We Finally Got Our Red Light Cameras!

[pabster]

I'm not a fan of red light cameras at all. The cases I've seen involve private companies who run them making out like bandits, and municipalities and drivers getting screwed. If it was up to me, I would use the money to strengthen driver education. It blows my mind that the amount of instruction drivers receive before getting a license is woefully inadequate in most cases. Getting a license in Germany, for example, costs thousands in class fees and takes 6 months of education. I got my license after practicing with my father for one afternoon and studying the driver booklet for a couple hours. The only reason I'm a good driver is because I am motivated to be, because I love to drive and I want to do it right.

Why is there not a federally mandated standard of driver education, one that involves evasive maneuvers, driving in adverse conditions, being told the destructive force of physics in relation to speed to name a few? Driving is such an integral part of our society, and yet being taught how to drive safely is an afterthought in many states.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Exactly. That is what the LAW says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light

I am not even going to quantify what's been stated here nor glorify the ramblings of certain individuals. Just more of the "Nanny State" and their continual ways of extorting revenue out of every day citizens. Glad you like that kind of environment there BRUZILLA. Makes me real confident when I am out driving in traffic. To set the record straight, the colors of traffic lights are designed as follows:

Red ='s Stop
Green ='s Proceed
Yellow ='s Proceed with caution or prepare to Stop.

If I am upon the intersection and the light turns Yellow, I will cautiously proceed to clear the intersection. Again when I am immediately upon the intersection and the light changes to Yellow. If I have time to stop then I will stop. But at times traffic lights will change from Green to Yellow in a matter of seconds and when I am in a position to Stop I will. That is the intent of the Law. Not to speed up and attempt to beat the Red. Same holds true that if one is in an intersection awaiting traffic to clear when making a left hand turn, you are allowed to clear the intersection for the other directions. It doesn't mean that 2-3 cars behind you can attempt to piggy back off your turn which is done all the time. Red Light cameras have proven to be unreliable when measuring these types of so called Red Light infractions, and can be proven as such in the Courts. We do not need these types of devices when driving. We need for Drivers to follow the rules of the Road and keep within the intents of traffic laws. This is just my 2 cents....

 

[67Satty]

As for the unconstitutionality of these cameras, that dodge has been tried and tried again, and comes up the losing side of the debate every time.

Well not every time:

"The 2nd District Court of Appeals down in Los Angeles published a case...where they overturned a red light camera conviction. The court held that the pictures, video and maintenance records (the only evidence against you) from the camera company are inadmissible hearsay unless the person who created them is in court to "authenticate" them". The LA cameras were run by a company based in Arizona that wasn't about to send someone to CA to authenticate the pics every time someone argued their ticket in court.

It's a matter of case law that can be cited by those in future cases, probably why LA gave up on the cameras.

 

[696969]

I don't break the law. I've never gotten a moving violation in the 29 years I've been driving.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Why is there not a federally mandated standard of driver education, one that involves evasive maneuvers, driving in adverse conditions, being told the destructive force of physics in relation to speed to name a few? Driving is such an integral part of our society, and yet being taught how to drive safely is an afterthought in many states.

That's easy. Because the gubmint way is to deal with everything AFTER the fact. To clean up consequences. Just like planned parenthood. Rather than educate people how to become contributing citizens, good spouses and good parents, planned BARRENHOOD handles the results of domestic abuse, divorce and single motherhood while the father is demonized. Sema scenario. As long as we keep treating everything through the back door instead of the front, we'll never get ahead.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you expect a 52' fully loaded log truck to do? Stop instantly when the light pops yellow? Or a truck pulling a vintage Mopar? Or any other heavy load? Just like the LAW says, if the light turns yellow and it is safe to clear the intersection, DO IT.

 

[Bruzilla]

"In New Jersey, the Department of Transportation has acknowledged that, although right-angle crashes at monitored intersections are down, the total number of collisions has increased...in areas where the cameras are installed. Much of this increase is caused by the skyrocketing number of rear-end collisions, which have increased by 20 percent as drivers slam the brakes to avoid getting caught cruising through a yellow light. "

Interesting that you bring up that NJ study... actually it isn't that interesting since it's the standard fall-back validation for everyone who's against red light cameras. 20% does sound like an impressive number until you dig a little deeper into the report. The number of crashes rose from 286 to 343, but this was information that was collected from 2010-2011, and what else was going on in 2010/2011 that might cause an increase in accidents? It's okay if you don't know since the NJ DOT figured it out... smart phones and texting while driving was causing increases in accidents across the board. You also didn't mention that same report showed a 15% decrease in right-angle crashes, which makes sense since it's harder to text when you're making a turn than when you're driving straight. You also didn't mention the reports shows a 50% decrease in the number of citations issues, from 35,644 the first month to 17,934 issued in the last month of the report. Lastly, this report only covers the first year of the program back in 2010/11, and provides no measure of long-term trends, so let's keep an open mind until the facts come out in 2014. ;)

 

[YY1]

It's been a real complex and sordid affair down here.

It started with a "safety" campaign a year before implementation, where a percieved need was manufactured for the public.

Rallies were held and t shirts given out that said "Stop red light running".

As if to magically answer the call of the people, cameras were installed at several intersections, and proclaimed as "markedly safer due to less high speed "T bone" collisions".

After a while the law was challenged that a traffic citaition could be issued automatically, and challenges were made to the claim of markedly improved safety.

Most tickets in litigation at the time were dropped, and the infractions changed to "code violations". The newspapers printed some less than fantasic studies showing minimal if any reductions in fatalities at those intersections, and also a whopping multi-million dollar revenue windfall.

They also explained that a representative from the Arizona company and a municipal officer, jointy monitored the cameras, and all photos were reviewd locally.

The municipality then changed it's story, and said there was a rampant problem of "right turn on red violators".

Then the litigation changed to "what is a stop".

Our state laws read "at the white line", but this could mean before the line or touching the line (even, theoretically to a point that only the smallest contact patch of the tire tread is still touching the line, after the balance of that contact patch has already crossed the line), couldn't it?

I agree whole heartedly that high speed collisions caused by red light running should bring about the prosecution of the violator.

However, I very firmly believe that when the primary function of any law enforement action or device is revenue generation (either from conception, or from application), that we have truly lost sight of the purpose of law enforcement in our society.

- - - Updated - - -

...and now I drive everywhere with my tailgate down.

An officer in a car behind me can see it just fine.

A camera at a 45* angle, 20 feet behind me can't.

How long before that's outlawed?

 

[sublimegtx]

Revenue generators that create more problems than solutions.

Here are some countermeasures:

http://www.phantomplate.com/

Pretty sure mythbusters tested a bunch of those kind of things with no success. What I don't like is the fact it's just big brother looking over your shoulder for another reason, valid or not. Let's just cover all the roads everywhere with cameras and say it's for traffic monitoring huh? No such thing as privacy anymore. How'd you like them looking into your house next?

 

[Bruzilla]

Well not every time:

"The 2nd District Court of Appeals down in Los Angeles published a case...where they overturned a red light camera conviction. The court held that the pictures, video and maintenance records (the only evidence against you) from the camera company are inadmissible hearsay unless the person who created them is in court to "authenticate" them". The LA cameras were run by a company based in Arizona that wasn't about to send someone to CA to authenticate the pics every time someone argued their ticket in court.

It's a matter of case law that can be cited by those in future cases, probably why LA gave up on the cameras.

No, I was right... every single time. The case you referenced, the 2nd didn't rule the use of these cameras being unconstitutional. It ruled that evidence from these cameras didn't fall into the allowable exemptions for evidence within California law. In fact the court's ruling specifically stated they did not consider the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment when making their decision.

What's key to this decision is there are two cases that were heard before the US Supreme Court that relate to this issue. The one with the most weight was a decision in the MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS case in 2009. This was a case with similar circumstances. A guy was arrested with cocaine that was tested and certified by a third-party lab, and their report was considered as evidence. The defendant challenged the conviction because there was no opportunity to confront the drug lab. The Supreme Court sided with the defendant but only because the drug lab didn't provide someone to testify at the trial nor was the defendant given an opportunity to cross examine a witness before trial (if a witness is unavailable).

This same standard has not been applied to a red light camera case yet, nor do I think it will be since most municipalities now have a local review officer or board who looks at each picture and determines if a violation has occurred, which puts the stops to trying to use a reluctance of a camera company to send someone to be a witness as a defense.

 

[pabster]

That's easy. Because the gubmint way is to deal with everything AFTER the fact. To clean up consequences. Just like planned parenthood. Rather than educate people how to become contributing citizens, good spouses and good parents, planned BARRENHOOD handles the results of domestic abuse, divorce and single motherhood while the father is demonized. Sema scenario. As long as we keep treating everything through the back door instead of the front, we'll never get ahead.

Planned Parenthood is a non profit private entity, not part of the Federal Government. What does PP have to do with wanting drivers to be better educated for everyone's safety? If I thought that the individual states would actually work on making sure new drivers knew what the hell they were doing, I wouldn't have suggested this. But seriously, how easy was it for you to get your license? For me, it was scary how little I had to know to drive on the roads legally at 15.5 years old.

 

[Budnicks]

I see a few people her that think we need more of this big brother watching us type evasive crap... That's all we freaken need, is more stupid freaken' govt. regulations or govt. getting involved, to tell you every move to make, every day, every damn aspect of you life... When will it sink in to the masses, that you have to be responsible for every aspect of your own life ??, it's not the govt.'s jobs, it's the parents 1st, to teach you, then yours.... Yeah right, not with the way people seem to think now... How about teaching your child ??, about what the responsibilities & consequences are, of not being a good driver or paying attention to what your doing behind the wheel of car... When was it that the govt. became responsible for everything we all do in life ??... I know I had a very good Dad, that taught me how to drive a car {among many other things about life}, at about age 11-12 y/o, out on our property, I know most people don't have that privilage... I think most all Public High Schools, do have a Drivers Education program & a 6-9 week course {at least in Calif.}, that was what mine was anyway, we had to watch a bunch of stupid films, take tests every week, learn the driving code/laws too, the hand book & one film that I remember very well, RED ASPHALT, a HWY Patrol Film from the early 70's, people messed up in Hwy accidents... Also we actually had to drive several times, in a Student Drivers car, with the actual Drivers Ed instructor & pass several levels of actual driving, parking, merging on the Hwy, stop lights, laws, drivers courtesy/eddicut etc. before we could even get our Learners Permit, let alone any type of Drivers license... Now I know that was way back in the 70's but all my kids did the exact same type Drivers ED program, I had to do, here in Calif., I don't know what is done in other states... Here's what I think... How about being a good Parent 1st, or even a good Uncle, Grandfather etc. 1st, teach your child/youth how to drive properly/safely & be responsible for what they are doing in a car, no cell phones or texting etc.... IMHFO it's not really needed to have more stupid cameras or more stupid govt. regulations... When did Americans all become such idiots, that no-one can think for themselves now ?? why do you need to have Regulations to tell you that ??... It's really just simple logic to me, maybe it's because I didn't/don't "have to have" someone tell me what's right or wrong, my parents ingrained into me & it all starts at home, not some Socialism course at some damn Liberal Ideologies Teachings in some school, or even the govt., having to tell you every damn step you should make... OK I'll step down off the soap box now.....

 

[RustyRatRod]

I thought I explained it. Try reading it again.

Planned Parenthood is a non profit private entity, not part of the Federal Government. What does PP have to do with wanting drivers to be better educated for everyone's safety? If I thought that the individual states would actually work on making sure new drivers knew what the hell they were doing, I wouldn't have suggested this. But seriously, how easy was it for you to get your license? For me, it was scary how little I had to know to drive on the roads legally at 15.5 years old.

 

[Bruzilla]

However, I very firmly believe that when the primary function of any law enforement action or device is revenue generation (either from conception, or from application), that we have truly lost sight of the purpose of law enforcement in our society.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another. Last Wednesday night, I took the Road Runner out to get something for us for dinner. I was stopped at a four-way intersection with the two intersecting lanes on my right being left-hand turn lanes filled with cars and the two lanes next to them being for through traffic. My light turned green, and after double-checking for right-side traffic I started moving forward. Out of the blue, A Kia SUV comes racing out from behind the folks waiting to make a left turn and crosses right in front of me. I hit the brakes and ended up in a skid but managed to avoid hitting this ***. I watched where he went (it was to a Pizza Hut), and drove over next to him.

I get out and pound on his window, and there's this 20-something dumbass with his wife and two kids in the SUV, and when he opens his window I told him running a red light like that is a damn good way to get himself and his family killed, and what does he say? "What red light?" He had never even see the light go red, nor had he even noticed me about to crush in the side of his POS Kia! He'd been focusing on getting the kids to Pizza Hut, and not on what the Hell he was doing.

So what's going to get through to a moron like this? Obviously causing an accident will, but just being told not to run led lights apparently hasn't sunken through. Maybe writing a few checks for $115 might be the objective learning he needs.

- - - Updated - - -

I see a few people her that think we need more of this big brother watching us type evasive crap... That's all we freaken need, is more stupid freaken' govt. regulations or govt. getting involved, to tell you every move to make, every day, every damn aspect of you life... When will it sink in to the masses, that you have to be responsible for every aspect of your own life ??, it's not the govt.'s jobs, it's the parents 1st, to teach you, then yours.... Yeah right, not with the way people seem to think now... How about teaching your child ??, about what the responsibilities & consequences are, of not being a good driver or paying attention to what your doing behind the wheel of car... When was it that the govt. became responsible for everything we all do in life ??... I know I had a very good Dad, that taught me how to drive a car {among many other things about life}, at about age 11-12 y/o, out on our property, I know most people don't have that privilage... I think most all Public High Schools, do have a Drivers Education program & a 6-9 week course {at least in Calif.}, that was what mine was anyway, we had to watch a bunch of stupid films, take tests every week, learn the driving code/laws too, the hand book & one film that I remember very well, RED ASPHALT, a HWY Patrol Film from the early 70's, people messed up in Hwy accidents... Also we actually had to drive several times, in a Student Drivers car, with the actual Drivers Ed instructor & pass several levels of actual driving, parking, merging on the Hwy, stop lights, laws, drivers courtesy/eddicut etc. before we could even get our Learners Permit, let alone any type of Drivers license... Now I know that was way back in the 70's but all my kids did the exact same type Drivers ED program, I had to do, here in Calif., I don't know what is done in other states... Here's what I think... How about being a good Parent 1st, or even a good Uncle, Grandfather etc. 1st, teach your child/youth how to drive properly/safely & be responsible for what they are doing in a car, no cell phones or texting etc.... IMHFO it's not really needed to have more stupid cameras or more stupid govt. regulations... When did Americans all become such idiots, that no-one can think for themselves now ?? why do you need to have Regulations to tell you that ??... It's really just simple logic to me, maybe it's because I didn't/don't "have to have" someone tell me what's right or wrong, my parents ingrained into me & it all starts at home, not some Socialism course at some damn Liberal Ideologies Teachings in some school, or even the govt., having to tell you every damn step you should make... OK I'll step down off the soap box now.....

Generally I agree that keeping the nanny state out is a good idea. The sad thing is that despite everything you wrote being correct, there are a lot of stupid, ignorant, self-centered, a-holes out there who just don't get that two cars cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time. They also don't get that safe driving is based pretty much solely on trust, which means we all follow the same rules, and when a light turns green it means it's safe to proceed; and when a light turns yellow it means you need to get ready for it to turn red; and when it turns red you STOP. And when you have someone who decides these rules don't apply to them, a lot of bad things can happen.

There are a lot of things drivers do wrong, from speeding to using passing lanes as travel lanes to never signalling turns. All of these can impact other drivers but they are not inherently dangerous in and of themselves. Running red lights and stop signs are two acts that are very inherently dangerous, which is why they cause so many serious accidents. And on top of accidents, I'm sick and tired of losing half my green light time because three or four drivers decided they didn't care if the light turned red, they were going into the intersection anyway, which blocks everyone in my lane from pulling out.

If a lot of drivers can't get the simple fact that you don't run red lights through their heads on their own, then yes... I do want the nanny state to kick into high gear and give these pinheads a more objective lesson in driving courtesy.

 

[67Satty]

No, I was right... every single time. The case you referenced, the 2nd didn't rule the use of these cameras being unconstitutional.

OK, you got me. I should have used words like "not legal" instead of "unconstitutional" I guess. But arguing the semantics doesn't change the fact that red light tickets can be and are thrown out in California on a regular basis due to the legal issues I brought up. I'm guessing this might be one of the reasons cities like LA and San Diego are giving up on them.

 

[Bruzilla]

Part of the problem is that they don't differentiate between someone who blows through the red light at 70MPH and someone who stops, but lands an inch past the white line.

Both get the same ticket because of a technicality which would not be a problem if an officer had to decide on the scene, which case was more relevant.

Some simple questions YY. When was the last time you got a ticket because you saw a cop shooting radar down the road, and you decided that would be a great time to see how fast your ride could go? When was the last time you got a ticket because you saw a cop sitting at an intersection and you decided now would be a great time to race past a stop sign? When was the last time you got a ticket because you decided midnight would be a perfect time to go driving around in a car with no working lights on it? You're a very intelligent person, so I'm guess the answer to all three would be never.

So what's the difference between those three cases and somehow being able to manage to stop without going over any lines? The lines aren't invisible are they? You can see them way in advance. So why is it so hard to utilize just a tiny smidgen of driving skill and know how to make sure your car is stopped before the line? I mean it's not like we get bonuses for how close we stop to the line, so what difference does it matter if you stop a foot away from it?

 

[pabster]

I will agree with Bruzilla that cameras may cut down on utter dumbasses endangering others. It's very easy to sit around and say "why can't people be more responsible, teach their kids better, be better people?" The reason? Because unless you're the kind of person who is MOTIVATED to be responsible and respectful towards others, this country does not seem to value such attributes as a whole. People seem to have the "I'll do whatever the hell I want" attitude more and more, and the mass media and advertising does nothing but encourage this behavior. Not to mention younger drivers believe they are immortal and can do whatever they want, and unless they get in a wreck or are educated on how dangerous driving can be, this will not change. Punishing people with laws & fines may cut down on such behavior on the roads in the short term, but I'm going to keep going off about EDUCATION for the long term. Granted, as usual, the money is never going to be there for driver education, so it's an empty wish.

 

[Bruzilla]

OK, you got me. I should have used words like "not legal" instead of "unconstitutional" I guess. But arguing the semantics doesn't change the fact that red light tickets can be and are thrown out in California on a regular basis due to the legal issues I brought up. I'm guessing this might be one of the reasons cities like LA and San Diego are giving up on them.

When you're talking about legalities, semantics matter. To your point, one case in LA was thrown out not because of the admissibility of the citation. The citation is 100% valid. The case was invalidated solely because a representative of the photo company couldn't be made available as a witness to authenticate the photos attached to the citation. This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but there's a big difference.

Like with the MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS case, a third party was used to authenticate evidence, and the local authorities accepted a sworn affidavit that the evidence was true and correct. Where the challenge comes into play is since the authorities themselves didn't do the analysis, and a third party did, then that third party has to either provide a witness or provide the defendant the opportunity to cross examine a witness before the trial, which didn't happen in either case.

The fix for this issue is that now instead of having the camera company analyze the photos, determine if a violation occurred, and certify their results, the photo company is now flagging photos for review by local authorities and it is these authorities who determine if a violation occurred. And it's these local authorities, and not the camera company, who can be made available as witnesses if the defendant wishes to challenge them.

By the way, legal challenges had nothing to do with why San Diego dropped their cameras. According to Mayor Filner the problem was first with the $490 fine, which the city had no authority to lower, and he felt the camera company was making too much money. Another item of interest was the intersection that generated a quarter of the tickets didn't have cameras due to accidents, but due to people blocking the intersection during rush hour traffic, so there were very few accidents before the cameras went up, and none afterwards, so some saw that as a reason they weren't needed anymore. Well, I can only hope those folks are the ones cursing the stalled traffic.

- - - Updated - - -

People seem to have the "I'll do whatever the hell I want" attitude more and more, and the mass media and advertising does nothing but encourage this behavior.

Did you see that recent episode of Fast and Loud where their project Mustang got smashed by some dumbass who decided he didn't have to stop for a red light? On top of which he also felt that the law requiring insurance wasn't for him either? They lose a high dollar vehicle and the other guy loses a POS 10 year old SUV and pays a couple hundred dollar fine. Would having to pay a couple of red light tickets before the crash happened changed said dumbass's view on red lights? Who knows, but what's for certain is relying on the driver's code of conduct and our education system sure didn't work.

 

[RustyRatRod]

See here's the thing. If this were handled CORRECTLY, none of these idiots would have a license to drive in the first place, because they would FAIL their driver's test. The rules to pass the test now are so lenient, anyone passes. No one even knows what the big fat white line is for at the intersection. No one knows that if your front tires go over it, presto, you have just run the red light. Once again, rather than handle it through the front door and train people the correct way to drive, we just throw permits at them with little or no training and a stupid one time test.

 

[cr8crshr]

Well....I see Pabster is still at it again along with a few others here. It never ceases to amaze me that regardless of topic forums, there is an interjection of wanting the Federal Government to set up this or to do that. They obviously have a very difficult time making sound judgements and decisions without the Damn Feds telling us what we can and cannot or should do. Just "FREAKING" unbelievable what comes out of the mouths of these "CLOWNS". It would be nice if the "SHEEPLE" would start thinking for themselves. I'm becoming of the opinion that that is too much to ask. I know we can debate that driving is a "Privilege" and not a "RIGHT" yet some here would say otherwise. If one wants to really become proficient at driving a motor car then pony up the bucks and take an expanded driving course. There are lots of Schools out there that are set up for improving skills for both the novice and the experienced driver. I used to Road Race in my younger days in the IMSA/SCCA GT classes. I had to learn how to drive and control a vehicle at both High Speed and Normal Speed. I have also had Defensive Training to avoid accidents, car jacking, etc. Drove Race Courses such as Sears Point...now I'm dating myself...Laguna Seca, Poconos, Watkins Glenn and Road American and Road Atlanta. All that experience and training doesn't mean squat if I don't practice and follow the rules of the road. Does it make me a better driver? No. It does make me a better "PREPARED" drive. The drivers of today would do themselves justice if they were to follow those rules but as you explained Bruzilla..."What Red Light". Most haven't a clue now do they. And on that note, the rules for Right Turn on Red need to be reviewed. The law states, "Right Turn on Red Permitted after a complete Stop". Not after a "Gliding" stop or cruise through as i so often see, but a complete stop. When I do this, I always have some "*** CLOWN" laying on the horn and cussing me out. I just press on and use my turn signals as required. Now that is another issue all together....cr8crshr/Tuck...:naka:

 

[Budnicks]

Generally I agree that keeping the nanny state out is a good idea. The sad thing is that despite everything you wrote being correct, there are a lot of stupid, ignorant, self-centered, a-holes out there who just don't get that two cars cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time. They also don't get that safe driving is based pretty much solely on trust, which means we all follow the same rules, and when a light turns green it means it's safe to proceed; and when a light turns yellow it means you need to get ready for it to turn red; and when it turns red you STOP. And when you have someone who decides these rules don't apply to them, a lot of bad things can happen.

There are a lot of things drivers do wrong, from speeding to using passing lanes as travel lanes to never signalling turns. All of these can impact other drivers but they are not inherently dangerous in and of themselves. Running red lights and stop signs are two acts that are very inherently dangerous, which is why they cause so many serious accidents. And on top of accidents, I'm sick and tired of losing half my green light time because three or four drivers decided they didn't care if the light turned red, they were going into the intersection anyway, which blocks everyone in my lane from pulling out.
If a lot of drivers can't get the simple fact that you don't run red lights through their heads on their own, then yes... I do want the nanny state to kick into high gear and give these pinheads a more objective lesson in driving courtesy.

I agree in part with waht your saying... But they don't work to stop most of the problems, but maybe they're better than nothing, but really just a way to generate more revenues for local govt. & I don't drive like a raving idiot, so I don't really care about the Red Light cameras, but also think they aren't necessary either... I've lived with them for well over a decade now & I honestly haven't seen much change if any at all, in peoples driving habits... The damn idiots will still be idiots, people that have the mentality to not pay attention & the type of drivers, that will risk everything & that will run red lights, just to get their a little earlier, will always run red lights still, cameras installed or not.... But that's just my opinions... But IMHFO It's mostly the latest 2 decades of the damn Pepsi/X-Box generations {not all of them, just a majority of them}, too damn busy, not paying any attention, "especially while driving", talking on a phone, texting, eating, puting on make-up, to care about anyone else, or what can happen, because the lack of overall morals or ethics & the lack of proper teaching "1st from their parents", then in their upbringing... no more no less... It all starts at home... they say it take a village to raise a child, well the village is raising a bunch of freaken non-driven child idiots today & has been for a couple decades now...LOL...