Scenarios Of Speeding

red-light safety cameras increased 135%.” (“Red-Light Running Dangers”) When the conversation of whether to have red light cameras, or not to have red light cameras arises, human fatalities should without a doubt be a top consideration. Especially when a study performed during 2011 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that red light cameras had lowered

There is so much crime which occurs in our society today, which it is very difficult to put an end to it. But there is a thing which is common among these crimes which are the criminals. According to the article, "Police body Cams: Solution or scam? Nwanevu the author has stated many questions to which he gathers the responses from three panels who is Mariame Kaba a member of the Chicago antipolice violence organization, David Fleck a vice president and he is also a major manufacturer of the police body cameras, and Connor Boyack who is a president of Utah 's Liberates Institute. This article mentions the popular magazine such as Time magazine, this magazine reports that over a quarter of the country 's police departments are already testing or actively using cameras, including the NYPD and the LAPD (Nwanevu, 2015). Also the author Nwanevu states that The Obama administration has called for the federal funding to support the deployment of as many as 50,000 devices to state and local law enforcement agencies. The administration 's reasoning captures the perspective of most camera supporters. According to the status the usage by police officers will help sustain trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they interact with (Nwanevu, 2015). Reformers have suggested that the video could have gone a long way towards resolving the ambiguities of the Michael Brown case where eyewitnesses had given conflicting stories and also the death of Eric Garner according to

Each year numerous lives are lost due to careless and irrational driving. The disregard for safe driving has been a predicament to the United States of America for years. Many years Police have relied heavily on speed cameras, breathalyzer tests and heavy fines as a deterrent against unlawful drivers. Over the years fatality rates have increased, so the Department of Transportation and Highway Safety has composed a series of safe driving campaigns. On many occasions the Transportation Department informs and advises the public about the importance of responsible driving. They propagate safe driving through the various channels of the media and

The individuals with wide diversity have different requirements. They are facing many difficulties due to this management system. 2 Among them, the Red Light camera is one most controversial issue of the local and state governments. The controversy of the red light camera between local and state government was started from early 2000’s and is still continuing. Similarly, the committee of Texas voted 8 out of 22 approving a bill to ban the authorization of Red Light’s contract. Likewise, the major controversial topic in Austin and Dallas is about the Red light camera. In addition, the main purpose of keeping Red Light camera was to prevent the possible road accident. But the Red Light camera didn’t provide the strong witness in identifying the drivers. Therefore, the State government didn’t find it

Even when Grey and Citron do make specific reference acts and programs that support law enforcement they do not make a distinction between the programs that support law enforcement situational awareness and programs that they describe as indiscriminate surveillance. For example, technology can be used by police forces to create to more efficient and effective without violating Forth Amendment rights. Police can plan their presence patrols for the best effect based on data gathered from cameras in high-density urban environments. Monitoring of traffic patterns and density allows both the police and other emergency vehicles to find the fastest routes to their desired location. While collection of this data could be interpreted as indiscriminate it, purpose is consistent with legitimate interests of law

Security cameras have been bought by the millions and are being put everywhere. The chances of walking down the street corner and not being videotaped are slim to none. Security cameras range for traffic cameras, car cameras, to business cameras. The use of security cameras has diminished crime solving time. If a convenient store gets robbed chances are there are at least 4 cameras all pointed in different directions. This makes police work a lot easier where now an officer can view the tape and get a good picture of their suspect. These cameras can be set up at traffic intersections as well to catch traffic violations, and in India that’s exactly what their doing. As India’s cities grow they require more safety features like road side cameras. The article ,Sony Network Cameras help Indore Police, describes the uses of these cameras. Sony has partnered with the Indore police in setting up red light cameras that watch for traffic violations. When the light turns red the camera sets up a virtual line and any vehicle that passes the line is flagged and a picture is taken of the license plate. The cameras also have multiple other uses such as monitoring parking lots and sidewalks. Many people do not like this new system though, and the thought of it is that an officer should be present when issuing a citation. This allows the driver to have a chance to explain themselves to the officer making traffic violations

With the increasing emergence of traffic cameras around the nation, there has emerged a debate about whether the cameras are effectively functioning to keep drivers safe or whether they are just another source of revenue for cites. Facts have proven that the purpose for the traffic cameras is simply generating more money for the cities. The estimated amount of money that the city of Denver will be making in 2011 from these cameras (Kaminsky)—excluding the ones recently put up—a grand estimation total of seven million dollars… “According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety more than 550 communities in the United States use red light cameras.” (Urie) Research shows how the cameras are not improving safety for drivers, and for

These types of devices would help show an omniscient side to a very chaotic situation. In an article titled “Police Use New Technologies to Fight Crime” by George Avalos, a business reporter for the Bay Area News Group who covers the economy, jobs, PG&E, Chevron, financial companies and commercial real estate, Mr. Avalos discusses the new technology that is used in the police force by the officers. This article also hits home on the idea of attaining body worn cameras for all police departments because of the benefits of wearing body cameras. When talking about these new technological devices, the article ends by stating that “license plate readers, facial recognition technologies, [and] videos from body cameras, coupled with street cameras and drones, could be aggregated into huge databases that can enable law enforcement to improperly gather information about people's habits and destinations” (Avalos). Being able to compile all of this information could help uncover secret operations, such as drug deals, and could potentially catch wanted criminals or future criminals. Having body cameras that have facial recognition would help the police identify people who may not have a valid license on them. On the other hand, police officers can abuse the very thing that could also make their job easier. Many police officers may use these devices as an intimidator. Emmeline Taylor, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at City, University of London, states in her article “Police Detainee Perspectives on Police Body-worn Cameras”, that some police officers can abuse the technology that is available to them to prevent something; “While [the use of BWCs has] been encouraged to assist in reducing racial profiling in stop and search, they could produce other types of discrimination, such as being used to intimidate and record in

Technology has benefited developed countries in numerous amounts of ways. Most recently, body cameras has seen use in a few U.S. law enforcement agencies across the United States and has improved public relations for those police departments. However, many police officers and lawmakers question the cost and efficiency of such devices and whether the citizens should be placed under constant surveillance when near a law enforcement officer. Whether or not body-worn cameras should be required to be implemented into law enforcement agencies across America is debatable and the decision is dependent on the factors of public safety, cost efficiency, and whether body cameras will serve a practical use or not.

In the United States, in particular, policies such as this may be necessary to reduce police shootings and abuse of suspects. “In 2011, police killed six people in Australia, two in England, six in Germany and, according to an FBI count, 404 in the United States. And that FBI number counted only “justifiable homicides,” and was comprised of voluntarily submitted data from just 750 of 17,000 law enforcement agencies” (Stanley). The hope is that the implementation of these cameras reduces these numbers by a significant margin by providing reason for both the cops and the criminals to be more controlled. The use of cameras could also decrease the fear of police officers in routine crime stops if the citizen is aware that the officer’s actions are being recorded and

In “Speed Safety Cameras Near Schools Make Sense”, Hope Reeves writes about the opposition against a bill to expand the number and scope of speed safety cameras in New York City school zones. Reeves claims that speed safety cameras are effective and “violations have dropped an average of 63 percent where speed safety cameras already exist.” The cameras are carefully calibrated and are not activated unless a vehicle is traveling more than 10 miles above the speed limit which eliminates the possibility of malfunctioning. Reeves believes that “adding more speed safety cameras in school zones would calm traffic citywide [and] train drivers to obey the law.” While motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury-related death for children

Over recent decades, driving has almost become a necessity to many young adults since some jobs require a farther commute and colleges are not located in every town. Driving is a privilege and many people neglect this privilege by developing dangerous driving habits. Some of these include speeding, distracted driving, road rage and driving under the influence. In today's age people live a very fast paced, rushed lifestyle. Speeding is becoming a problem because people are impatient. Speeding decreases your reaction time for avoiding collisions and is becoming a profitable scheme for law enforcement through speed traps. I speed all the time and realize the dangers of doing so. I have not been in a collision yet or been pulled over by a police officer because they could not keep

Red-light-running camera enforcement is a relatively new technology. The cameras where implemented for use in the United States in the 1990s. The technology is available to help reduce a substantial problem that causes injuries and fatalities after a person enters a signalized intersection when displayed a red light in their traveled direction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has defined the term "red-light-running" in Issue Brief 6 as "the act of entering, and proceeding through, a signalized intersection after the traffic signal has turned red." (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], 2009 (6), p1) While the FHWA is a proponent of this technology, controversy has been driven by claims from opponents who cite privacy issues, maintenance concerns, and claims that the intervals for yellow/amber signals have been shortened for the sole purpose of generating funds for the states and municipalities that use the technology. Looking back at the history of the traffic signals, authorities that control them and some recent studies may allow for a better understanding of the cameras and their use today.

In today’s world, Law Enforcement polices society twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. Society expects “… the police to serve their community and discharge their legal authority within the boundaries of the law” (Ross, 382). Who polices the very people society had entrusted with such legal power over them? In the world of technology there is a product that is moving to the forefront to answer this question. Body cameras, this technology if used will allow rarely seen interactions between police and society for good or bad on both sides. It is not a secret to the world that there are good police and there bad police patrolling society.

Possibly the technological feature creating the most controversy is surveillance cameras. What is seemingly there for public safety could also inhibit safety by exposing the public’s private life. Every move made under the hawk-like vision of the camera is observed and judged by someone sitting behind the scenes. Women risk being stalked by sexual predators, and assailants have been known to memorize the schedule of a subject in order to time the perfect attack (Stead). “Bad cops” may gain insight to a personal life that allows for the watcher to blackmail the victim. In recent studies it has been proven that an increase in surveillance cameras does not decrease the crime rate; it