http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/mississippi-bans-red-light-cameras-chicago-pay-attention.ars

They apparently have banned red-light cameras.

I realize this spits in the face of the free market, or something, but i can't think of any negatives really.

3/25/2009 12:38:59 AM

Quote :

"I realize this spits in the face of the free market"

How exactly is that? Or are you just being cute, again?

(I mean, plenty of libertarians have pointed out abuses of red light cameras. By municipalities.)

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 12:42 AM. Reason : Honestly.]

3/25/2009 12:41:48 AM

Why should the government tell companies that make red-light cameras they can't do business there?

If people didn't want red-light cameras, they'd move to areas without them, eventually making it not-profitable to manufacture and sell them.

3/25/2009 12:46:29 AM

ummm... given that the gov't is the only entity that can legally install said cameras, then it is pretty hard to say this is "spitting in the face of the free market." If something requires the gov't for its very existence, then, frankly, it can't exactly be part of the "free market."

[/troll thread]

3/25/2009 12:53:59 AM

Quote :

"If people didn't want red-light cameras, they'd move to areas without them, eventually making it not-profitable to manufacture and sell them."

Uh, as has been pointed out, only municipalities install red-light cameras. As they are a tool of the city government.

Just in case it's not clear:

GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT

So, what was that about the market, again?

I mean, seriously, call me when the local mall or HOA starts installing red-light cameras, and then we'll talk.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 1:01 AM. Reason : Really.]

3/25/2009 1:01:00 AM

even assuming Mississippi does make a good decision here and there, that doesn't mean it's not a fucking bass-ackwards state

3/25/2009 1:02:16 AM

Quote :

"HOA starts installing red-light cameras"

that would be a bitch

3/25/2009 1:04:18 AM

Quote :

"I realize this spits in the face of the free market"

lol, what a moron

Quote :

"They apparently have banned red-light cameras."

Good. They should be banned.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 1:38 AM. Reason : ]

3/25/2009 1:38:42 AM

Quote :

"Why should the government tell companies that make red-light cameras they can't do business there? If people didn't want red-light cameras, they'd move to areas without them, eventually making it not-profitable to manufacture and sell them. "

you are kidding right???

Maybe I should convince the mayor to let me set up my radar gun on the side of Western BLVD, take pictures of every car speeding, and mail them a "fine" for $50 that I would than give to the city. No matter that my radar gun is out of calibration by 5mph so that a car going 51mph will show up as 56mph. I get a cutback of $5 for every fine i send out so the more tickets the better.

This is not a big deal since people should not be speeding anyway AM I RITE. Guilty until proven innocent for the winz. Does not matter if your 17 yr old cousin borrowed your car without asking or you arm is gushing blood and you are racing to the hospital. You got to prove your innocence or pay the fine.

Quote :

"We've previously covered instances where teens pranked each other by speeding through a known red-light intersection with a printed copy of someone else's license plate inserted over their own (because nothing is funnier than a $200 fine, right?). "

what an awesome idea. lol

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 8:44 AM. Reason : as]

3/25/2009 8:39:14 AM

moron, check the law. It does not ban red light cameras. It just bans government agents from issuing traffic tickets based upon them. You are still free to manufacture red light camera, own a red light camera, put one up in your living room, sleep with one for comfort, and use one to comune with satan.

3/25/2009 12:00:14 PM

Mississippi still isn't quite as embarrassing as Alabama. Read up on its state constitution. It's simultaneously the most hilarious/depressing governing document on Earth.

3/25/2009 12:17:55 PM

Quote :

" You are still free to manufacture red light camera, own a red light camera, put one up in your living room, sleep with one for comfort, and use one to comune with satan. "

lol

3/25/2009 12:23:44 PM

^^^ the headline said "ban" so I used "ban."

^^ why have you read Mississippi's and Alabama's state constitutions?

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2009 4:00:48 PM

Quote :

"why have you read Mississippi's and Alabama's state constitutions?"

I haven't, not least because Alabama has the largest constitution in the world. I suggested that people read up on Alabama, because it's the only comical constitution in the world.

Quote :

"At 357,157 words,[1] the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world (the Constitution of India, the longest national constitution, comes in at approximately 117,369 words, making Alabama's constitution approximately three times longer than India's)."

Heard a piece about it on NPR a few weeks ago. Basically, at their last constitutional convention the core of extremely racist rich white landowners came up with a unique way to shit on black people while protecting their own money: make it so that the only way to pass a law in Alabama is to make it a constitutional ammedment.

Quote :

"About 90 percent of the document's length, as of 2008, comes from its 798 amendments. Thus there is in fact one amendment less than the number of the final amendment, 799, as amendment 693 does not exist. About 70 percent of those amendments cover only a single county or city, and some deal with salaries of specific officials (e.g. Amendment 480 and the Greene County probate judge). This gives Alabama a large number of constitutional officers."

Some examples:

-11 of the constitutional amendments pertain to bingo games in various counties. All 11 are pretty much identical, but they have to make a new one for each county that wants bingo.

-Amendment 482: "The Limestone county commission is hereby authorized with or without charge to provide for the disposal of dead farm animals"

-Amendment 351, which deals exclusively with mosquito control taxes in a single county, which was itself amended by amended by amendment 361, which removed the word "tangible" from the original

And so on, and so forth.

3/26/2009 6:59:18 PM

Quote :

"You are still free to manufacture red light camera, own a red light camera, put one up in your living room, sleep with one for comfort, and use one to comune with satan."

FTW

3/26/2009 11:02:49 PM

Quote :

"So, what was that about the market, again?"

Still waiting, moron.

3/26/2009 11:03:17 PM

^^^ Alabama's got issues lol.

3/27/2009 9:52:10 AM

^^
Company A manufactures red light cameras
town B decides to buy them for a feint of security
Government C tells town B they can't buy them
Company A goes out of business

what SHOULD happen...
Company A manufactures red light cameras
town B decides to buy them for a feint of security
Citizens don't like cameras, and move to places without them
Cameras don't collect enough revenue, and Company A goes out of business

3/27/2009 10:22:55 AM

Quote :

"Company A manufactures red light cameras town B decides to buy them for a feint of security Government C tells town B they can't buy them Company A goes out of business"

No, the states tells the municipality that they can't use them for enforcement - i.e., they are illegal for ticketing purposes.

Towns can put up as many of the god-awful things as they want. They just can't use them for law enforcement.

Which makes your whole thesis as mind-numbingly stupid as the idea of a government banning the use of tasers by police on suspects somehow being an abrogation of the free market. "Just move to somewhere where the police aren't allowed to taser suspects!" is your claim. Despite the fact that, uh, the restriction is on the use by a governmental entity.

Let's be clear one more time.

This ban.

Forbids.

The use of red light cameras.

By cities.

To enforce traffic laws.

That's it. Anyone is free to use and possess them for any other reason they want as long as it's not handing out traffic tickets. Nobody's going to be tearing down the cameras already up.

So unless city governments are now "the free market," your point has been demonstrated to be beyond blazingly stupid.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2009 11:05:47 AM

The towns should just send nasty grams to those who still run red lights

moron is an idiot
"oh Knowz big evil state gov't bans cities from trying to bypass due process by handing out fines with red light cameras"

3/27/2009 11:16:24 AM

Quote :

"That's it. Anyone is free to use and possess them for any other reason they want as long as it's not handing out traffic tickets. Nobody's going to be tearing down the cameras already up."

What an utterly stupid statement. I'm surprised people have seriously trotted it out.

That's like making driving of cars illegal, but not the sale. The whole point of car is to drive it.

You are one of those people, I bet, who would have accepted poll taxes and grandfather clauses back in the segregation days, because they are not actually oppressing the blacks.

3/27/2009 11:28:36 AM

I suppose your support predatory tow truck driving also

3/27/2009 11:30:53 AM

Quote :

"What an utterly stupid statement. I'm surprised people have seriously trotted it out."

I find this statement excruciatingly ironic given your current track record of "logical arguments" goes.

Quote :

"That's like making driving of cars illegal, but not the sale. The whole point of car is to drive it."

Yes, holding cities accountable to nattering things like due process of law in light of the many, many abuses of these cameras that have been documented must be an abrogation of the free market.

I mean, just think - no other city outside the affected zone could possibly ever buy these, since the law clearly bans the sale, manufacture, or posession of these objects. And no alternative uses of these are fathomable, since they are clearly illegal.

Oh wait, no, just their use by Mississippi cities to enforce traffic laws? Well then, so much for that objection.

Quote :

"You are one of those people, I bet, who would have accepted poll taxes and grandfather clauses back in the segregation days, because they are not actually oppressing the blacks."

Hyuk yuk yuk, that's right, fuckwit. That must be what it means.

Christ you're stupid.

3/27/2009 11:34:11 AM

^^It depends what you mean by "predatory."

^

Quote :

"Quote : "You are one of those people, I bet, who would have accepted poll taxes and grandfather clauses back in the segregation days, because they are not actually oppressing the blacks.""

I bet you support laws that say it's illegal to grow and sell marijuana, but the possession of it is decriminalized. That makes a lot of sense to you, doesn't it?

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM. Reason : ]

3/27/2009 11:34:47 AM

Quote :

"I bet you support laws that say it's illegal to grow and sell marijuana, but the possession of it is decriminalized. That makes a lot of sense to you, doesn't it?"

I'm genuinely stumped: which part of "use by cities" is confusing you so much. Is it the "use" part? The "cities" part? Because I'm honest to goodness confused how you'd have so much trouble with the idea of a restriction on an application to how laws are enforced.

Clue me in here.

3/27/2009 11:41:14 AM

Are you kidding? Who buys red light cameras other than cities? Are you considering putting a traffic light in your house, and then putting a camera there to monitor it?

3/27/2009 11:44:53 AM

Okay. Let's start again, veeeeeeeery slooooowly.

A city. Cannot use these cameras. As a basis of giving you a ticket.

They can do whatever the hell they want with them. They cannot use them to give you a ticket, because of concerns over violations of due process of law.

If they want to use the cameras a corroborating evidence for the local police officer who pulls you over they can. If they want to use them as evidence in an accident investigation, they can.

They cannot use the cameras as the sole and primary basis of issuing tickets.

The state made the law because of the fact that they found such use was prone to great abuse and generally violated due process. The devices themselves are not illegal, it is simply illegal to use them as a primary enforcement mechanism of the law. Within those cities.

In other words, it regulates how laws are enforced.

3/27/2009 11:51:31 AM

IOW if you manufacture red light cameras, don't waste your time in mississippi.

3/27/2009 11:56:26 AM

"What do you mean mustard gas can't be used by city police departments!?

THINK OF ALL THE POOR MUSTARD GAS MANUFACTURERS! "

[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 6:09 PM. Reason : It's the free market, if people don't like dying from mustard gas, they will move out!]

3/28/2009 6:08:18 PM

^^ exactly

^ exactly

3/28/2009 6:11:55 PM

i was thinking mr chaos was being contrary and annoying until his last post. using the word PRIMARY means of enforcement is the key.

up until that point my position was "yes i agree that they violate due process, but it is stupid to say that they could be used for shit other than helping spot issues / enforce the law."

3/28/2009 7:16:30 PM