Traffic-camera craze won't eliminate all threats

The Washington Times ^ | 5-26-05 | Tom Knott

[JZelle]

The deployment of a traffic camera a day keeps the mortician away in the nation's Jersey barrier capital, or so goes the justification to expand the intrusive practice. We all have our privacy threshold, some more liberal than others, but the city is on pace to test the resolve of the most open-minded with its seeming addiction to snapping and fining. More cameras are coming our way, predictably enough, because it is the low-maintenance police work that keeps on filling city coffers.

[OldPossum]

I might be wrong (I think that's happened a few times) but in some states aren't the tickets generated by null and void when they are delivered by mail--as almost all of them are--rather than by a real person?

The idea behind this situation is that a person charged with something (including traffic tickets) has to be faced with his accuser, in most instances, the policeman who issues the summons. And if his accuser is a machine whose "accusation" is delivered by mail, the ticket cannot be enforced.

That's my understanding. Am I right or wrong?

[OldPossum]

Let's slightly redo that first sentence: I might be wrong (I think that's happened a few times) but in some states aren't the tickets generated by machines null and
void when they are delivered by mail--as almost all of them are--rather than by a real person?

[OldPossum]

I hope this isn't a duplicate but I would like to slightly redo that first sentence thusly: I might be wrong (I think that's happened a few times) but in some states aren't the tickets generated by cameras null and
void when they are delivered by mail--as almost all of them are--rather than by a real person?

[JZelle]

Sounds right to me, but in Wash., D.C. it's a cash cow!

[mysterio]

Here's a new understanding for you. No matter what it says in the books or in the Constitution, if the law gets in the way of the state collecting money or granting itself new powers, the law is ignored, and the courts uphold the ignoring of the law. Hope this helps.

The safety statists are useful idiots for our money hungry government.

[cc2k]

OldPossum wrote:

---

I might be wrong (I think that's happened a few times) but in some states aren't the tickets generated by null and void when they are delivered by mail--as almost all of them are--rather than by a real person?

The idea behind this situation is that a person charged with something (including traffic tickets) has to be faced with his accuser, in most instances, the policeman who issues the summons. And if his accuser is a machine whose "accusation" is delivered by mail, the ticket cannot be enforced.

---

You might be wrong. Actually, you probably are wrong.

Sit down, you really aren't going to like this.

In most places where they use traffic cameras (either traffic lights or photo radar), the "violation" has been de-criminalized. For example, in Georgia, most traffic violations are minor "misdemeanor" criminal charges. But running a red light with a camera is not a "misdemeanor." Instead, it's a civil violation and it is handled as a civil case by the courts. So, you don't have the rights of the criminal accused, and they don't have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Actually, you have to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard that you didn't commit the civil violation.

Oh, and the cameras aren't ever owned by the city or state government. They are always owned by a private company. At least I'm not aware of any government owned cameras in use anywhere. The private company gets a percentage of the "take" from the fees generated by the camera. And, often if the camera actually reduces the number of "red light runners" (thus making the roads safer at that intersection), the company running the cameras will try to have the yellow light cycle shortened so they can catch more "violators."

Red light cameras don't make the roads safer. As a matter of fact, the roads are often more dangerous after the cameras are installed. But they do generate lots of revenue for the city or state that installs them, and for the company that operates and maintains them.

[OldPossum]

Thanks to you and the others for clarification of the matter. I appreciate it.

I would add that regardless of whether these cameras are effective, I really hate to see them provide more intrusion into our personal lives, a la "1984."

[disclaimer]

Red light cameras don't make the roads safer. As a matter of fact, the roads are often more dangerous after the cameras are installed.

I smell a class action suit against these "private company" operations.

[JZelle]

I'm all for safety on the roads, but having a private company control the cameras and receiving a cut of the fines is a serious conflict of interest.