| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/30/2012 10:51:14 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
My problem with these cameras (I've had a few busts myself) is not that I argue my actions, but that they want to act like these are for public safety but I don't buy. The fact that these don't count against your record or license tells me it's just a big cash machine for the government. If they REALLY cared about safety they would make them go against your record like they do when you get pulled over..... |
Well, just to play Devil's advocate, that's maybe not entirely true; if they took points off, they'd have to be run/monitored by the police, not the subcontractors. Points cost consumers money in insurance, and there would be a LOT of flak if private subcontractors could trash our driving records at will. Just hashing this out off the top of my head, not sure if that argument holds water... |
|
|
|
10/30/2012 11:47:19 PM · #27 |
...To add to what  Bear_Music said, police enforcement is a rather expensive endeavour, particular when dealing with a "Strict Liability" offence which can be dealt with administratively. Does it enhance Public Safety, probably.
If people know that routes are monitored they tend to slow down. Take a trip to Australia. I have seen road there that I know I could easily drive 150 km/hr on, but the signs say 80 Max and I know for a fact that they have cameras... Guess what I and thousands of other motorists do... You got it, we drive at 80kmh.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 12:54:30 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...To add to what Bear_Music said, police enforcement is a rather expensive endeavour, particular when dealing with a "Strict Liability" offence which can be dealt with administratively. Does it enhance Public Safety, probably.
If people know that routes are monitored they tend to slow down. Take a trip to Australia. I have seen road there that I know I could easily drive 150 km/hr on, but the signs say 80 Max and I know for a fact that they have cameras... Guess what I and thousands of other motorists do... You got it, we drive at 80kmh.
Ray |
Yeah, I do get that part of it, I am a bit bitter I think. I do still believe however that for the most part, city's & towns see these as revenue streams.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 00:54:45. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:10:31 AM · #29 |
Basic fact; They wouldn't have them out there if they didn't make money. They can say what they want but it's not about public safety.
It's the same kind of deal taking people off their own water wells and making them pay big bucks every month for "city" water "for their own safety". People here don't even drink the city water, and for good reasons.
It's the city's cash cow. If the place where I live gets swallowed up by the city anytime soon, I will be moving to a more rural place where they still live on water wells and septic tanks.
Ok, hijack rant over, back to your regular programming, but don't run the light on the way. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:33:46 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Basic fact; They wouldn't have them out there if they didn't make money. They can say what they want but it's not about public safety.
It's the same kind of deal taking people off their own water wells and making them pay big bucks every month for "city" water "for their own safety". People here don't even drink the city water, and for good reasons.
It's the city's cash cow. If the place where I live gets swallowed up by the city anytime soon, I will be moving to a more rural place where they still live on water wells and septic tanks.
Ok, hijack rant over, back to your regular programming, but don't run the light on the way. |
And don't skip the commercials. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:25:09 AM · #31 |
| and do anyone in hear understand its not about speeding anyway? its about control and financial slavery over us... the speeding thing is just the excuse along with all the other fines and policies... that our rights are being stripped and being nannied without true representation and because we've lost our nerve to stand upto government and corporate bullies and let them take away our true power... until we on mass take it away we are stuck with this stuff and most of it is due to our ignorance...and apathy... thats the true problem the erosion of our freedom... |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 05:34:27 AM · #32 |
I'm all for doing away with red light cameras provided there are other means for reducing driving speeds and stopping moving violations effectively. No fault is for property damage, "all your fault" is for hitting any pedestrian or bicyclist while driving a motor vehicle and making it a criminal act with severe punishment. The motorist is 100% in the wrong no matter what and results in guaranteed lengthy jail time with hefty fines, and community service and education to prevent future occurrences. After all, motorists are inattentive, take the responsibility of driving too lightly, and usually get off scot free. Speeding and running red lights are just a couple of the many violations they commit as motorists on a daily basis. And they couldn't give a crap. This is the attitude of 90% of drivers. I'll bet this approach will get their attention and get them to slow down.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 05:35:42. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 05:37:02 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
and do anyone in hear understand its not about speeding anyway? its about control and financial slavery over us... the speeding thing is just the excuse along with all the other fines and policies... that our rights are being stripped and being nannied without true representation and because we've lost our nerve to stand upto government and corporate bullies and let them take away our true power... until we on mass take it away we are stuck with this stuff and most of it is due to our ignorance...and apathy... thats the true problem the erosion of our freedom... |
...Shall I translate this into meaning that speeding and burning red lights is now a right?
Life is simple... don't speed and burn red lights and you won't have to worry about the nanny state coming after you.
Mind you I do sympathize with the fact that you can only drive 80 to 100 km/hr on the right nice roads along the Gold and Sunshine Coasts but can zip along in the Outbacks.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 05:39:36. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 05:42:22 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by The_Tourist:
Umm, I'll be the party pooper... How about not running red lights or speeding and you won't have to worry about getting a tic (either by a camera or a real person)... Just saying. |
A friend of mine just got a ticket in the mail a couple of weeks ago. He had run a red light in a city he has never been in (in a STATE he's never been to), driving a car that looks nothing like his with a license plate number that is not even similar to his.
What would your advice be to him? (tongue in cheek, of course) |
Ignore it, I wouldn't bother with it unless they tried to pull my license, keep the record though, just in case, so he can prove it's not him. Of course, that's extremely unfortunate for the poor bastard they were TRYING to send this to, as it probably means he's gonna get nailed with a 2x fine, or a loss of privilege if they send the next notice to the wrong address. |
NEVER ignore a ticket. If it has your name on it you better respond, otherwise it's an automatic guilty. In this situation you have to plead not guilty, show up to court and show the judge you're not the person in the photo, and it'll get dropped. Ignore it, you're guilty, and if you don't pay the fine, they will suspend your license. At least in Oregon they do. It's much harder to get that guilty overturned once you fail to show than it is to go to court in the first place and get it dropped. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 07:29:32 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by bmatt17:
NEVER ignore a ticket. If it has your name on it you better respond, otherwise it's an automatic guilty. In this situation you have to plead not guilty, show up to court and show the judge you're not the person in the photo, and it'll get dropped. Ignore it, you're guilty, and if you don't pay the fine, they will suspend your license. At least in Oregon they do. It's much harder to get that guilty overturned once you fail to show than it is to go to court in the first place and get it dropped. |
Yeah, but it's OUT OF STATE! He's supposed to drop everything and show up in traffic court gawd-knows-where? |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 07:55:47 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by bmatt17:
NEVER ignore a ticket. If it has your name on it you better respond, otherwise it's an automatic guilty. In this situation you have to plead not guilty, show up to court and show the judge you're not the person in the photo, and it'll get dropped. Ignore it, you're guilty, and if you don't pay the fine, they will suspend your license. At least in Oregon they do. It's much harder to get that guilty overturned once you fail to show than it is to go to court in the first place and get it dropped. |
Yeah, but it's OUT OF STATE! He's supposed to drop everything and show up in traffic court gawd-knows-where? |
I agree with bmatt17. Don't ignore it or it'll probably come back to bite you.
There are usually options for out of state (also within the state, but too far away). One of the options in Oregon is trial by affidavit. I'm sure other states have similar options. Remember, the burden of proof still lies with the State to prove its case... |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 08:51:26 AM · #37 |
If you just get some wacky ticket in an email it's also possible it's just a phishing scam/SPAM -- after all, how would they get your email address, and why wouldn't the ticket be sent via regular (physical) mail? I seriously doubt that emailing a scan of a ticket constitutes valid service/notification.
I suggest contacting the Attorney General in the state the ticket purports to be from ... |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 08:57:29 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you just get some wacky ticket in an email it's also possible it's just a phishing scam/SPAM -- after all, how would they get your email address, and why wouldn't the ticket be sent via regular (physical) mail? I seriously doubt that emailing a scan of a ticket constitutes valid service/notification.
I suggest contacting the Attorney General in the state the ticket purports to be from ... |
The example given said "in the mail", not e-mail? And I agree with Matt, not to "let it go", I was quibbling with the "show up in court" part... |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 09:56:37 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you just get some wacky ticket in an email it's also possible it's just a phishing scam/SPAM -- after all, how would they get your email address, and why wouldn't the ticket be sent via regular (physical) mail? I seriously doubt that emailing a scan of a ticket constitutes valid service/notification.
I suggest contacting the Attorney General in the state the ticket purports to be from ... |
The example given said "in the mail", not e-mail? And I agree with Matt, not to "let it go", I was quibbling with the "show up in court" part... |
I have little doubt that any judge will dismiss the case once it is seen that you are clearly not the responsible party (different license plate number on a completely different model of car in a state you've never even been to).. I don't have a lot of faith in the system, but this is pretty much impossible for them to get wrong.
Besides, it's darn hard to go defend yourself against something that isn't even intended for you, my guess is that they got the wrong address, but we weren't actually told if it was in his name or not. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 10:02:02 AM · #40 |
I got a notice for two unpaid parking violations from a city I'd never been to in a state several hundred miles away on days I'd been at work. I called that court and made arrangements to show that these tickets were impossible. They went away.
I'd suggest calling the court on the document first before going to the AG offices.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 12:51:35 PM · #41 |
British Columbia had photo radar back in the 90's. It lasted around 2 years until privacy groups started challenging it. The courts ended up ruling in their favour stating the images can contain photos of the people in the vehicles and was an invasion of their privacy so they made photo radar illegal in the province. Red light cameras are still legal though.
I now live in Alberta and photo radar is everywhere here. It seems as if you can̢۪t drive down a major street without getting a ticket. Red light cameras as well but here̢۪s the kicker. The city of Calgary sees this as a cash cow so now they have photo radar built in with the red light cameras so they can double ding you. Got hit running a red light? Enjoy your $450 fine. Oh you were speeding as well when running the light - well here is another $139 fine on top of the red light fine.
One thing I have used to defeat these tickets is a little known trick. If there is another vehicle in the photo they must toss the ticket. There is no way to prove which vehicle set off the camera. If the image is zoomed in and your vehicle takes up the entire photo - ask to view the original. Sometimes the cops get sneaky and crop the photo to remove the other vehicle in the image. If you ask for the original they must provide it (well at least here they must). If there is even a bumper in the image of another vehicle - fight it. You'll win. Which vehicle set off the camera? It can̢۪t be proven it was your vehicle.
Sometimes the police get REALLY sneaky if there are two vehicles in one image and crop one photo into two with both vehicles in their own image. Then send tickets to both vehicle owners.
Funny thing is - the registered owner gets the fine. Odd how you are guilty of violating the motor vehicles act even if you weren̢۪t the driver.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:08:03 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you just get some wacky ticket in an email it's also possible it's just a phishing scam/SPAM ... |
The example given said "in the mail", not e-mail? |
I must have missed that -- I've been getting SPAM with tickets from New York or something (usually don't even open them now); I thought it might be one of those. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:28:12 PM · #43 |
In a similar vein, I rented a car to drive from Michigan to Missouri for a 3 week trip. I had to drive through Chicago meaning that I had to pay tolls. The car was equipped with one of those RFID devices for paying tolls. No one from the rental company explained what it was or even mentioned it was in the car. I just ignored it and paid the tolls in cash both ways.
Nothing showed up on the rental car bill when I returned the car and paid. About 3 weeks later, I got a bill from the 3rd party company who had placed the device in the car for $200 and change. Evidently, they charge a $10/day fee in addition to the tolls and once the device is used, the fee is applied every day of the rental, even if you don't use the device to pay any tolls...
I called the rental company and they said it was between me and the 3rd party company...I still bitched them out for not fully disclosing this device.
I called the 3rd party company and they stuck to their story and insisted I pay the bill. I told them to stuff it.
I called the AG here and told them about it, sent the a letter with copies of the "bill" along with copies of my receipts for the tolls. The letter was cc'ed to the company who sent the bill. (Yes, I get them. It's a habit formed after years with a boss who insisted on receipts for EVERYTHING on an expense report.) Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 11:40:18 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by sapper:
... Got hit running a red light? Enjoy your $450 fine. Oh you were speeding as well when running the light - well here is another $139 fine on top of the red light fine. |
Just out of curiousity, did they recently change the fines for running a red light? My reason for asking is that in an article which appeared in the Calgary Herald on March 2, 2012 Article the author states: "A red-light violation carries a fine of $287, while a speed-on-green infraction is on a sliding scale."
Originally posted by sapper:
Sometimes the police get REALLY sneaky if there are two vehicles in one image and crop one photo into two with both vehicles in their own image. Then send tickets to both vehicle owners. |
Assuming that you can substantiate this claim, you really ought to forward your concerns to the Alberta Justice and Solicitor General Link The reporting process is dealt with Here
This type of behaviour (assuming your complaint is valid) should NEVER be tolerated and the authorities should be alerted to this type of activities.
Originally posted by sapper:
Funny thing is - the registered owner gets the fine. Odd how you are guilty of violating the motor vehicles act even if you weren̢۪t the driver. |
Not all that odd really. In many jurisdictions, the rules are as follows: "The Registered Owner is charged under Section 160(1) of the Traffic Safety Act which states, "If a vehicle is involved in an offence referred to in Section 157 or a bylaw, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence."
Ray
|
|
|
|
11/01/2012 09:24:03 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by sapper:
... Got hit running a red light? Enjoy your $450 fine. Oh you were speeding as well when running the light - well here is another $139 fine on top of the red light fine. |
I'm not a big fan of Authority in general, but if someone's going to speed through a red light they deserve to have their balls put in a vice.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2012 10:21:43 AM · #46 |
| I live on a main road in my area. It's only about 10 miles long and has 6 red light cameras. The problem is, it's a very congested area and the lights don't give you ample time to stop. The light turns yellow, then immediately turns red. So what you have are people stomping on their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow causing accidents. The speed limit runs from 35 mph to 45 mph over the course of the road. Not very fast, but you seriously can't beat the yellow at 35 mph. So stomp away to avoid the ticket and pray you don't get rear ended. I do agree with whoever said it's all about the money, but I have to wonder if the amount of accidents the police have to respond to (many of them quite serious) makes it a worthy revenue stream. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 11:48:17 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you just get some wacky ticket in an email it's also possible it's just a phishing scam/SPAM -- after all, how would they get your email address, and why wouldn't the ticket be sent via regular (physical) mail? I seriously doubt that emailing a scan of a ticket constitutes valid service/notification.
I suggest contacting the Attorney General in the state the ticket purports to be from ... |
The example given said "in the mail", not e-mail? And I agree with Matt, not to "let it go", I was quibbling with the "show up in court" part... |
I have little doubt that any judge will dismiss the case once it is seen that you are clearly not the responsible party (different license plate number on a completely different model of car in a state you've never even been to).. I don't have a lot of faith in the system, but this is pretty much impossible for them to get wrong.
Besides, it's darn hard to go defend yourself against something that isn't even intended for you, my guess is that they got the wrong address, but we weren't actually told if it was in his name or not. |
If I recall correctly, the name was the ONLY thing that was the same. :/ |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 12:40:22 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by sapper:
... Got hit running a red light? Enjoy your $450 fine. Oh you were speeding as well when running the light - well here is another $139 fine on top of the red light fine. |
Just out of curiousity, did they recently change the fines for running a red light? My reason for asking is that in an article which appeared in the Calgary Herald on March 2, 2012 Article the author states: "A red-light violation carries a fine of $287, while a speed-on-green infraction is on a sliding scale."
Originally posted by sapper:
Sometimes the police get REALLY sneaky if there are two vehicles in one image and crop one photo into two with both vehicles in their own image. Then send tickets to both vehicle owners. |
Assuming that you can substantiate this claim, you really ought to forward your concerns to the Alberta Justice and Solicitor General Link The reporting process is dealt with Here
This type of behaviour (assuming your complaint is valid) should NEVER be tolerated and the authorities should be alerted to this type of activities.
Originally posted by sapper:
Funny thing is - the registered owner gets the fine. Odd how you are guilty of violating the motor vehicles act even if you weren̢۪t the driver. |
Not all that odd really. In many jurisdictions, the rules are as follows: "The Registered Owner is charged under Section 160(1) of the Traffic Safety Act which states, "If a vehicle is involved in an offence referred to in Section 157 or a bylaw, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence."
Ray |
I'm not certain on the dollar amount for a red light infraction. I've never received one and was just throwing a number out there. As for cropping photos that have two vehicles in them and sending tickets to both vehicles, the company I work for has 25 drivers on the road 24/7. As you can probably imagine they receive their fair share of ticket - both photo radar and actual traffic stops. We have learnt to ALWAYS request the original image from photo radar tickets and every now and then we get two vehicles in the photo cropped out and once we received the image of the other vehicle that was sent the ticket.
I have nothing but respect for the men and women in blue. They have a tough job and a dangerous one at that. I have however learnt two things in life while living in both Vancouver and Calgary. Never trust Calgary police. They have a corrupt upper echelon, and when you see the West Vancouver Police - Run. They are bored as hell and will harass young kids or those in vehicles that look like they don̢۪t belong in an upper class neighbourhood - IE my 1983 Trans Am that got me pulled over, arrested, searched, breathalysed, and then released 1 hour later and told not to return to west Vancouver. My car doesn̢۪t look like it belongs there.
All other police departments I've worked with professionally or incidentally have been a pleasure to work with (I̢۪m a physical and electronic security consultant so I work with police on a weekly basis).
Message edited by author 2012-11-01 12:48:22. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 10:44:18 PM · #49 |
Kelli,
When I took drivers ed nearly 40 years ago I was taught that you were supposed to trail the car in front of you by one car length for every 10 mph you were traveling. On your road, if cars are traveling at the speed limit, that would be about 4 car lengths behind, more than enough time to stop without stomping on the brakes. Problem is that people in the US are driving too aggressively and dangerously and risking the life and limb of many people . If they have to stop suddenly it's probably due to them not driving under the speed limit and following too closely. This is not the problem in some countries in Europe where they treat each other with respect and follow the laws, such as Denmark and the Netherlands. In the US they flout the traffic laws and try to get around them by illegal methods such as what Ken had posted and then whine when government officials try to stop this anti-social behavior.
If the traffic cameras are used for purposes of collecting a database of information on the whereabouts and travel habits of people, then I'm against them, but if they're used to generally improve the traveling climate them I'm all for it and hope they use all the money they collect (none should be going to the companies that sell the technology) towards improving mass transit, travel infrastructure, and campaigns to educate people, then I'm all for it. Motorists are getting away with way too much.
Jeff
Originally posted by Kelli:
I live on a main road in my area. It's only about 10 miles long and has 6 red light cameras. The problem is, it's a very congested area and the lights don't give you ample time to stop. The light turns yellow, then immediately turns red. So what you have are people stomping on their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow causing accidents. The speed limit runs from 35 mph to 45 mph over the course of the road. Not very fast, but you seriously can't beat the yellow at 35 mph. So stomp away to avoid the ticket and pray you don't get rear ended. I do agree with whoever said it's all about the money, but I have to wonder if the amount of accidents the police have to respond to (many of them quite serious) makes it a worthy revenue stream. |
Message edited by author 2012-11-01 22:47:19. |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 06:50:49 PM · #50 |
I got a ticket a few months ago. I was at a left turn and it turned green for us. A fire truck came through blaring it's lights, so we all stopped. After it went through, I continued on making a left turn. Didn't notice the light turned red in the process.
Damn! |
|
