• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are red light cameras ethical?

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Does anyone have any idea how easy it is for some hacker or person of ill-intent to track someone down from the internet to find out who and where you are? And we're worried about cameras managed by law enforcement agencies? :rolleyes:
 

ZooGirl02

Well-Known Member
Does anyone have any idea how easy it is for some hacker or person of ill-intent to track someone down from the internet to find out who and where you are? And we're worried about cameras managed by law enforcement agencies? :rolleyes:

I am aware of that. I majored in computer networking in college. I didn't finish college and I didn't get a degree or certificate but I have enough knowledge to know that it is fairly easy for a hacker or person of ill-intent to track someone down on the internet and find who and where that person is. While it does personally bother me that such a thing is possible I figure its just a risk that I have to take as a person using the internet. I refuse to let my paranoia of being spied upon keep me from participating on the internet. I would have to say that personally, my trust in God and His providence helps me out a lot when it comes to the paranoia of spying I have. The paranoia really doesn't both me much except for at rare times when my mental illnesses are really acting up severely.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
The internet isn't my point, the point is that it's more an invasion of privacy, or downright dangerous using the internet than the unproven possibility of having your picture taken by a traffic camera. There's even more of a possibility of someone setting up a toilet-cam to spy on you.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The UK has massive CCTV, enforcement and Number plate recognition systems in action all over the country. 25 years ago people were raging about 'loss of privacy', but because so many serious offenders have been caught because of these systems the criticisms have died away to a whimper now. If your car is not road legal, taxed and insured you won't get far without tripping a NPR system. And people tend to feel more safe and secure with these systems in operation. Speed cameras have been reduced right down now, because police mobile-camera units and hand-held units have taken over. Most of our communities would now rather have close coverage than callous crime. Take your pick!

And as for Red-light cameras being unethical, that's gobble-de-gook! Speeders who tailgate are unethical..... get'em off the road! Oh.... and get light-jumpers off the road an'all!
 
Inspired by the discussion about killing babies as well as a hypothetical scenario on a podcast I listen to, here's a real-life application of some of the ethical issues involved: red light cameras.

Red light cameras tend to decrease the frequency of angle ("T-bone") collisions while increasing the frequency of rear-end collisions. Depending on the crash characteristics of the intersection (specifically the percentages of rear-end and angle collisions), installing red light cameras can reduce the overall collision frequency for the intersection.

Also, on average, angle collisions tend to be more severe than rear-end collisions: an angle collision is more likely to injure or kill you than a rear-end collision (though injuries and deaths from rear-end collisions still happen).

Let's assume that we have an intersection like this: one where red light cameras will be effective at lowering the overall collision frequency and improving the average level of safety for drivers going through the intersection. If we install them, fewer people will be in collisions and fewer people will get hurt, but there will be people - people who have done nothing wrong... certainly nothing where a car collision would be a just punishment - who will be involved in collisions who weren't involved in them before as a result of installing the red light cameras.

This is just an example; there are all sorts of engineering decisions where reducing overall risk means increasing risk for one group even though the average risk goes down.

So... with all that in mind, are red light cameras ethical? Is it ethical to increase risk for one group of people in order to decrease average risk overall?
I actually thought, red 'light' meant 'flash'. I don't know whether the flash in camera's is a harmful radiation, and I was wondering what this might signify.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
What's fine for the UK may work here, too; but our government came very close to a dictatorship not long ago when one of our senators, Senator McCarthy, started pulling citizens and accusing them of 'Being Communists'. He blacklisted famous actors etc., and he was only stopped when a few brave people stuck up for themselves and their friends. In today's climate and laws being what they are a modern Senator McCarthy would win -- not the citizens. He could cite the Patriot Act and cause any troublesome citizens to vanish, so his inquiries could go on indefinitely. Imagine if the president were to pursue a similar course of action. The US could be no more.

Now add a countryside riddled with government snooping devices. This is USA we're talking about, a country with an extremely large military and an increasingly weak citizenry. No, I think its best if US citizens suffer a bit in order to keep the occasional deranged senator or president from seizing absolute power. Let other countries benefit from cameras and intensive government control of communications. Give me Patrick Henry.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
What's fine for the UK may work here, too; but our government came very close to a dictatorship not long ago when one of our senators, Senator McCarthy, started pulling citizens and accusing them of 'Being Communists'. He blacklisted famous actors etc., and he was only stopped when a few brave people stuck up for themselves and their friends. In today's climate and laws being what they are a modern Senator McCarthy would win -- not the citizens. He could cite the Patriot Act and cause any troublesome citizens to vanish, so his inquiries could go on indefinitely. Imagine if the president were to pursue a similar course of action. The US could be no more.

Now add a countryside riddled with government snooping devices. This is USA we're talking about, a country with an extremely large military and an increasingly weak citizenry. No, I think its best if US citizens suffer a bit in order to keep the occasional deranged senator or president from seizing absolute power. Let other countries benefit from cameras and intensive government control of communications. Give me Patrick Henry.

During the Cold-War a very high % of the western population was totally prejudiced and paranoid about words such as Communism. We now recognise some of the victims, decent people who were destroyed by the slanders. WE can also remember the names of very rich and powerful business owners who rode upon the back of the 'weed out a commie' beast.

But if you want to use this history as reason to hold back your own law enforcement bodies........ well...... that's you, rubbishing your own land, country and institution.

So tell me, if your partner, or wife, or child was killed on a road junction by a red-light 'dodger', and caught, and punished by your country's legal system, would you be able to say to that motorist, 'Fair enough...... loads of drivers do it. You just got unlucky.' Or.... whatever. ?? Well, would you?

Cos I've got a theory.... that those who are against the policing systems could well be the ones who feel most violent and vengeful towards transgressors when they are the ones who lose out to crime.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I actually thought, red 'light' meant 'flash'. I don't know whether the flash in camera's is a harmful radiation, and I was wondering what this might signify.

Hi......
I don't know how your systems work, but in England the cameras look at the traffic light and the stop-lines on the road from behind, and if a vehicle goes over the line after the light has turned red, so the camera activates and a camera flash illuminates the rear number late of the 'wrong' vehicle....... from behind. I doubt that your country would have chosen a flash light that emits harmful radiation. What do you think?

These systems save many lives, reduce crashes, reduce grid-locks and tail-backs after crashes, reduce fire-rescue hours, free up ambulance and hospital staff for other emergencies, punish or ban dangerous drivers, and the fines help towards the costs of these impartial devices.

Also, the more CCTV coverage you have on your streets, so the more safe you and your loved-ones are. In Britain, just about every schoolkid has a cam-corder on their mobile, many cars have dash-cams, and every street is covered by shop, business and domestic systems. In addition to that we have the government and council systems. So we are not going to get far from coverage, and for the criminals this is not helpful; but for ordinary folks it's fine.
 

ZooGirl02

Well-Known Member
The internet isn't my point, the point is that it's more an invasion of privacy, or downright dangerous using the internet than the unproven possibility of having your picture taken by a traffic camera. There's even more of a possibility of someone setting up a toilet-cam to spy on you.

Oh okay. I think I understand what you are saying. And yeah, I agree with you. The internet definitely have more serious privacy issues, in my opinion, than a traffic camera.

But yeah, I think I stated this already: in my opinion, the privacy issues involved with traffic cameras are extremely minor in my book but nevertheless, it does still bother me on a really minor level.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
oldbadger said:
During the Cold-War a very high % of the western population was totally prejudiced and paranoid about words such as Communism. We now recognise some of the victims, decent people who were destroyed by the slanders. WE can also remember the names of very rich and powerful business owners who rode upon the back of the 'weed out a commie' beast.

But if you want to use this history as reason to hold back your own law enforcement bodies........ well...... that's you, rubbishing your own land, country and institution.
You've got a culture that has survived a lot of things, many changes. So many times you've come close to being extinguished. Maybe you trust that it won't end. I respect that very much, and I respect your decisions about your traffic cams. I think the US shouldn't have them, however. How many times has our govt. done horrible things behind our backs? Lots of times just in the last 50 years. Its done some good things, too; but Homeland Security is a little too powerful for my comfort. Its like KGB in power and scope, and the only thing keeping it under control are people like Snowden. Our govt. has a balance of power, except that Homeland Security is invisible yet sees all. Its out of balance, spying on everybody. Sorry, but that isn't the way into a peaceful future.

So tell me, if your partner, or wife, or child was killed on a road junction by a red-light 'dodger', and caught, and punished by your country's legal system, would you be able to say to that motorist, 'Fair enough...... loads of drivers do it. You just got unlucky.' Or.... whatever. ?? Well, would you?

Cos I've got a theory.... that those who are against the policing systems could well be the ones who feel most violent and vengeful towards transgressors when they are the ones who lose out to crime.
Traffic lights are about safety and depend upon an autonomous populace that abides by the law. You know, good folk doing their duty working together for a better world. That is why traffic tickets are justified -- because the person has endangered lives. If you take away their autonomy in traffic situations its just one more area where they aren't trusted to be good citizens.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You've got a culture that has survived a lot of things, many changes. So many times you've come close to being extinguished. Maybe you trust that it won't end. I respect that very much, and I respect your decisions about your traffic cams. I think the US shouldn't have them, however. How many times has our govt. done horrible things behind our backs? Lots of times just in the last 50 years. Its done some good things, too; but Homeland Security is a little too powerful for my comfort. Its like KGB in power and scope, and the only thing keeping it under control are people like Snowden. Our govt. has a balance of power, except that Homeland Security is invisible yet sees all. Its out of balance, spying on everybody. Sorry, but that isn't the way into a peaceful future.

Traffic lights are about safety and depend upon an autonomous populace that abides by the law. You know, good folk doing their duty working together for a better world. That is why traffic tickets are justified -- because the person has endangered lives. If you take away their autonomy in traffic situations its just one more area where they aren't trusted to be good citizens.

Hi again! Firstly, I think my last post to you was a bit too aggressive. Sorry for that.

Now for some more aggression! :p

Look........ all of our systems do have some bad people within them, so if we can level the playing field then that is good!

To use 'we have some jerks in government' as a reason to not have (for instance) red-light cameras is a dopey idea! :D

What would you rather have:-
A law enforcer standing at a junction who stops cars that s/he thinks have run a red-light, or a red-light camera? The human can make mistakes, or be dishonest, but the camera-sensor can't! (In England) you can challenge the camera, and the authorities will send you a pic of your car, with your plates, past the line, and the light on red. This is a no-brainer!!! :slap:

The impartiality of these systems is well recorded. I remember an incident where a police officer raced through a speed-cam waving at the system with one hand and holding a radio with the other. Some senior person was shown this, and the officer was fined, sacked (from road service duties), dishonoured and the story given to the press.

For a safer country, with a more level playing field for all, the sooner you get filled up with impartial robotic systems the sooner you will get a fairer deal. :banghead3:bonk:
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
old badger said:
Hi again! Firstly, I think my last post to you was a bit too aggressive. Sorry for that.

Now for some more aggression! :p

Look........ all of our systems do have some bad people within them, so if we can level the playing field then that is good!

To use 'we have some jerks in government' as a reason to not have (for instance) red-light cameras is a dopey idea! :D
So lets assume as you have that stop light cameras level the playing field. What were we talking about?

What would you rather have:-
A law enforcer standing at a junction who stops cars that s/he thinks have run a red-light, or a red-light camera? The human can make mistakes, or be dishonest, but the camera-sensor can't! (In England) you can challenge the camera, and the authorities will send you a pic of your car, with your plates, past the line, and the light on red. This is a no-brainer!!! :slap:
Which is very annoying. In the US we like to say "It really sucks" particularly when a system of red lights turns a long road with a 45mph speed limit into one with an effective 25mph limit. As you drive down such a road stopped by 68% of the ten stop lights you start to feel very closely governed. Some people find this feeling erotic, but I don't.

The impartiality of these systems is well recorded. I remember an incident where a police officer raced through a speed-cam waving at the system with one hand and holding a radio with the other. Some senior person was shown this, and the officer was fined, sacked (from road service duties), dishonoured and the story given to the press.
God bless the police and keep them far from us.

For a safer country, with a more level playing field for all, the sooner you get filled up with impartial robotic systems the sooner you will get a fairer deal. :banghead3:bonk:
Soon robotic automobiles will render stop light cams inconsequential, so why continue to install them?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
So lets assume as you have that stop light cameras level the playing field. What were we talking about?
Hi again...!
I was talking about an impartial lump of equipment which reports driving offenders at Traffic lights, and didn't see how citizens should become paranoid about such things.

Which is very annoying. In the US we like to say "It really sucks" particularly when a system of red lights turns a long road with a 45mph speed limit into one with an effective 25mph limit. As you drive down such a road stopped by 68% of the ten stop lights you start to feel very closely governed. Some people find this feeling erotic, but I don't.
In England we use roundabouts (most of the time) on 40 and 50mph roads. They are inert, moderately safe, easily understood and do tend to raise journey times (over light systems). But sometimes we do have to use Traffic lights on 40 and 50 mph roads. In the above para you are complaining about
the use of Traffic Lights on 45mph roads.... this is completely a different conversation to using Cameras on them. If you don't like light-systems on such roads, write to your local politician about it, vote for somebody who will think about the problem. You!..... You can look into the problem and propose solutions! You've got brains..... anybody on RF knows that, so look for solutions.

God bless the police and keep them far from us.
You don't trust your police force? I know that there will be bad cops, but there are good cops. YOu gotta trust somebody! Who do you trust?

Soon robotic automobiles will render stop light cams inconsequential, so why continue to install them?
Too far away. You gotta face the 'now'! :yes:
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Old badger said:
Hi again...!
I was talking about an impartial lump of equipment which reports driving offenders at Traffic lights, and didn't see how citizens should become paranoid about such things.
I understand what you are talking about. Its not the stop light cameras themselves that I truly object to but the entire system of which they are a part. Its one gigantic eye. Before long each camera with have its own IPv6 address and be incorporated into all the major invisible organizations like CIA, FBI and the local Batman's underground lair.
In England we use roundabouts (most of the time) on 40 and 50mph roads. They are inert, moderately safe, easily understood and do tend to raise journey times (over light systems). But sometimes we do have to use Traffic lights on 40 and 50 mph roads. In the above para you are complaining about
the use of Traffic Lights on 45mph roads.... this is completely a different conversation to using Cameras on them. If you don't like light-systems on such roads, write to your local politician about it, vote for somebody who will think about the problem. You!..... You can look into the problem and propose solutions! You've got brains..... anybody on RF knows that, so look for solutions.
We like roundabouts now, but we did not catch onto roundabouts until recently here in the US. We still like square things a lot. :franken: Perhaps if we had adopted the metric system...
You don't trust your police force? I know that there will be bad cops, but there are good cops. YOu gotta trust somebody! Who do you trust?
Yes, I do trust our police force. It was a jest. We should not trust completely centralized authority however. More McCarthies and Stalins are sure to appear seeking niches of power. History has shown us this.
 
Last edited:
Hi......
I don't know how your systems work, but in England the cameras look at the traffic light and the stop-lines on the road from behind, and if a vehicle goes over the line after the light has turned red, so the camera activates and a camera flash illuminates the rear number late of the 'wrong' vehicle....... from behind. I doubt that your country would have chosen a flash light that emits harmful radiation. What do you think?

These systems save many lives, reduce crashes, reduce grid-locks and tail-backs after crashes, reduce fire-rescue hours, free up ambulance and hospital staff for other emergencies, punish or ban dangerous drivers, and the fines help towards the costs of these impartial devices.

Also, the more CCTV coverage you have on your streets, so the more safe you and your loved-ones are. In Britain, just about every schoolkid has a cam-corder on their mobile, many cars have dash-cams, and every street is covered by shop, business and domestic systems. In addition to that we have the government and council systems. So we are not going to get far from coverage, and for the criminals this is not helpful; but for ordinary folks it's fine.
Mobile phones are supposed to radiate, some electronic emission. We know ultra violet rays are an emission sometimes harmful, sometimes helpful. It seems, the ultra violet emission makes the ray, a ray pertaining to a particular light. Light, is also not just light, but also different, today.
 

ZooGirl02

Well-Known Member
In my opinion the red light cameras are ethical although they do have the potential for abuse I think. As for the plate scanners, that really concerns me. I am sick of all these invasions of our privacy.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member

Oh noz! The sky is falling! :eek: We must warn the king!

ashleymbhs6.edublogs.org-Disney-Chicken-Little-Sky-Falling1.jpg
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
The speed limit convention should be revoked and replaced with a suggested speed limit. In almost all states, cities, parishes, and towns there is strong political motivation to set speed limits 10-20 mph beneath engineers' standards. This is an easy revenue source. A lot of studies indicate that this contributes to collisions because people get antsy.

If you veer out of your lane, run a red light, accelerate past a yellow, cut someone off dangerously close, etc. - then take care of the driver. The law would basically be summarized as "drive in a way you can handle it." If you collide, you weren't in control.

Personally I wish we made attainment and retention of a license harder to ensure safety and to provide a source of tax dollars to construct a US-styled Autobahn.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The speed limit convention should be revoked and replaced with a suggested speed limit. In almost all states, cities, parishes, and towns there is strong political motivation to set speed limits 10-20 mph beneath engineers' standards. This is an easy revenue source. A lot of studies indicate that this contributes to collisions because people get antsy.
Which studies? Please be specific.

If you veer out of your lane, run a red light, accelerate past a yellow, cut someone off dangerously close, etc. - then take care of the driver. The law would basically be summarized as "drive in a way you can handle it." If you collide, you weren't in control.
In general, this was the approach engineers used: the implicit assumption in making the design speed the 85th percentile operating speed was that, in general, drivers are reasonable and prudent, and will base their speed off a rational decision based on the tradeoff between risk and convenience.

However, it's been found lately that this isn't always the case. It's especially wrong when dealing with vulnerable road users: in general, the cost/benefit decisions made by drivers, that are generally reasonable when considering their interactions with other cars, tend to significantly under-value the risk to pedestrians and cyclists.

In general, unless we provide completely separate facilities for cars and vulnerable road users (i.e. we never have a crosswalk or an on-street bike lane), we can't rely on driver's judgement if we want a reasonable level of safety for those vulnerable road users.

Personally I wish we made attainment and retention of a license harder to ensure safety and to provide a source of tax dollars to construct a US-styled Autobahn.
Do you think they don't ticket on the autobahn? There may be no speed limit (in some sections, but not in others), but they enforce all the other rules of the road heavily.
 
Top