Posted on 08/01/2005 10:00:38 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
From experience I know you have to witness someone driving to cite them. How does this law get enforced if the picture is only of the car and the driver cannot be seen. Most times I am sure the driver can be identified through interviews and paper trails but if you claimed the car was stolen or you lended it out...
Not in CA you dont!
These newer cameras are really clear....and this system has video too. They just match your picture to your DMV photo if you decide to fight it.
http://www.helpigotaticket.com/stra/redlight.html
What if the picture is unclear or glare is in it? I just wonder because in Texas we cite the person not the vehicle and it must be proved that you ( the suspect ) was driving at the time.
Analogy, police chase car. Car stops. Person flees into mall with hundreds of persons. Police cannot ID driver. Some time later owner arrives to claim car. Said he was called to come get it. Can you legally cite the owner? I think not.
I wonder if this system would stand if it went to an appellate court.
Cool, so if you commit a crime and there are no witnesses, you get off scot-free?
You don't need to witness a violation, you simply need to prove a violation... beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal matters, by a preponderance of the evidence for civil matters. To prove the violation, you need evidence. Eyewitness testimony is one form of evidence, but not the only form.
How does this law get enforced if the picture is only of the car and the driver cannot be seen.
According to the story, these particular cameras can get a shot of the driver.
Most times I am sure the driver can be identified through interviews and paper trails but if you claimed the car was stolen or you lended it out...
Oh, that'd be just bloody brilliant. You realize that to claim such a thing, you'd have to testify about it under oath, and you'd thus be committing perjury? The penalty for which is a heck of a lot higher than that for a moving violation? I can just see the cross-examination now:
"So it's your testimony that at the time of the incident, the vehicle was stolen? Did you report it to the police? Why not? Where were you at the time of the alleged offense, if not in your vehicle? Did anybody see you there? Has the vehicle been recovered? It has? What good luck for you! When did you get the vehicle back? How did you get it back? Did the thieves just have a sense of remorse and return it to you? Did you report that to the police? How long was the vehicle stolen? Oh, just long enough for the thieves to run a red light, and that's it? What a coincidence! Did you tell anybody that your car was stolen? Are those people available to testify under oath that you told them that your car was stolen?" And so on, and so forth. Sheesh.
I support this. It's a cheap way to enforce the law, and it's devoid of human frailties such as prejudice or nepotism. If the citizens don't like this method of enforcing the law, they can change either the method or the law.
Just curious for those who get these tickets, does the owner of the vehicle have these tickets added to his driving record, even if he was not the one driving? I can understand making him liable for the speeding ticket as the owner of the car, because he can always go and get the money from the guilty culprit. But to add these tickets to his driving record, I don't agree with that, if it is done. Does anyone know?
He would be really mad if I told him about PlateScan....and most people in LA dont even know its out there yet!
Then change the law. As long as the law says what it says, it should be enforced, and as long as it's enforced, it should be enforced as cheaply and effectively as possible.
Whatever happened to putting a cop on a motorcycle at an intersection with red-light running problems?
Last I heard, the law regarding compliance with traffic signals said nothing about enforcement only at "problem intersections". And a camera is a heck of a lot cheaper than a motorcycle cop, and a lot less likely to let family, friends, and cute women off with a warning.
http://www.redflex.com.au/traffic/pdfs/RedflexSpeed2V2.pdf
Check out this van they have to park in school zones....haha...this would make a fortune in my neighborhood....and a lot less kids would get creamed
Those same people will get their ticket taken care of by the corrupt cops.
That may be true. But the money is sorely needed in this city,....facing a $26 million bill for a debt that's due Aug. 31.
Exactly. The City of Gardena is facing a $36M balloon payment due on a city council approved bogus business deal. Oh, it's the money all right.
I was a State Trooper for 4 years and worked undercover narc for 8. About half of the perps lied under oath it was not them I bought from. When I did traffic I had several sit there and say straight faced it wasn't them but their brother or sister had their drivers license and seeing as the case comes to court several months ( and sevarl hundred violators ) after the infraction if they have a lawyer or the judge is a nut you have to be asked can you verify it is the same person and the show begins.
I can see you have not had much experience with the lower parts of society. They lie just to lie.
As for witness it is common in Texas if the officer cannot witness or prove you were driving he cannot cite you. I also have experience with this trying to arrest DWI suspects that wrecked a car and left the scene before anyone arrived.
I guess the left coast does it different.
"change the law"
Except that in cases where the revenue generated is significant, it doesn't matter if you have the whole town voting against it. The town government won't let go of a revenue source.
"...a camera is a heck of a lot cheaper than a motorcycle cop, and a lot less likely to let family, friends, and cute women off with a warning"
And a lot less likely to be able to make spot judgements on whether the violation was unavoidable, and much more likely to be "engineered" by the town to increase income through shortening the yellow light, or ticketing even marginal violations.
Traffic enforcement is one of the easiest ways to bring in added revenue when it is wanted, and towns will jigger the system to keep it flowing as long as they can.
This is an interesting way to phrase this! Why not say that red-light violations have dropped along with the number of accidents at red lights? Why pick accidents with injuries to highlight? Could it be that several studies have shown that accident rates at red lights with cameras have actually gone up, with most of the increase being in rear-end collisions (as people slam on the brakes to avoid any chance of running the light)? So we just pick the benefits, and ignore any possible negatives, eh?
Typical reporting, really. Anything that funds government is good to these people...
http://hadenoughyet.com/
Red Light Cameras are a SCAM ! ! !
In LA....if you are caught street racing, you lose your car.....confiscated...and sold upon conviction.
The reason that the City of Gardena, CA, is in serious debt to the tune of $36M. Traffic safety is commendable, but good government is a pre-requisite.
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.