to stop and wait in before leaving. Blocking the intersection usually happens at no more than five miles and hour in bumper to bumper traffic, when following cars insist on crossing even though the driver knows the light is changing. This can endanger people, cause even worse traffic congestion, and hamper emergency vehicles.
However, since yellows last about 4 seconds, it is easy to glance away for a trifle too long at the wrong moment and miss the entire light. If, due to speed and proximity to the intersection, you are going to enter before you could stop for the red light, you proceed legally across, rather than desperately slamming on the brakes and causing a multi-car pile up.
Yellow stands for "prepare to stop." If this can't be done, then the intersection is your's. Cross traffic and crossing pedestrians are supposed to wait until the intersection has cleared before entering. So says the state driver's education people to state employees. The teacher's words were, IIRC, "...even if the light is yellow for only a thousandth of second after you enter..." The teacher was a traffic cop. The surprise was considerable.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.