The Man in the Monkey Mask
 

Full article is here:

EarthLink - U.S. News

Hmm, no comments on the large and growing Arizona driver/voter rebellion against speed cameras. They're about ready to take an ax to the whole lot of 'em. This monkey guy is just a handy front man.

Maybe I should have just gone ahead and posted the whole thing. But I don't do that, so you'll just have to click.

I like it fine :)

Personally, I understand he wants to be "Gung Ho Mister Liberty" by doing dangerous things and breaking laws only because he doesn't like that the laws are actually being inforced, but I think they should just take away his license for not deserving it.

That's just me though

Ben, should you be able to loan your car to someone without paying their speeding tickets if they go 56mph in a 55 zone?

Should a rental car company pay all your traffic violations?

These devices take major shortcuts in due process, and print money for the crooks that install them. Gimmie an axe and a gorilla mask.

I agree that you shouldn't have to pay for someone else's tickets, but the fact that this one person could rack up so many tickets on his own in his own car is very good evidence that the system that prevents the cameras from ticketing the vehicle owner regardless of the driver is working.

Unless someone does a decent study comparing the amount of wrongly ticketed people from the machines to those wrongly ticketed by police officers, I'm not going to think badly of one option over the other. Personally, I've only been pulled over once for "reckless driving" when my wheels spun half a rotation in some dirt at a stop, which is certainly not reckless, but I was driving a red CRX at night and 18 years old so I was a good target to pull over. At least the machines don't pull over black people so they can illegally search their cars or have some of the other common biases that police officers do, so I don't think even the crazy Arizonians can say they're all negative.

Meh

I guess the idea bothers me in a lot of ways. To begin with, there's the nonsensical idea that you can recognize a person from a photograph. Not "Hey, that looks sort of like Joe", but "That is Joe", which has probably led to an awful lot of false arrests & convictions when police show a handful of mug shots, and the victim picks out the closest match.

As for the monkey mask, if somebody wants to wear one, whyever not? No different from wearing a hijab or a full-face motorcycle helmet...

One of my main beefs is how stupid the traffic control devices are. I mean there could be absolutely nobody around, and it will give you the red. Now cameras are there to help enforce the brain dead stoplight. from an eco perspective I would like to see more emphasis on efficient traffic control devices (i.e. lets keep this car moving since there are no other cars), not terminator style enforcement of stupid devices.

Agreed

But... I like the Terminator... and RoboCop.

That said, I hate traffic cameras - to an extent. They take care of the "where's a cop when you need one?" question very efficiently, to say the least.

As far as someone else getting a ticket in your car, it's fairly easy to prove that you weren't driving, and even if you can't prove it to the law officers, you can tell your "friend" that either they make responsibly for the fine, or they needn't bother being a "Friend" anymore. It's an expensive lesson, in some cases, but you'd quickly learn who your friends were.

OTOH - I don't like them, because they do exactly as dcb says - they enforce a brainless system of "stop and go", even when not necessary. More efficient traffic lighting systems would be partially self-corrective of the problems with people running lights... if they're more efficiently timed, even the people "in a hurry" all the time would have a better chance of getting a green light, thus avoiding the potential risks involved with running a green light.

If they're speeding, obviously, it won't work out as well.

Plus versus the minus features, I'd rather see them on streets than not. If you're not running red lights, (or in some cases, speeding) you've nothing to worry about. ;)

And if you're not wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush, you have nothing to worry about either (and we'll even let you get within 1.5 miles of him). Oh wait, we have a new president -- never mind. ;)

Stuff like this really gets me to wondering what the true purpose of the cameras is:
One year, HALF A MILLION tickets? And they don't even care if people pay them or not. That's not speed enforcement, it's revenue generation. That's not enhancing public safety, it's lining the camera company's pockets.

The man in the monkey mask is simply reflecting the facelessness of the system back onto itself. I give him a hearty hi-ho silver.

No quotable piece of that information says that they "Don't care if people pay them or not."

I'm not sure where you got that from.

BTW - No worries about Bush, no worries about Obama - I worry about the rifle toting people who show up at Obama's speeches... unless they're like the "Minute Men" who are apparently vigilante enforcers.. Maybe those AR14's, 22/230's, 7mm Mags, etc... are all there to be proactive against a racist assassination attempt? Concerned citizens, no?

Here, the photoradars don't have licence plate recognition software, so every picture of a speeder must be analyzed by a flesh-and-blood policeman. But there aren't enough policemen to patrol the streets, let alone to look through thousands of pictures per day. Only about 30% of the pictures turn into tickets, but only 30% of those get paid. The rest are ignored with no consequences :(

The law here is that the ticket gets sent to the car's owner and (s)he either pays, or if the face of driver isn't visible, (s)he must say who was behind the wheel.

There are many areas here with speeding problems, but Those In Charge always say they don't have money to buy a photoradar and pay someone to sort through the pictures. I guess they can't count, or they'd notice that after the first month the investment would more than pay for itself financially, not counting any safety benefits.

Here they send the ticket to the person the car is registered to. The logic is you should know who drives your car so you'll just sort it out with that person.

Where are RFID tags when you need them...

IBM lost some public funding for that research, from what I was told while working for EIT (who bought IBM's original facility in Endicott, NY.) So they're relying mostly on private sector funding... this will surely take awhile to come to fruition.

Me, I worry more about elected leaders (irrespective of their politics - it applies equally to a Bush or an Obama) who're unwilling to face the people that supposedly elected them without layers of armed guards.

But to the topic, has anyone ever actually showed that this sort of photo enforcement has any effect other than revenue enhancement? It's certainly less than accurate: I got one from Washington state this past spring, for not paying a bridge toll. Now 1) I haven't been to Washington for maybe 20 years; 2) it listed my truck as the vehicle, and the photo was a small compact; 3) the license plate was from a different state; and 4) it wasn't the same number anyway. Miracles of modern technology, indeed :-)

Tas posted a thread a while back about how much they had reduced speeding in quebec: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ghts-9711.html

Here most of the photoradars are stationary, with a sign placed somewhere earlier informing drivers about it. The effect? Drivers from out-of-town slow down to the required speed, but locals blast right on past: they know that either:
a) The lens has been spraypainted,
b) The lens has been broken,
c) The radar has been burned,
d) The box is empty (there are more boxes than radars, and the radars are randomly switched around 2-3 times a day).
Also, anyone who has a CB radio will know ahead of time if the radar is operational or not.

So the answer is: Yes. There is a slight positive effect.

You mean like this that happened back in august?
Attachment 4259

The original source for the picture....

I'm not trying to start an argument, but please make sure you have all the "facts" from both sides, and choose the one that makes the most logical, rational sense.
There are no contradictions in life. When you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises, you will find one of them is wrong.

To the topic, I would love to have a camera at the major intersections in towns. But not every intersection is major. The justification for a camera should come from number of accidents, and number of violations at that intersection versus other intersections in the area. I am by no means saying that the pictures could be enforced effectively, but merely having the cameras there provides a deterrent to some (afraid of breaking the law and getting caught), an incentive to others(not afraid of bucking the system and hoping to get off Scott-free).

Edit: there's a bug with the edit feature...

I wasn't worried about the facts, I was just pointing out that I'd be more worried about random people showing up with guns to a presidential speech, from a president who is anti-gun. (Supposedly.)

Aside from that, I don't really see a reason not to be allowed to carry a gun, and in PA, there is no permit necessary to carry an unloaded pistol at your side. The only permit is for carrying a loaded weapon, and it's not even that hard to get. I figure that if I'm carrying a gun, whether it's loaded or not, you're less likely to rob the store I'm standing in.

I suggested the minute men theory because it seemed appropriate. I was suggesting that they weren't necessarily there to cause trouble, rather that they may have been "concerned citizens" there to defend against trouble, seeing as how there are racists, and our president is black... Not that I had noticed or anything. ;)

That monkey mask can't help him see the highway better.

Thanks Delta :)

I always concern myself with the facts, but I did not intend to draw you into an argument. For that I am sorry. He should be considering what he is doing, and whom he is upsetting by being anti-second amendment.

I am not afforded that luxury here in MA, we have a *ahem* very liberal state government that doesn't allow it's citizens to even think about carrying a gun anywhere, unless you have a wish to be arrested or hassled by the man.

I don't care whether our president is Black, White, Native American, or Asian in decent. That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they love America with everything they have, will do anything to protect her, and uphold the oath that they take on their inauguration day, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

But you must admit, it is awful handy for his supporters, since they can just label any disagreement as racism, and dismiss it. Saves any amount of arguing over actual facts :-)

Speaking of politics without weighing in on one of those hot topics, it's become less discussion and more combat....instead of seeking common ground, polarization suits lobbyists, special interest groups, talk shows. It's like many forum discussions - promoting one's position by getting away from an intelligent discussion and throw firebombs.

Sad.

*Insert image of Malotov cocktail exploding on a building*

Firebomb!

Funny - I know you weren't arguing, I was just pointing out why I posted that the way I did, for clarification. I see it like this: If you didn't catch what my intentions were, there's a good chance that others didn't catch it either, so I'd better clarify. No argument here, at all.

Microchip the car and ticket the owner
 

If all cars had a black box that transmitted information, the authorities or a computer could just turn the car off.

If a car owners vehicle was really playing up a missile strike could be launched.

A George Bush mask is kinda going too far I think.

Too much Big Brother. I have a problem with the thought that I am being watched all the time, too Orwellian for me.
As I said before, cameras at the most problematic intersections would be more than sufficient. They shouldn't be used except for glaring violations, and not automatically sending tickets to people. The Police should get involved, that's what the taxes you and I and everyone else pays for.

You'd create a great new market for devices to hack & spoof those black boxes :-)

The problem I have with the speed cameras is that their *effect* is crippling, and wastes both time and fuel. On a clean 65mph highway in good weather with typical traffic density, 'most everyone will go 65-75mph, then when they approach the speed cameras they will slow down to 53mph, which of course jams up everyone behind them... then rocket back up to a few mph above the posted limit again right after the camera.

Same when someone gets flashed because they were speeding, regardless of whether or not makes logical sense (duh you ALREADY GOT POPPED) they will almost universally slow down to way under the speed limit.

Maybe that isn't what people SHOULD do, but it's what they DO do.

And that is why the cameras suck and I hope their implementors and supporters die of colon cancer. They waste countless hours of countless peoples' lives, every day. For revenue, NOT for safety. Causing traffic to rapidly change speed because of a money trap is NOT safer.

Same with the red light cameras... I don't have a link handy but one gentleman actually brought the case up before a Scottsdale judge and was able to prove that yellow light duration was reduced by half at the same time that a red light camera was installed. How the hell is that in the interest of safety? Sounds to me more like the city is gaming the intersections for maximum payout. Cha Ching! Well, I hope whoever gets that money at least spends it on domestic goods and services...

As a last note, whenever someone suggests that increased domestic surveillance is acceptable, citing "if you aren't doing anything wrong why would you mind being watched" , I tell them that's an excellent idea, I'll be over tonight to watch their wife shower - after all she's doing nothing wrong so she certainly shouldn't mind my presence in there watching her.

Haha... you said Do Do...

You have no right to the expectation of privacy when you're in a public place. You have a right to the expectation of privacy when you're in your own home, or in another private place, such as a public restroom, INSIDE the private part of said restroom.

Try to watch MY Wife shower, she'd probably rub soap in your eyes, then attempt to kill you in the most painful way possible.

The City of Philadelphia put up some red light cameras on Roosevelt Boulevard, a notoriously bad piece of road on which dozens of people are struck by cars each year and hundreds of people are involved in accidents. They appear to be working very well as the number of incidents has decreased markedly. What's really interesting is that the intent of the cameras appears all along to have been safety, specifically improving the safety of pedestrians. Also, lengthening the yellow light time period was tried first, then the cameras went in.

Study Evaluates the Effectiveness of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Philadelphia

That seems to be a very clear incidence of red light cameras improving safety, as well as a case where it would be hard to argue that they are there solely for revenue generation. Given that violations have gone to nearly zero, they can't be generating much cash flow.

I work in Burlington County NJ, and there are quite a few multi-lane roads with wide grassy medians separating the lanes. This makes for very wide intersections. Despite the size of the crossings, I almost never see an accident at them. The yellow light duration is considerable, and I think that plays a huge role. No red light cameras are present.

I present these as two instances where government appears to have done the right things for the right reasons. The Arizona situation does not remind me of either. Instead, the Arizona situation reminds me of the speed trap I drive through on another part of my commute. Nothing whatsoever to do with safety, just a bunch of cops in shiny new cars patrolling the only road in their area that sees substantial traffic. It's a revenue generator.