Replies

The really disgusting thing about all this is that these private companies, who make a useful product when used sparingly, have decided that the right of citizens to go about their business in some degree of privacy is worth less than increasing their bottom lines.

Never mind the “Amber Alert” hand wringing and all the rest of the excuse making. This is about increasing their sales and feeding the ever increasing technical control appetite of the public security state bureaucracy.

This is about increasing their sales and feeding the ever increasing technical control appetite of the public security state bureaucracy.

I hate these things with a passion. It is NOT about safety at all, it is about revenue. Like the motorist association rep. said, just increase the yellow light by 1 second and the intersection would be safer. Just look at the $$$ involved quoted in the article!

Here in Washington State, there is a citizens Initiative on the ballot for this November that would, as I have heard, force the cities that are using these things to collect 100% of the monies to put into road improvements and none could go to the camera company. The cities would have to take out the cameras because the camera company would not give these things out for free. There are cities that have already said that if this passes, they would have to have the cameras removed and other cities said they would not have them installed! I think it was a brilliant move by Tim Eyman (Initiative sponsor).

In Washington State, because of privacy laws, they cannot take a picture of your face. My boss got one of these tickets and just went in front of a judge and said he was NOT driving that car at that time and it was dismissed. I just received one in the mail and fortunately, I was out of state at the time (with receipts to prove it) and I plan on going in front of a judge with proof in hand and will probably get it dismissed. If you say you were not driving the car at the time, they try to get you to sign a form declaring who was driving the car at the time. Upon careful reading of the RCW (law) nowhere does it say that you have to identify the driver of the vehicle if it was not you. You only have to testify under oath that it was not you.

We need to fight back on this and get the municipalities to use the monies they pay the camera companies to hire more police officers if they are truly worried about the safety of their towns.