Big Brother is coming

shack

I could care less about the citation and agree this system is set up for a money grab. What I want is to get the violators OFF THE ROAD. I would rather them impound the vehicle until paid up proof of insurance is provided.

PhantomOG

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1479275,red-light-camera-uninsured-031609.article

Ok, for the Chicago proposal I agree. I don't believe in the camera/automated ticketing system.

But I still see a problem with our current insurance laws. In states where insurance is required, the laws are not practically enforced so they are a waste.

obieone

tonyb wrote: »

BTW-That smart grid stuff is for the birds,I will never let big brother into my home.I'll find away to generate my own electricity before I do that.Not saying that current grids don't need to be updated,just don't like all the info the smart grid sucks out to taxing bodies.

LOL! Um, I hate to tell you this, but you're NOT gonna have a CHOICE!
At the rate these things are devoloping, it wouldn't surprise me if anyone who is 'energy independent' are treated as moonshiners.
It's all about CDONTROL!!!:mad:

PhantomOG

shack wrote: »

I could care less about the citation and agree this system is set up for a money grab. What I want is to get the violators OFF THE ROAD. I would rather them impound the vehicle until paid up proof of insurance is provided.

That's what I see as silly as well. If you have a law that say insurance is required to drive the vehicle, shouldn't it be *required*? If you get pulled over or get into a fender bender, the cops just let you drive on your merry way without insurance!! How is that law enforcement?

Imagine if we just gave drunk drivers a ticket and sent them on their way?

KrazyMofo24

Apparently I missed the second paragraph where it states traffic cameras. I definitely don't want it to track speeding, or stopping completely at a stop sign. However for detecting no insurance I wouldn't mind too much.

If you can't afford at least liability insurance then you shouldn't be driving. Just imagine how much you can owe if you get in a wreck.

reeltrouble1

The people in charge in Illinois would never abuse their power.

I am big brother, I am here to help you. Trust me.

rayslifecycle

We must all do what they say.
We lost our rights long ago.
We voted for and chose to participate in this system.
Anyone who dissents now will be dealt with appropriately.

I accept our deal because I know that powerful people will behave honorably and protect me from the bad guys. My only regret is that I am too old for compulsory national service.

WilliamM2

This doesn't bother me nearly as much as the plans to start taxing drivers by the mile. This will require a GPS in every car on the raod, which will be monitored bt the government. They will then know where you are at all times, and whether or not you are speeding.

disneyjoe7

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

The people in charge in Illinois would never abuse their power.

I am big brother, I am here to help you. Trust me.

Reminds me of....


"We are from the Government and we're here to help". :eek:

phipiper10

bobman1235 wrote: »

Untrue. I know at least NH does NOT require motorists to have insurance; I'm guessing we are not the only state, but we may be.

I mean this with as much respect as possible, but if you really think this way, you are a far bigger idiot than the people you think you are being protected from. Everything about this post is moronic. Thinking we need a Big Brother figure to protect us from idiots is lunacy, and insisting that the efficacy of such a system is somehow separate from the insistence that it exist is an idea I can't even comprehend. A system that relies completely on a governing body to function is inherently broken, excatly because the governing body can never be effective while still permitting those governed to maintain a reasonable level of freedom.


A little late in getting back to this. Are you saying we don't need police or an army? They are all looking out for our best interest or at least that's the idea and are directed by our government. They are there to make sure people follow established rules. Weather in your town or another country.

It's the same with the insurance. Gotta make sure someone is catching the rule breakers. There are rules for a reason and there needs to be a means to catch rule breakers and punish them.

People left alone without checks and balances get out of control.

I'm all for freedom - sniff glue at your house until you are dead - But if you hit me in a car and I'm laid up and can't work and you have no insurance- That is not ok!

Again I'm not saying the governement does things well or is effective. My point is there are too many people out there willing to break rules and there needs to be more enforcement, oversight of things like insurance, of financial institutions, of illegal immigrants of politicians. Too bad we hadn't done a better job with the latter three and America might be a better place than it is at this very moment.

They all are taking advantages because nobody is watching or cares.

steveinaz

Of course we could all live in test tubes, and then we would really be safe.

No thanks, I'll take my chances so I can at least truly enjoy the freedoms and liberty I fought to protect---or what's left of them.

Government is already waaaaay too involved with our personal lives.

bobman1235

phipiper10 wrote: »

A little late in getting back to this. Are you saying we don't need police or an army? They are all looking out for our best interest or at least that's the idea and are directed by our government. They are there to make sure people follow established rules. Weather in your town or another country.

Of course I'm not saying that. It's difficult to articulate but to me (and I understand that I think differently than many) there is a distinct difference between having cops and an army to protect us from the violent criminals and thieves of the world and inviting them into every facet of our lives to protect us from the smaller things like lapsed insurance. It's all shades of grey, I understand that, there's no real line that you can draw between one set of activities and another, at least not easily, but for me the line is drawn well before automated tracking of vehicles to search for insurance lapses.

Is insurance an important issue? I guess. I don't like the fact that nearly everyone seems to think insurance is this cure-all. I'm fine with true personal responsibility in whatever form it may come in. If you crash into me and it costs thirty grand in medical bills and repairs, you better be able to pay it one way or another. I don't care if it's insurance or a lien on your house or you borrow from a rich uncle.

It's the same with the insurance. Gotta make sure someone is catching the rule breakers. There are rules for a reason and there needs to be a means to catch rule breakers and punish them.

In theory I of course agree; the rule is there, it should be enforced, but to what end? At some point enforcing certain rules to the point of perfection puts us in a Draconian world. If we were to strictly enforce every law on the books can you even imagine what kind of world we would live in? We'd have to be monitored 24/7 to make sure we don't drive without a seatbelt, don't drink too much, don't jaywalk, don't make too much noise after 10PM, pay taxes on all out-of-state and internet purchases, signal when changing lanes .... the list goes on forever. So opening the door to some sort of automated monitoring system that scans cars and checks their insurance status makes me nervous to say the least.

brettw22

I dont' remember where I lived at the time, but my insurance lapsed and I got a letter from the DMV indicating that my license was going to be suspended if I didn't provide proof of insurance within X time frame.

The solution of putting all the cops out there to write these types of tickets won't work, because you need tens of thousands to handle JUST this particular issue.

If the law is that you cannot drive if you don't have insurance, don't send a ticket to someone.......dispatch a towtruck to the area and let the car go bye bye........

phipiper10

Ah, breaking up my work day I am.

I'd only add this. While it does seem trivial on the surface A lapse in insurance will ruin someone's life when a serious accident takes place. Many people don't have a house or cash in the bank so getting the money is unlikely. You would just be screwed.

I do agree chasing people around and the "watching" of what people are doing in principal seems wrong in a "Free" society.

It is all shady - I mean shades of grey.

rayslifecycle

bobman1235 wrote: »

(and I understand that I think differently than many)

I like the way you think

madmax

The last guy that hit me didn't have enough insurance to pay for my truck and the car he pushed me into. Both vehicles were POS, not like we were all driving BMW's or something. I could have sued him but for the amount it wasn't worth it. So, the issue is more than just whether you have insurance but also how much do you have. Eff any surveilance techniques used by the government for any reason, I'd rather have the right to privacy.
madmax

obieone

Worst Case Scenario: Back when I lived in MA, I received notification in the mail, that I had run the Allson-Brighton tolls on the Masspike(I90) The problem was, that the vehicle was a white minivan, and NOT my RED s-10! The plate #'s were so close that I had to look at my plate for a good 5 minutes before I caught the discrepency.
And believe me, they were threatening all sorts of punishment. I replied by pointing out THEIR mistake. They replied that they would take up the matter with the actual offender.
No apology!

If anyone believes that they won't get to the point where they just issue tickets, WITHOUT investigating, you're WAY too optimistic.

cfrizz

Bob, I'm happy that you are honorable enough to believe in "I'm fine with true personal responsibility"

Too damn bad that there are MILLIONS out there who don't give a $hit!

I say use this system to send tow trucks out & confiscate the cars!

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

Of course we could all live in test tubes, and then we would really be safe.

No thanks, I'll take my chances so I can at least truly enjoy the freedoms and liberty I fought to protect---or what's left of them.

Government is already waaaaay too involved with our personal lives.

....and thats why I like you Steve.Now gimme a kiss:D:D

AndyGwis

Big Brother is invading sports as well. . . http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4012452

A network of narcs. Actually doesn't sound like too terrible of an idea if used correctly. Hate spending $200+ on sports tickets to be by some biligerent ****. Unless I am that ****, then it's okay.

Polkersince85

At the present time, we each have one vote. There will (maybe) be elections in the future. Use your vote wisely and maybe we can stop this $$hit.

wizzy

Kex wrote: »

So why do we have to live with largely ineffective airport security, that seems to inconvenience the trustworthy more than it guarantees against the violent?

That airport security is something else. I was flying a lot in 2003/4/5 and they used to do those "random" checks on people.

Here's the thing. I look different. Long hair, etc.

On average I would get "randomly" picked about every other flight or two. So hmm, on a flight with 200-300 people, I would reliably be picked 33% of the time "randomly"

What were those people thinking? Idiots ... if I wanted to be a terrorist I would cut my hair, buy some dress shoes, and look like 90% of the other people in the airport. I wouldn't stand out and look different.

Duh.

wizzy

Polkersince85 wrote: »

At the present time, we each have one vote. There will (maybe) be elections in the future. Use your vote wisely and maybe we can stop this $$hit.

Wonder what people would think of making it so you get one vote, plus an extra vote for every $10k/year you pay in taxes.

That would be a little more fair ...

tonyb

Polkersince85 wrote: »

At the present time, we each have one vote. There will (maybe) be elections in the future. Use your vote wisely and maybe we can stop this $$hit.

Only one?? When did that change?:)
Point is,the less big bro in your life the better off everyone is.Yeah,you guys heard me say this before,yada yada,so I'll keep it short.The founding fathers warned us of this,it's called tyranny.....google it.

SKsolutions

I'll have to check with the Ministry of Truth to find out what I really believe.

sucks2beme

I prefer the mail notice. They give you a couple weeks to get insurance if it lapsed before demanding your tags. If they catch you out driving without, tow. They've been doing it for years in some states. As far as that automated crap via cameras and tracking, no thanks. That's normally when the stupid stuff starts to happen.

bobman1235

wizzy wrote: »

Wonder what people would think of making it so you get one vote, plus an extra vote for every $10k/year you pay in taxes.

That would be a little more fair ...

In what world? Giving the rich more power in government isn't really the best way to go in anyone's world. It's called classism, look it up.

apphd

steveinaz wrote: »

Of course we could all live in test tubes, and then we would really be safe.

No thanks, I'll take my chances so I can at least truly enjoy the freedoms and liberty I fought to protect---or what's left of them.

Government is already waaaaay too involved with our personal lives.

+1 My father was a tail gunner on a bomber in WWII shot down and POW, most all of my uncles are WWII vets. My brother is a vet, my brother-in-law is a vet, and I am a vet, we served to protect and preserve the US freedoms.
This is good for what it is proposed for, but if you think it will only be used for this, think again.
Same with this:
http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2007/05/14/face-recognition-software-raises-ethical-dilemma/

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/NZ-Police-prepares-for-face-recognition/0,130061733,139265255,00.htm

brettw22 wrote: »

...........
If the law is that you cannot drive if you don't have insurance, don't send a ticket to someone.......dispatch a towtruck to the area and let the car go bye bye........

+1 PA requires insurance, purchased, or self-insured. Proof of insurance is required when you register a vehicle, and again when it is inspected. But we still have people driving without insurance, registration, inspections, and even licenses. Lack of government laws is not a problem; it's enforcing them with enough consequences that everyone follows them.
Again this technology comes at a $$ cost. Which will be paid for by, you guessed it you and me, I speculate that this cost will be a surcharge on your insurance, or registration, or license. So again the worst offenders, will not only not have insurance, but probably also not pay for this technology to catch them. Then, if it does, they get a ticket and go on their merry way. What was solved?

SKsolutions

In certain areas, we've already subordinated the control of Interstate Highways, including the right to collect tolls (use tax), to foreign interests through PPP's. Is the right to further tax, surcharge, excise, police, or otherwise holdup Americans also for sale? Would this recording 'system' live in a vacuum, and all of it's data stored in flat-file, or would it be correlated, aggregated, and for sale like our highways?

ttomp

steveinaz wrote: »

Just another way for someone to capitalize (aka MAKE MONEY) by exploiting your right to privacy.

Commendable in theory, **** in practice.

Gotta love this "appealing to your fears" way of selling **** (service). Screw the many so a few can feel better; meanwhile we make a ton of money Tad... F that

****, just hang a goddam bell around our necks. That'll keep us in check.

No surprise that Kalicago is "on board" surely Colofornia will be next.

It's commiefornia , get it right.