Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 5/23/2001 9:11:54 PM EDT
I don't know how some of you feel about stop light camera enforcement, but I think it sucks and reeks of Big Brother and money-grubbing local governments eager to fleece the public. Now that my feelings are clear on the issue, I should add that my town's wise socialist fathers and mothers have decided to install these awful things, despite all my efforts to talk sense into them via letters, editorials and the works. I really went all out to try and stop this further erosion of my right not to be surveilled by government everywhere I go. Some town board members voted against it after realizing that it is a thinly disguised revenue scheme, the rest had $$$ in their eyes, apparently. These things are big time money mills. Some of you may have seen the very jaded ABC News segment on the subject tonight. They could not help but show that the only person who disagrees with the use of these cameras went and shot one 15 times. From LA to DC, everyone else except right-wing lunatics are apparently in favor of them in the name of safety (yeah, my ASS!). So, now that they are going to install them here, I would like to brainstorm ways to take them out. I'm thinking of a zip-gun using steel core .223. mounted on a short pole. Just walk underneath the camera and pull the string. One more high-dollar piece of crap rendered inop. I also considered a high-powered laser that would mess up the camera lens. I suppose one could also build some kind of RF pulse weapon that would fry the electronics. I won't go as far as explosives, I wouldn't want to hurt anyone. Sorry for you LE people on the board, this is what you have driven people like me to. I don't take any joy in being a miscreant, but I'll be damned if you are going to monitor me, tell me how to drive my car, or otherwise infringe on my rights. And yes, just so it is perfectly clear, I feel I do have a right to travel without having my picture taken by some god-damned robot.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:22:24 PM EDT
I know my brother, when he lived in Arizona, bought a "special" clear plastic reflective lense to cover his license plate... When you looked at it straight on it was just a clear cover... But, when you looked at it from any slight angle, it got blurry and you couldn't read the plate... Pretty clever... Just another option to think about... I myself would rather just put a bullet in the camera...[sniper][:)]
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:25:39 PM EDT
I've heard that some can't read a pickup's plate if the tailgate is down...the plate cover is another good idea. I would try those options before attempting to disable it. Good luck anyway!
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:27:01 PM EDT
I have often thought about what it would look like if someone were to shoot the live feed camera on our local news. Watching a tracer rapidly close on the lens then static. [:D] I would get the license plate cover. No need going to jail.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:27:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:31:59 PM EDT
Full control of the vehicle and still able to moon. That man deserves a metal!
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:34:10 PM EDT
The moon is classic! I've considered the license plate covers, but I've heard they don't work that well (probably depends on which brand you buy). Anyways, I find it a bit foolish to cover your license plate, which is an offense worthy of being pulled over for. I do see a lot of guys getting away with it, but why not just take your license plate completely off then? I see lots of cars without plates all the time here. I'm not saying I'm going to go out and bust up traffic enforcement cameras. I haven't exhausted the other possible recourses yet, but I thought it would be an interesting topic of conversation. I'm currently trying to contact 20/20's John Stossel and asking him to do a "Give Me a Break" segment on this. 60 Minutes would be a good one also. I think the conflict of interest is very newsworthy. Some cities have shortened their yellow light times in order to increase the number of offenders. DC attached a camera to a *blinking* red light. They said it was an accident, but didn't try to refund the 3,000 tickets unless they were appealed.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:44:34 PM EDT
ALL RIGHT!!! [:D] We need more of this revolutionary around here. That's a good idea, I was thinking the same thing: taking out them cameras with my gun. Using a .22 would be a better though-you can easily make a silencer for it and they are cheap and can be easily disposed.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:51:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2001 9:50:56 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
Why don't you people doing paramilitary training just shoot the lens with a paintball gun?
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:55:07 PM EDT
Unless you can make a cover that has louvers that are flat(invisible) straight on but completely cover the plate at any angle you are SOL. Some people think that the reflective plate is the key but its not. The cops use computers to invert the colors and then can plainly see what they need... I have never seen these things, being in the land of "Live Free or Die", but I myself would be blowing these things off of their polls with 7.62x39 steel core, or at least using an axe to the whires. Remember something as simple as a nato 762(.308) to the lense cover will make the camera worthless if it can't see anything... Also get a buddy in the police force, and find the moment where the picture is taken and paint a line in the road so others will know where they can still stop (mabey block traffic) but won't get photographed... BISHOP
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:04:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Janus: [img]www.chiaweb.net/albums/adultalbum/photoradar.jpg[/img]
View Quote
Why are they all driving on the wrong side of the road?
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:09:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: They could not help but show that the only person who disagrees with the use of these cameras went and shot one 15 times
View Quote
Another reason to continue the ban on high capacity magazines.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:17:36 PM EDT
How bout a well placed .50 cal shot to the lense? If there are wooded areas around intersevtion like those in the mooning picture, it could be done.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:17:53 PM EDT
There is a device in developement that is triggered by the light flash of the camera. When the flash is detected a bright light is transmitted from your car to counteract and essentially blind the camera so it can't record your plate number. Still in developement, last I heard. It probably will be declared illegal anyway.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:18:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2001 10:17:29 PM EDT by uglygun]
Guys, hate to ruin the awe that was created by the guy who was seemingly driving and mooning at the same time but if this is a picture of a vehicle that is in a foriegn land where the idiots drive on the wrong side of the road, then the driver is very likely on the other side of the car as well and the person in that picture mooning the camera is very likely the passenger. Not the most obvious thing but I remembered that when I saw that he's clearly driving on the opposite side of the road, and if the picture has been reversed the same would still hold true and it's likely a passenger doing the mooning.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:32:55 PM EDT
Picture's not reversed. It still says SUZUKI.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:34:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io:Why don't you people doing paramilitary training just shoot the lens with a paintball gun?
View Quote
Not a bad idea, but would it be effective? I mean, I guess the paintball would break the lense, but you'd have to get pretty close, and might be id'ed
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:37:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:40:12 PM EDT
That guy needs to be carefull. You know what they say: CRACK KILLS
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:51:27 PM EDT
No Ar, this isn't about driving responsible or irresponsible. It's about Big Brother keeping tabs on you everywhere 24/7. What's it gonna take? A home T.V./government monitor( ala George Orwell) in every home in America before people with your attitude say enough is enough?
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 11:02:33 PM EDT
The pic with the guy mooning was taken with standard visible light film, but I don’t know what type of film they are currently using at the stop lights. If they are using the cameras at night then they can’t use a regular flash since it might cause a crash, so they should be using inferred. What should work is to find something to coat the plate with or cover it with that is clear and will either block inferred or reflect most all the inferred. That should prevent the camera from getting your plate number. All you need to do is find out what will work. By the way I have no idea what to use for this, but there are ways to block inferred. If you find out let the rest of us know. It is getting late so catch you later.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 11:02:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2001 12:35:05 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
I understand that, and it is amazing with computers how many records are being stored basically FOREVER because of that. I'm not sure I want photo radar or photo traffic light enforcement. But the roads are PUBLIC areas there is no right to when you are on a "structure" that public tax dollars pay for. And I am getting real tired of being behind, or near, people who drive like their gas pedal linkage is broke but don't think twice of running a red light w/o even slowing. But because of their "asleep at the switch" driving I have to stop for the red light I would've made it through, or sit at green 'cause they are blocking the intersection. I think VW, and BMW, both say something similar to "driver's wanted" in their ads. That's all I ask.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 11:13:18 PM EDT
Do you really want to discharge a firearm within city limits, destroy municipal property, and potentially get nailed for these crimes, which might result in your being convicted of a felony that would prevent you from legally owning guns ever again? My advice is to grow up and learn to stop for red lights. I don't like the cameras either, but that doesn't excuse what you're thinking about (and rather badly at that). [%(]
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 11:25:33 PM EDT
Axel is my new hero. :) Those things are big in England. The Brits are the ultimate sheeple these days and have no problem letting their govt. screw them at every turn. I do not believe these are being use for safety purposes. Their primary use is for making money. They are speed trap of the 21st century. They don't need to pay mototcycle cops to hide behind billboards anymore, hence their popularity. I say nuke 'em.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 11:35:12 PM EDT
They're shortening the amber lights because most people think they have time to drive through them. Amber means to stop entering the intersection. Interesting that this audience probably is generally certified to carry concealed firearms and otherwise able to clear background checks for criminal behavior/arrests/convictions. Yet the knee jerk (emphasis on jerk) reaction is to criminally vandalize the cameras. How about legislation to contest the legitimacy of being cited by a robot? Article VI (Bill of Rights) provides for confrontation of the accuser and cross examination. Courts are upholding this provision. One of those cheapo lazer pointers focused on the lens of the camera would take it out for as long as the lazer were aimed at the lens. (Which is why casinos want you to keep them in your pocket.) The ol' Diana RWS Mod. 34 .177 pellet gun would probably take out the camera lens from 50 - 60 yds. in calm conditons (1100 fps) and not make any noise (not in traffic anyway). You take up a stand in a parking lot and take your shot from behind tinted windows. It's a misdeanor to discharge a pellet gun in the city limits. Vandalism is a misdemeanor. Just so's ya know. Never hurts to discuss tactics for anti logistical sniping . . . protected speech is a First Amendment thingie. Drive safe out there.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 2:50:51 AM EDT
Not to be on the negative side but............. I thought driving was a priveledge, so they can regulate that all they want. Just drive to your nearby hood, ghetto, or gang infested area, and encourage the local thugs to go take them suckers out. Your city will stop fixing them once they get broken enough and realize that it is costing them more money to repair than it is making the city. This also, has the effect of reducing thugs on the street by possibly getting them arrested.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 3:10:31 AM EDT
While I HOPE the shooting ideas are tongue in cheek, I DID hear an ideal I liked.... I ABHOR Big Brother scenarios.... PaintBall RULES....I DOUBT they can take shots thru paint....and I would GUESS its no more than littering.....
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 3:34:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2001 3:33:59 AM EDT by Norm_G]
Here's an idea you boneheaded meatball: [b][red][size=6]DON'T RUN RED LIGHTS![/size=6][/red][/b] I'm personally of the opinion that anyone stupid enough to run a redlight should have their vehicle taken and their driver's license pulled for at least a year. Maybe beaten with sticks, too. Several times. Running red lights shows such a blatant disregard for the rest of the world around you that you should no longer be allowed to function in that world of drivers. Norm Glitz
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 3:44:25 AM EDT
What about 12 gauge sabots or 1oz slugs? They are a lot more common in most areas then .223 or .50 bmg. Probably about the same availability of .308 where rifles are allowed to be used for deer... Kharn
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 3:56:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2001 3:54:38 AM EDT by Norm_G]
Yeah, that would work, too. Though a little harsher solution than I proposed. [}:D] Oh you meant the cameras to catch the boneheads. [:(] Norm
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 4:53:50 AM EDT
Hey, knuckleheads, this is not about running red lights. Its a step in the wrong direction toward removing our privacy. We don't need cameras and the potential for government abuse of the stupid things is pretty scary. I say we do just like our forefathers did when the metric road signs were put up. Shoot 'em down!
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 5:01:44 AM EDT
technically speaking HOW CAN YOU SAY YOUR PRIVACY IS BEING INVADED WHEN YOU ARE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. Answer that before you rant about your privacy being invaded.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 5:09:53 AM EDT
The photo red light devices are designed to be bullet proof. i don't know however if they'd stop a center fire rifle round. But a silenced .22 will definetly not cut it. beleive me, for the price of these units they've considered the vadalism issue.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 5:22:10 AM EDT
I have to say I have those things in NYC. I dont live in NYC but the very few and I mean few times I go into that dump. I have gotten 1 ticket from it. They dont put points on your license cause they dont know who is driving. They just want the money. It doesn't make it right. I dont like them either. England has set up cameras on the street not only to monitor cars but people. They are on a big pole and they are manuverable by remote control. So if they see something they dont like they can follow a person for miles with the cameras being manuverable and high power optics. Then when they get to another part of the block when that camera can't follow anymore they switch to another camera. We have that with traffic on certain roads here. In 10 to 20 years kiss America good bye. It is going to be a country we don't recognize anymore. We now at least have traces of freedom but in that time frame it will be a distant memory. God help us all.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 5:22:31 AM EDT
Markm: Well, if thats the case, somebody dhould pull out the black tip .30-06. Maybe that .50 might be in my future afterall... Kharn
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 5:29:07 AM EDT
'06 should definitely do the trick. .50 cal would make the national news [:P]
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 5:29:26 AM EDT
I do have to say 1 more thing. Don't run the red lights. That is an obvious. I dont think anyone should drive dangerously like no one should be irresponsible with a firearm. I dont like the idea of being watched. But If you drive safely you will be cool. The only other thing I have to say on this is the way the timer is set on them if you go through a yellow and then it turns red while under it you will get the ticket. That is how I got mine with the cameras. They set the timers a certain way. I think the lense is a wide angle to encompass a large area and then when they have the photo they enlarge it to get the plate number to ticket you. People are getting ticket that should not,because of the red changing on them while under the light.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 5:33:57 AM EDT
I drive about 50,000 miles a year, and I wouldn't mind so much stopping for yellow lights (which actually means 3 more cars) if dumbass Wisconsin, NY, NJ, Ohio, Canadian, GA, and foreign drivers new how to drive down here. Some of you guys sound almost like Handgun Control board members. Why don't you add, "if it saves just one life", or "it's for the children" to your posts. Get real! Yellow lights shorter for our protection!!!! Yea, right. -Troy (The one in the great state of Florida) PS- Driving is not a privelage, driving on public roads is a privelage, and a great way to tax the sh!t out of you!
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 6:22:25 AM EDT
Before I got rid of Time Warner from my place I caught a special on London. A resident can expect around 300 pictures to be taken of them from the time they leave their flat til they get to work, and if they use the underground. They aren't much safer for all of that now are they?
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 6:25:53 AM EDT
Using cameras for traffic enforcement began with a device LTV developed in the late 1960's. A speed radar/camera on a pole. Called it "VASCAR" or something similar. Looked kinda like a vertical stoplight housing on a 6 foot metal post. First deployment was in LTV's home city of Grand Prairie, TX. Caught a few folks before the locals got wise. Then the crazies got into the act. Things like hanging moons got old after a while and they looked for new and better agonies for the blueboys. 30.06 holes were effective and made them armor the boxes. Someone did a Cool Hand Luke one night and cut the poles. I heard of one or two being blown up but never saw it. Folks with musclecars had a competition to see who could post the fastest violation with the front plate removed. I remember the published photo showing the record of 135mph+ with one hand on the wheel and the other with a one digit salute. But what did the deed was when a local judge/politician's wife opened the mailed ticket, saw another woman in the passenger's seat with the details of when and where, filed the big "D" and took his ass to the cleaners using the photo-ticket as evidence. They were gone inside a week. Life was good. Arock out.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 6:47:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 6:51:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 7:00:50 AM EDT
Arock, VASCAR had nothing to do with photographs. It was purely a time/speed/distance computer. The operator (revenuer) flipped switches at landmarks when you passed them and when he passed them to have the box compute a speed. He could make the box say anything he wanted it to. Very operator dependant. I got an unwanted demo long ago & far away. Troy, I didn't say I liked the idea of stoplight cameras, but they only take pictures of red light runners. If the yellow is being shortened to catch more people, that's a separate issue. Right now, this is set up to only photograph violators. Kind of like having cops only hassle real criminals vs. law-abiding gunowners. Essentially the opposite of HCI's approach. What nobody's mentioned is that these cameras also take pictures of those who run the lights early. Go before it's green. These are the asses that really irritate me. No mercy for them. Norm
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 8:52:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2001 8:58:01 AM EDT by darm441]
>>And yes, just so it is perfectly clear, I feel I do have a right to travel without having my picture taken by some god-damned robot.<< There is a very simple way to defeat having your picture taken when running red lights. It is known as Obey the Law, and is successfully used by millions of motorists every day. Don't want your picture taken?? Don't activate the camera. Real simple.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 9:18:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Not a bad idea, but would it be effective? I mean, I guess the paintball would break the lense, but you'd have to get pretty close, and might be id'ed
View Quote
If you shoot the lens with a paintball the camera won't be able to take any useful pictures. Also if you get caught you won't get a firearms violation, more like a vandalism or malicious mischief.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 9:28:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dragracerart: I know my brother, when he lived in Arizona, bought a "special" clear plastic reflective lense to cover his license plate... When you looked at it straight on it was just a clear cover... But, when you looked at it from any slight angle, it got blurry and you couldn't read the plate... Pretty clever... Just another option to think about... I myself would rather just put a bullet in the camera...[sniper][:)]
View Quote
Check out www.jammerstore.com for complete protection. [-!-!-]
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 9:29:51 AM EDT
Don't run redlights.
View Quote
Norm G, nice large type. I'm glad to see that you announce so loudly to us that you don't understand the issue(s). Some people have trouble the privacy aspect. I don't. It's a public intersection, I think the state, city, county, or federal government should be allowed to take pictures of any public place, just as any private citizen can. My problem with it is the technical problems with the enforcement. Unlike a police officer, the camera can't make a judgment as to the circumstances that occurred. My wife got a ticket in the mail from Charlotte-Mecklenburg police for running a red light. There was an accident, and a police officer was directing traffic through the intersection. She was doing what she was legally required to do, follow the direction of the officer. Well, her picture got taken. She says that she has never ran a red light before in her life. Considering I was 19 when I married her, and I'm 72 now, I think I know and trust her pretty well. Also, I've never seen her personally run one. According to the prosecutor she talked to, as long as they (the prosecutor) has in their possession a certificate stating that the red light camera was functioning properly at the time of the alleged offence and a photograph with a legible license plate, in the state of NC, you are no longer entitled to due process. How is that right? How is that legal? How is that constitutional? While doing research into how to handle my wife's ticket, I found the below: [url]http://www.charmeck.nc.us/citransportation/programs/pressrel/press31.htm[/url] It describes how one intersection camera in Charlotte, NC survived 20 shots. For you guys considering shooting at the cameras, you might want to rethink your plan. The article also says the cameras cost the city $50,000 each! For that kind of money, they could afford to station an officer with a patrol car at the intersection 8 hours a day 5 days per week for a year! Where I live, the police don't usually stop red light runners. Shouldn't they be the ones to write the ticket and not a camera? For you guys who say people shouldn't be worried about this if you don't run red lights, you guys need to think about the issue, and stop your knee-jerk reactions. The million mad mothers and HCI are who we usually expect to have knee-jerk reactions, not gun owners.
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 9:37:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 9:54:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 10:04:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2001 10:25:20 AM EDT
Let me enlighten a few of you sheeple on this thread. The Red light cameras are CASH COWS. Nothing more. If you suck on that "safety" bullshit. You might as well sell off all your guns now. "For the Children". A PRIVATE corporation (German, I believe) gives the radar and photo units, both mobile and fixed, to the municipality. In return the private corporation gets 45 dollars of each 95 dollar ticket. The whole ticketing system is based on a sham. Since there is no Due Process. (Traffic "violations" are legally "civil" in nature. The officer signs the complaint as the complaintant for the state. Since no human watched you drive through the red light or speed, it cannot legally be proven.) What you have here is a fraud. The Municipality uses it's "authority" as a city to "persuade" you to pay a ticket that you never signed for, you never agreed to be subject to the decisions of their "Justice Court". In strictest terms, an Unconcionable Contract. To which you are not bound. Best way to defeat Photo Radar and Red light cameras? Just throw the damn ticket in the trash. And don't allow yourself to be approached by a Process Server. That's their second line of "persuasion". D.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top