| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2008 08:34:25 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
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. |
Well then... life is simple... don't lend your car out.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 08:53:01 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
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 |
True, but sometimes the fine is the least of the consequences.
The simple fact is that the state has conveniently relieved itself of assigning the offense to the person who committed it. It's like some your neighbor sticking up a mini mart and you get convicted. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 09:20:14 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
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. |
Well then... life is simple... don't lend your car out.
Ray |
That doesn't really address what's fundamentally wrong with the system but as it stands now I guess that sound advice. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 11:17:26 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
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 |
True, but sometimes the fine is the least of the consequences.
The simple fact is that the state has conveniently relieved itself of assigning the offense to the person who committed it. It's like some your neighbor sticking up a mini mart and you get convicted. |
There is no relation between the two scenarios you relate to.
The first scenario is considered an "Actus Reus", which can be dealt with via administrative sanctions, whereas in in the second scenario, you are dealing with a criminal activity which must be dealt with through the tribunals.
The state has no requirement to ferret out who failed to make the proper stop...they have a photo of your vehicle and you as the owner of the said vehicle are responsible, just as you would be held liable civily if your friend or neighbour had an accident with your car.
I am intrigued as to why you seemingly harbour such a disdain for the process. Surely you can appreciate the fact that in most instances the guilty party is indeed the owner of the vehicle, and if not, then surely they must know who was behind the wheel at the time of the infraction.
I guess this is one of those scenarios where we will have to agree to disagree, since I for one see no problem with the current manner of proceeding.
Ray
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 11:37:10 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I am intrigued as to why you seemingly harbour such a disdain for the process. Surely you can appreciate the fact that in most instances the guilty party is indeed the owner of the vehicle, and if not, then surely they must know who was behind the wheel at the time of the infraction.
|
I can appreciate that may be the case in some majority of the time. However, it's the exceptions to that majority that irk me, along with my general disdain for such Orwellian measures.
I simply don't believe that anyone should be held accountable for the actions of another. The only possible exception would be parents being responsible for the actions of their minor children. If the camera took a photo that clearly showed the offending driver, that would be another thing entirely.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 11:40:12. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 12:18:15 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If the camera took a photo that clearly showed the offending driver, that would be another thing entirely. |
The existence of a very clear photo was I believe the crux of the argument presented in this country that it amounted to the invasion of one's privacy. In the ensuing court battles, the court sided with the complainant that indeed the process was intrusive and impinged on one's expectation of privacy.
One must also consider that a clear photo could create a new set of problems for the offender in those instances where the passenger is NOT his wife.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 12:23:59 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If the camera took a photo that clearly showed the offending driver, that would be another thing entirely. |
The existence of a very clear photo was I believe the crux of the argument presented in this country that it amounted to the invasion of one's privacy. In the ensuing court battles, the court sided with the complainant that indeed the process was intrusive and impinged on one's expectation of privacy.
Ray |
So, I should avert my eyes when staring at that hot blonde picking her nose in her car? I find it ludicrous that there's an expectation of privacy when inside a vehicle on a public street.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
One must also consider that a clear photo could create a new set of problems for the offender in those instances where the passenger is NOT his wife. |
Could be his boyfriend...
In any event, I don't think enforcement of the traffic laws should be contingent on the consequences of revealing evidence of possible adultery. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 03:08:49 AM EDT.
