If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(JSOnline)   Police department raising money for traffic cameras by holding raffle for home entertainment system. Winner to enjoy vehicle crashes in HD   (jsonline.com) divider line 47
    More: Spiffy, traffic cameras, home entertainment system, hard drives, raffle, Home Entertainment Group  
•       •       •

1625 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2009 at 9:00 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-11-16 09:06:42 AM  
So they get you coming and going???
 
2009-11-16 09:09:45 AM  
As much as I'd love to see this turn into a cophate wall-of spew text: Brown Deer and Port Rd is absolutely a crap intersection and needs to be monitored by these cop assholes.
 
2009-11-16 09:09:53 AM  
I'd say this is a classic bait-n-switch, however, they made it clear ahead of time the funds will buy speed cameras.

That town deserves what they have coming to them.
 
2009-11-16 09:11:14 AM  
People will surely look forward to financing the equipment to issue un-appealable traffic tickets. This is a great idea!
 
2009-11-16 09:12:44 AM  
In the "You're doing it wrong category". The typical municipality makes money of the damn things. The manufacturers or other ocmpanies donate them for a share of the funds collected. If you're too small to do this then you don't need the camera anyway.
 
2009-11-16 09:16:34 AM  
I have a better idea of what they can raffle off:

lh5.google.com
 
2009-11-16 09:16:40 AM  
How about no?
 
2009-11-16 09:21:00 AM  
Wow, people need to RTFA. It specifically says that under state law the cameras can't be used to issue tickets. That's probably why the cops have to pay for them, rather than getting some company to buy cameras for a cut of the profits.

That being said, I don't like the idea of cameras monitoring everything people do. I hope the people of that town tell the cops to go fark themselves.
 
2009-11-16 09:26:23 AM  
devildog123: That being said, I don't like the idea of cameras monitoring everything people do.

You have no expectation of privacy in a public space.
 
2009-11-16 09:27:52 AM  
Anastacya: I'd say this is a classic bait-n-switch, however, they made it clear ahead of time the funds will buy speed cameras.

Uncontrolled_Jibe: The typical municipality makes money of the damn things. The manufacturers or other ocmpanies donate them for a share of the funds collected.

Pay attention. These are not speed cameras and they're not red light cameras. They're not even monitored. If I had to guess, the data from these cameras will mostly be used to review accidents that occur at this intersection.

from the article:
The chief noted that the cameras will not be monitored constantly and that, under state law, they cannot be used for writing traffic tickets.
 
2009-11-16 09:29:53 AM  
devildog123: It specifically says that under state law the cameras can't be used to issue tickets.

Ok, you caught me. Is there a DRTFA ticket?
 
2009-11-16 09:52:18 AM  
Wow - Who did they get their quote from??? $30,000-$35,000 is way too much for only two security cameras. They need to do some shopping around first.
 
2009-11-16 09:53:53 AM  
TsukasaK: devildog123: That being said, I don't like the idea of cameras monitoring everything people do.

You have no expectation of privacy in a public space.


Yes, I do know the law. However, that doesn't mean I have to like the fact that the sort of small minded assholes who become cops because they enjoy pushing people around (not all of them, but a lot of the ones I've seen) get to monitor my activities. And, to forstall any useless "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" arguements, (from ANYBODY, not directed at TsukasaK) you can go fark yourselves. Just because I'm not doing anything wrong doesn't mean that the cops should be allowed to watch me do it.
 
2009-11-16 09:58:49 AM  
Take the cameras out of the women's restrooms and mount them (the cameras) outside where the traffic is.

If the police department can't find them under their own roof, they could certainly find a few around in the area.

The cameras won't be monitored continuously because of manpower costs unless they get the free webservice that pays farkers to watch surveillance cameras from the comfort of their mom's basement.
 
2009-11-16 10:05:59 AM  
devildog123: Just because I'm not doing anything wrong doesn't mean that the cops should be allowed to watch me do it.

FTFA:
The chief noted that the cameras will not be monitored constantly and that, under state law, they cannot be used for writing traffic tickets.

So let's see, they have a vested interest in watching a shiatty intersection (as per an earlier farker), the cameras are effectively dumb cameras (no red light/speed trap hardware on them), and they're not monitored anyways.

Sorry, I'm having trouble mustering the appropriate amount of outrage here. If you don't want to be seen in public, don't go out in public.
 
2009-11-16 10:21:02 AM  
I'm surprised they need to raise money for anything. Property taxes there are hideous and I see Bayside cops with people pulled over all the farking time.
 
2009-11-16 10:29:41 AM  
TsukasaK: devildog123: Just because I'm not doing anything wrong doesn't mean that the cops should be allowed to watch me do it.

FTFA:
The chief noted that the cameras will not be monitored constantly and that, under state law, they cannot be used for writing traffic tickets. YET

So let's see, they have a vested interest in watching a shiatty intersection (as per an earlier farker), the cameras are effectively dumb cameras (no red light/speed trap hardware on them), and they're not monitored anyways.

Sorry, I'm having trouble mustering the appropriate amount of outrage here. If you don't want to be seen in public, don't go out in public.


FTFY. I believe some municipalities here in virginia went and put up traffic cameras when they were against the law, without turning them on in the expectation that the law would be overturned.
 
2009-11-16 10:39:00 AM  
Why not just change the traffic flow around that area so that problems won't arise at all?
 
2009-11-16 10:48:51 AM  
TsukasaK: You have no expectation of privacy in a public space.

Actually, I do have an expectation of privacy - it's just that the expectation I have isn't legally defensible. I do expect my government to have a modicum of respect for my ability to travel within the boundaries of my state without being watched by automated cameras, even if they have the legal justification to do so.

Just because there's a bad law justifying bad administrative actions doesn't mean that the governing agency *must* choose to do the bad actions.

/lives in a 4-stoplight town
//2 of them have red light cameras
///they're both on the lights that are on the "through" highway in order to catch out-of-towners
////never been ticketed on them
//hate them with a passion anyway
 
2009-11-16 10:51:05 AM  
dericwater: Why not just change the traffic flow around that area so that problems won't arise at all?

Yeah, um, not really an option. It's pretty much the only way into Bayside from I-43. (GMaps (new window))
 
2009-11-16 11:00:43 AM  
downlode.org

/speed, that is.
//hot like Ackbar
 
2009-11-16 11:36:43 AM  
I'm for anything that gets Wisc drivers to get out of the left lane...
 
2009-11-16 11:47:46 AM  
Fano: FTFY. I believe some municipalities here in virginia went and put up traffic cameras when they were against the law, without turning them on in the expectation that the law would be overturned.

Was the law overturned? Any two-bit moron can file a suit, after all.radiumsoup: Just because there's a bad law justifying bad administrative actions doesn't mean that the governing agency *must* choose to do the bad actions.

Again, I fail to see how a dumb camera on a known-bad intersection is somehow "bad".
 
2009-11-16 12:03:25 PM  
TsukasaK: Fano: FTFY. I believe some municipalities here in virginia went and put up traffic cameras when they were against the law, without turning them on in the expectation that the law would be overturned.

Was the law overturned? Any two-bit moron can file a suit, after all.radiumsoup: Just because there's a bad law justifying bad administrative actions doesn't mean that the governing agency *must* choose to do the bad actions.

Again, I fail to see how a dumb camera on a known-bad intersection is somehow "bad".


I seem to recall you don't have problems with cameras anyway.
 
2009-11-16 12:05:56 PM  
Fano: I seem to recall you don't have problems with cameras anyway.

I don't have problems with dumb, unmonitored cameras in public spaces where one has no expectation of privacy.

The benefits here outweigh any possible risks.
 
2009-11-16 12:24:33 PM  
What, nobody saw this?
 
2009-11-16 12:26:01 PM  
farm3.static.flickr.com

Here it is!
 
2009-11-16 12:41:05 PM  
devildog123:
That being said, I don't like the idea of cameras monitoring everything people do. I hope the people of that town tell the cops to go fark themselves.


As a resident of the area that intersection/area sucks donkey balls...could care less if the monitor that intersection. Many robbers (banks, gas stations etc) are in this area and they use Brown Deer Rd to break out... So I"m sure these cameras although not being monitored 24/7 probably are recorded so if there's say a bank robbery and the get away car is a 84 buick LaSabre (most likely it is) then they just go to the cam to get the plates or whatever.....

Really could care less just an intersection in the ghetto.
 
2009-11-16 02:01:40 PM  
TsukasaK: Again, I fail to see how a dumb camera on a known-bad intersection is somehow "bad".

Your failure to understand how I *can* have an expectation of privacy, despite the legal inability to defend that expectation, is surprising. It's not a difficult concept.

I. Don't. Want. To. Be. Filmed. In. Public.

Does it mean I can't be filmed? Of course not. I know full well I may be at any time and that I have no recourse. But, I do expect my government to err on the side of personal rights (I know, I know... never going to happen...) and *not* take random images of passersby *just in case* something illegal happens out there. Are my expectations unreasonable? I don't think so. Are they practical? Well, given that I already stated that I live in a community with two red light cameras out of four lighted intersections, then no. But I'm not changing my mind just because the cameras are already there.
 
2009-11-16 02:19:30 PM  
VerbalKentt: devildog123:
That being said, I don't like the idea of cameras monitoring everything people do. I hope the people of that town tell the cops to go fark themselves.

As a resident of the area that intersection/area sucks donkey balls...could care less if the monitor that intersection. Many robbers (banks, gas stations etc) are in this area and they use Brown Deer Rd to break out... So I"m sure these cameras although not being monitored 24/7 probably are recorded so if there's say a bank robbery and the get away car is a 84 buick LaSabre (most likely it is) then they just go to the cam to get the plates or whatever.....

Really could care less just an intersection in the ghetto.


As a witness of a bank robbery getaway in 2001 of a 19804 Buick LeSabre, I got a kick out of your reply.

The BANK should be filming the license plates. The technology they have, and all the money they make, they cant tell if a Casheirs Check is fake, and the Fisher Price B&W camcorder I bought at Toys R Us in 1996 is better quality than the indoor bank cameras. fark the banks. $39 overdraft fee for the IRS' mistake of garnishing my account AND a $100 fee for it, even after the IRS apologized for the error? fark the banks. They want the license plate number from a city spy cam, make them farking pay for it.
 
2009-11-16 02:20:20 PM  
oops, 1984-ish. I cant type on laptops (or desktops)
 
2009-11-16 02:57:10 PM  
radiumsoup: I. Don't. Want. To. Be. Filmed. In. Public.

Sucks. To. Be. You.

ONCE AGAIN, the benefits gleaned from installing this camera outweigh any possible drawbacks.

Your non-existent right to privacy on a farking public road does not trump the state's right (and obligation) to monitor a dangerous intersection. Period.

If you don't like it, don't drive there. I'm sorry that you have this irrational fear of cameras.
 
2009-11-16 03:20:12 PM  
TsukasaK: Sucks. To. Be. You.
Actually, I have a damned good life, even despite your attempts to make this personal.

ONCE AGAIN, the benefits gleaned from installing this camera outweigh any possible drawbacks.
Drawback #1: Due process infringement. Evidence against people before an illegal act without a warrant or probable cause. That right there is the main one for me.
Drawback #2: Slippery slope - where does the monitoring of the citizenry end? Say a camera is put on a light pole, and an operator "accidentally" pans over to see some rough sex through a window not normally visible from the street, and bundles up the video for the local cops to investigate a possible rape (but she's just into that sort of thing). Invasion of privacy doesn't have to be intentional for it to be morally reprehensible.
Show me the benefits that outweigh these two.

Your non-existent right to privacy on a farking public road does not trump the state's right (and obligation) to monitor a dangerous intersection. Period.
We agree except for the obligation part - but only by case law. Case law says I have no defensible expectation of privacy... but (as you put it,) ONCE AGAIN - I do expect privacy. I really wish you would try to understand the point I'm making here - it's very logical, and you'd be dishonest with yourself if you didn't at least consider it. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION to monitor a place simply because illegal activities have taken place there in the past. It might be a good way to generate some arrests to stick a cop out there from time to time, but there is absolutely no obligation to do so. The real kicker comes when you understand that travelling through an historically high crime neighborhood is not itself a crime.

If you don't like it, don't drive there.
Since you put it that way... I haven't used the intersections with the red light cameras since I found a convenient path around them, which was quite some time ago. This does not negate the fact that these cameras shouldn't be there in the first place. See slippery slope. Next argument, please.

I'm sorry that you have this irrational fear of cameras.
I find it difficult to believe you feel sorry for me at all, given your personalized statements about me. If you knew me at all, which you quite obviously don't, you'd know that the cameras don't make me afraid whatsoever - they make me angry. I'm angry that there are people like you around who believe that everyone must always be held accountable to some other person at all times, regardless of the situation, and must be willing to abandon their personal freedoms in the name of some B.S. public safety argument. See: "B...b..but what about the children?" arguments.

Your turn.
 
2009-11-16 03:22:12 PM  
VerbalKentt: Really could care less just an intersection in the ghetto.

The ghetto? WTF are you talking about? The Eastern part of the Port Washington/Brown Deer road intersection is in Bayside, which has a median home value $382,377. The western half is in River Hills, which has a median home value of $866,799.

/Those are 2007 numbers, so they may have gone down a little
 
2009-11-16 03:32:45 PM  
pheelix: VerbalKentt: Really could care less just an intersection in the ghetto.

The ghetto? WTF are you talking about? The Eastern part of the Port Washington/Brown Deer road intersection is in Bayside, which has a median home value $382,377. The western half is in River Hills, which has a median home value of $866,799.

/Those are 2007 numbers, so they may have gone down a little


They arent talking by I-43. They are talking about near 76th street. Ghetto. Everywhere from County Line Rd, past the ghettoed-out Northridge Mall (dead for 10+ years now?) all the way south to Wauwatosa, including half of it, and from 107th street east to where the numbered streets are named.
 
2009-11-16 03:32:45 PM  
VerbalKentt:

Really could care less just an intersection in the ghetto.


While I'm no fan of Milwaukee's North Shore (it gives me an idea what Alabama was like in the 1950's) the intersection of Port and Brown Deer Road is hardly the ghetto. I think it's illeagal to be black there in fact
 
2009-11-16 03:34:47 PM  
Viss: Everywhere from County Line Rd, past the ghettoed-out Northridge Mall (dead for 10+ years now?)

Have they done anything with Northridge yet, or is it still sitting there empty with a fence surrounding it?

/Barrett wants to be governor. Yay
 
2009-11-16 04:21:24 PM  
radiumsoup: Actually, I have a damned good life, even despite your attempts to make this personal.

Woah, what? Since when is a "sucks to be you" comment a personal attack? That's not how it was meant, and I apologize for any offense.

radiumsoup: Drawback #1: Due process infringement. Evidence against people before an illegal act without a warrant or probable cause. That right there is the main one for me.

Except this is a cam pointed at what seems to be a highway intersection. The DOT (at least in Wyoming and Colorado) puts up similar cameras at strategic points in order to monitor road conditions. Do these make you uncomfortable, also?

This is a single camera pointed at a single, known-dangerous intersection. By your own admission, they are obligated to do some monitoring in order to check it out.

What would you suggest as an alternative that attains this goal without infringing on your "right" to privacy in a public space?

Let's see, benefits..

1. Data gained for possible reworking of the intersection construction or retiming of the lights
2. Data gained on average speed and number of vehicles travelling through each day, data which impacts speed limits and other laws set with regard to travel in that vicinity.

With the result of:

3. Increased efficiency and safety in an area which sorely needs it.


I'm not going to address your slippery slope argument in detail- it's a known logical fallacy. Just because there's one today (with a valid, provable, and more importantly, mandatory) reason for being there, has absolutely bupkis to do with there being two, or the first one getting expanded capabilities, tomorrow.

radiumsoup: We agree except for the obligation part - but only by case law. Case law says I have no defensible expectation of privacy... but (as you put it,) ONCE AGAIN - I do expect privacy.

You acknowledge that case law says the state is obligated to monitor a dangerous intersection, and further acknowledge that you have no right to privacy in a wide open public space - yet you turn right around and say that you expect something you have absolutely no right to. I am not seeing how you reconcile this.

I expect all of the money in your bank account wired to mine by the end of the day today. Do I have a right to that money? No, but I expect it nonetheless.

radiumsoup: I'm angry that there are people like you around who believe that everyone must always be held accountable to some other person at all times, regardless of the situation, and must be willing to abandon their personal freedoms in the name of some B.S. public safety argument.

Except that is NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. Read the article, if you have not already done so.

You are not giving up any freedoms here, because you do not have the freedom to not be seen in a public place.

Net gain/loss == 0
 
2009-11-16 04:29:40 PM  
Traffic cameras decrease safety since they increase the likelihood of an accident because their installation is usually accompanied by a shortening of the duration of yellow light times.

/it's about safety
//not money
///amiright?
 
2009-11-16 04:32:45 PM  
thelordofcheese: Traffic cameras decrease safety since they increase the likelihood of an accident because their installation is usually accompanied by a shortening of the duration of yellow light times.

Those would be red light cameras, which are actually tied into the system, unlike this one.
 
2009-11-16 05:25:27 PM  
Viss: pheelix: VerbalKentt: Really could care less just an intersection in the ghetto.

The ghetto? WTF are you talking about? The Eastern part of the Port Washington/Brown Deer road intersection is in Bayside, which has a median home value $382,377. The western half is in River Hills, which has a median home value of $866,799.

/Those are 2007 numbers, so they may have gone down a little

They arent talking by I-43. They are talking about near 76th street. Ghetto. Everywhere from County Line Rd, past the ghettoed-out Northridge Mall (dead for 10+ years now?) all the way south to Wauwatosa, including half of it, and from 107th street east to where the numbered streets are named.


His comment was the first time the ghetto got mentioned. Since TFA is about the intersection at Brown Deer and Port Wash. Roads, which is right next to I-43, he either lumped that intersection in with the farked up area formerly known as Northridge or he truly thinks the Brown/Port intersection is just an intersection in the ghetto. I tend to believe the latter since he doesn't mention anything more specific than that intersection/area sucking donkey balls.
 
2009-11-16 05:50:18 PM  
cmb53208: Have they done anything with Northridge yet, or is it still sitting there empty with a fence surrounding it?

/Barrett wants to be governor. Yay


Still mostly empty with a fence surrounding it. They replaced one of the anchors with a Menard's and Pick & Save in the southwest corner of the lot, but most of the old mall is still standing there all boarded up.

/Barrett's a good Mayor. I'm not sure who I'll vote for, but if its Barrett vs Walker I'm not too worried about the outcome, regardless of who wins.
 
2009-11-16 05:52:32 PM  
There is an intersection two blocks from my home, that I go through twice a day. It has a bad accident about once a month. A fatality about once a year. I'd welcome cameras on that one.
 
2009-11-16 06:35:32 PM  
twfeline: There is an intersection two blocks from my home, that I go through twice a day. It has a bad accident about once a month. A fatality about once a year. I'd welcome cameras on that one.

I'd favor cameras in intersections like that too...so I can watch the videos on Liveleak, which is mostly what they'd be good for.
 
2009-11-17 10:06:41 AM  
TsukasaK: That's not how it was meant, and I apologize for any offense.
Fair 'nuff.

Except this is a cam pointed at what seems to be a highway intersection. The DOT (at least in Wyoming and Colorado) puts up similar cameras at strategic points in order to monitor road conditions. Do these make you uncomfortable, also?
if you can view traffic patterns in the aggregate without identifying individuals, then go for it. :)

By your own admission, they are obligated to do some monitoring in order to check it out.
This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I said. There IS NO OBLIGATION TO MONITOR ANY PUBLIC PLACE by the government - if there was, we would have cameras covering every square inch of public space, with no dead spots.

Let's see, benefits..[some red herring stuff about traffic cameras that have nothing to do with the argument at hand]
Um... ok. And how do these trump personal freedoms again? Oh, yeah, they don't.

I'm not going to address your slippery slope argument in detail- it's a known logical fallacy.
Let me educate you. The logical fallacy known as "Slippery slope" says "action X is bad, and a little X will always lead to more X". My mention of the term referred directly to the arguments on your side that would say some cameras are good, therefore more cameras are better. My argument was NOT itself a slippery slope fallacy. It was a direct example, not a "cameras lead to more cameras". Go back and read it, I dare you.

Just because there's one today (with a valid, provable, and more importantly, mandatory) reason for being there, has absolutely bupkis to do with there being two, or the first one getting expanded capabilities, tomorrow.
I'm glad you understand the concept - except you're still wrong about the mandatory/obligatory part.

You acknowledge that case law says the state is obligated to monitor a dangerous intersection, (sigh...) no, I didn't. and further acknowledge that you have no right to privacy in a wide open public space - yet you turn right around and say that you expect something you have absolutely no right to. I am not seeing how you reconcile this.
Look, I understand it's difficult for you to put your mind around it, but it's really, really not that hard. I expect my government to look at the morality of the situation, and decide that monitoring its citizenry is wrong, despite their legal authority to do so. I can't really put it into any more clear terms.

I expect all of the money in your bank account wired to mine by the end of the day today. Do I have a right to that money? No, but I expect it nonetheless.
You're really bad at this. Think more along these lines: It's legal for you to point and laugh at me for tripping over a rock on the sidewalk. But I expect you to help me up instead.

Except that is NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. Read the article, if you have not already done so.
This transcended the article some time ago - the article is irrelevant at this point in the conversation.

You are not giving up any freedoms here, because you do not have the freedom to not be seen in a public place.
You're absolutely right that I am not giving up any freedoms - the government has taken them from me without my consent :)

Net gain/loss == 0
If this is your way of capitulating, then very well, I accept :D
 
2009-11-17 11:52:52 AM  
pheelix: Viss: pheelix: VerbalKentt:
His comment was the first time the ghetto got mentioned. Since TFA is about the intersection at Brown Deer and Port Wash. Roads, which is right next to I-43, he either lumped that intersection in with the farked up area formerly known as Northridge or he truly thinks the Brown/Port intersection is just an intersection in the ghetto. I tend to believe the latter since he doesn't mention anything more specific than that intersection/area sucking donkey balls.


Wow got your panties all in a bunch there over that comment, yeah I meant the area, and I was a little off...was just thinking brown deer=Northridge..... so yeah my bad, I don't make a habit of going north,(eastsider) except to go to the BMW motorcycle place up there .....relax it's not that big a deal.

I agree w/ you though...Barret V Walker...win win
 
2009-11-17 04:20:34 PM  
VerbalKentt: pheelix: Viss: pheelix: VerbalKentt:
His comment was the first time the ghetto got mentioned. Since TFA is about the intersection at Brown Deer and Port Wash. Roads, which is right next to I-43, he either lumped that intersection in with the farked up area formerly known as Northridge or he truly thinks the Brown/Port intersection is just an intersection in the ghetto. I tend to believe the latter since he doesn't mention anything more specific than that intersection/area sucking donkey balls.

Wow got your panties all in a bunch there over that comment, yeah I meant the area, and I was a little off...was just thinking brown deer=Northridge..... so yeah my bad, I don't make a habit of going north,(eastsider) except to go to the BMW motorcycle place up there .....relax it's not that big a deal.

I agree w/ you though...Barret V Walker...win win


NBD. I used to live on the east side by UWM. Can you still get a bottle of Blatz for a buck at Axel's?
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report