I think most modern vehicles log some sort of top speed data in their ECU's.

IF you are not doing anything wrong.... then who cares if you are on video!!! Thats my motto!!

Exactly,,,,,,so make damn sure that when you do something wrong you are far away from any cameras.

In Toronto we have cameras in the intersections. Big flash = ticket in the mail. Don't run a yellow or,,,,, ticket on it's way.

stevetwo "Really?! Holy crap!! I really hope you're just kidding. If not, the governmental indoctrination system is definitely doing its job, and doing it well."

What do you mean? A driver's license IS a priviledge and not a right. You pay a fee, and pass a rudimentary test to get it. It can be taken away for violating the law. It's WAY too easy to get a license in this country. Having checkpoints to get the unlicensed, drunken, uninsured, and miscreants off the road, makes driving safer for everybody. I don't see what you could possibly disagree with, unless you are one of the above.

What do you mean? A driver's license IS a priviledge and not a right. You pay a fee, and pass a rudimentary test to get it. It can be taken away for violating the law. It's WAY too easy to get a license in this country. Having checkpoints to get the unlicensed, drunken, uninsured, and miscreants off the road, makes driving safer for everybody. I don't see what you could possibly disagree with, unless you are one of the above.

Further, it's not the government's responsibility to keep us safe from "...unlicensed, drunken, uninsured...miscreants...". If it was the government's responsibility, we could sue the government every time a "miscreant" injured us. When was the last time you heard of the government being sued for not keeping someone safe from an aforementioned "miscreant?" For that matter, why would you want the government to have that much control over your life?

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin in 1775 who wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." There are variants to this quote, but this is the original.

But, I digress.

To what I was referring was everything that ZXSyko posted. From driving being a privilege (it is not), to setting up licensing checkpoints (although, since we in America live in a Fascist Police State, I wouldn't put it past them).

I'm really hoping at some point that people finally wake-up from this 1984 nightmare in which we all currently live. But, I won't hold my breath.

I apologize for the off-topic discussion.

* Last updated by: stevetwo on 11/7/2010 @ 1:45 AM *

Those cameras dont take dirt bags off the street. They take your money and thats about it. Rember if you do get a ticket from one of those cameras DON'T PAY IT! No matter how many letters they send you. This place was crazy we had a guy with a monkey mask getting about 20 tickets a day. That was some funny shit!

* Last updated by: buck20 on 11/7/2010 @ 4:00 AM *

In Toronto we have cameras in the intersections. Big flash = ticket in the mail. Don't run a yellow or,,,,, ticket on it's way.

his place was crazy we had a guy with a monkey mask getting about 20 tickets a day. That was some funny shit!

Civil Disobedience---love it. Hope he was waving a friendly hello.

O my GAWD this is rich.........

"This image captured by a speed camera in Phoenix shows a driver wearing a monkey mask. While the car belongs to Dave Vontesmar, he claims it's not him."

""Not one of them there is a picture where you can identify the driver," said Dave Vontesmar, a flight attendant who works at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. "The ball's in their court. I sent back all these ones I got with a copy of my driver's license and said, 'It's not me. I'm not paying them.' "
But police disagree and say they've been watching him closely.
"We watched him four different times put the monkey mask on and put the giraffe-style mask on," Officer Dave Porter told AZcentral.com. "Based on surveillance, we were positive that Vontesmar was the driver."
Still, Vontesmar is confident that he won't have to pay the fines, which could exceed $6,500.
"It's obviously a revenue grab," he said of the new photo-enforcement program. "They're required by law to ID the driver of the vehicle. If they can't identify the driver or the vehicle by the picture, what are they doing to identify the driver?""

That's prety much the whole story but just for provinenece:

http://www.aolnews.com/story/driver-wears-monkey-mask-in-speed-camera/661005

I was hoping that he was doing about 2 miles over the limit but with a heap of fines like that, I think he was going a bit faster.

* Last updated by: Rook on 11/7/2010 @ 7:48 AM *

I think I saw a nice frog helmet for sale on Motorcycle superstore.

As for the insurance in some provinces with private insurance if you are in an accident with a person that is not insured YOU are on the hook until the insurance company settles

Down here the cops will impound your vehicle if you're caught driving without proof of liability insurance but that applies only to legitimate citizens. If you're an illegal up from Mexico they let you go on about your business because they can't deport you and and there is a mountain of paperwork that must be filed. This country is basically screwed!

* Last updated by: Kruz on 11/7/2010 @ 12:02 PM *

You all ride fast, ok, some of you ride fast and that does not mean you can't ride and be safe. There are people that flat out do not need to drive... In other words... Hand-Eye Did-DENT see the bike turn left in front of me how dare that cucking .... Can you help me pull him out of my radiator call 911 fuck that call my ECU

Where does it stop is my question? In Orwell's 1984, there is a television like monitor in your house that watches you. The technology is already here to do this kind of thing, I wasn't joking about that toilet cam, it's probably coming soon. Welcome to the gulag!

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.

Thomas Jefferson

* Last updated by: Kruz on 11/7/2010 @ 12:17 PM *

You throw the law makers out the minute she wants to wipe your ass she is on the phone don't bother her is that law

she's driving to work and got a head start is her office in the front seat is vacant = Get IT!

I wasn't joking about that toilet cam, it's probably coming soon. Welcome to the gulag!

That would get Bret Farve off the hook I think, Wouldn't it?.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I was stopped in my car when I was about 25 years old. I was told that I was doing nothing wrong and that it was just a routine traffic stop and they wanted to check my drivers license. I assumed that they must be looking for a crimanal and i was happy to do my part to help. It was a matter of public safety.

Now that I am 44, I am not so compliant when it comes to giving up essential rights, if for no better reason, just because once you give in, it's awfully hard to get back. I'm all in favor of hanging on to every right/privilege offered by employers and governments. Don't give up what was won for you ......you may find that you really need it some day. We have a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure and I would like to retain that right. Automatic viewing devices seem to come awfully close to violating that AFAIC.

* Last updated by: Rook on 11/7/2010 @ 1:49 PM *

stevetwo; Where in the constitution does it say a driver's license is an inalienable right? You have to earn the privilege to have that license by passing a test and paying a fee. It's not given to you at birth like freedom of speech, or at a specific age like voting. The license is for you to be able to drive on government owned and maintained roads, not for you to drive your vehicle. You can drive on private property without a license. If you break enough rules, then the government can take away your privilege to have a license to drive on THEIR property. It's not the goverments purpose to keep us safe, however, they chose to penalize or remove the lawbreakers from the public roads in order to maintain order. Would you rather have anyone that wants, drive any way they want? You wouldn't survive a day on a motorcycle! Driving a vehicle on public roads is not an inalienable right! Facsist police state? What country do you live in? We have a socialist leader, not a dictator. Just because people are not allowed to run rampant without answering to authority, does not mean fascism.

* Last updated by: alg8er on 11/7/2010 @ 2:20 PM *

Rook; "We have a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure and I would like to retain that right. Automatic viewing devices seem to come awfully close to violating that AFAIC"

You have no right to privacy when in the public view, like driving. Anyone can take pictures or video when in the public domain, as you have no expectations of privacy. Thats how the papparazzi are able to hound celebrities, businesses can have security cameras, and the government can have traffic cams. Yes you have a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, but everyone is required to produce proof of identification when asked by police. That is not searching.

Rook; I think the advancement of "in car" enhancements for police is basically to help them in the courtroom. Attourneys have made it so difficult for prosecution that police need more evidence at the time of the act. If you think about it, it would also help prove innocence too. Police car cams would remove the whole "I observed the subject" problem of police. They couldn't lie or be mistaken, and neither could you.

personally, I would apreciate anything that would get the jackass off my rear bumper, especially when they have their brights on. It seems to happen to me at least once every night I'm on the interstate.

^^Good points but I'm not at all comfortable if I am being monitored so closely. Public or private---being watched is harassment. I am not a malicious criminal who deserves to be watched so closely.

Here's the key question: WHat is happening on our roads that is so dangerous that law enforcement must be stepped up? Is it about drug smuggling and terrorism or is it about traffic violations? Personally, I feel much safer on the road than I did 20 years ago and that has nothing to do with law enforcement. The cars are better. The roads seem to be better maintained and constructed more safely too. People can go fast much safer.

If the idea is to bust people who mean us all harm then I would like them to be the target; not the rest of us.

stevetwo; Where in the constitution does it say a driver's license is an inalienable right? You have to earn the privilege to have that license by passing a test and paying a fee. It's not given to you at birth like freedom of speech, or at a specific age like voting. The license is for you to be able to drive on government owned and maintained roads, not for you to drive your vehicle. You can drive on private property without a license. If you break enough rules, then the government can take away your privilege to have a license to drive on THEIR property.

To wit: licensing of any kind is a control measure used by the government to subjugate a citizenry. As I've said already, it is an affront to freedom and liberty. Further, the Constitution enumerates the powers of government, not the powers of the people. Where in the Constitution does it state the government has the power to license anyone for anything? Licensing by government is contrary to a free society.

It's not the goverments purpose to keep us safe, however, they chose to penalize or remove the lawbreakers from the public roads in order to maintain order.

Would you rather have anyone that wants, drive any way they want? You wouldn't survive a day on a motorcycle!

As an example: How many of us on this board always obey arbitrarily posted speed limits? I would gather no one does. For that matter, I doubt no one, anywhere, at any time, obeys all arbitrarily posted speed limits? If this is the case, then what have speed limit laws prevented?

Driving a vehicle on public roads is not an inalienable right!

Public roads are just that, public. They are not owned by the government, but by the people.

Facsist police state? What country do you live in? We have a socialist leader, not a dictator. Just because people are not allowed to run rampant without answering to authority, does not mean fascism.

To wit: "A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.

"In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

"A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual." - Gonzalo Lira

Who decides the law, and how it's applied in this country? It is certainly not you or me.

* Last updated by: stevetwo on 11/7/2010 @ 3:53 PM *

I'm all in favor of hanging on to every right/privilege offered by employers and governments.

* Last updated by: stevetwo on 11/7/2010 @ 3:51 PM *

Rights exist because we as individuals exist.

.....And because we don't let go of them. Give an inch and lose a mile. Slippery slope, open the door a crack and everything comes falling out.........

* Last updated by: Rook on 11/7/2010 @ 6:49 PM *