New York Legislature Approves Massive Traffic Camera Expansion

theNewspaper.com ^ | 04/09/2009 | n/a

[freeangel]

Ha! Those cameras are such losers. Many burbs of metro-Atlanta rushed to get them and when the state called for 1 second more on the yellow, revenue came to a crashing halt.

[Above My Pay Grade]

>>>NYC should ticket the jay walkers Ooops... better not give them any more ideas to tax. George Harrison was a prophet.... TAXMAN!<<<

Actually, Rudy tried to crackdown on jay walkers, about 10 years ago. It didn’t go over too well, so he backed off.

Speaking of NYC and cameras, I notice more and more “NYPD Police Camera” signs on light poles in Manhattan.

[OA5599]

Doesn’t matter, it’s like a parking ticket. The car is registered to you, hence your responsibility.

Actually, a parking ticket isn't the car owner's responsibility. It's not like they arrest you. But not paying a parking ticket can lead to being unable to re-register the vehicle and/or having it impounded. Not paying a speeding ticket however, will result in a bench warrant for your arrest. But perhaps the camera speeding tickets will be like parking ticket rules.

[Dan(9698)]

Remove New York as a place to visit.

[Dr.Deth]

Hah, changes his mind after an $80K kickback. But it’s fine, he’s a Democrat. Move along, nothing to see here.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

The ticket goes to the vehicle.

It is not booked as a moving violation on the driver for just that reason.

[Labyrinthos]

Doesn’t matter, it’s like a parking ticket. The car is registered to you, hence your responsibility.

Not in NY. Running a red light is a moving violation. The ticket is issued to the driver not the owner of the car, whereas a parking ticket is issued to the owner of the car, not the driver.

[kabar]

Maryland just passed a similar law to tax speeders. My guess is they will raise the tax like they raised the cigarette tax , until speeders dissappear. Or the camera’s do, the result of vandalism.

Or until the legislators who voted for them disappear

[Labyrinthos]

The ticket goes to the vehicle. It is not booked as a moving violation on the driver for just that reason.

If you are correct, then someone ought to challenge the law under the equal protection clause. Why? Because the exact same act is treated differently depending upon whether the driver is caught by a human eye or a camera eye. If a LEO witnesses the car going through the red light, then the driver goes through the criminal court system and a conviction results in points on the driver's licence, a hefty fine and surcharge, and the possibility of jail time. The driver, however, enjoys due process, the presumption of innocence, the right to confront his or accuser in a criminal proceeding, the requirment that the people prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If a camera records the exact same conduct, however, the process is completely different.

[swarthyguy]

Hey, make smoking in cars illegal and then those cameras can be real revenue raisers!

[DocH]

What self-respecting citizen would want to live as a subject in this virtual Nanny/Police State?

[Venturer]

How many of these things have to be burned before the Gub mint gets the message.?

[chiefqc]

I thought they were about to run out of money.

[oldm60grunt]

Dalton, Ga just removed the two we had installed.

A win for the good guys!

[OA5599]

How many of these things have to be burned before the Gub mint gets the message?

I think the answer is when they no longer collect enogh revenue and actually have to pay for the system. It's certainly not about safety. Just revenue collection.