Constitutional Rights or Dead Women & Children?

redflexThat seems to be the question photo radar peddler Redflex is asking while conducting questionable push-polling in Louisiana.


Would you support a person’s constitutional rights even if it meant the death of women and children?

That’s how one question was framed in a recent public opinion poll on the use of automated traffic enforcement cameras in Lafayette.

To be fair, this was the question as asked: “Some people say the state Legislature should outlaw the use of traffic cameras because they are a violation of a person’s constitutional right. Other people say that we need to allow the use of traffic cameras because women and children are being killed by people who speed and run red lights and the use of cameras will save lives. Which do you agree with more?”

One might question the lack of concern in that question for the lives of men, but the words “women and children” seem to roll off the tongue nicely when laying out the dire consequences of traffic scofflaws. […]

Beyond the “women and children” question, there were a few points where it seemed the poll was attempting to make an argument for traffic cameras rather than gauge opinion about the devices.

One question asked poll takers to agree or disagree with the use of video cameras in other situations:  a security camera at an ATM machine, security cameras in department stores, video cameras in police cars.

One might question whether the use of those examples offers an implicit argument that traffic cameras are no different from other uses of video technology.

17 Responses to Constitutional Rights or Dead Women & Children?

  1. Frankie says:

    The above article appeared in the Baton Rouge paper. Lafayette’s Daily Advertiser is in bed with Redflex. They show daily red light running video’s courtesy of Redlfex. This poll made the front page of the paper. Everyone knows that The Lafayette Daily Advertiser is nothing more than a propoganda machine.
    The Lafayette Government won’t let photo enforcement be put to public vote. Most people in Lafayette want Redflex to leave.

  2. This is a pathetic display of pandering by Redflex. Is anyone surprised?

  3. Mark S says:

    Cameras WILL NOT stop people from speeding or running red lights. People still die and get injured at intersections that have red light cameras. Some of intersections that have these fraud devices have seen an increase of injury accidents.

    Explain that redfux.

    The person who violates the red .5 seconds after the light turns red is not really the danger. It is the people that BLATANTLY run the red light when it has been red for longer than a few seconds. These red light runners will not be stopped by a camera.

    • Ernest T. Bass says:

      nor can an officer in a cruiser stop people from speeding or running red lights…. you clowns always forget to mention that…. and they can not stop drunk drivers either…

      • Camera Hater says:

        Since when have officers in cruisers NOT been able to stop drunks on the road? Or speeders? I’ve been right on the scene watching speedsters be caught on dozens of occasions. And you, know, I’ve also seen traffic cops bust people for runnign red lights and “drifting” stops signs.

        In my experience the highway patrol are actually pretty good at that – AND at deterring people from breaking the Law.

      • EMTharper says:

        LOL that a cop can’t “stop” a drunk driver.

        Perhaps though the use of a “traffic stop”?

        I’ve yet to see a Redflex camera pulling anyone over on the side of the road, or clearing outstanding warrants.

        Why do you pro-cam people hate real police so much?

      • jgunn says:

        I think someone took over the ETB account and posted a parody of the usual postings that the cam lovers post. This absolutely can’t be serious. If that’s the level of thought coming from the camera proponents, there is no hope for them. The ONLY way a drunk, excessive speeder, or red light runner will be stopped is from a physical police officer. End of story.

  4. photoradarscam says:

    Gotta love how they target “women and children,” as if photo enforcement somehow protects them more than men and the rest of the population.

    They love to pass off their tracking technology as nothing more than a harmless convenience store/ATM surveillance camera, but they always fail to mention that those cameras are not attached to identification and tracking systems.


  5. Mike says:

    Hahaha! Reminds me of “When did you stop beating your wife?” type questions. Is it November 2010 yet?

    • Ernest T. Bass says:

      mike ..come this time next year this place will be all but boarded up with a for lease sign on it….. your goals and aspirations will be long gone for the removal of the cameras !!!

      keep walkin !!!

  6. Dr Jett says:

    Can you imagine what it would be like to ask a real question like: Are you in favor of red light cameras? My favorite answer is when 80-90% of the people polled at any location sign a remove photo radar petition. Signing the petition shows what the public thinks of photo radar.

    • Ernest T. Bass says:

      dr.jett so simple minded… signing a petition that one did not seek out…. does not translate into people running to the polls to make sure they get their vote in for or against PR !!

      you want to see an issue that gets people motivated to do something and rush to the polls if it were ever put to a vote? health care reform !! you clowns seem to think that you have stirred the same passions with PR BUT YOU HAVE NOT…. NOT EVEN CLOSE !!!

      • Dr Jett says:

        Ernest T.
        I’m not the one who is simple minded because I never said that people would rush to the polls. Pay more attention before you reply. The interesting part is how the vast majority of people can’t wait to get rid of PR. If you have a spare clown suit, I will join you and we can be opposing clowns. That would be fun. I do agree that our country needs health care reform, but the people with the really good health care (legislators) would be more concerned if they had what most people have-ZIP.

  7. mghtyms04 says:

    I have a question. On March 19th 1991 voters in Peoria banned photo radar. Does anyone know how to use this effectively against the city?

  8. Camera Hater says:

    Here we have more evidence of Redfux Australian roots. This is a classic example of what we call “push polling” – using a loaded question to deliver distorted results. It’s the “companion volume” to the selective use of statistics tnhat’s oh so common in the “road safety industry” here on the other side of the pond. We have a long history of this. For example, survey companies rolled out a lot of this kind of survey during the mass gun confiscation we had back in 1996 (Would you give up your gun and make the streets safe? Is your right to bear arms more important than the lives of women and children?) *sigh* All too familiar..

  9. guttersn1pe says:

    If we banned all cars, traffic fatalities would be near zero (you’d probably still have the random horse and buggy accident).

    However, I’ll bet if you asked a question like, “Would you be in favor of banning cars if doing so would save hundreds of women and children”, I think the answer would probably be no.

    Leave it to the clowns at Redflex to come up with an entirely self-serving survey.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: