Technology and Traffic Cameras

[Rox_My_Sox1]

This is what iPods are for people.

Don't iPods require ear-phones? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it against the law to wear ear-phones and drive at the same time?

The appearance of modernity offends me.

Me too Bella hun. Take video games for explain. After a long-days hard work, I miss the days of just sitting back, relaxing while drinking a nice cold soda, and playing a good game on a console.

But now? You need to move, jump, jog in place. On top of all that, the consoles are pretty much unaffordable for someone like me (who works as a secretary).

You have something against technology?

No. We just have something against people who force technology on the rest of us that we don't want or need.

 

[Violetta]

Yeah, Rox touched on a lot of my views. It's not that I don't like technology. I love what it can do for us. What I'm dead set against is the pursuit of trivial technology to the abandonment of day-to-day interaction and common sense. I'm against people who can't even conduct business because they can't allow themselves to not text someone instead. I'm against someone who can't give directions in the town they were born and raised in because they own a GPS navigator. I'm against things that used to be very useful tools being relegated to time wasting status symbols.

In short, I hate the 21st century's obsession with gadgets. For someone who grew up in the 80s and got to watch electronic technology actually improve our lives, it makes little to no sense.

 

[Regal]

Don't iPods require ear-phones? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it against the law to wear ear-phones and drive at the same time?

I know it's illegal to text & drink while driving but wearing ear phones? If that's true then all I have to say is what the fuck.

Me too Bella hun. Take video games for explain. After a long-days hard work, I miss the days of just sitting back, relaxing while drinking a nice cold soda, and playing a good game on a console.

But now? You need to move, jump, jog in place. On top of all that, the consoles are pretty much unaffordable for someone like me (who works as a secretary).

You play video games? Me too. Mass Effect is pretty awesome.

No. We just have something against people who force technology on the rest of us that we don't want or need.

I know what you mean. I hate people who shove their religious propaganda down other's throats. Bleh.

 

[Regal]

Yeah, Rox touched on a lot of my views. It's not that I don't like technology. I love what it can do for us. What I'm dead set against is the pursuit of trivial technology to the abandonment of day-to-day interaction and common sense. I'm against people who can't even conduct business because they can't allow themselves to not text someone instead. I'm against someone who can't give directions in the town they were born and raised in because they own a GPS navigator. I'm against things that used to be very useful tools being relegated to time wasting status symbols.

In short, I hate the 21st century's obsession with gadgets. For someone who grew up in the 80s and got to watch electronic technology actually improve our lives, it makes little to no sense.

I agree that the small stuff is pretty unesscary, like a tooth brush that tells you your horoscope.

 

[Violetta]

Those are always unnecessary, but I'm actually talking about the big stuff. I'm talking about how things like smart phones, tablets, WI-FI and the mind-boggling computer/phone/radio/TV/personal assistant suites installed in cars have crippled society's ability to interact on a natural, personal level.

 

[Slaver123]

I know it's illegal to text & drink while driving but wearing ear phones? If that's true then all I have to say is what the fuck.




You play video games? Me too. Mass Effect is pretty awesome.




I know what you mean. I hate people who shove their religious propaganda down other's throats. Bleh.

I'm pretty sure it IS illegal to drive with headphones on. But it's perfectly "legal and safe" to drive with music blaring so loud you can't hear the traffic or horns honking....

It's illegal to taxt and drive, or drive "distracted" but the Govt has deemed it perfectly safe to fumble with both hands trying to get a Bluetooth unit to work properly....

It's illegal to drive "distracted" yet it's perfectly legal to operate a large motor vehicle with six rowdy kids in the back screaming the whole time. Guess that's not a "distraction".....

It's perfectly "safe" to have your eyes glued to your GPS the whole time, but it's perilously dangerous to hold a phone up to one ear even though it doesn't block your line of vision at all....



A good point was raised on "Coast to Coast" last night- traffic fatalities have decreased significantly each year for the last 7 years, while at the same time cellphone use has skyrocketed. Heavier cellphone use has coincided with FEWER traffic fatalities- yet the govt still insists they're dangerous. Hmmmm....


None of that is what I logged on to post about. I found out which awful station my coworkers listen to and I looked up their truly pathetic "Playlist" online- I've been unfair. They DO play more than 3 songs- in the 6 hour period listed they played 29 different songs...in six hours...(that's almost a whopping 5 different songs per hour.... big wow :|)

But there are a handful of songs that are played over and over, repeated after 60 min then 90 min, then 60 then 90, etc... For example if you hear "Turn Me On" at 10am you're pretty much guaranteed to hear it again at about 11am, then again at 12:30, then 1:30, then 3pm etc give or take a few minutes. So in an 8 hour workday your WILL hear that same song 6 times, minimum. You'll also hear the other half dozen heavily-rotated songs no less than 6 times each.

So the station's entire "Set-List" amounts to the equivalent of an EP repeated over and over again with random tracks from another CD thrown in for 'variety'.

 

[Violetta]

A good point was raised on "Coast to Coast" last night- traffic fatalities have decreased significantly each year for the last 7 years, while at the same time cellphone use has skyrocketed. Heavier cellphone use has coincided with FEWER traffic fatalities- yet the govt still insists they're dangerous. Hmmmm....

The point that wasn't raised is that cars have also gotten much safer over the last seven years as well. I could point to the autobahn, where cellphone use is strictly illegal and they have around half the fatalities on average as US interstate highways. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

None of that is what I logged on to post about. I found out which awful station my coworkers listen to and I looked up their truly pathetic "Playlist" online- I've been unfair. They DO play more than 3 songs- in the 6 hour period listed they played 29 different songs...in six hours...(that's almost a whopping 5 different songs per hour.... big wow :|)

But there are a handful of songs that are played over and over, repeated after 60 min then 90 min, then 60 then 90, etc... For example if you hear "Turn Me On" at 10am you're pretty much guaranteed to hear it again at about 11am, then again at 12:30, then 1:30, then 3pm etc give or take a few minutes. So in an 8 hour workday your WILL hear that same song 6 times, minimum. You'll also hear the other half dozen heavily-rotated songs no less than 6 times each.

So the station's entire "Set-List" amounts to the equivalent of an EP repeated over and over again with random tracks from another CD thrown in for 'variety'.

How... how do stations like that stay on the air? I mean, seriously, that's pathetic. Go buy a couple of CDs and you'll have as many songs as that radio station.

 

[Slaver123]

The point that wasn't raised is that cars have also gotten much safer over the last seven years as well. I could point to the autobahn, where cellphone use is strictly illegal and they have around half the fatalities on average as US interstate highways. Correlation doesn't equal causation.



How... how do stations like that stay on the air? I mean, seriously, that's pathetic. Go buy a couple of CDs and you'll have as many songs as that radio station.

I can forgive you for siding with "The Man" about cellphone use in the car, cause you agree that certain radio stations (also owned by "The Man") are awful....

I've heard the Autobahn has no maximum speed limit, but it DOES have a minimum speed that's strictly enforced. How come the good old US of A refuses to learn from this example? How many times have you nearly been killed because someone was going way too slow on a superhighway?
This factor is never taken into consideration on our side of the Atlantic.


If you listen to the govt/insurance propoganda you'd think there were never any accidents before cellphones existed... They single out one thing and ignore all other factors. I contend that the drivers who can't handle a cellphone in the car are the same ones who can't handle a car, period.

 

[Violetta]

Oh, you did not just say I side with "the Man!" :lol As for a minimum speed? There are places that have it, but much like the speed limit it's ignored. The truth is, the reason we suck at driving in this country is because we don't patrol the roads like Germany does. They've got cameras every kilometer watching for violations. Over here the odds are that you'll get away with anything you do.

How often have I nearly bit it on the road? Just about everyday. I live in Austin, TX for crying out loud! The highways here are a battleground.

But, no, I don't listen to propaganda. I just notice who it is that isn't paying attention to the road. And that's people with cell phones.

And people without cell phones.

And Latinos.

Asians.

Blacks.

Whites.

Single people.

People with kids.

People who buy domestic.

People who buy foreign.

The young.

The elderly.

The middle-aged.

...

 

[Slaver123]

Oh, you did not just say I side with "the Man!" :lol As for a minimum speed? There are places that have it, but much like the speed limit it's ignored. The truth is, the reason we suck at driving in this country is because we don't patrol the roads like Germany does. They've got cameras every kilometer watching for violations. Over here the odds are that you'll get away with anything you do.

How often have I nearly bit it on the road? Just about everyday. I live in Austin, TX for crying out loud! The highways here are a battleground.

But, no, I don't listen to propaganda. I just notice who it is that isn't paying attention to the road. And that's people with cell phones.

And people without cell phones.

And Latinos.

Asians.

Blacks.

Whites.

Single people.

People with kids.

People who buy domestic.

People who buy foreign.

The young.

The elderly.

The middle-aged.

...

So you're saying Pacific Islanders and Eskimoes are the only good drivers?

 

[Violetta]

So you're saying Pacific Islanders and Eskimoes are the only good drivers?

Oh, no no no. They have every God given right to suck it up on the roads just as hard as everyone else. They're just not apt to be found doing so in central TX.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

They've got cameras every kilometer watching for violations.

Wow...I would NOT WANT THAT in this nation. It's bad enough certain government intelligence agencies monitor our phone conversations for certain words to be used as well as have agents go into chatrooms and spy on people's conversations. I do NOT WANT surveillance on EVERY DAMN PART of this nation. They're already starting to talk about aerial surveillance of this nation (which they already do to an extent) via drones. Fuck that shit. Having our cities watched via camera and airplanes watching our highways is bad enough. We don't need big brother monitoring our every damn move.

 

[Violetta]

Rox, I'm not sure you quite understand what the cameras are for. They're not part of some insidious German "big brother" thing. They record license numbers of cars violating traffic laws so they can just ticket them remotely. It's a lot safer than having a police officer pull someone to the side of a road on which people could be zipping by at around 150 miles an hour.

Then again, capslock, so you may be right.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

Heh, yeah, I know what it's for Bella hun. It's just I've had enough problems with cops and tickets. I don't need machines watching me drive my car 24/7 for the off chance I'd make a slight mistake with my speed and then BOOM...234 dollar fine. To be perfectly blunt, NY patrol officers make enough money as it is and they target people even going 5 miles over the speed limit. They're ruthless and while I'm all for civilized law enforced society I don't want to live in a nation where there's police patrolling every other street and cameras watching our every damn move. That isn't liberty. That's rule by fear.

 

[Slaver123]

Wow...I would NOT WANT THAT in this nation. It's bad enough certain government intelligence agencies monitor our phone conversations for certain words to be used as well as have agents go into chatrooms and spy on people's conversations. I do NOT WANT surveillance on EVERY DAMN PART of this nation. They're already starting to talk about aerial surveillance of this nation (which they already do to an extent) via drones. Fuck that shit. Having our cities watched via camera and airplanes watching our highways is bad enough. We don't need big brother monitoring our every damn move.

Everything we post online is monitored. Many traffic lights are monitored. Every time you go into a store you're on camera. Your phone is also a GPS tracking your every move. Not all of this is the government's doing- most of the internet spying is by private companies hoping to advertise more effectively- but it's all easily monitored.


But mostly these omnipresent spy cameras are there to help TSA perverts choose the next sexy woman or sobbing 5 year old child to pat down... (yes, they patted down a 5 yr old child recently- welcome to state-sanctioned child molestation)


If CISPA passes, I see nothing left of Orwell's 84 that hasn't come true...



As far as traffic cameras, they're a huge money making scam. In my state revenues from traffic fines have doubled or TRIPLED since instaling these un-American devices. A co-worker recently got fined by one of these cameras for stopping at a red light. You heard me right, he STOPPED at the red light....but the front of his car was over the lne, so the machine gave him a ticket.

MACHINES have been given AUTHORITY OVER US, and no one cares!?!?!?!

It's bad enough that traffic "court" is a total sham- there's no real trial, you are guilty with no chance of proving innocence. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? That went out the window decades ago, and now after so many years of meekly accepting fines w/o due process people are conditioned to accept any unconstitutional legal atrocity.

How can you exercise your RIGHT to see the face of your accuser when it doesn't have a face? I contend that the prosecutor should have to bring the actual camera that photographed you into court to serve as your "accuser".

Remember it's not just about a $300 fine- it's also about massive insurance surcharges for 3-5 years after the fine is paid (which amounts to a second penalty for the same offense, otherwise known as "double jeopardy" which is expressly forbidden in the US Constitution)

 

[Violetta]

For clarification, double jeopardy only applies to being tried twice in a criminal court for the same offense. Insurance has nothing to do with that, since insurance agencies are private institutions acting upon a contract with the signed consent of the insured. That's putting you legally over a barrel. Insidious, no?

 

[Satur1n]

I'm all for the advancement (is that a word?) of technology. Science has done wonderful things for the world.

 

[Slaver123]

For clarification, double jeopardy only applies to being tried twice in a criminal court for the same offense. Insurance has nothing to do with that, since insurance agencies are private institutions acting upon a contract with the signed consent of the insured. That's putting you legally over a barrel. Insidious, no?

That's how they subvert the rule of law. Ins companies are private institutions, yet the taxpayer-funded Police enforce their laws as well as the laws passed by the elected legislature. If they're just private companies, then why do the police impound your car if your insurance has lapsed?

If something's enforced by the police, it can only be the law of the land...Which means Insurance companies are a SECOND GOVERNMENT over us!

There is no "consent of the insured" in my state, because car insurance here is compulsory. Daily life in this state is all-but-impossible without a car, there is no other viable transportation system here; the state forces us to pay for worthless insurance if we want the "privilege" of driving, and armed police officers enforce this state-compelled purchase.

As a result, some of the things we hold most sacred have become corrupted, such as the courts and the Rule Of Law itself.

 

[Satur1n]

That's how they subvert the rule of law. Ins companies are private institutions, yet the taxpayer-funded Police enforce their laws as well as the laws passed by the elected legislature. If they're just private companies, then why do the police impound your car if your insurance has lapsed?

If something's enforced by the police, it can only be the law of the land...Which means Insurance companies are a SECOND GOVERNMENT over us!

There is no "consent of the insured" in my state, because car insurance here is compulsory. Daily life in this state is all-but-impossible without a car, there is no other viable transportation system here; the state forces us to pay for worthless insurance if we want the "privilege" of driving, and armed police officers enforce this state-compelled purchase.

As a result, some of the things we hold most sacred have become corrupted, such as the courts and the Rule Of Law itself.

Most of the time, big companies / corporations are allowed to do whatever they want without question, as many of them are in the government's pocket anyway.

 

[MistressValerie1]

That's how they subvert the rule of law. Ins companies are private institutions, yet the taxpayer-funded Police enforce their laws as well as the laws passed by the elected legislature. If they're just private companies, then why do the police impound your car if your insurance has lapsed?

If something's enforced by the police, it can only be the law of the land...Which means Insurance companies are a SECOND GOVERNMENT over us!

There is no "consent of the insured" in my state, because car insurance here is compulsory. Daily life in this state is all-but-impossible without a car, there is no other viable transportation system here; the state forces us to pay for worthless insurance if we want the "privilege" of driving, and armed police officers enforce this state-compelled purchase.

As a result, some of the things we hold most sacred have become corrupted, such as the courts and the Rule Of Law itself.

This article about dirty tricks played by auto insurers may be of interest:

http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/do-car-insurers-overcharge-the-poor-carinsurance.aspx

Money quote: "In some cases, insurers grossly overpriced coverage for drivers carrying minimum levels of coverage by many thousands of dollars, the CFA says."