| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/26/2008 09:53:43 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
There's an intersection near my home where it's nearly impossible for a pedestrian to cross the 6 lanes before the light turns red, so many use that few seconds of clear road during the advance-turn light to get to the median, using the green to get the rest of the way. They have to break the law and risk life and limb either way they do it.
I've seen several near-accidents from folks running the red to right-turn, and usually they've been avoided by the pedestrians' quick actions, not the drivers'.
Art, did you at least make sure it was clear around the corner? :)
We had photo radar here several years ago but it was banned, I believe on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.
eta; I'm wrong, tho' it went to Supreme Court it wasn't banned, but it WAS done away with in BC |
Because it is patently Illegal
This is why they cant call it a "ticket" and why it cant be enforced as such. only a peace officer that witnesses an infraction can issue a citation.
These things are nothing more than revenue generating devices for the city's ... and if they don't make money they shut them down
Dallas shuts down nonprofitable red light cameras
And far as the safety angle that is hogwash also ... they statistically CAUSE more rear end collisions at intersections as people panic stop to avoid a civil penalty
VA Red light camera accidents go up
This is a outrageous money grab period. |
|
|
|
03/26/2008 10:55:19 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm confused why so many people think it's a good idea to evade a law which actually exists to protect the general public, not some special interest group. Speeding and running red lights are not socially-responsible activities, and I have no problem with people who do it -- especially routinely and deliberately -- getting busted but good.
I don't have a problem with civil disobedience to an unjust law, but this just seems like an expression of extreme egoism and selfishness ... :-(
Now, I have NO problem with fighting the ticket when they've rigged it so it's not possible to get through the intersection in time legally, but that's not what most of the posts here have seemed like. |
Because the tickets are issued based on the license plate, not the driver.
If I loaned you my car and you drove like a maniac, I would get the ticket, not you. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 12:53:20 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If I loaned you my car and you drove like a maniac, I would get the ticket, not you. |
I sincerely doubt that people get these devices so they can lend their car to their maniacal friends ...
If it's your car, you are responsible for what happens in it unless it is stolen; if you lend it to a friend as a robbery getaway car you'll be on the hook for that offense too. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 02:23:25 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
spray on mud...
"Sprayonmud is NOT to be used to obscure number-plates or the lights on your vehicle," the company said. |
But I could still use it as a hair replacement product.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm confused why so many people think it's a good idea to evade a law which actually exists to protect the general public, not some special interest group. |
Where I'm from, pedestrians and bicyclists are special interest groups.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
this just seems like an expression of extreme egoism and selfishness |
Aren't most rants? I would have suggested the forum name be changed to "Expressions of Extreme Egoism and Selfishness" but "Rant" is shorter and sounds more gutteral.
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I've seen several near-accidents from folks running the red to right-turn, and usually they've been avoided by the pedestrians' quick actions, not the drivers'.
Art, did you at least make sure it was clear around the corner? |
As is shown in the pic and on the video, the cross traffic is turning left, so if there were pedestrians (there weren't and yes, I always look), they would have had the "DONT WALK" sign. In fact, at many intersections, there is a right turn green arrow on whil the cross traffic left arrow is greem - it only makes sense.
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I think most people have an issue with the system because it's only a monetary punishment, there are no points awarded towards the offenders drivers license. If it were really about safety and protecting civilians from habitual red light runners and poor drivers then they would put a uniformed officer at the intersection They would be able to write tickets that would actually have consequences to the offender and do more than line the pockets of the municipality for which they are in. This is about dollars and cents with public safety as a cover. Trevor~ |
EXACTLY! If there was a cop standing there or a cop car in plain view, I might have been deterred from breaking the law and that would result in a safer situation, but less money for the city. Municipalities are not interested in deterring or preventing traffic infractions - it just doesn't pay.
Originally posted by nomad469:
Because it is patently Illegal
This is why they cant call it a "ticket" and why it cant be enforced as such. only a peace officer that witnesses an infraction can issue a citation. |
An interesting note - the document I received in the mail, there is a sworn affidavit from a police officer basically stating that based on his review of the tape and photos, he saw me do it.
Originally posted by nomad469:
This is a outrageous money grab period. |
Undoubtedly.
Anyway, I am happy to take my lumps when I screw up and am actually grateful when certain events "wake me up" before something bad happens when I become complacent. My rant was more for posting some of my observations about the whole process, but as others have indicated it's not really about safety.
Spaz, can I borrow your car? |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 09:20:30 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If I loaned you my car and you drove like a maniac, I would get the ticket, not you. |
I sincerely doubt that people get these devices so they can lend their car to their maniacal friends ...
If it's your car, you are responsible for what happens in it unless it is stolen; if you lend it to a friend as a robbery getaway car you'll be on the hook for that offense too. |
Wrong.
In your getaway scenario, I'm only on the hook if I have prior knowledge of what my friend plans to do and loan him my car anyway. If I think he's just going down to the mini-mart to restock on twinkies and beer, and he robs the mini-mart instead, I've done nothing wrong.
BTW, I find it odd that you are in favor of such Orwellian methods of law enforcement.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 09:45:23 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
BTW, I find it odd that you are in favor of such Orwellian methods of law enforcement. |
I was thinking the same thing, does seem a bit odd. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 10:12:56 AM · #32 |
I have mixed feelings about this type of enforcement, too. I think the cameras are Orwellian, on the other hand, running red lights in Manhattan has become epidemic in the last few years especially. There is now such a long wait between when one light turns red and the cross traffic gets the green, that it's not unusual to see even two cars completely run the red light.
I sometimes wonder if the effect these cameras have is to further lessen personal responsibility and good citizenship. If some intersections have cameras to discourage traffic violations, then those intersections without cameras become problem spots because people can get away with it. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 11:20:14 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
BTW, I find it odd that you are in favor of such Orwellian methods of law enforcement. |
Me too. :-(
Maybe I'm not so much in favor of the cameras as I am opposed to people trying to avoid responsibility for their dangerous activity. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 11:34:55 AM · #34 |
I got a speeding ticket in New Zealand via a Speed Camera. The Road we were on has electronic speed limit signs. when we were going the other way the speed limit was 100KPM But because it had gotten foggy on the way home the speed was reduced to 80 KPH Which I had not paid much attention to. Til We seen the flash of the camera.
We were in my father inlaws car and told him my wife was driving and he may get a ticket. We had left to come back to the states when he finally got a ticket in the mail. 2 years later we were back in NZ for a visit when he brought out the ticket with a photo of the car, You can see me behind the wheel clear as day. I was doing 100 K in the 80 K Zone. He laughed and said that my wife sure looks alot like me in that photo. Busted twice!
I hate speed cameras. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 12:54:18 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
BTW, I find it odd that you are in favor of such Orwellian methods of law enforcement. |
Me too. :-(
Maybe I'm not so much in favor of the cameras as I am opposed to people trying to avoid responsibility for their dangerous activity. |
I'm all in favor of busting the people actually doing the dangerous activity.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 02:26:49 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
BTW, I find it odd that you are in favor of such Orwellian methods of law enforcement. |
Me too. :-(
Maybe I'm not so much in favor of the cameras as I am opposed to people trying to avoid responsibility for their dangerous activity. |
I'm all in favor of busting the people actually doing the dangerous activity. |
Municipal cash grab or no, isn't it reasonable to bust someone halfway through an intersection on a red using a camera? They still broke the law. I find it disingenuous when people actively attempt to defeat the red-light camera system as some form of "protest" while in the act of drivng dangerously. If the camera system itself is somehow hypocritically unjust, it doesn't serve justice to try to get around it because one wants to get through an intersection a little quicker without getting caught.
Message edited by author 2008-03-27 14:27:30. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 02:32:31 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
BTW, I find it odd that you are in favor of such Orwellian methods of law enforcement. |
Me too. :-(
Maybe I'm not so much in favor of the cameras as I am opposed to people trying to avoid responsibility for their dangerous activity. |
I'm all in favor of busting the people actually doing the dangerous activity. |
Municipal cash grab or no, isn't it reasonable to bust someone halfway through an intersection on a red using a camera? They still broke the law. I find it disingenuous when people actively attempt to defeat the red-light camera system as some form of "protest" while in the act of drivng dangerously. If the camera system itself is somehow hypocritically unjust, it doesn't serve justice to try to get around it because one wants to get through an intersection a little quicker without getting caught. |
My objection is that the ticket is issued, not based on the actual driver, on the vehicle registration. The offender may not be the registered owner. Yet the registered owner gets the citation.
That's like arresting me because you robbed a bank. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 03:18:12 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My objection is that the ticket is issued, not based on the actual driver, on the vehicle registration. The offender may not be the registered owner. Yet the registered owner gets the citation. |
Perhaps, if you regularly lend your car to others, you should have them sign an affidavit of responsibility -- they can log in and out in a little book you keep for that purpose. I bet there's a way to transfer the liability for the ticket if you have physical proof that someone else was driving. I'm pretty sure that what works for rental car companies will work for you -- after all, the Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have the same rights as corporations ... :-(
If you are the only driver then your argument seems irrelevant, at least insofar as your own potential liability is concerned. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 03:30:59 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My objection is that the ticket is issued, not based on the actual driver, on the vehicle registration. The offender may not be the registered owner. Yet the registered owner gets the citation. |
Perhaps, if you regularly lend your car to others, you should have them sign an affidavit of responsibility -- they can log in and out in a little book you keep for that purpose. I bet there's a way to transfer the liability for the ticket if you have physical proof that someone else was driving. I'm pretty sure that what works for rental car companies will work for you -- after all, the Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have the same rights as corporations ... :-(
If you are the only driver then your argument seems irrelevant, at least insofar as your own potential liability is concerned. |
I all for holding people accountable for breaking the law and I don't condone finding ways to break the law w/o being caught, though I think most were joking about this in the forum.
I bolded your statement b/c it shocks me and comes across like you have taken the burden of proof off the State's hands and moved it to the individual. Why do I have to prove that I wasn't driving, isn't it the authorities responsibility to prove I was? I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this county and that the "State" has to prove that, within a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty of the offense for which you are charged. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 03:41:18 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Why do I have to prove that I wasn't driving, isn't it the authorities responsibility to prove I was? I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this county and that the "State" has to prove that, within a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty of the offense for which you are charged. |
Because when you registered your car you assumed liability for all actions involving it -- that's what registration is. It says that, unless proven otherwise, you are presumed to be the driver, or to have authorized the driver to act as your agent. If you lend your friend your car and there's an accident, whose insurance do you think is responsible? (Hint: I think your rates will be going up soon.) |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:00:43 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I bolded your statement b/c it shocks me and comes across like you have taken the burden of proof off the State's hands and moved it to the individual. Why do I have to prove that I wasn't driving, isn't it the authorities responsibility to prove I was? I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this county and that the "State" has to prove that, within a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty of the offense for which you are charged. |
That was exactly the argument used here when it went all the way to the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:02:23 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Ever since I started driving at 15, I wanted to design some sort of James Bond license plate changing device. When I got this thing in the mail, I spent an hour or so trying to come up with the perfect gizmo for obscuring my license plate. I know they sell stuff for that, but Mythbusters tested and busted all those products. I think I have come up with a pretty good solution and just need to finish drafting up the plans for it. Does anyone know if you can patent an invention for eluding law enforcement? |
Get Government plates! Most municipalities instruct the camera companies to disregard any red light violation from a car with Government (local, state, or federal) plates. I am guessing the PD pays per citation sent in for their review and don't want to pay to throw out pictures of cops running reds with their cherries on. Of course, by obtaining these plates you are publicly displaying that you work for the government, and I know that will blow your top secret cover...which I know nothing about...*wink*...*nod*...*touch right corner of my ball cap*...(don't kill me)
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
The Road we were on has electronic speed limit signs. when we were going the other way the speed limit was 100KPM But because it had gotten foggy on the way home the speed was reduced to 80 KPH Which I had not paid much attention to. Til We seen the flash of the camera. |
I just heard they are going to install these in St. Louis on the major interstates, and thought "how the hell are these things going to work?" They are going to have to keep a log of when the speed limit changes and make sure the cops aren't shifting times written on the tickets. I bet a few defense lawyers make some good money getting people out of these things the first few months. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:10:06 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Why do I have to prove that I wasn't driving, isn't it the authorities responsibility to prove I was? I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this county and that the "State" has to prove that, within a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty of the offense for which you are charged. |
Because when you registered your car you assumed liability for all actions involving it -- that's what registration is. It says that, unless proven otherwise, you are presumed to be the driver, or to have authorized the driver to act as your agent. If you lend your friend your car and there's an accident, whose insurance do you think is responsible? (Hint: I think your rates will be going up soon.) |
Borrowing a vehicle does not provide a driver with immunity for their actions while driving that vehicle, nor does it shift the burden of proof from the state to the registered owner.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:20:25 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Why do I have to prove that I wasn't driving, isn't it the authorities responsibility to prove I was? I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this county and that the "State" has to prove that, within a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty of the offense for which you are charged. |
Because when you registered your car you assumed liability for all actions involving it -- that's what registration is. It says that, unless proven otherwise, you are presumed to be the driver, or to have authorized the driver to act as your agent. If you lend your friend your car and there's an accident, whose insurance do you think is responsible? (Hint: I think your rates will be going up soon.) |
You assume all financial liability, not criminal liability , unless you knew it was going to be used for a criminal activity and allowed it for such use. Registration of the vehicles is more about the state being able to receive their sales tax and personal property tax than it is about liability on the owner. How you phrase it I would be held criminally liable if someone commits a crime in my vehicle even if I didn't know they were going to commit the crime, that's just wouldn't happen. Could I be financially liable? Yes, but no prosecuter would bring crimminal charges aginst me. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 05:17:45 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I find it disingenuous when people actively attempt to defeat the red-light camera system as some form of "protest" while in the act of drivng dangerously. |
Who said anything about a "protest"? I would do it to avoid the ticket. I also don't equate avoiding a ticket with avoiding responsibility. For those that do, you must be very busy- what with driving to the police station and turning yourself in everytime your speedometer crests th 56MPH mark.
To add to Trev ad Spaz's argument - the honest truth is that it took me awhile to figure out whether I was even driving or not. It was several weeks between the violation and the receipt of the notice. My wife and I both work at home and each of us makes about the same amount of trips around the same places in town at no particular time of the day or week using the same car. None of the images or video showed that it was me in the car. I think they get by the burden of proof issue because they are not actually charging you with a typical running-the-red-light violation like if a cop pulled you over - they say on their website it is just like a parking ticket. <-- same arguments could apply to that as well actually.
Anyway, regarding my crass recklessness and blatant disregard for public safety, I get the feeling some of you are not keeping in mind that when the cross traffic has a green, left turn arrow, it is safe to turn right and as I mentioned before, some intersections have a coinciding green right arrow for this reason. So I slowed way down, rolled over the line as I looked both ways and then continued on.
It's an interesting discussion in any case. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 06:38:41 PM · #46 |
| Whatever Art, we all know you drive blindfolded through school zones and retirement communities, you're not fooling anyone around these parts. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 07:01:44 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Louis:
I find it disingenuous when people actively attempt to defeat the red-light camera system as some form of "protest" while in the act of drivng dangerously. |
Who said anything about a "protest"? I would do it to avoid the ticket. I also don't equate avoiding a ticket with avoiding responsibility. For those that do, you must be very busy- what with driving to the police station and turning yourself in everytime your speedometer crests th 56MPH mark. |
Well, I wasn't talking about you in particular, first of all, since it seemed this whole discussion went into the realm of red light cameras in general. Secondly, it seems to me that avoiding a ticket means doing what one can to get away with something, so, in essence, yes, that smacks of irresponsibility.
I would think there are degrees of responsibility to consider in any event. Does going 110km/h on the highway where 100km/h is posted and most everyone else is doing 130km/h mean the same thing as gunning it on the yellow so that your nose is in the intersection at the red and you've got no choice but to run that red -- risking a serious accident? I don't think it does.
Again, not meaning "you" or anyone in particular. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 11:23:07 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
I bet a few defense lawyers make some good money getting people out of these things the first few months. |
I don't know about you, but the cost of hiring a lawyer would be far greater than simply paying the fine.
When one considers that there is no demerit points to be dealt with, it truly is not worth the hassle.
For those who would argue that they were not the driver of the vehicle, rest assured that I would definitely be collecting the fine from whomever borrowed my car... case closed.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 11:43:07 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
When one considers that there is no demerit points to be dealt with, it truly is not worth the hassle.
|
That's one of my major issue with red light cameras, there are no demerit points awarded. So if it were really were about making the roads safer, than they would put a uniformed officer at that intersection so points were awarded. The driver would have real consequences, possibly losing their license. As it stands now with the cameras, if I have enough money then I can break the law whenever I like and run redlights with only the fear of paying a $100 fine.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
For those who would argue that they were not the driver of the vehicle, rest assured that I would definitely be collecting the fine from whomever borrowed my car... case closed. |
I shouldn't be responsible for doing the states job collecting on law violators, if they want to fine the driver then they should have someone pull them over and ticket/fine them.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 12:10:21 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My objection is that the ticket is issued, not based on the actual driver, on the vehicle registration. The offender may not be the registered owner. Yet the registered owner gets the citation. |
Perhaps, if you regularly lend your car to others, you should have them sign an affidavit of responsibility -- they can log in and out in a little book you keep for that purpose. I bet there's a way to transfer the liability for the ticket if you have physical proof that someone else was driving. I'm pretty sure that what works for rental car companies will work for you -- after all, the Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have the same rights as corporations ... :-( |
Here's how my Toyota dealer handles the issue for their rentals:
 |
|
