Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

Thread: Military community petition against red light cameras and insurance lobby support

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Should gun owners approve of red light and other "ticket cameras"?

    After all, they might reduce the need for police to actually pull people over and inquire about gun possession during the traffic stop.

    On the other hand, some folks in the military community membership of USAA, Inc., the military community's insurance and financial conglomerate, out outraged that USAA has gotten into bed with the insurance lobby to support red light cameras and the lobby's questionable "studies" used to support red light cameras.

    If you are a USAA member go to http://www.petitiononline.com/1109USAA and read the petition and consider signing.

    The effort is part of a campaign against USAA's support for red light cameras called http://www.houstoncoalition.net

  2. #2
    Regular Member hp-hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    I'm 100% against the use of red light cameras or use of cameras for any type of traffic safety enforcement, more correctly known as government revenue generation cameras.

    That being said, I'm not sure how this relates to open carry,Second Amendment rights or guns in any way, shape or form. Because it doesn't. IMO, this is just a way for the forum owner to publicize an issue that he feels strongly about, an issue that if I or any other member posted would be removed for being off topic. Just add the word "gun" to the post and it makes it okay.

    Smells of hypocrisy to me.

    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee, United States
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Should gun owners approve of red light and other "ticket cameras"?

    After all, they might reduce the need for police to actually pull people over and inquire about gun possession during the traffic stop.

    On the other hand, some folks in the military community membership of USAA, Inc., the military community's insurance and financial conglomerate, out outraged that USAA has gotten into bed with the insurance lobby to support red light cameras and the lobby's questionable "studies" used to support red light cameras.

    If you are a USAA member go to http://www.petitiononline.com/1109USAA and read the petition and consider signing.

    The effort is part of a campaign against USAA's support for red light cameras called http://www.houstoncoalition.net
    Red light cameras have ben an on again-off again subject here in Middle Tennessee for a couple years.

    The city to my north (Goodletsville, TN) installed a few at some "key" intersections last year. The city claims that they have reduced accidents at those intersections.

    Another city to my east (Murfresboro, TN) is considering installing them, and I understand that Memphis has had them for a few years.

    As my area of Tennessee has relatively little to fear about police encounters and legally armed citizens, I have a different set of likes and dislikes about red light cameras (or other forms of unmanned traffic enforcement).

    I like that traffic laws are getting enforced. My opinion is that if there is a law (legal, non-preempted), enforce it regularly. It matters not if its a major or minor law. If the law doesn't make sense, change it to make sense.

    I dislike that there is the possibility that the owner of the vehicle (one ticketed) is not necessarily the driver of the vehicle.

    I like that they free up police officers to concentrate on other crimes that could lower overall crime rates and put criminals in prison.

    I dislike that police would not be enforcing traffic laws and regulations and ultimately decrease safety on the roadways. A ticket in the mail a week or more after the traffic transgression doesn't have the same impact that a police officer staring you in the face does.


    EDIT: In response to hp-hobo - IMO, there is nothing wrong with using traffic laws for revenue generation. If they are so used, don't tell us its for safety. If the laws are for safety reasons, create punishments that would effectively discourage breaking them. The way things are set up in many places in the US that I have lived, is a system of government hypocrisy.


  4. #4
    Regular Member hp-hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    Oops!
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

  5. #5
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Red light camera's are a targeted form of taxation, and therefor unconstitutional.

    I say taxation, not penalty, because it doesn't go against your record, and it targets the OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, NOT THE DRIVER
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Most of these schemes take a photo of the license plate and the operator of the vehicle, then if the license plate and the photo of the driver are BOTH discernable they send a ticket to the REGISTERED OWNER OF SAID VEHICLE. They make the assumption that the operator of the vehicle is in fact the registered owner.

    I have heard of some being told by the courts that even in the clear evidence that the driver photographed was NOT THE REGISTERED OWNER that the charges would not be dropped UNLESS the court was told who the operator was so that they could be charged!

    IDISAPROVE OFANY SCHEME WHERE THE ASSUMPTION IS MADE THAT THE VEHICLE OBSERVED ALLEGEDLY VIOLATING A TRAFFIC LAW IS IN FACT BEING OPERATED BY THE REGISTERED OWNER.

    The government must prove that I am guilty and making me prove that I am NOT GUILTY is a violation of my constitutional protections.

    The ONLY way I MIGHT approve of this scheme is for the government to pay the falsely accused a significant penalty assessment for afalse accusation ...as inthegreater of10 times the actual cost incurred(lost wages, attorney fees, copying of documents, etc)or $1000.00in provingones innocence!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    The red light cameras in most of the municipalities in the state of MO do not take a picture of the driver, only the vehicle license plate and the registered owner gets the ticket in the mail.

    A lot of the ticket recipients have wised up and appear in court andplead not guilty and state thatsomeone else was driving their car. Lots of tickets getting dismissed that way. But they still have to take a day off from work to appear.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    hp-hobo wrote:
    I'm 100% against the use of red light cameras or use of cameras for any type of traffic safety enforcement, more correctly known as government revenue generation cameras.

    That being said, I'm not sure how this relates to open carry,Second Amendment rights or guns in any way, shape or form. Because it doesn't. IMO, this is just a way for the forum owner to publicize an issue that he feels strongly about, an issue that if I or any other member posted would be removed for being off topic. Just add the word "gun" to the post and it makes it okay.

    Smells of hypocrisy to me.
    This, look how well its worked out for england. All you create is a police state, not safety. As for the gun issue it gives police another tool to step on peoples rights in the name of safty.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    It's always amusing to see a military group bitching about something the "law enforcement" community does.
    Kinda like one leg complaining where the other leg is going.
    Please do not make the mistake of conflating the military with the police. We are entirely seperate organisations, with entirely seperate rules and missions. If you are concerned about "militarization" of police departments, the actual military has absolutely nothing to do with that.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Goldsboro, , USA
    Posts
    184

    Post imported post

    I've never liked them for the simple fact that they are not productive.

    For instance, if I am speeding and get pulled over by a real cop, I SLOW DOWN thereafter.

    Most people who get snapped by the red-light cameras don't know it and they keep on hauling ass down the road. They don't know it until they get the ticket in the mail.

    What if someone was snapped by a red-light camera, and continued speeding down the road and hit some kid chasing his ball out into the road. Could an attorney claim in a civil suit that the state/city KNEW the offender was speeding (evidenced by the camera ticket) and took no action to stop the dangerous activity?

    So far as it being a gun issue, I don't see any difference either way.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I am torn on the redlight camera issue, I have been hit on more than one occasion at an intersection by someone running a red-light! And it is your word against theirs and if the woman who hit you has a huge rack and a short skirt, guess who is getting blamed for the wreck!!
    Running red lights is a true safety issue IMO, unlike doing a few MPH over PSL on a deserted 6-lane freeway and getting tickets mailed to you with no immediate intervention or LEO testifying that they witnessed the alleged event.

    Speed cameras!! Wholeheartedly against them! those are nothing but revenue generators with no way of making the streets safer. Look up the case in Phoenix or Scottsdalewhere a guy got 5 tickets in 5 mile stretch of roadfor doing 10MPH or less over the PSL.
    I should check to see if that suit against the city/statesettled yet

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    How many of us are USAA members and can actually sign this petition?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    I think traffic cameras make excellent targets for when you need "urban tactical" practice with your night-scoped, suppressed "black rifle"...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  14. #14
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    I think traffic cameras make excellent targets for when you need "urban tactical" practice with your night-scoped, suppressed "black rifle"...
    but those are evil!
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Looks like things are heatin' up!

    http://www.mmdnewswire.com/red-light-cameras-6373.html

    Military Members Revolt Against Insurance Giant's Support of Red-Light Cameras



    E-mail |Print| PDF

    Houston, TX (MMD Newswire) December 4, 2009 -- The Houston, TX Coalition Against Red-Light Cameras (HoustonCoalition.net) is proud to announce an online petition targeting the United Services Automobile Association's support for red light cameras.

    The United Services Automobile Association (USAA) is an insurance and financial services conglomerate serving the U.S. military community and their families.

    The petition illustrates the USAA military community's objection to USAA's support for ticket camera schemes which are well known to have a negative impact on traffic safety but are nonetheless deployed to raise revenue.

    Numerous studies have documented that traffic accidents and accident-related injuries, often increase at intersections after ticket cameras have been installed. The USAA support of red-light cameras ignores these studies to march in lockstep with the auto insurance lobby which benefits from the increased number of citations issued by red-light cameras.

    Details of the HCARLC petition, and comments by petition signers, can be found at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/1109USAA/petition.html. Studies that document the negative effect of red-light cameras on traffic safety have been compiled by the National Motorists Association, and can be found at http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/studies/.

    For more information about this organized action against the USAA, go to http://www.houstoncoalition.net/usaa_action.

    The founder of the Houston Coalition Against Red Light Cameras (as they are presently utilized) is H.F. Van Der Grinten, who also is currently a USAA member.

    Media Contact:
    HoustonCoalition.net Founder:
    Mr. H. F. Van Der Grinten
    USAA Member
    Website: www.houstoncoalition.net
    Home page: www.captain-van.com

    ###

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that the USAA recently loosened their membership requirements to include honorably discharged veterans? Maybe they knew they would lose some members over this issue.

    Seems unlikely, but when it comes to bean counters, I don't discount any whacky possibilities.

    TFred


  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that the USAA recently loosened their membership requirements to include honorably discharged veterans?
    I think former military members were always welcome into USAA as full members.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    148

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure about this yet. I am a USAA member. I'll look into it before I make my decision.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    ourmanthejoker wrote:
    I'm not sure about this yet. I am a USAA member. I'll look into it before I make my decision.
    Sign into the main USAA page and look in upper right - you will see a discussion thread on USAA's intranet re USAA's PAC backing federal bills to force states to make cell phone use unlawful - somthing garanteed to increase actual traffic stops and LEO interaction with gun owners on the road.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    148

    Post imported post

    Thanks, checking now. (nothing going on here at work, har har!)

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    And there is now a discussion about USAA's nanny state arrogance on:




    LinkedIn Groups


    • Group: Military Network

    http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers...;trk=view_disc

    SNIP

    USAA is starting to really annoy me, no longer are they the helper of the military, they think they are a B of A or other big bank.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Boone, NC, ,
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    I hate the idea of traffic cams because they are clearly a resource of thoe police state. Lets face it too, these people arbitrarily make speed limits too low in the hopes that people won't break them by as much but then can write tickets at will on just about any body. Its a load of crap and a threat to freedom!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Concord, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gladewater, Texas, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    Red light cameras have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with safety. NOTHING! It's ONLY reason for use is revenue generation.

    As an expert professional driver, I can attest to this. Governmental reasoning (read:excuse) to employ red light cameras is to reduce accidents at intersections caused by people running red lights. As anyone with a modicumof intelligence knows, nobody blatantly runs red lights, red light running that the cameras are intended to enforce is the result of people trying and failing to make it into the intersection before the yellow light changes to red. They argue that such red light running causes accidents when the runner crashes into just released traffic from the opposing direction, and the enforcement stops that, thereby making the intersection safer. HOGWASH!

    One, while red light cameras may reduce T-bone accidents from red light running, they significantly INCREASE rear end collisions from people stopping too quickly for traffic conditions to avoid the camera, for a no netreduction inintersection accidents. Red light cameras DO NOT make intersections safer.

    Two, and I have witnessed this several times, they increase the instance of drivers making a right turn on red, crossing the opposing lanes of traffic perpendicularly, and making a right turn again, continuing on their original direction of travel just off the intersection, a MOST unsafe practice.

    To TRULY reduce accidents at intersections caused by red light running, the REAL solution, is a simple matter of increasing the time delay between the light turning red and the light turning green on the opposing side, allowing the inevitable yellow light runners misjudging the available time, and other traffic unable to stop for traffic conditions or other legitimate reasons, to clear the intersection before releasing opposing traffic.

    But of course,REAL solutionsdon't make the greedy government any money, do they? That's why they rarely employ any.

  25. #25
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Blkwdw86 wrote:
    Red light cameras have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with safety. NOTHING! It's ONLY reason for use is revenue generation.

    As an expert professional driver, I can attest to this. Governmental reasoning (read:excuse) to employ red light cameras is to reduce accidents at intersections caused by people running red lights. As anyone with a modicumof intelligence knows, nobody blatantly runs red lights, red light running that the cameras are intended to enforce is the result of people trying and failing to make it into the intersection before the yellow light changes to red. They argue that such red light running causes accidents when the runner crashes into just released traffic from the opposing direction, and the enforcement stops that, thereby making the intersection safer. HOGWASH!

    One, while red light cameras may reduce T-bone accidents from red light running, they significantly INCREASE rear end collisions from people stopping too quickly for traffic conditions to avoid the camera, for a no netreduction inintersection accidents. Red light cameras DO NOT make intersections safer.

    Two, and I have witnessed this several times, they increase the instance of drivers making a right turn on red, crossing the opposing lanes of traffic perpendicularly, and making a right turn again, continuing on their original direction of travel just off the intersection, a MOST unsafe practice.

    To TRULY reduce accidents at intersections caused by red light running, the REAL solution, is a simple matter of increasing the time delay between the light turning red and the light turning green on the opposing side, allowing the inevitable yellow light runners misjudging the available time, and other traffic unable to stop for traffic conditions or other legitimate reasons, to clear the intersection before releasing opposing traffic.

    But of course,REAL solutionsdon't make the greedy government any money, do they? That's why they rarely employ any.
    Except gov'ts who employ this technology had it SOLD AND SOMETIMES ADMINISTERED by third party private for profit entities. The only way you sell anything to people who manage money is by showing them how it will make a net profit for them.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •