The Tea Party and Red Light Cameras

[Hippie]

I don't know about your town, but here the average red to green ratio is ~7:1.
Meaning that random timing, or favorable timing toward traffic flow based on relative traffic between travel directions is a statistical impossibility.
The only possible thing left is that the lights are deliberately timed to stop traffic.
Accepting this as fact, then who benefits from this? The oil companies.
Who has the money to kick back to set the light timing? The oil companies again.

Are people stopping, then running red lights if no one is coming? Yes, sometimes. I have too, because I am sick of it taking 45 minutes and 1/8 tank of gas to get across town.

So what do they do? Put in cameras, and now there is a second source of revenue, they will fix them even worse...if that's even possible.

[turk]

I have yet to meet a Tea Party guy who takes on responsibility for any of their actions.

I don't see much sense in that statement. You just seem to lash out in general. The premise of the Tea-Party seems to be personal responsibility for each one's own condition, rather than collective responsibility coerced by an authority (i.e. government) on each for all. That's opposed to individuals' voluntarily taking the responsibility for the greater good irrespective of coercion by authority.

[steve74baywin]

Taken to its logical conclusion, that would not only nullify red light cameras and seat belt or helmet requirements (which are the usual "victim-less crimes" cited by Libertarians (or at least the ones I know), but traffic laws altogether. I don't like having to do less than 70 mph through a neighborhood, or stopping for red lights or school buses. Not on roads that I own and pay for. If the other citizens don't like it, that's their problem. If I'm paying for this road, I can do anything I want on it, as long as I take responsibility for any damage or mayhem I cause. Right?

So where do you draw the line?

Yes, including seat belt and helmet laws.
As far as a speed limit, those who paid for and or own the road could set the rules, and or set up a group that can decide the speed. If someone has a road with no speed limit, like I think there is in other countries, and a person thinks it isn't safe, they can choose to not use that road.
And yes, taking responsibility for damages is a major part of libertarianism.

[BellePlaine]

I think that helmet and seat belt laws are different from traffic laws like speeding and sitting at stop lights in that you are only risking your own skin by not wearing a seat belt but you put others at involuntary risk by running red lights. That is a big difference. Universal health care debate aside, I cannot harm someone else by not wearing a helmet but I can harm others by not obeying the traffic signals. A libertarian wants freedom as long as it doesn't get in the way of someone else's freedom and vise versa.

[ruckman101]

Insurance companies pushed seat belt and helmet law. Insurance companies haven't yet, but will be a driving force in efforts to address our unprecedented climate change, too. Their profits are threatened. They aren't fools. They refuse to insure nuclear power plants.

Personally, I drive the speed limit and do my best to not run red lights. I don't need the hassle. Oregon has a mobile video speed ticket generator, kind of stealth, too, and a few red light cams. Driving too fast and running over someone, or t-boning some other driver would really put a damper on my psyche in the first incidence, and my day in both.

And if my neighbor insists his property rights include the ability to store radioactive waste, I have issues. Don't get me started about home owner's associations, either.

And I've always preferred coffee to tea.



neal

[Randy in Maine]

Actually the roads are owned by the people of the state and/or the country and the "road rules" are set (or delegated to the Federalor State DOT) to set them by our representatives in the legislature/congress.

Although it is indeed difficult to legislate common sense, I have no problem with mandatory helmet laws, seatbelt laws, or laws requiring the use of headlights/daytime running lights. Keep in mind that you are driving a VW bus and you are likely the first one there in an accident.

[yondermtn]

Some studies have shown that an effective way to reduce accidents at intersections is to have an "all red phase" where the lights are red in all directions for a few seconds.

[Amskeptic]

If you don't want to have to pay a fine, don't run the red light. Somehow you have to hold people responsible and accountable for their actions.

Hello. We all promised to stop at the light when we passed our driver's test.
Shut up with your whining, you scofflaws. I have blown red lights and I have gotten tickets. I did not complain. I paid them.
Colin

[steve74baywin]

As a Libertarian-ish type, frankly, I don't see what the problem is. You made a choice to trade in some of your individual liberties when you pull out of your driveway and onto a public road. Even if you think that no one is looking, you never had the right to run a red light. I don't know to what degree the TP thinks that they might have libertarian values, but in this case I think that they are over reaching.

If I understand their logic, a lot of Libertarians are against the cameras because the authorities can fine you for going through a red light even if there isn't anybody else around for blocks. It's the old question of: If I run through a red light under these circumstances, who is being hurt? Whom am I putting in danger? If the answer is "Nobody," then the law over-reaching, because it addresses a crime that can't exist, if there is no victim or aggrieved party.

But, then, I'm no lawyer.

JLT and BP,
When I first replied to this I probably overlooked something.
The "no victim, no crime" "victim less crime" point is valid (which I new) and is mentioned alot. It is a by product or result of the underlining principle or thought process I replied with.
Said differently.
Gov set up to protect us, our rights, right to be Sovereign. Sovereign over our property, body and possessions.
Hence a victim is needed for a crime under the system of gov we created.
People can also go into "contracts", they can agree to such and such while on someone else's property, if they violate that, the courts determine. Still a victim.
The Victim less Crime thing is sorta a shorter, quicker way to the point, especially when shooting down specific laws and the penalties imposed.
The traffic ones do get tricky. The contract can be something you sign when you get your license.
Most courts are operating under the UCC, Uniformed Commercial Code, which some say signing for a Social Security Card contracts you into being under the UCC.

[BellePlaine]

I think that running a red light is more like breaking a contract with the state then infringing upon someone's sovereignty. We should consider driving as a privilege vs. a right otherwise we'd have folks driving that don't have the ability to drive safely which would endanger others.