"Hey, sarge. It looks like we've got some action on the camera-camera-camera cam."

If people would simply take a small rifle and shoot each of these cameras (from a distance), we could end this "Big Brother" campaign real quick. Look at Tampa after the RNC, there are thousands of cameras remaining that are now watching every move you make.

Join the "KILL A CAMERA CAMPAIGN"NOW!!

They are for public safety, not to generate revenue...... ummmm HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!! I call BULL SHI+!

I would bet that more than half the tickets issued easily could have been a simple warning or more so never even pulled over.

in my home city they had to take them down. the reason: cant have a private company enforcing the law. No officer, no ticket.

'Vandals Wearing Monkey Masks Strike Police Cameras'

To reiterate Blake' comment - I too am calling Bull$hit. These cameras are set up for profit, not safety. Let's call it what it is.

The cameras cost $30,000 to $100,000 to replace,

How much does it cost to put a guard in place instead?

Finally, an answer to "who watches the watchers".

More seriously, this is just part of a very slow but very disturbing progression- the creation of a surveillance state with few civil rights- a place where the evidence provided by machines outweighs what's given in testimony.

On average, Americans already spend about 8 hours on video every day; as cameras become more prevalent, that figure will continue to rise.

Add little things like the ever more common GPS in company vehicles, some of which have microphones- and you're not an employee, you're property which has to "be where it's supposed to be when it's supposed to be there".

My take on it: bravo to the people breaking these damned cash cows.

Maybe if they aren't profitable, the bastards in charge will hire someone instead of putting up another freakin' camera.

@FlaNative55

Was thinking the same about shooting them down but I'm betting they are in larger populated areas. Best to do what they're been doing in Europe really. Search google for "burn speed camera," wear a mask/disguise while doing it.

Bob-429579 - While they may have been put in for revenue the exact opposite turned out to be true. The cameras were so effective they actually reduced number of tickets/revenue and a lot of areas removed them.

The cameras cost $30,000 to $100,000 to replace, so police have started installing surveillance cameras designed to catch vandals in the act.

A dozen of the new cameras will be in place by the end of the month, WTOP reported.

So, because 6 cameras (costing $180,000 to $300,000) are vandalized--their solution is to install 12 more? Spending $360,000 to $1,200,000 MORE?!!!

No wonder we're drowning in debt!

Requires 4 guards to guard one spot around the clock, three 8hr shifts and a relief shift.Hope the jobs would pay more than $100,000 per yr divided by 4 guards.

They claim it's about safety but the reality is that it's all about the Benjamin's as it has always been. They deceive no one with such statements and they know it but don't really care.

A sniper rifle in the middle of the night should be safe enough. No one around to get hurt and poor lighting so you can't be identified. Need a big, soft bullet so you can completely wreck the thing.

Phoenix used to have saturated coverage of the freeways through town with traffic cams that triggered when a speeder went by. The residents figured out how to get rid of them, and this was a successful strategy. If every person who gets a traffic ticket from one of these things insisted on going to trial, the city would very rapidly find that it cost them a lot of money to defend in court. This is how Phoenix residents got rid of their cameras.

So, you Rambos who are suggesting the use of firearms, remember -- what goes up, must come down. That bullet is going to land somewhere if you miss the camera. The Phoenix strategy may be more time consuming and not nearly as much fun as target practice, but it has the advantage of being legal and non-potetentially-lethal.

And I see it as a chance to beat the bureaucrats at their own game. And that, my friends, is a very satisfying thing.

@denver bill

Damnit private! Set up the camera-camera-camera-camera cam ASAFP

Another way to beat the cameras is to not speed or run red lights. Much better solution than the ass that proposes shooting them.

I have to agree with Maxwell above. What's to stop them from vandalizing the cameras that are watching the cameras and then get the other cameras? Somebodies buddy is selling cameras to the police at an outrageous amount.

The actual unit to replace costs a lot less than $30,000. The $30,000 includes the camera, the radar system and the control in the police station that receives the information.

There is no more investigative reporting there is only garbage filling the "news reporting agencies" with sloth like humans who can't verify facts and take a few minutes to ascertain facts.

So what we have now is that the cost of the ticket to the police department has doubled. To verify each ticket the camera cost has doubled. Not to mention that there has to be someone who has to watch the tape and try and figure out who is damaging the equipment.

The cameras cost $30,000 to $100,000 to replace,

How much does it cost to put a guard in place instead?

Screw that! How much does it cost to put another cop on the street?

there are actually people who wouldnt have a problem with the government putting cameras in their homes.they say, "if you dont have anything to hide,why should you mind having them in your home?" how pathetic and twisted is that? destroy ALL cameras!

Another way to beat the cameras is to not speed or run red lights

Better yet, find a way to enforce the law that doesn't ASSUME GUILT!

These turn the justice system on it's head. They are deliberately classified as 'civil infractions' so you can be considered GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

Doesn't ANYONE but the wee few who hate these things get that?!

Becoming-galactic 1.16

A few years ago there was a municipality in Texas, I think, that installed these cameras which were promptly used for target practice. Since they had zero support from the populace for these cameras, they were forced to remove them.

Yes, there's probably an element of risk shooting at these things, however small, but that won't deter anyone and the cameras that supposedly are installed to watch the other cameras will prove ineffective unless they're going to record activity for a few hundred yards in a 360 degree arc around each camera and employ night vision. Then they may find the perpetrator is wearing some kind of mask, thus unidentifiable.

All this just to issue speeding tickets and extract money from people. Greed makes some people go to extremes, doesn't it?

So, what is the pragmatic solution to this perceived problem? Perhaps to slow down a bit, be more cautious, pay better attention while driving and don't run the red lights?

Screw that...

My town put in a few red light cameras a few years ago. I do have to say, they've improved traffic, especially during peak times. Previously, it was common to see 3-4 cars continue through even after the light turned from yellow to red, sometimes even blocking up the intersection through the next direction's green light. That's much less common now, and the number of accidents seem to have gone down. So yes, it's annoying that I have to watch a bit closer as I go through the light, but it does seem safer.

The majority of PG county police and DC police are full of Sh*t, I live here and know. They hardly solve any murder cases, or for that matter do anything to help stop it. And when you call them for an emergency they will show up 20 minutes late. There hardly ever where they need to be. But all they are worried about is giving somebody a seatbelt ticket or harrasing some young driver hoping that they will find some marijuana. But they have the nerve to invest money into speed camera's and the security of speed camera's, c'mon now we got young people out here getting shot dead while walking to school and a young girl shot to death in her own home.

It is always for profit. In my hometown of Richmond VA, the police (and I presume City Council) have decided that cars speeding in the wealthier part of town deserve twice the $ fines as cars speeding elsewhere. There are signs on a bunch of streets that say this, and there is no reason for the higher fines (schools for instance), except that it is the part of town with the wealthier residents (I am not one of them). I'm assuming a lawyer will challenge this at some point.

But where and when they choose to fight speeders is always about revenue. I had the brother of a state trooper once tell me that they had quotas, and that at the end of every month they all have to catch up to meet their quota.

I have a nephew that's gotten several of these for turning right on a red light. It's perfectly legal. The judge takes one look at the photo and dismisses the case but my nephew has to take time off work to fight it. I told him he needs to send a bill to the company that issues them for his lost time.

Frankly I think the cameras are BS. There needs to be a human there to judge the circumstances, not a body somewhere else looking for revenue.

camera on camera???......What's to keep the vandals from sabotaging the camera watching the Traffic Cam FIRST, and then killing the Traffic Cam?? What idiots!!! And these people are protecting us??? Holy Crap..no wonder gun sales are thru the roof!! ROFLMFAO!!

No...cameras with robotic Gatling guns and a loudspeaker: "Warning, you are entering a controlled area where use of lethal force is authorized..."

I can see it now..."Damn, Charlie, that stupid thing just killed another deer...."

I have camera's around my property where each camera can see the next camera because it is in view in the direction it is aimed. Anyone who tries to vandalize any camera will be recorded by another camera.

Legality of speed cameras has been tested and retested in court. Cameras are usually installed in areas where the local residents complain of others running red lights or speeding. Cost of posting officers 24/7 would be extremely high also dont officers have better things to do?

Other governments install a count down clock at potentially risky intersection, so people will know from a distance when the light is to change color. We need to install those same count down clock at our intersection to minimize driver anxiety that causes them to speed through or make a sudden stop where those red light cameras are located. Face it, in this tight economy, no one wants a red light ticket.

Sounds like wire557 has had one too many run-ins with Johnny Law, while doing whatever he does that causes him to be a repeat customer. Bigot much, Wire ole boy?

"It is another sad commentary on America police departments when they are willing to lie about the safety benefit of speed camera in exchange for money"

The fine money doesn't stay in the police department, it goes to the general fund. The general fund also pays for your water dept, street dept, parks, etc. While I agree with the general opinion that it's really about money, the fact is that the cameras cut down the number of accidents caused by red-light running. It's also a fact that rear-end accidents rise at those intersections, so I question the true benefit.

I also don't think we need to automate our law enforcement. It should be done by human beings who have the intellect to exercise proper discretion.

But at least sm@rt@$$ people like Wire can't get into a shouting match on the side of the road with a speed camera, and cause the speed camera to have to thump his head. Maybe that's a good thing, especially for people like Wire.

WallStFatCat.. I agree. They are targeting people that can ill afford to challenge the ticket. My buddy got one of these camera tickets.. and just to challenge it he had to play the full fine AS WELL as the cost for the court of 45$. What a scam. so if you challenge them you have to pay.

Here in Montgomery County (next to PG county), EVERY speed camera has a sign posted a few hundred yards up the road that says

Speed limit enforced by speed cameras.

While I think speed cameras absolutely suck, they are installed in plain sight with a warning sign announcing that they're in use. If you pay attention, you only have to slow down for about 100 yards and then it's back to business as usual. You don't have to worry about speed traps, because Johnny Law already feels like that road is "protected".

Speed cameras are a tax on non-locals and locals who refuse to read the signs.

Bottom line: In every jurisdiction where the use of speed cameras has made it to the election ballot, they've been voted DOWN by the people. EVERY jurisdiction. The trick is finding people motivated enough to go out and get all those signatures so that the issue can get on the ballot. Once it does... no more cameras.

chuckanar- I don't know if your familiar with the Kafka book "The Trial" but what you describe could have come straight out of that book.

I've been told several times by driving instructors that the number one cause of traffic accidents is failure to yield right of way, not speed. The reason there is a big emphasis on speed limit enforcement is that it is a violation that continues over a period of time and is easier to catch than right of way violations.

ckneeley: "I don't know if your familiar with the Kafka book "The Trial" but what you describe could have come straight out of that book."

SPOT ON! Orson Welles made a movie out of the book which I highly recommend. It's eerily close to foretelling our society today.

"Legality of speed cameras has been tested and retested in court. Cameras are usually installed in areas where the local residents complain of others running red lights or speeding. Cost of posting officers 24/7 would be extremely high also dont officers have better things to do?"

Square dude, I believe that is what they are paid to do, and is a part of their job , am I right? If they are getting enough calls about that area, they would make it a hot spot, meaning, they would have patrols keeping an eye on it, you know, part of their job duties.

Hey they would rather give a ticket to a two year old for taking a piss outside......$50.00 in Philly an you tell me it's not for profit...BS

Increasing the yellow light time has been shown to reduce red light running, but camera company contracts prohibit cities from doing that as it decreases their revenue.

We don't have signs posted here to tell us there is a camera, but there are Aps for your GPS to tell you they are there. That seems ridiculous. I guess if you have enough money you can avoid them. If you are poor you take your chances. Totally unfair. I too have cameras on my cameras at home. I agree with many of the posters, seems like a scam. These cameras seem to be all over the place (judging from my GPS and from seeing them and knowing where they are.

I like knowing where they are and don't want them moved... don't think we need more... just sayin' ;)

gwmo, stay out of the fast lane when you're doing the speed limit and there's no problem.

If people would keep right except to pass, the roads would be a lot safer and more relaxing to drive.

But I'm with you on the cell phone and bigmac thing.

I agree with the rest of these guys. Keep right except to pass and don't worry about the guy passing you. It's his business. If you claim he's going to cause an accident, the more likely cause would be someone like you getting in his way at the last minute to "teach him a lesson."

You don't own the road and you shouldn't think you have the right to make others slow down. In my experience, the people "yacking on the phone and jaming down a big mac" are the ones slowing the rest of traffic down, oblivious to the world around them.

Actually Hank, the roads would not be safer. The more lane changes (passing slower traffic) the less safe the road becomes. Changing lanes is the single most dangerous thing most of us do while driving

Which is the reason we need to enforce traffic passing lane laws where you use the "fast lane" only for passing slower traffic. These passing lane traffic laws are enforced in Europe--much safer and improves traffic flow at the same time.

@milidad I understand your thought process but your not factoring in the forced right lane passing. If people are going slow in the left lane, it will force the person behind to pass on the right. That is the more dangerous situation. Not only that, but right lane sitters cause more weaving by people who are trying to pass, increasing the total lane changes vs passing on the left only.

Timoh: "Not only that, but right lane sitters cause more weaving by people who are trying to pass, increasing the total lane changes vs passing on the left only."

I think you meant "left lane sitters"--i.e. the "fast lane"--but you're absolutely correct. That's why they enforce "no passing on the right" laws in Europe--as well as "no sitting in the left lane"--that lane is for passing slower traffic only. Much safer--and improves traffic flow to boot!

Yes, that's what i meant, thanks for correcting it. I don't understand how someone could argue against it. The worst is when you see them merge on to the highway, cut across 2 or more lanes of traffic without pausing in a lane to check for traffic, then proceed to maintain the speed of the far right lane.

got fear

they start at "bad" intersections.put cameras up for "public safety".then the next thing you know,theyre all down along the same road.its happened here.its testing you.then you get used to it.then theyre all over.same with "bad neighborhoods".then they creep into "good"neighborhoods. BUST THESE F>>KERS UP!!

You're right, the liars (cops) have learned traffic cameras, and unmarked cruisers handing out traffic/speeding tickets bring in quite a bit of revenue, and in some instances, they use that camera footage to help keep their "for-profit" prisons full. I believe someplace in Louisiana they've found that a Sheriff, and a politician, or two, were financial partners in a "for-profit" prison. Nice, huh.

check out the local government meetings and see how the camera programs are proposed?

I think you'll learn all you need to know..... they are pitched by the amount of income they will

generate not any talk of increased safety due to drivers reducing speed

wire557

I can deal with the unmarked cruisers. They've always had them.

Well, I'm 64 y/o, come from a law enforcement family, 1st cousin was elected Sheriff for 30+ years, a few cousins were cops, and quite a few friends, no, I've never been a LEO but I do have a keen sense of how they work, and in some cases, how illegally they work. No "unmarked cruisers," have not always been around. Unmarked cop cars, (not cruisers) only came along probably in the late 60's, early 70's when they tried using them for undercover work, but everyone new the crown victorias were cop cars. Never, ever were they used on highways to enforce traffic, speed laws. It's just been recently that states are flooding highways/interstates with unmarked PI Crown Victorias, and in some states they have Chevy Tahoe's, SUVs, chasing people down on highways causing more safety concerns for drivers. These unmarked cruisers/SUVs are nothing but revenue generators. Anytime they stop you they will find a reason to search your vehicle, especially if you are a minority. It's getting so, you're not allowed to carry cash of $500. or more, or, you're a drug dealer. Unmarked cruiser/SUV stops on highways are mostly for confiscation of anything you have IF they suspect you are a drug dealer, and believe me, you can be clean as Jesus Christ, but if they confiscate your belongings, car, cash, clothes, jewelry, it will take a court order to have it released once you are found not to be a drug dealer. It's pathetic.

impair the ability to see, some of these are sensitive to light so a laser beam directly in the lense will also render them useless and can be used from a great distance you can't be recognized if your to far away !! just saying

What is happening to this world? we need another asteroid hit to exterminate us, and start all over with maybe real intelligent creatures, because we certainly are not.

Amen!

we are going to install a camera in your yard to watch out for that asteroid. its for "public safety".because we care.

Pussy

I agree. Just because other people are being stupid and speeding doesn't mean you have to as well. Unless you are traveling a long way, speeding isn't going to get you there that much faster. If the speed limit is 60, and you go 70, and you travel 10 miles, you save about a minute and a half. A couple of traffic lights or waiting for someone on front of you to turn, and that minute and a half is gone. Was it worth it? I think people need to slow down and take driving seriously. For the record, I was a chronic speeder until I finally got a ticket. I decided that I didn't want another one and I quit speeding. I haven't been pulled over for over four years now.

There's no reason to use unmarked cruisers, eh. Have you ever paid attention to when an entire lane of people are speeding, what happens when they see a marked police car. Hmmmmmmmm. I believe they all slow down very quickly. Now doesnt logic tell you if its harder to tell that its a police vehicle, people wont slow down to avoid that ticket and the douche bag speeding will be caght? I guess not. Why, you ask? You're head is stuck up your butt.

MJ546

Son, why do you have to show your ignorance with name calling? Are you a LEO, taking up for your brethren? If so, please read my post above at #7.5 - Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:05 AM CDT.

You might learn something. It's cops like you, who cannot control their anger, or lies, that are turning people against you'll.

MJ: "Now doesnt logic tell you if its harder to tell that its a police vehicle, people wont slow down to avoid that ticket and the douche bag speeding will be caght?"

Take a chill pill. Did you not use your reading comprehension skills? Moshuluu said: "If you really wanted safety, use marked cruisers, and watch traffic slow down." You proved Moshuluu's point! It's not about "public safety"--it's about speed ticket revenue (as you yourself said: "the douche bag speeding will be caght")

BTW, MJ, do you have insult everyone? Even speeders? Did you never speed?

Like I said: take a chill pill. Please? (or you might be caught speeding yourself!) ;^)

If there was a whole lane of people speeding, they were obviously driving safely enough to handle it. Roads are designed for safe speeds exceeding the posted speed limit. Usually it's something like 85% of max speed in bad weather, that way when people ignore that 25mph ramp speed sign they won't flip or run off the road.

Actually speed limits on many roads are supposed to be the 85% percentile of normal traffic speeds as measured using radar (based on multiple samples over multiple time frames taken by the State Police). At least in Michigan it is. Unfortunately many places do NOT do this so speed limits are artificially low. Local police often have no incentive to get speed limits raised to the proper limits. They would lose out on revenue from speeding tickets if they did.

It seems to me that a long time ago, the police stopped even trying to prevent crime.

ahhh...they caught you speeding Justin B.....didn't they......

Joe S.-761084

If you don't beleive me, ask any democrat.

Here we go with the political bull@!$%#.

Where I live is 85% republican, I'm Independent, we have no democratic Senators, or Congressmen/women, we have a 6 member city council, 5-R, 1-D, the Mayor is R, the Governor is R, the Police Chief is R, the county Sheriff is R, the fire chief is R, I'm 64 years old, it's been that way for at least 40 years, and in the last 10 years, it has been all R's that have initiated the "sneak & gotcha" mode, of traffic cameras, unmarked cruisers issuing out traffic/speeding tickets, so please don't start the democrat, or President Obama's fault, bull@!$%#.

moshuluu- Well said, I've lived in more mixed Rep/Dem areas and my experience has been that greed, corruption, avarice and stupidity don't have a particular political affiliation.

Joe--you were right up until the "ask any Democrat" part--except for the health care b.s. (no one's saying not to pay for it--all we're saying is all of us need it--so use our tax dollars to do something constructive instead of paying for corporate welfare and defense dept. handouts)--take away one vote because my finger hit "up" before I read that. So you only have 4 votes.

Way to turn an article re: traffic cameras into a stupid political rant. Fool! Don't you know it's all a "divide and conquer" game promoted by politicians and the press? Run by millionare fat cats so we'll vote in those politicans who will do their bidding.

We're all in this together. Time we understood that. Don't fall into their "speeding" traps!

Joe... some of your sarcastic marks are actually true:

We can't be trusted to drive in a safe and prudent manner.

This is 100% true. When I'm late, I'm guilty of this myself.

We can't take personal responsibility for ourselves and earn our own keep, or pay for our own health care.

Back in the day when nearly everyone could get a full time job with health care benefits, you had a point. In a post-NAFTA world, those days are long gone. Clinton signed NAFTA, and the repubs passed tax breaks to companies who wanted to ship all of our good manufacturing jobs overseas. My point is that both parties betrayed the working class.

Now, full time jobs with health care benefits are FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. The idea that we should STILL be basing our health care policy on EMPLOYER-BASED-COVERAGE is ludicrous. Our manufacturing jobs are gone. They aren't coming back. And to claim that people who need health insurance should "earn their own keep and pay for it" is nearsighted, outdated, and just flat out wrong. It's a new era in need of a new solution. There just aren't enough "employers" around anymore to rely on for something as important as health care.

I think technically he's telling the truth since governmental agencies aren't businesses and therefore don't exist in order to generate "profit", what they do generate is "revenue". That's probably why he chose the word profit, technically that would be true.

Just like all the revenue that Bain made?

I don't get the connection. Just trying to illustrate the importance of looking at word choice in an objective way as opposed to assuming similar words are interchangeable in meaning. Vote for whomever you like if you believe that there are relevant differences between the two parties.

Even if it was real time, vanadlism would/could still occur...