Simply amazing !!

tonyb

Absolutely CNH, didn't mean to use that broad brush again and the progress of safety in the work place is an excellent example.

D_M

Tony,

Did you make an effort to track down the regulatory history of the offending legislation? The history will highlight whether or not stakeholder participation occurred. I just googled the 'History of red-light cameras'. I didn't intentionally cherry pick, I thought it would be interesting. New York City had one of the first pilot programs. Embedded in the regulatory justification was, " Red Light Camera Programs have proven to be an effective traffic safety measure that prevent injuries and the loss of life due to accidents caused by red light running". There is the why I suggested we ask ourselves. As for who testified at the various hearings and debates back in the late 80s, I have not located that as yet. There are pros and cons with every public policy, along with advocacy groups on both sides. More than likely, New York had a series of incidents that galvanized public support.

Moose68Bash

D_M wrote: »

Tony,

Did you make an effort to track down the regulatory history of the offending legislation? The history will highlight whether or not stakeholder participation occurred. I just googled the 'History of red-light cameras'. I didn't intentionally cherry pick, I thought it would be interesting. New York City had one of the first pilot programs. Embedded in the regulatory justification was, " Red Light Camera Programs have proven to be an effective traffic safety measure that prevent injuries and the loss of life due to accidents caused by red light running". There is the why I suggested we ask ourselves. As for who testified at the various hearings and debates back in the late 80s, I have not located that as yet. There are pros and cons with every public policy, along with advocacy groups on both sides. More than likely, New York had a series of incidents that galvanized public support.

With respect to this quotation of your post above and your prior post, I would like to read what you find about the many EPA regulations that have been promulgated over the last decade.

The problem with the argument that public testimony and input led to these regulations is that the laws that are passed by the Congress after hearings, etc., are then translated into regulations to enact those laws by bureaucrats, whom we have seen have political agendas, sometimes their own and sometimes those of the administration they serve.

Legislators these days often do not even know the provisions of the measures on which they are voting -- e.g., the Affordable Care Act. And bureaucrats define and implement the regulations that implement them.

Excessive faith in government, like excessive faith in the free market, leads to abuses on both sides.

In a representative democracy, the voters are supposed to keep these excesses in check, but now voters are ill-informed and even if well informed, are all too often driven by their single, all-important burning issue. You name it: abortion rights v. no abortions; L. and G. marriage v. traditional marriage, loose immigration control v. sealed borders, etc.

Meanwhile, far too few voters -- individual voters, elected officials, organized interest groups -- are driven to the polls by their interest in the overall welfare of our country. Or, perhaps, they confuse their position on a single issue with the overall welfare of the nation.

Our current state of affairs serves as the best evidence for my argument. Both political parties talk about putting together coalitions of interest groups that will get them elected, not nearly enough about the general state of our country and what they will do to improve it.

Things are beginning to change now, however, because it is so obvious that we are in trouble that this conversation cannot be avoided. But electing a House of Representatives and a Senate that consists of enough members to enact statesmanlike legislation is a daunting task.

First, it takes 60% in the Senate.

Second, individual incumbent legislators are very good at giving their constituencies what is needed to ensure reelection. Hence, even though approval ratings of both houses of Congress are very low, approval ratings of individual Congressmen and Senators in their districts and states are much higher.

We face a daunting challenge as a nation.

Joey_V

afterburnt wrote: »

Who the hell wants to retire and save more? I want to spend it all before I am dead!

I'm going bankrupt when I die bro

cnh

Sounds like a recipe for failure, Moose...! Which is pretty much where we are. An educated and informed citizenry is a prerequisite for reform, but alas, people often prefer "bread and circuses" (Huxley). And ideology almost always trumps rational discourse in America. Depressing, indeed! Reminds me of Max Weber's Politics as a Vocation. In many ways Weber's prognostications and reflections concerning the machinations that are necessary for the formation of a modern state as well as the nature of such states, the Weimar Republic in Germany was emerging even as Weber was presenting his lecture.

tonyb

D_M wrote: »

Tony,

Did you make an effort to track down the regulatory history of the offending legislation? The history will highlight whether or not stakeholder participation occurred. I just googled the 'History of red-light cameras'. I didn't intentionally cherry pick, I thought it would be interesting. New York City had one of the first pilot programs. Embedded in the regulatory justification was, " Red Light Camera Programs have proven to be an effective traffic safety measure that prevent injuries and the loss of life due to accidents caused by red light running". There is the why I suggested we ask ourselves. As for who testified at the various hearings and debates back in the late 80s, I have not located that as yet. There are pros and cons with every public policy, along with advocacy groups on both sides. More than likely, New York had a series of incidents that galvanized public support.

There was no such clamor for Red light camera's here in Chicago. Study after study show they do not reduce traffic accidents but actually cause more. This is simply a revenue generator, and I can guarantee you no citizens in mass came forth to say please write more tickets.

Once one city installs them, others follow once they see the revenue generated. Not because people all over the country are crying for them. Now they are recording audio too in some places, even audio on street lights to record pedestrians.

Who came out to say please ignore my privacy rights ?

When you talk about citizens asking for regulations, that's actually far and few between. Work place safety was an excellent example of that. I'm not saying no regulations is a good thing, just excessive regulation driven by agendas to raise money for dubious reasons or to socially engineer also for dubious reasons.

When you watch the news, see all these protestors, minimum wage/womens rights/ black lives matter/ the 1% ers, etc, you do realize the vast majority are paid to do that, right ? There are hundreds of organizations that pay people to protest, who are pushing agendas to make it appear the people are the ones asking for change.

When the real citizens came out and protested the planned parenthood video's, how much traction did that get ? Anything going to change ? Nope. There is quit a bit of real estate between changes/regulations citizens actually want and those given by people who hold the power to make those changes. Immigration issues would be a good example of that.

tonyb

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but looking around.....I found nobody in the citizen ranks clamoring for armed drones to be used by law enforcement.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/26/first-state-legalizes-armed-drones-for-cops-thanks-to-a-lobbyist.html

motorhead43026

Red light cameras here in Columbus, OH have been ordered to be taken down. They had the option to keep them, by having a police officer stationed at the intersection where the camera is in operation. This was ordered by the state supreme court. The reason for this was if you wanted to fight charges in court, there would be a human witness to testify against you.

tonyb

That option to have a police officer at every intersection was designed to hurt you financially so you give in. Have to hire more cops right ? Does anyone really believe you actually need someone or something to oversee the general public at any given intersection 24/7 ?

......and if you subscribe to that, how long before that mushrooms into many other areas of life ?

Msabot1

tonyb wrote: »

That option to have a police officer at every intersection was designed to hurt you financially so you give in. Have to hire more cops right ? Does anyone really believe you actually need someone or something to oversee the general public at any given intersection 24/7 ?

......and if you subscribe to that, how long before that mushrooms into many other areas of life ?

Tony..it already has...hidden plate readers..Plate readers on Municiple garbage trucks..Stingray tracking devices...Drones with tracking devices...and the experts wonder why police agencies are held in such a negative light??..

tonyb

Msabot1 wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

That option to have a police officer at every intersection was designed to hurt you financially so you give in. Have to hire more cops right ? Does anyone really believe you actually need someone or something to oversee the general public at any given intersection 24/7 ?

......and if you subscribe to that, how long before that mushrooms into many other areas of life ?

Tony..it already has...hidden plate readers..Plate readers on Municiple garbage trucks..Stingray tracking devices...Drones with tracking devices...and the experts wonder why police agencies are held in such a negative light??..

It only adds fuel to the fire of civil unrest if you ask me. Or maybe they plan on it coming and are simply preparing. Self preservation and all that. In any event, I get this sinking feeling in my gut that some know more than they let on and think civil unrest is inevitable in light of whats to come.

motorhead43026

Not to mention police departments with military grade equipment. Look at what swat teams have evolved into the last few years.

mhardy6647

Msabot1 wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

That option to have a police officer at every intersection was designed to hurt you financially so you give in. Have to hire more cops right ? Does anyone really believe you actually need someone or something to oversee the general public at any given intersection 24/7 ?

......and if you subscribe to that, how long before that mushrooms into many other areas of life ?

Tony..it already has...hidden plate readers..Plate readers on Municiple garbage trucks..Stingray tracking devices...Drones with tracking devices...and the experts wonder why police agencies are held in such a negative light??..

I thin that the most burning emerging issue is going to be:
What are paranoid schizophrenics supposed to have delusions about now?

Msabot1

Just fact bud...the eyes are upon us all...

D_M

Thanks for the civil discourse guys. Tony, now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Regardless of how tedious it might be, we as citizens have to dissect each policy in order to prevent it from becoming law. We have to fight it within the policy sphere. That means organizing and commissioning grassroot studies that policy makers cannot ignore. Our chances of getting various policies implemented or delayed are greater if we are equipped with data. I started with NY because it appears to be where red light camera policy started in the US. The catalyst occurred in 1982 (http://elkgrovepd.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_118017/File/StopOnRedSafeOnGreen.pdf). "A 18-month-old girl in Manhattan was dragged 13 blocks in her stroller by a red light runner. Miraculously, the child was not seriously injured, but her mother and a neighbor were prompted to form a
traffic safety advocacy group called Stop Traffic Offense Program"

I don't know how Illinois went about trying to justify red light policy, but I'm sure if you dig into it, it's bound to be enlightening. Based on the homework assignment you gave me, I learned a lot about red light camera policy and ways to challenge them constitutionally, as well as in civil court, should I receive a red light ticket. See how this has played out? I could have responded reflexively with whatever the current pro red light rhetoric is, but I chose to start at policy germination. Now I am better informed about red light policy.

D_M

Moose68Bash,

You'll find no disagreement from me that there are bad policies. I'm only asking that we take it upon ourselves to understand why, rather than being pulled into the demagoguery. By asking why, we might find that we are better policy practitioners than the folks that are charged with doing so.

Moose68Bash

D_M wrote: »

Moose68Bash,

You'll find no disagreement from me that there are bad policies. I'm only asking that we take it upon ourselves to understand why, rather than being pulled into the demagoguery. By asking why, we might find that we are better policy practitioners than the folks that are charged with doing so.

@D_M,

I know there are good policies and bad policies, policies implemented for good reasons and policies implemented for bad reasons, and sincere advocates of policies and demagogues or zealots who advocate for their pet policies.

In my life I try to live by Aristotle's principle of the "golden mean" -- that is, moderation in everything, trying to avoid extremes in either direction.

After traumatic events there are often outcries to implement policies that some think will prevent similar improbable events from occurring again. But, at what cost in terms of financial expenses and, often, loss of freedom?

Some policies at all levels of government are necessary to protect the public. But developing and implementing policies to manage risk in life requires a very heavy dose of prudence, which is all too often lacking in the advocates of many policies today.

Now, there are myriad issues in our society about which discourse seems to be less about characterizing the problem, identifying root causes, and solving the problem in a way that is the best that can be determined by serious people in view of all the factors involved.

tonyb

Of course we need policy and regulations to ensure public safety, nobody can argue that. Thing is....when is too much an over reach ? Believe me....red light camera's are not high on my list of things to tackle....but just an example. Because it's not high priority is exactly why they get away with it, little here, little there, and before you know it your privacy is completely gone.

Government is one of those entities I would consider in the realm of "giving an inch and taking a mile." If we can't even agree on some basic root causes to our problems, how are the solutions going to do any good ?

I find nothing extreme about sticking to our constitution and enforcing laws already on the books. Not bypassing them with regulations or selectively applying them as so often happens today.

mhardy6647

Reactionary policies are - I'd opine - best avoided.

As an example, consider the longstanding requirement to take off our shoes in order to board an commercial aircraft, after one schlub tried to set of a booby-trapped Dr. Scholl's (or Doc Martens... or whatever) at Christmastide in 2001 (a rather reactionary time in history).

Polkie2009

We had the red light cameras here in Houston for awhile til the voters fought back and had them disconnected. The cameras I believe are still in place , just not recording. We also had the smart meters installed , but apparently, you can opt out of that and go back to the analog meter. If doing that, the customer gets charged extra for someone to go and relace the meter and also to go every month to read the meter or something yada,yada,yada. so it ends up costing the customer more in the end.