Cameras record license plates in a snap

If you've driven past the intersection of South Braddock Avenue and Hutchinson Street during the past two weeks, you've taken part in a surveillance experiment, one that law enforcement hopes will pay off by helping police nab fugitives, stolen cars and other suspect vehicles. Full Story
mark jay skirpan

Pittsburgh, PA

#1 Jul 30, 2012
so sad this man is my cousin. he will never learn from his mistakes.maybe time for a name change .
neil

Pittsburgh, PA

#2 Oct 4, 2012
i am confused as to who your cousin is.

i share that these cameras can be abused and used in manors not conducive to upholding our civil rights. the public place setting is a sticky point though. if one can prove that private property (as in real property) is unlawfully being surveiled by these camera placements then i'm afraid they may wind up staying. think of it this way, you have a right to go to the intersection and take photos and even video if you would like to. if that invades the real estate property privacy of somebody then there is an argument to get them taken down and possible legal ramifications to the offending boros.

that brings up another question as do we have a right to see these photos to verify no invasion of privacy is taking place?

“Obama is a Liar, Period!”

Since: Jan 07

Pittsburgh, PA

#3 Oct 14, 2012
This seems RACIST to me! In fact there should be no requirement that a citizen, or anyone else, buy plates in the first place. These plates act as a way for you to be identified and according to most of our elected officials in Allegheny County, this is illegal and unconstitutional. Our government cannot force you to buy anything. You shouldn't have to buy these plates. After all, voting is much more important than driving and if I don't need to be identified to vote, then I do not need to be identified to move my car. These cameras affect your license not your car, these license plates are illegal.
Old Cynic sux

Pittsburgh, PA

#4 Oct 14, 2012
Good gawd, you ignorant old fool, you are most certainly identified to vote... you just don't need a government issued photo ID, ya' Dumazz, as the courts have found it illegally acts to suppress the vote of eligible voters... particularly those who statistically vote Democratic, and that's the reason Republican controlled legislatures attempted this bullshit! Turzai freely admitted it in a filmed, public statement!

“Obama is a Liar, Period!”

Since: Jan 07

Pittsburgh, PA

#5 Oct 14, 2012
Old Cynic sux wrote:
Good gawd, you ignorant old fool, you are most certainly identified to vote... you just don't need a government issued photo ID, ya' Dumazz, as the courts have found it illegally acts to suppress the vote of eligible voters... particularly those who statistically vote Democratic, and that's the reason Republican controlled legislatures attempted this bullshit! Turzai freely admitted it in a filmed, public statement!
Got nothing to do with using plates for ID. It's simply wrong. The plate ID's the owner, not the driver.
Old Cynic sux

Pittsburgh, PA

#6 Oct 14, 2012
Driving is a privilege, old fool, not a constitutional right like every citizen's voting franchise. Good gawd, but your ignorance is absolutely stunning!
Meek

Vandergrift, PA

#7 Oct 15, 2012
Is the name calling really necessary to get your point across?

“Obama is a Liar, Period!”

Since: Jan 07

Pittsburgh, PA

#8 Oct 15, 2012
Old Cynic sux wrote:
Driving is a privilege, old fool, not a constitutional right like every citizen's voting franchise. Good gawd, but your ignorance is absolutely stunning!
I remember you fighting for Obama care by stating that people had to buy car insurance. Now it's a privilege? What did you do, attend the Obama school of flip flop? License plates are required by the owner of a car. This has nothing to do with the driver. I realize that the progressive liberal has a closed mind, but this is really a simple concept. Owner has plates. Driver needs to be licensed. Not a hard concept.
Old Cynic sux

Pittsburgh, PA

#9 Oct 15, 2012
WTF!?! You can't be this stupid, old man. Driving is a privilege, fool, and being properly insured is a legally imposed condition for the exercise of that privilege. There is no contradiction here, dimwit, and flip-flopping is the exclusive domain of Romney this election cycle, and I respect his predominance there. And owning a car, as it can be driven on the open road, is a privilege, too, putz, and so is regulated by the state. Drivers are licensed and vehicles are registered, and for many of the same reasons, ya' old fool! This is a difficult concept for you?

“Obama is a Liar, Period!”

Since: Jan 07

Pittsburgh, PA

#10 Oct 16, 2012
Old Cynic sux wrote:
WTF!?! You can't be this stupid, old man. Driving is a privilege, fool, and being properly insured is a legally imposed condition for the exercise of that privilege. There is no contradiction here, dimwit, and flip-flopping is the exclusive domain of Romney this election cycle, and I respect his predominance there. And owning a car, as it can be driven on the open road, is a privilege, too, putz, and so is regulated by the state. Drivers are licensed and vehicles are registered, and for many of the same reasons, ya' old fool! This is a difficult concept for you?
The concept has nothing to do with identification while legally going about your business. But then, with no ID required to even vote, I guess it 's really a non-starter. If you want your every motion recorded using the ID on your vehicle, so be it, I personally do not. Just keep drinking the progressive Kool Aid, just keep drinking.

And by the way, the flip-flopping patent is held by John Kerry and his boss, Obama. Starting with the record of his presidency.
Old Cynic-Troll sux

Pittsburgh, PA

#11 Oct 16, 2012
Well, azzwipe, I won't relitigate a law that the courts have already found so flawed it will not be enforced in this election... and the fight to make that permanent will continue!
And what you want is irrelevant; the law stands, and has never even been challenged... wonder why, azzwipe?
Keep sucking down that conservative bullsh*t... as your party fades completely out of relevancy, old fool!

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#12 Oct 17, 2012
Many states have cameras and they are always snapping pics and also have video running too. They can go back an check for things if they so choose.

Pa is now also getting red light cameras and you will see it's nothing but a huge money grab if they so choose to utilize them in the City . In many states they are removing these cameras due to the costs associated with them and people ignoring the citations.

The owner of the car usually gets the ticket but in all many of the states the driver has to be identified and to avoid prosecution you have to send in a copy of your drivers license if it wasn't the owner driving and the ticket will be dismissed.

I believe in PA they don't care who's driving the owner of the car will be cited. I'm sure once this is implemented drivers will start screaming as You should be able to face your accuser in court to testify and camera's with PA law will for go that step.
They try and pass it off as saying it'll prevent many accidents etc. In most cases in the other states they have proven that is not true. Yes I may eliminate some accidents but they have caused many rear end collisions.

Plain and simple it's basically another tax placed on the car owners.

As far as these cameras in particular they won't do squat. If they want to find stolen cars this sure isn't the way to do it. They have mobile cameras fro police cruisers that have the same technology and those cameras read an average of 2000 plates in ten hours because they are cameras mounted on police cruisers.

These cameras coming are simply a new tax on drivers stay tuned ..
Old Cynic sux

Pittsburgh, PA

#13 Oct 18, 2012
The red light cameras and their automatic tickets- levied by PRIVATE enterprises on behalf of the governments involved- is much like the voter photo ID law: there is no problem with in person voter fraud, as the state freely admitted in court, and, similarly, there is no safety issue that can be effectively addressed with these stop-light cameras. Voter photo ID's purpose, as publically stated by the PA House GOP leader, is to suppress the vote, and voters more likely to cast a ballot for a Democrat, much as the true purpose of red light camera sytem's real purpose is revenue enhancement while providing an income stream for private sector cronies. Interesting, that in both cases, they are brought to you by the Republican majority in both houses of the PA legislature, and the man in the Governor's mansion.

Most interesting indeed... from restricting our fundamental franchise as voters, our most cherished freedom, to restricting women's reproductive and healthcare rights, to squeezing a few bucks out of an automated red-light ticket, it all restricts our freedoms as a free people... and it is the work of the REPUBLICAN PARTY! They are not on the side of the average Pennsylvanian or American... and usually because there simply isn't a way to make a buck for the GOP's private sector cronies doing it!
Not a progressive

Pittsburgh, PA

#14 Nov 20, 2012
Old Cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Got nothing to do with using plates for ID. It's simply wrong. The plate ID's the owner, not the driver.
In the state of PA the owner of the vehicle is responsible for any damages done to other's property, persons, etc by that vehicle EXCEPT when that vehicle has been stolen/illegally used, in which case the owner would CERTAINLY want to have this aid to finding their car, dontcha think? If nothing else the cameras provide a way to find out what is actually happening in a scenario involving a vehicle.

This also means that car owners should be careful about who they let borrow their vehicles.

As far as "privacy", the only folks who have to worry about these traffic cams are the ones who are doing something wrong to begin with.

The cameras will help the decent folks in this world by (hopefully) making criminals think twice since they can be more readily caught.
Truth

Pittsburgh, PA

#15 Nov 20, 2012
Oh, fer gawd's sake, that ol' chestnut of an excuse for impinging on Americans' right: if you're a good decent person, you've got nothing to fear. What a putz!
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

#16 Nov 23, 2012
There has been cases where the yellow light timing was actually shortened when red light cameras were installed. At normal approach speeds, a driver had to lock down his brakes to avoid a ticket and rear enders were common. Private companies are contracted to run these lights and the cities get only a portion of the money. Shorter yellow,more tickets,more profit. There are products on the market to block the camera from getting a clear picture of your tag.. Look on line under "Blockers"

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Criminal Defense Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Massena woman who threatened boyfriend with ste... 1 hr LAIDoffWELFARE 13
Stacey Burns murder case "an ongoing investigat... (Apr '10) 2 hr Amazed 331
Pennsylvania lawmaker who fired on mugger has a... 3 hr Cat74 10
Montebello councilwomana s husband sentenced to... 5 hr ExBFF 27
One year after concealed carry, Chicago homicid... 5 hr Kentucky-Mitch 7
Freedom To Assemble Dead? 7 hr Bill Bathwater 3
No Charges Against Luce County Troopers, Prosec... (Jun '09) 8 hr Sneaky Pete Is a ... 301

Criminal Defense Law People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE