RLCs Can Be a Good Thing

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

>
> If you're OK with private security cameras, why do you draw the line
> at red light cameras?
>

No points on license
Some time delay (days,weeks)between violation and receipt of ticket
No other drivers seeing the violator pulled over and ticketed.
It gives them excuse to not have proper yellow timing.(which would
alleviate RL running)


RLCs are really only revenue-collection devices.
One could run several RLs in one day,and not be aware of it for days or
weeks,perhaps months.In that time,someone may be harmed by that person
running more RLs,or they could rack up even more RLC tickets.
By the time they get the FIRST RLC fine,they could have hundreds more
coming and never had any chance to modify their behavior.

RLCs also let police get away without doing an important part of their
job;traffic enforcement,particularly one of the most dangerous violations.
(Red Light Running),besides other bad driving.

And it frees them up for the OTHER revenue collection scheme;"speed
enforcement",which will still go on(without any real effect on safety).

Where else do you think the police "freed up" by the RLCs are going to be
employed?
Not for other moving violations like reckless driving,improper lane
changes,LLBing,and others.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Cartlon Shew > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:00:25 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en
>>Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>> If you're OK with private security cameras, why do you draw the line
>>> at red light cameras?
>>
>>I'll let you know after I'm forced to wear a license plate around my
>>neck with a number that links to my name and address.
>>
>
> With biometric scanning capabilities, you already do unless you walk
> around with some sort of mask on.
>
>

First they have to collect the biometric data and link it to you.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

No one forces you to have a license plate on your car. That is totally
your choice.

"But officer, I don't HAVE to have a license plate on my car, so go f*ck
yourself . . . "

In article >, Cartlon Shew wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:00:25 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>> If you're OK with private security cameras, why do you draw the line
>>> at red light cameras?
>>
>>I'll let you know after I'm forced to wear a license plate around my neck
>>with a number that links to my name and address.
>>
>
> With biometric scanning capabilities, you already do unless you walk
> around with some sort of mask on.

Since my biometrics are not recorded, let alone tied to my name and
address, um no.

X

Dave C. wrote:
> No one forces you to have a license plate on your car. That is
totally
> your choice.
>
> "But officer, I don't HAVE to have a license plate on my car, so go
f*ck
> yourself . . . "

Well if you choose to drive or park your car on government roads then
that's a different story. But in general, no one cares whether you
have a license plate or not.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>The government could work around that so easily. In fact they already do.
>>It simply takes making everyone into a violator.

> Then you're already ****ed. Most major intersections already have
> cameras - TRAFFIC cameras. Same with the freeways: I see live feeds
> them on the news every morning. The government can pretty much track
> you at will if they want to, even without a single RLC being
> installed.

Once again, California doesn't define the rest of the country let alone
the world. One thing about going around by bicycle is, the little
details are visible. Few if any intersections do not have cameras in
these parts. Their study-state ****-poor timing should be proof enough.

I believe the city of chicago proper has some cameras for that purpose,
but not in the burbs. Then again, king richard would have a view screen
in every home if he had his way.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:00:25 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>> If you're OK with private security cameras, why do you draw the line
>>> at red light cameras?
>>
>>I'll let you know after I'm forced to wear a license plate around my neck
>>with a number that links to my name and address.
>
> No need for that, thanks to the new facial recognition algorithms we
> have these days. No doubt your face is linked directly to your credit
> report and your FBI dossier.

Just this email address. And by replying to me so often they are now
watching you too.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:01:57 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>> If you're OK with private security cameras, why do you draw the line
>>>>> at red light cameras?
>>>>
>>>>I'll let you know after I'm forced to wear a license plate around my neck
>>>>with a number that links to my name and address.
>>>
>>> With biometric scanning capabilities, you already do unless you walk
>>> around with some sort of mask on.
>>
>>Since my biometrics are not recorded, let alone tied to my name and
>>address, um no.
>
> Ever been in an airport? The facial recognition camera system was
> first deployed there - to look for terrorists, of course. But since
> you have to flash your photo ID to fly, they now know the name and
> address that goes with your face. With that info, they can get your
> credit report, and from there the sky's the limit.

Um the minimum wage employee that glanced at my DL would be lucky to
remember the details 5 minutes later. Oh, btw, my DL has an address on it
that is over 8 years old, was 3-4 moves ago.

> Big Brother is watching you, Brent.

Doesn't mean we have to want it like you do.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Correlate the picture taken by the camera behind the counter with the
> check-in time, and BINGO: we have BrentP's face and real name and
> address properly correlated.

Counter? you haven't flown recently have you?

>>Oh, btw, my DL has an address on it
>>that is over 8 years old, was 3-4 moves ago.

> Tsk tsk - last I heard, the Secretary of State requires you to notify
> him of any change of address within 10 days.

He was notified each time. The physical license is still 8 years old.

> But that doesn't even
> matter. The credit card you used to book your flight has your current
> address (it must, or you'd never get your bills). BOOM: you're nailed.

Still doesn't join things up.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:39:14 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> Correlate the picture taken by the camera behind the counter with the
>> check-in time, and BINGO: we have BrentP's face and real name and
>> address properly correlated.
>
>Counter? you haven't flown recently have you?
>

counter, check-in kiosk, what's the difference?


>>>Oh, btw, my DL has an address on it
>>>that is over 8 years old, was 3-4 moves ago.
>
>> Tsk tsk - last I heard, the Secretary of State requires you to notify
>> him of any change of address within 10 days.
>
>He was notified each time. The physical license is still 8 years old.
>
>> But that doesn't even
>> matter. The credit card you used to book your flight has your current
>> address (it must, or you'd never get your bills). BOOM: you're nailed.
>
>Still doesn't join things up.
>