Speeding Cameras Coming to Seattle

my lord. There are so many liberal idiots on here its amazing. Your all like sheep. "Oh yes, go ahead and give tickets. " Goverment must protect us" I dont have rights, only privilages"

First off, it is about money and if you dont believe me, then go the the auburn redlight ticket website. Dont ask me for the URL. use your brain and google. It says right in there, "Redlight tickets will never go on your record. NEVER". I was rearended by a guy in aburn trying to run a redlight. The only thing that stopped him was hitting me first.

If it was about road safety they would go on your record. Now its just a hundred dollar ticket. nobody cares. The tickets dont go on your record because the city and or state knows the inacuracies of the system. Plus they want the money. Why would they cut off the hand that feeds their fat faces? They wont. Pull your head out. Its how you lose rights. By calling everything a privilage and then giving up those privilages.

This is true. But it does cut reaction time down, and if the drivers ahead of you slam on their brakes after turning around the bend and you're flying low at 90 mph, good luck stopping in less than 40 yards.

However, I was intially under the impression it was only on interstates. Once the cameras pop up onto arterials, it becomes a privacy issue.

Do you register your car? Because you shouldn't if you're going to blanket privacy rights. Hell, don't have an ID or license to drive either.

There are shades of grey that exist.

And discretion? That's what the law is made for. One rule for everyone (ideally). You can't evaluate these things on a case by case basis. It's unjust.

And bullshit. Everyone- EVERYONE- is a shitty driver on a public road.

Are you serious? This is the first question that came to mind when I heard WA Senate approved speeding cameras.

I think there is a dangerous trend going on in the state. Where we are exchanging perceived safety in exchange for giving up our right to privacy. Do you really think the right to privacy in the constitution has an asterisk(privacy*) symbol by it? It has become so narrowly defined that it's now virtually meaningless.

The dangerous trend is this... citizens are asking themselves with these new laws, "Why shouldn't the government have this right." “I mean if it says one person than what's the harm?” Well the harm is more and more government intrusion. What's to say we couldn't equip every car with a breathalyzer if it cut drunk driving down to 0. It sounds great, but the world isn't and will never be 100% free of accidents, crime, etc. and to try to automate the law enforcement with the intent to achieve this goal is very, very dangerous in my opinion. The goal intended or not intended is a police state. May be this is what WA State wants? Either that or the money either way it will achieve the same goal.

One note about "don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine." With automated systems there is no discretion. So if there was no one on the road and you were speeding so what. There isn't anything inherently wrong with speeding. Some of the best drivers use the German autobahn and go much faster than 60MPH.

I like the fact people can drive really fast in Europe as long as they stay to the left like in England or Germany.

The competent drivers get to move along and old granny is over on the right, ideally.

I stand back. I guess they can be used on arterials. That's too much, as it can easily be used to commit nefarious (and non) acts of government spying.

But I still stand that driving is a privilege, not a right!

The cameras are on the freeway. What the hell can a person do on a freeway that shouldn't be filmed?!

I'm all against any big brother steps, but yeah, this is about the money. And they should take the money. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine.

If you don't like 60mph, get it raised. We did it decades ago when the limit was 55 mph. Stop whining and act.

And no, I'm sorry, it is a privilege. You pay your taxes simply because your car is on the road. If cars didn't wear down the road, we wouldn't be paving such large swaths of land. The only place where people should be allowed to drive as a right is in rural, farming areas. Hence the 14 year-old farmer's driving permit.

To liken this to the PATRIOT ACT is ridiculous and just hyperactive anti-government.

I'm not comparing getting a speeding ticket to having civil rights taken away. I'm comparing the excuse that public safety is the reason that both governments - first the federal government and soon the Seattle city council - inject electronic surveillance into the lives of the citizenry for nefarious purposes (illegal domestic spying and new speeding ticket revenue channels respectively).

And it's not an anti-government sentiment, it's a pro-privacy sentiment. What's next after spy cameras on our public roads? RFID tags under our skin? GPS required on all private vehicles? Personal e-mails scanned by the government (oops - that's already happening). Where does it stop?

I'm a huge fan of government doing what it's supposed to do, but snooping USA citizens and tracking our every moment of driving is not what government should be doing. Whether it's FISA or automated speeding cams, the result is the same: an unnecessary, paternalistic, controlling reach by government into the lives of citizens.

I don't see why people think driving is not a right, as it's my right to go whereso I please on public roads that my TAX dollars paid for. Certainly, I am given the right to drive but it's certainly not a privilege that I should somehow bend over and say "thank you" for.

This is purely about money and it's going to get the backing of big insurance. I am amazed that every morning, there are at least a dozen or more speeding stops on I-5 northbound from Seattle on the way to Lynwood since the I-5 has a 60MPH limit. Seriously? 60MPH on the major interstate which going northbound is rarely ever congested? What's wrong with Washington? I come from California where 70MPH is normal for major freeways unless it's going through some special area.

It's about the money, not about public safety or any of that. Instead of bending over, we should be asking why certain speed limits are what they are especially if it doesn't make sense.

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilage. Pretty hard to strip civil rights from something that isn't a right to begin with.

It's not a given that you're able to drive, so whatever new laws and provisions they wish to tack onto it become part of the activity of privilege.

We're not discussing civil liberties here. We're discussing if you're speeding and nobody is around to write you a ticket, you're still speeding and breaking the law. Since driving is a privilege, you have to obey the rules or you have the privilege stripped.

To liken this to the PATRIOT ACT is ridiculous and just hyperactive anti-government. And yeah, it's a way to make money. If you don't like it though, don't speed. Unless you're traveling more than 120 miles, going faster than 60-65 mph is going to save you at most 2 minutes. You pick if that two minutes is worth the risk and money.

I agree this is a good way to increase revenue but have you ever been T-Boned by some moron running a red light? I have received one of the automated speeding tickets while going thru a school zone at a time of day Im not used to traveling there. Yea, now Im more conscientious about it and drive slower and pay more attention to the flashing lights.. you would have to be stupid to believe that they dont make a difference.

This is not about public safety, it's purely about revenue. It's also ingenious on the part of he legislature and (as soon as they get a crack at it) the Seattle city council: they get to use the ironclad excuse of protecting the public with traffic safety to wring millions of dollar out of drivers, most of whom probably speed at some point. It's very similar to the Bush administration's tactics of claiming to protect Americans from terror (FISA, PATRIOT Act, etc.) while actually stripping away privacy and civil rights...