Bags

iTrader: (3)

Ok, your not going to get it from mzmtg's point of view. SO I'll try mine, not that it will help. But maybe a slightly different perspective.

I do agree with you, I broke the law I got caught, I face the music. BUT there are issues RIGHTS of the accused being violated. PERIOD. Now if you do not like the RIGHTS I or you have been granted, get elected and go change them.

And everyone twists the law, MAINLY the rich or those that can afford a good lawyer. BUT that is a completly different argument altogether.

And if giving up your rights is worth $75 to you fine. MY rights are worth MUCH more than that to me. And you may think I/we are overreacting a little ticket. If you give up rights here, where does it end?

Not a flame or argument. Just my opinon to hopefully help you understand how so people feel about the situation.

And I understand you do not see it this way, but some of us do

bags

Frank Fontaine

What rights? For the 3rd time, it's the same as a parking ticket. If you dispute it, you just send it back and say you are requesting a hearing. Do you feel you have been violated when you come back to the car and there is a parking ticket under the wiper blade? Or do you just pay it because you needed the convenience of that parking space?

My friend sometimes overreacts, but he is a character out of the Sopranos and people are afraid of him. He had a dumpster that he paid for by tonnage where a neighbor threw 3 trash bags into it last week. He took those bags, walked over to the neighbor's yard, opened them, and spread the trash all over the place. Then he rang the bell, and gave the 40 yr-old dude a wave and walked away. Now according to you the 40 yr-old's rights were violated because all the junk mail inside with his address doesn't necessarily mean that it was he that put the trash in my buddy's dumpster, right? Legally, you guys are right. He should have been entitled to a hearing, as this is America.

NOW, If there were a camera, capturing 3 photos of him approaching, putting the bags into the dumpster, and then walking away, each with a time stamp, how the **** were his rights forfeited?

Zog

iTrader: (1)

Hey way to man up. YOu ran the light, you got caught, didn't try to wuss out of it. Way to accept the responsibility for driving an automobile, which is a privelege not a right.

As a side note, those cameras actually act as a safety feature. When someone runs a redlight and the camera goes off, it actually holds the red on the other lights for a second or so, attempting to reduce someone getting T-Boned in the intersection.

mzmtg

iTrader: (11)

You're missing my point.

I don't have a problem with people getting caught commiting crimes on camera. I have a problem with the way the system is set up with redlight light cameras and photo-radar.

First off, these cameras record a car running a red light, they do not record a particular person committing a crime. They do not act as any sort of hard evidence that the registered owner of the vehicle has done anything wrong. I also do not think that you should have to "rat out" whomever may have been driving to get the fine dropped.

Second, the automated system acts as judge, jury, and executioner. The camera records the car going through the light and the owner is automatically fined. When you get a speeding ticket, you have to either plead guilty or show up in court before the fine is actually levied.

I do not think that people who run red lights or any other criminal should be allowed to get away. But I also do not think that it's ok to violate the basic rights of American citizens because it's "just like a parking ticket."

Let's go back to my murder example: A person who looks just like you from behind (hell, even using a gun registered to you) is recorded on camera killing someone. But, the photos never show the face fo the perp.

If the police come to you, you should not be automatically sentenced to death. Charged? Sure, but not sentenced. Second, you should not have to provide the identity of the shooter as your only recourse against the charges. You only have to provide evidence that it was not you.



These cameras are setup to systematically violate the rights of Americans for the sole purpose of generating revenue. And, I repeat, they DO NOT make the roads any safer.

n2oMike

You're are given the privlege of carrying a driver's licence, and you are driving the car on a public road.

The owner of the car is given the right to have a hearing if there is any dispute. Hopefully, the owner would know who they loaned their car to if someone else happened to by driving! This way, the real offender would have to pay the ticket.

Too many people have been killed by idiots [b]blatently[/i] running red lights. As long as the yellow lights aren't unfairly shortened, I see no problem with the practice. I would think responsible districts would even lengthen the yellow lights to help curtail the number of complaints... and I'd say many of them do.

The makers of the cameras should NOT get a portion of the fines. I guess they do this as sort of a payment plan or lease agreement... as those cameras are surely a very expensive item. I hope the camera companies are not the ones doing the installations, and timing the yellow lights...

If done right, it's not a bad thing.

If you're guilty, quit whining and take your medicine...

Good Luck!

phenryiv1

iTrader: (19)

I agree with you there. I do not agree with the system as it is. While it has good theotretical intentions, its realistic intentions seem to be what you said- revenue generation. Taxes are in place to generate revenue; law enforcement is not. I believe in the deterrent effect of law enforcement. That is, you put police on the streets to prevent crime because a visible police presence has been shown to prevent crime. People do not intentionally speed in front of a cop, nor do they rob, rape, or harm in the presence of a police officer. (Okay,m they DO, but bvery rarely). The cameras, and any other "trap" is actually contrary to true purpose of law enforcement- which is to prompote the safe operation of society. When we "catch" criminals after the crime or violation has occurred, the potential for harm, or the actual harm, has already occurred, and it is too late. Sure, we can prevent the NEXT violation by that individual, but that is a secondary benefit. In this respect, the cameras are a waste of resources. I would rather see an officer stationed at the intersexction, just as I would rather see an officer on patrol on the highway as opposed to running radar from the bushes. AN officer on the highway is likely to limit speed and minimize potential danger, while one on the side of the road may actually INCREASE it due to last-second braking to avoid being caught speeding.

Now that we see that I agree with you in theory, here is where i DISagree:

You are correct that it does not identify who is operatign the vehicle. BUT, just as with parking tickets, the fine (and no criminal responsibility) are levied upon the owner. He DOES NOT have to finger the guilty party- he can pay the fine and collect privately. He has a choice- pay the fine or finger the guilty party. As the owner of the vehicle, you do have some responsibility regarding the use or misuse of your vehicle- just as if you laoned it to a drunk and they hurt someone.

Not entirely true. It is basically the same a as a parking ticket in that it is considered a civil violation and not a crininal one- therefore the fine is really levied on the vehicle, and/or its registered owner. The vehicle was involved in an infraction. The picture is rather irrefutable in proving that. You can request a hearing, in which case the fine is pretty much put on hold pendig the outcome of the judicial determination of validity.

Tell your car to file civil rights violations...oh, that's right- the car has none. The fine is really levied against the CAR, but as the registered owner, the OWNER is responsible. Again, I stress- I do not believe in the camera system. But until I get elected to some all-powerful law-making body and change the law, we are stuck with them, because TECHNICALLY they do not violate our civil rights.

The camera tickets are a civil violation, not criminal. All of the rules are different.

Agreed as to lack of safety, but the camers are not set up to "systematically violate the rights of Americans for the sole purpose of generating revenue," though they DO, in the end, acheive only that result. They violate my sense of what the government should be doing, but I have limited resources to challenge them at this point. If the courts were allowing criminal prosecution based on these tickets, we would be in a different situation. As it stands now, I feel that the use of camers is wrong, but not unlawful.

sil SE

iTrader: (21)

gettin head in the bently?
Quoted Message:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nadir_s
Here in california, they stoppd sending the pictures w/ the ticket. Apparently they had some big problems w/ it... for example, the husband runs the red light, picture of taken of car (front back) and a couple weeks later, mail comes in and wife opens it.... to find her husband w/ another woman (i guess she was already suspecting he was cheating on her)... you get the point.

That's about the only thing i learned from traffic school lol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

phenryiv1

iTrader: (19)

You are an attorney, right?

Here is my question to you: When did the law stop being about justice and start being about people being able to justify the use of their time? (BTW- not saying this of YOU, just in general). My father is an attorney, and he is the same way. After I left law school to finish my master's degree, I sued my former landord for wrongful detainment of my deposit money. My father thought that I was stupid to waste my time, because it would take more time in court than what the money was worth. Weather that was right or not, some of us "idealists" still think that fighting for the right thing, even when it is economically wasteful, is the "just" thing to do. I won, recovering $175 for about 20 hours of work. What a waste of my time, right? Wrong. I felt like justice was served. For those of us who disagree with the use of these cameras, it is not the "getting off on a technicality" that would be important, it is the reintroduction of justice in a system that has become sadly unjust. So the next time you see some schiester defending some lowlife, think about the REAL intent of the basic rights afforded to us in the Constitution- and try to forget about the perverted distortion that the ACLU tries to beat us over the head with.

Two short examples:
In the last 2 months, I have TWICE been wrongfully identified by police. Both times I kept my cool and worked through it. But in both cases, only my knowlege of what my righs are (as well as what the rights and dutles of the police are) kept me from ending up in the clink for any one of a string of "offenses." It was only a chance vindication by a cop who wandered over and identified me as defiantely NOT the assailant that kept me from being hauled to jail at the VT/WVU football game. If it were to not be for that, there would have been some lawyer "getting me off on a technicality" for public intoxication and assaulting a police officer. Please think about that when you criticize "technical" defense lawyrs.
Are you right that some defense attorneys are sleazy? Yes- but just as we should not all have out org sigs turned off because of a few bad apples, neither should the many good and honest defense attorneys get black-eyed by a few low-life barristers.

mzmtg

iTrader: (11)

One more thing from me, and then I think I've said all I can say to express my views.

Yes, if you broke the law and got caught, you should set up and take resonsibility. The problems arise when you did not commit the crime, but have automatically been charged and sentenced for it. If an officer pulls someone over for running a red light, the owner of the vehicle is not cited...the driver is.

All of this seems to fall under the "If you've done nothing wrong, then why do you care" type of argument. This is BS. I believe in the racing adage, "If you look after the ounces, the pounds will look after themselves." That is to say, if we can fight to keep our rights from being trampled in these "trivial" cases, then there is less of a chance they will be trampled when it really matters.

phenryiv1

iTrader: (19)

THe problem is that there are no real violations of our rights. Is it a slippery slope? Yes. If they were charging people criminally, I would be 100% on your side. You are right, people often rely on the "If you've done nothing wrong, then why do you care" argument, and it is wrong of them to do so in this case, besause the NEXT STEP from where we are now WOULD BE to charge people criminally- but until that happens, the authorities are sadly withing THEIR rights. If they takwe the next step, there will be huge problems. Hopefully, some lawmakers will step in and change the law to limit the use of these cameras, or judges will step up and assert that criminal charges based on these cameras will not be tolerated (granted at this point, without a case of true standing, that "ruling" will have to be in dicta). Like you,I hope that we never get to that point. As said, we agree in out theology, here...but on this one (admittedly technical) point, we disagree.

Bags

iTrader: (3)

Frank Fontaine- it seems we simialr thoughts in some areas of this. So instead of going back and forth, I accpet your views about the cameras. I hope you accept my views about it.

But I hope WE can agree that if they change the yellow light timing from 2/3 seconds to 4 seconds that would be better for US all.

BTW this is the 4th or 5th thread I have read in about 2 months that people with different views state thier view and others counter it, NOT FLAME, just speak opposing views.

I take this as a sign of OUR maxima board's maturity as a whole is improving.

sinewave

All of this legal talk is fascinating.

Where can I get one of those license plate covers that defeats the photo equipment?

NYCe MaXiMa

iTrader: (9)

Do you think parking tickets are a bad idea?

Explain your answer.

n2oMike

When police are plainly visible, the whole flow of traffic tends to slow down abruptly when they come into view. (this is dangerous, and causes rear-end collisions) When the police are hidden, the offender doesn't see them, and often doesn't know they've been nabbed... until the cop simply drives up behind and pulls them over. The whole flow of traffic doesn't come to a screeching halt.

If police were not allowed to hide, most of us would speed all the time because we would know they had to be plainly visible. When we don't know if they might be hiding behind the bushes, or running a speed gun from a DOT truck, we are more likely to run at a slower speed on a regular basis.

It sucks to be caught by a cop hiding in the bushes, but it's really the safest way for the system to operate.

As far as stoplights are concerned... Placing an officer at every intersection would be the best way to do things, but is cost-prohibitive. Make the yellow lights 4-5 seconds long, and I'm all for the cameras. This way, only the blatent offenders will be ticketed. I'd say many of the citys that use the cameras do just that. It would be a good way to keep the complaints to a minimum... and keep the cameras operational.

If we didn't have so many people blatently running red lights and killing people from side collisions, it wouldn't be an issue. Those idiots brought it upon us. Make the yellow lights 4-5 seconds, and they will be the only ones that are nabbed.

My $0.02

phenryiv1

iTrader: (19)

I always saw them on cars from NJ when I went to WVU. THey used to sell them in the back of MT, R&T, and C&D. I believe that they are illegal for street use in all 50 and DC, though.

I am not sure what you meant by those two posts. Was the 2nd one an essay question for extra credit?

NYCe MaXiMa

iTrader: (9)

I meant to edit the 1st post with what i posted in the 2nd one.. i don't know how i ended up posting again.. server was taking forever to load, i didn't think it posted so i posted again and rephrased it..

just answer the 2nd question

gepetto

There is no "presumption" in red light cameras. To say those presume you as guilty is to say that having a surveilance system at a jewelry store is unconstitutional because it will presume you are guilty when they catch you robbing the store. In the same way, red light cameras are in no way an invasion of privacy, especially since when driving you are on the government's roads.

Though there are no proof that it reduces number of accidents, most humans aren't stupid. This guy isn't gonna go back to DC and risk another red light b/c he'll have to shove out $75 again...no way. The yellow light cameras train people to not run red lights. It may not reduce accidents, but it most likely reduces red-light running, which is the REAL issue at hand.

Longer yellow lights wouldn't help anything. If they extend the light, people will catch on and just accelerate longer to get through them. In fact, more people would try to run them if the yellow light was longer. This may only increase accidents.

So in short, there is no joke behind red light cameras. They only further the executive branch's job (this is in the Constitution, by the way): to enfore the law.

Bags

iTrader: (3)

NO, that is what is so great about america. I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone.























NOt ment as a flame, but fun..hope you see it that way to

Conrad283

iTrader: (2)

illegal

phenryiv1

iTrader: (19)

I have to disagree with you on this. When a cop is in the lane of travel, do people pass him? not usually. Therefore, when he is doing 5-8 over the limit (typical speed), traffic stays behind him (or near him)- at approximately that speed. It is relatively steady, and does not result in hazard braking to avoid detection. By contrast, police in the median/bushes result in hazard-braking- most of the time even if you are not speeding! This is a knee-jerk reaction for most drivers. When you pass a cop, or see him, while he is running radar in the bushes, 90% of the time, you at LEAST nose-dip due to hazard-braking. As said before, if you are behind a cop, traveling a constant speed, this is not the case. Speed does not kill, but erratic driving, such as rapid changes in speed (or any one of a hundred other emergengy moves) does. This goes back to my previous post about how preventing the dangerous act in the first place (by fostering constant-speed travel and discouraging speeding) is preferred over catching violations that have already occurred.
Like your $0.02, this is just my opinion. This is just what my study of the criminal justice system and policing in America has led me to think. Many scholars agree; many disagree. Hey, if it was clear that I was right, we would use deterrent-based policing as opposed to punishment-based.

joaquink

You sure about the statement, "they DO reduce red-light-running.[sic]"?

Might I direct your attention HERE
Summary: The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.

There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.

and

HERE
Summary: A new report from House Majority Leader Richard "****" Armey's office suggests that the installation of red light cameras may actually decrease both privacy and safety.

perhaps you'd prefer to see this.

edited to clarify my position that RLCs SUCK!!!

joaquink

Amen. If a cop is out in the flow of traffic he can control the speed of multiple vehicles with a fair amount of precision. Few, if any, drivers would pass him so yould have a fairly consistent flow of traffic. Contrast this with putting that cop on the side of the road with a radar gun where he'll clock someONE, pull only THAT PERSON over and give that ONE person a ticket (to generate revenue). In the second case, the cop has effectively controlled the speed of ONE vehicle. While that person was pulled over, multiple people passed through the same area at a higher rate of speed than if the officer was visible and in the flow of traffic.

Another issue is setting reasonable and prudent speed limits on major roadways and highways. The short of it is that a speed limit should be set at the speed where approximately 80% of the drivers travel at or below. Then the speeders are truly the exceptions and not the rule. Arterial/surface streets may need an arbitrary speed limit set due to other factors such as school proximity, residential density and so forth but they can still be set reasonably here.

It's about money, not about safety. If it were about safety, lights would be clearly visible from all angles when approaching an intersection, lights would be moved to the near-side of the intersection, rather than the far-side of the intersection and so forth.

Red-light cameras suck, in my opinion but traffic monitors are cool. If someone runs a red-light and hits my car, you're damm right I want that evidence on film to bring into court. However, I will have specifically identified the driver at the time of the infraction and he/she will also be having their fair say in court.

I'm with Ben. But I find it saddening that people here seem so concerned with the "slippery slope" as related to erosion of rights/protections at red-lights but that most couldn't care less about the erosion of even more basic rights in the name of the "War On Drugs" and the "War On Terrorism". But that's another thread for the OT forum (much like this entire one is becomming).

Ciao,

JK

mzmtg

iTrader: (11)

Here's where I've found the truth about red light cameras, Congressman Armey's website freedom.gov.

Also, here's agood column from Car and Driver about the red light camera system in DC.

Here's a couple more:

Rear-end crashes go up after red-light cameras go in.

Red-light cameras and the secret Gotcha! line.

The red-light-camera epidemic.

Red lights, loot, and the law.


Read that info and tell me that redlight cameras (as they are currently used) are still a good idea...

joaquink

Errr...ummmm...I'm on your side in this.

mzmtg

iTrader: (11)

I know, I was just adding more backup

95emeraldgxe

good reads - thanks

n2oMike

Agreed here. I was comparing a cop in the median with a radar camera to one hiding behind a bush or using a DOT truck to run radar. The plainly visible cop in the median is going to cause more of a stir than the one that's hiding. It's just difficult for them to give very many revenue generating tickets when they are just cruising the fast lane.

Nobody really responded to my post about the redlight cameras. I see no problem with them as long as they are done right. Doing them right involves a 4-5 second yellow light. This way, anyone who knows there is a camera there (signs should be posted) will have plenty of time to come to a safe stop. Only the blatent offenders will be pictured and ticketed. Those 2 second yellows on camera intersections are definitely unfair revenue generators. I would say, that in all reality, many towns that use cameras probably do this to avoid the fuss of dealing with tons of people flooding their courts with complaints and objections.

Good Luck!