Posted on 11/12/2002 9:28:57 AM PST by newgeezer
Think that's bad? Here in Iowa, not only are we required to carry liability insurance, we're required to carry the little card to prove it. If you're pulled over, and can't produce the card on the spot, it's a $250 fine, whether or not you're insured!!!
That's a good point, but it has nothing to do with the red-light cameras. Even the police officer who hands you a ticket for running a red light is only there to generate revenue.
Predicted by Robert Heinlein in 1951 in his novel The Puppet Masters. In his scenario, your vehicle's onboard computer would would recieve immediate notification and it would transfer the funds to cover your fine.
True, but he(she?) made the driver stop before doing so - and probably by flashing his lights, which sends a very noticable deterrent to other drivers that hey, there's a cop watching this intersection and you could be pulled over next, so watch your driving..
The problem I've seen, in practice, with the auto-camera-ticket thingys is that, outside of the big honkin' boxes they're housed in, they're relatively benign looking. No significant deterrent threats there. The second is that in all the intersections where these gadgets are placed, the yellow light timing has been cranked back from 4+ seconds to only 2 seconds. Other, non-device intersections, are still timed at 4+ seconds. At one intersection in town, two seconds isn't enough time to get across the intersection in routine traffic. If the light changes to yellow just as you passed under it, it'll switch to red before you get safely across, triggering the photoshooter.
In other words, in this town don't even think about running the intersection on a yellow light. And maybe not on a stale green, either.
This is a common complaint about red-light cameras, and in every case I've come across it has turned out to be false. In previous FreeRepublic posts I've offered to examine, free of charge, any such intersection where this "adjustment" of the yellow interval is alleged to have taken place.
Politicians may have no qualms about screwing their constituents to generate more revenue, but any engineer who designs a traffic signal with a yellow phase that has been reduced in this fashion would be subject to discipline by his state board of professional engineers and would likely lose his license to practice. I would look forward to the opportunity to see any such bastard sued out of existence.
I received a speeding ticket in Dallas a couple of months ago. Since I was travelling in midday traffic on a major thoroughfare, I had little choice but to exceed the posted limit; in Dallas, you drive the same speed as the rest of the drivers or you get run off the road. My speed was not excessive, in fact, I was passed by several drivers even as the cop hit his flashers. In other words, I was singled out at random to participate in the City of Dallas Revenue Enhancement Program.
I decided to fight.
Since the fine for the offense was $250. I decided that I would retain legal representation and (provided the costs of doing so were under $250) would have them contest the ticket in court. I went to a "ticket shop" recommended by a neighbor and found that a fee of $40 would cover the services required, so I gladly signed.
Then, at the bottom of the contract, I saw a line that gave me pause. It read "I did not commit this offense and wish to enter a plea of 'innocent'."
Well, what would you have done? I was speeding; I admit it. And now I was being asked to sign a legal document aying I didn't. In other words, I was going to lie in order to get off the hook for a crime that I committed.
I signed.
At confession the next Saturday, I brought up my lie to a priest at a local Catholic pasish. He seemed a bit taken aback by my guilt. He pointed out that since our system of justice is based upon the presumption of innocence, a person is permitted to maintain their legal innocence even if they think (or know ) that they are guilty of actually violating a law; in other words, since the law is a technical structure, one can be technically innocent of given offense even if one committed the overt act -- for example, if the apprehension was legally or constitutionally invalid. If the prosecution cannot prove one is guilty of a crime, then the person is not guilty of that crime, whatever the facts may be; it is the responsibility of the judge or jury -- not the accused -- to determine if a given violation of the law is actually a crime. Therefore, my assertion of innocence was not a lie. I wasn't claiming that I hadn't been speeding; I was merely demanding that the City of Dallas prove that, in so doing, I had committed a crime.
In any case, he told me, the speeding-ticket system wasn't true law enforcement; it was a revenue-raising racket run by cities, counties, and the state. Beating the City of Dallas out of a traffic fine was more along the lines of "robbing a robber" than committing a crime. (This priest is an eminently practical man.) Nevertheless, he cautioned me, a Christian should always respect and obey the law. I left with a clear conscience.
Two weeks ago, my court date came up. Long story short: the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence (i.e. the officer who stopped me didn't show up to testify against me.) Lesson learned: fight your traffic tickets.
Breaking the law isn't necessarily the same as committing a crime. Like mortal sin, it requires an act of will ("I choose to break this law") and grave matter (murder is; speeding isn't) plus a knowledge of what the law actually says. Unless you meet the above conditions, you are innocent of sin -- and of crime.
WOW. I bet the speed limit really burns you up!
If I remember correctly, the issue in San Diego was not so much the length of the yellow phase but the placement of the loop detectors in the roadway pavement that triggered the red-light cameras. I believe they determined that some of the cars that were ticketed had actually entered the intersection while the light was yellow, but the camera identified them as red-light violations.
On another note, it should be mentioned that these jurisdictions pay the contractor a portion of the revenue mainly as a means of reducing the cost to the municipality. The contractor assumes the risk in the event they install the cameras and nobody is caught running the light.
I am an engineer who does a lot of work on transportation projects, and my feeling (for the most part) is that a large number of motor vehicle viiolations at a specific location is an indication of poor design or other circumstances, not a driving population hell-bent on breaking the law. There are exceptions, of course (particularly in urban areas), but a road should be designed to accommodate marginal drivers as well as careful ones. This flies in the face of the expectations of most good drivers, but when safety is paramount these considerations must be given.
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.