Posted on 01/15/2006 10:36:28 AM PST by presidio9
ping
If I understand correctly, all the owner of the car has to do is reveal who was behind the wheel if it wasn't the owner of the car. The driver of the car at the time of the infraction then gets the ticket. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
This seems much more sporting than spraying a license plate.
Well played, lads!
That would tend to be the remedy here too. :)
Do these cameras use a flash during the day or only at night?
The government has the right to do it, and the law is the law. Don't like it, don't break it or change the law. Until then, folks should belt up :)
Well said...
bookmark
Nope, they ticket the owner of the car. Many jurisdictions won't go any further.
Even if you live in a place where you 'have' the right to appeal, you still have to prove it wasn't you (good luck if you're single and the offense occurred late at night when you were sleeping). And if you don't know who was driving (the fake plate scenario), you're screwed - tried and convicted without the right to defend yourself, presumed guilty before proven innocent.. Next you'll want to bring back summary execution because someone says you're a heretic.
OK....I have to ask.....In order to keep my dirty farm vehicle nice and shiny.....Exactly what kind of paint do I have to spray on my license plate so the mud won't stick to it?...wink....wink....
In fairness, that wouldn't work in NYC.
Good!
This is called Civil Disobedience. "The People", who are sovereign, are telling the politicians, who are whores, that they will not tolerate these cameras and fines. It is a matter of social compact. It is a matter of declaring who is really in charge.
"The People" across the country have accepted that traffic lights are in the best interest of society. So they have made a social compact to procure, install, maintain, and abide by them. This compact is codified in laws across the country.
"The People" across the country have not accepted traffic-light cameras. By their actions they are declaring it "wrong". They do not need to justify this. "The People" are sovereign. They dictate. Obviously the political whores aren't listening.
Thus Civil Disobedience.
As far as I am concerned, all traffic-light cameras should be ripped down and buried in a big pit in a public ceremony. And at the bottom of this pit should be the political whores who advocated this insult the the sovereignty and freedom of "the People".
Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the matter.
If laws become cheaper to enforce by substituting technology for police, then that invites government to make more and more laws.
Especially the kind of laws that bring in revenue.
I guess this kind of law would not apply to illegals here in Colorado, since they only use temporary stickers on their cars.
They do both, but during the day the flash isn't noticeable unless you're looking at it.
I wouldn't have a problem with the traffic cameras if they took a picture of both the front and rear of the car - but 99+% of them only take a picture of the rear of the car and do not take any pictures of the driver or the front. The images are processed by computer, tickets are then sent out (without any human supervision), and we all know how infallible government agencies think "the computer" is.
Here's how it *should* work, if they're interested in justice and enforcement rather than revenue:
1. No shortening green or yellow cycles (almost all of them do this to get more revenue).
2. Have cameras on both sides of each direction of travel, oriented to get the license plate on the rear and an image of the operator on the front.
3. A human officer should be required to review every candidate for a citation/summons, and write it up, just as if they were there.
4. From there, it should be sent to a court and proceed just like a normal ticket. There are actual good reasons for 'running' a red light - medical or safety emergency, malfunctioning signal (I've seen and done this - 20 minute red light when the signal box locked up, and the red light camera was still taking pictures. And yes, I got a ticket. Fortunately, I had a video camera on me that day and could prove to the supervisor - not the judge, but a clerk! - that it was their equipment that failed; I had to threaten to sue the city before they'd even listen to me and I had to bring my lawyer with me - not to court, but to the streets department!), the list goes on. You are being accused of a crime, you have the right to a trial and the right to defend yourself against the accusations.
But that's not going to happen in most cities, because these cameras are all about revenue generation, not safety. And it's really easy to tell which is which by simply looking at the equipment.
There is exactly ONE city that I'm aware of that did it the way I've described above, and they eventually switched away to increase revenue generation.
Do the cameras take pictures of the front or rear license plate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.