It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Street Cameras At Main Intersections "Big Brother Watching?"

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:06 PM

Street Cameras At Main Intersections "Big Brother Watching?"

Kansas City just released that cameras were being put at main intersections throughout the city. To "take pictures of people running red lights."
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:06 PM
I am quite curious of this, due to the fact that we now have "survelince" in our streets. I think that is a long way to go for just a red light ticket. These systems can't be cheap, and I personally don't see that many people running red lights to cover the expense for these.
Does anyone have the same thoughts I have on this situation. I know Kansas City is one of the last cities to get these installed.
I believe that there is something much bigger here, maybe they are wanting footage of the streets if and when Martial Law maybe in affect.
Let me know what you all think......
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:39 PM
Traffic light cameras are nothing to be worried about if you ask me.
They only face in one direction and only operate when triggered by someone running the light or at least triggering the shutter by moving at too high a rate of speed as has been deemed by whoever calibrates the camera trigger prior to the stopping line. So, if you're coming in hot and happen to have exceptional stopping capability, I have been told that you could potentially trigger the camera to take a picture, but unless you're in the intersection, I don't think you'd get a ticket.
At any rate, these types of camera systems are a far cry from a full 360 degree pan/tilt/zoom setup that is meant for watching people.
When I run a traffic light, my heart rate usually jumps a little bit because it's always an accident or due to my own carelessness, but in any event, any one of these instances could have resulted in damages of some sort and I am glad that I was lucky enough to avoid such a thing.
I'm all for people driving more mindfully and have no problem with traffic cameras that are only installed at major intersections where installing them makes perfect sense(and cents, of course, which shouldn't be discounted).

This is not to say big brother's not watching or even who might have access to these images. Maybe they can view a live video feed from the cameras somehow...I guess that depends how they are getting data from them...most likely wireless, so such a thing isn't inconceivable depending on the equipment and usage.

Surely, all of these details can be found with a little sleuthing, I should think.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:14 PM
You'll find a load of info about these types of cameras , and others, all over ATS.

If you're worried about these cameras popping up then just you wait until you start to see them all over the place...

like the UK has;

There are over 4,000 fixed Gatso speed cameras currently in use by police forces and local authorities across the UK, accounting for 90% of all fixed speed cameras. The Gatso which uses radar technology, is used for fixed speed cameras, in-car mobile units, on tripods and can even be used from moving vehicles.

A "24x7 national vehicle movement database" that logs everything on the UK's roads and retains the data for at least two years is now being built, according to an Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) strategy document leaked to the Sunday Times. The system, which will use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), and will be overseen from a control centre in Hendon, London, is a sort of 'Gatso 2' network, extending. enhancing and linking existing CCTV, ANPR and speedcam systems and databases.

and then you get those that are actively against them all...
Death of a GATSO

The 1991 Road Traffic Act allowed the use of Speed Cameras to gain prosecutions in the UK for the first time. Their introduction was underpinned by extensive and ongoing publicity to link speed with accidents regardless of circumstance based on the simplistic and selective use of available evidence. When assurances were added that they would be sited only at accident blackspots, motoring organisations, the press and much of the motoring public put aside their apprehensions and acquiesced to the increasing use of these devices on the grounds that they would save lives.

Some cameras, sited as promised at junction or traffic light locations, have indeed resulted in localised falls in serious accidents. Taking this together with continued advances in both active and passive vehicle safety, improved vehicle security reducing 'joyriding' by unqualified drivers, continuing road improvements and little increase in road traffic, one would have expected an acceleration in the long term trend towards fewer deaths on the roads.

However, in 1995 UK road deaths and serious injuries fell only marginally. Hampshire, with no speed cameras, mirrored the national trend whereas speed camera laden Oxfordshire suffered a 30% increase in deaths.

A list of latest road camera installations and photos of destroyed cams

So, when you start to see these cameras going up, it is already too late..
They use them against you to afford more and to keep older units operating.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:37 PM
Arizona is pulling their cameras out. They are fraud and hazardous and the pros DO NOT outweigh the cons in this instance. They are refunding very large amounts of money that was fraudulently charged and collected based on the results of these crap systems.

MS has put up a few test cams. The businesses in the areas are reporting the affects because people travel out of their way to avoid areas with traffic Scam-ras. Nearly every citizen that I have talked to or heard on talk radio is against these blasted things. Even some of our politicians openly trash talk them.

The thing is, its not actually an enforceable violation in the beginning. If you dont pay, they submit to the credit bureau, just like a missed payment on a credit card or default on a loan. They are a money making scam and they have to keep spreading the system around because no state wants them after seeing the negative affects they have.

Some reports have shown increases in traffic accidents in the areas around the cameras because people will literally slam their brakes and slide to a stop at a yellow light that they would normally run.
People have refused to advance to clear the way for fire and ambulance vehicles in emergency situations because the cameras do not record the vehicles behind you or the scenario around you. So, you move, you pay.
Police officers in pursuit or in route to locations have been told that if they run a yellow light and their strobes are not active, they have to pay the fine. This is not always the case with patrolmen, so many of them have been forced to pay fines they were not guilty of.
They can potentially cause marital distress since it snaps a photo of the front seat as well. Be careful who you let in your car, because your wife/husband might be the one opening that envelope and asking you to explain that stranger in the passenger seat.
Vehicles loaned to someone else that runs a yellow/red light still gets the citation issued to the person associated with the tag. Now you have to force your friend to pony up the dough and go to court just to keep this off of your own record. Burden of proof...tag owner.

These things are crap and should be outlawed.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:57 PM
I'm not sure about in other countries, but in Australia these things are as common as chips. Along the routes I drive I know where they all are, and subsequently which lights I can taxi green through and which I can't.
They aren't as much a revenue raiser as speed cameras, but I think they do do their part in making heavily trafficked intersections safer.

Also, I don't quite understand where the issue of increased surveillance opportunities comes in. Fixed cameras that are only triggered on certain occasions are nothing in comparison to the tens of millions of CCTV cameras that operate at 24 frames per second 24 hours per day, which are located, quite literally, any and everywhere.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:58 PM
People are killed or maimed by red light runners every day and i'm all for these cameras. Amazing how people complain about this but accept cameras in every school and business!!!

When will the idiot american realize that criminal drivers ( speeders, DUIs, and red light runners) are a far far bigger threat to them and their family than all the terrorists and robbers and molesters put together.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:06 PM
Amazing how many people complain about how unfair red light cameras are and yet i have never in my life been caught by one. There is always plenty of time to either stop or clear the intersection before the light turns red.

The problem is all the psychopath drivers in america who think they have a "right" to run the light and then they get caught. It's just like they believe it's their right to drive drunk or drive 100 mph. They don't care how many people they kill and i don't care how much they have to pay in fines. If it was up to me red light runners would do some time. I'm no criminal coddler.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:29 PM
I thought Big Brother has been watching for years. Big brother
can peer into your bank account if they wanted to, view your
phone call records, get your medical records, know where you work,
where you shop, eat and spend via credit cards. They have your
name, your address, your social security number etc.

Cameras have been everywhere recording in just about every
building. In the subway, in restaurants, banks, hotels, work,
intersections, toll booths, malls and so on. Hell they can use
a satellite if they really really wanted to.

If they needed access to any of the afore mentioned things, they
will certainly get em.

Only thing they can't see is.... a plane hitting the pentagon.

Big brother sees what it wants to see.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:24 AM
I am not as opposed to a system that deters criminal behavior as I am opposed to the means by which they are carrying out the process right now. News stations have cameras at major intersections which are displayed online 24-7 streaming current weather and traffic patterns and anyone can look in on them. No problem.
Roadside cameras that clock radar and issue a ticket to the target are no problem either, as long as the local and state authorities are the ones that are doing the investigating.

What I am complaining about is how a private company comes up with a plan that is essentially a con and then sells a local municipality on the idea only to turn out as a bad move. Every traffic light cam that has gone online in my state has also seen those same yellow signals reduce time on yellow. When people are used to 3 seconds for the switching period, they continue to drive at that assumption. When the light goes from green to yellow to red all in less than 3 seconds, people get confused. There was no warning that the cams came with a timer adjustment. No. That would have prepared people. The way they instituted the cams was a means by which they could catch more people making a once legal maneuver by changing the rules in the middle of the game.

That is the basis for my complaint.

I dont run redlights. I dont try to beat yellow by going faster. But if I get a ticket for starting a move on a green light that took less time to go red before I was able to get through, then heck yeah I get mad. Its bad enough that we have green lights that only last for 5-8 seconds on many of the roads I have to travel everyday. I dont need the extra pressure of worrying that I need to stop on green just to avoid a ticket.

Again, its all about the implementation, not the product that I am complaining about.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:37 AM
Being in the UK I'm very used to cameras heh.

One thing I wondered though, in a country where most people travel by car wouldn't it be easy to track everyone's movements by their number plates with cameras so regularly like this? It could all be automatic also as they have numberplate readers do they not?

Just an idea

Thinking about it, they already do this almost, they no doubt track the movement of suspects from recordings to see if they can place them at the scene of the crime.

[edit on 28/1/2009 by CuriosityStrikes]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:51 AM
reply to post by LottiBoi

You guys dont have it so bad.

Try being in the UK.

Only place they dont have cameras is in your toilet bowl.

Come to think of it.......Im off to check!

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:58 AM
I just learned today that the small rural town I live in with population around 6,500 people bought six cameras that cost quite a bit of money (probably like the casino cameras, that are very sensitive and can focus in on a dime). The streets around here are full of potholes, the water system is full of carcinogens and the sewer system is constantly on the blink in some part of town. They are not looking for red light runners, we don't even have a red light in the whole town. It was not reported in the local newspaper as if it were a great benefit to the townspeople.

What do you think they are looking for? I believe it is for the detection of illegal drugs. When they bust their criminals, then they are most likely to be enrolled in the local Drug Court Program because the county courthouse gets a sizeable federal grant each year to keep the cattle running through the chute and the money coming in and I can't see that much money is being spent on the druggers.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:07 AM
not all cameras are red lights, only a few are.

most are regular cams ontop very skinny tall poles. these are for nothing more than traffic management.

some dude sits in a room with about 20 monitors, cycling various locations on the screens to try avoid traffic problems.
this is also how the cops know when you break down on an express way. theyre not there to give you a hard time about breaking down, but rather to get you off the freeway for your own safety and so you dont create a traffic jam or an accident.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:26 AM
We have cameras here in Key largo that you can even view from the net.... they run 24 hours a day at about one or 2 miles intervals.... ALL the way from Key Largo to Key West.... about 110 miles!

Actually here is the link and it is for ALL of south florida! The site is open for the public and can be used to plan your commute and such.... heres the link...

Big brother is Certainly watching since I got to this site through the Monroe County Sherriff's department.

Dont blink... cause the cameras wont.....

Could these be tools for big brother?....not likely... they would have had better cameras with better angles and zooms and such.... but Ill let others decide on their own....

[edit on 1/28/2009 by TONE23]

[edit on 1/28/2009 by TONE23]

[edit on 1/28/2009 by TONE23]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:34 AM
Its a known fact that all attacks, transgressions, militia and anti-american conversations and plans are conducted at traffic light street intersections.........orrrrr.......they really are for catching people who run red lights.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:40 AM
Jeebus... red light cams?

Programmed into my sat nav.

We got school zone cams

Red light cams..

Speed cams..

Mobile speed cams.


Dont break THEIR law.. aint a problem.


(holding his breath... been thru bout 10 today ... so far so good)

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:46 AM
The cameras make an average of 5 million dollars a year in congested areas. I think we know why they are here.

Milk us for ever last dollar, its more about money then safety.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:20 PM
And if you think those cameras are only recording when they 'flash' and take a picture, think again:

Surprised state lawmakers learned Thursday that the photo enforcement cameras they authorized last year to catch speeders are actually taking - and keeping - videos of everyone who passes.

The information came out as a House panel debated legislation to outlaw the operation of fixed and mobile cameras on state roads. Backers of the legislation complained that the cameras are really designed to generate revenue and not to improve public safety.

But they learned that the cameras do more than snap still photos of those clocked driving at least 11 miles over the speed limit. In fact, they actually are recording streaming video around-the-clock.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Take a look at the picture in the article -- yes, it's got a 'strobe' for taking still pictures, but it also has a constantly recording/streaming video camera, too...

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by xstealth
The cameras make an average of 5 million dollars a year in congested areas. I think we know why they are here.

Milk us for ever last dollar, its more about money then safety.

I'm all for taking money from these criminals. Red light runners cause lots of crashes and consequent medical bills and property damage that we all pay for. Make the criminals pay so i don't have to.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in