Red Light Cameras

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I doubt this is true but someone told me that you can beat a ticket like this if you challenge it in court. He said you have the right to confront your accuser and a camera can't testify in court and therefor it would be thrown out. The guy had written a book on how to get out of traffic tickets.

I like the idea, but a camera can, in fact testify. And, they do all the time. Of course, they have a camera technician or photographer doing the talking. In the case of the camera technician, he doesn't even need to know what the camera saw... he explains how the camera works, whether it was was working that day, and so on. But, then, they show the pictures and BOOM, the Camera just testified.

Regardless, one does not have a 6th Amendment right to confrontation in a Civil Case. Since their is no criminal penalty (ie Points, jail time) it's as if you're being sued by the Gov. for engaging in an unauthorized use or some such. On the other hand, a 95 dollar fine sounds like a penalty to me. I think if you could convince a judge that the 95 fine isn't for liability (ie Civil) but is for punisment (ie criminal) you'd have a better chance since the Burden of Proof goes up (As it stands now, they'd only need to show by a purponderance that you ran a red light) A pic of your plate does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that YOU ran the red light, of course.

And, it's not illegal to drive wearing a ski mask. So, if they start shooting pics inside your car just drive wearing some kind of face obstructing stuff... a hat with a bill may suffice.

This, in my view, is money making, pure and simple. Bottom line, in my mind anyway, is there are times when running a light is warranted. Emergencies, the damn thing wont change, it's 2:00am and there is no one else within miles of you, etc. What kind of kick in the mouth would it be if you were running a loved one to the hospital one night, it's say 3:00 am... you run 5 lights. Your loved one dies. And then in about a week you get 500 dollars worth of fines for trying to get your loved one to the Hospital as quickly as you could.

OK, so that's just a parade of horribles, but this idea of non human survelliance is ridiculous. You can't make criminal or quasi-criminal cases "rote" like this. In my example above, if a Cop pulls you over for running the light, he helps you get to the hospital. If a light snags you, you get nothing but hassle. Yeah, you can go to court and tell the judge your side of the story, but even if he believes you, its a fucking avoidable hassle.

Edit: Likewise, by not requiring an actual human on the scene (to make fair ecvaulations of the facts and circumstances), aren't we encouraging people to make up some BS to fight these tickets, and thereby jam up the Courts with frivolous "defenses?" A camera can't tell if you're on your awy to a Hospital or a crack house.

Furthermore, with all the "Gosh, I'm surprised how many people are running lights" comments one wonders, if no one is aware of the problem, what's the fucking problem? In other words, 1100 people ran a light. OK.. who got hurt? Anyone? ANYONE? I don't see those numbers. How about you just give me 95 bucks for no particular reason instead.

Big brother... don't let them keep getting away with this crap.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Go ahead and fine...I don't break the law and run red lights so I don't have to worry about it.

Not to pick on you GD, but it's this kind of attitude that fucking pisses me off with America.

I don't run lights either, as a matter of course. But, I can see where I would from time to time decide that it's the better solution, as I outlined above. I'm not waiting 3 minutes for a light to change if I've got a person gushing blood in my backseat... I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, and if there aren't any cars coming, and I've looked both ways, I can figure out if its safe to go...

Anyway, this whole "I don't care if they tap my phone, I've got nothing to hide" "Let them shoot pics of stuff and call it a civil matter, I don't run lights, what do I care?" crap is slowly erroding away the Constitution. There's something to be said for the principle of something, and not simply whether it will effect you personally. They can only take away your freedoms if you let em, and frankly, in modern day America, we aren't just letting them, we're (in some cases) fucking ASKING them to. It's absurd.

 

[strohs]

I don't run lights either, as a matter of course. But, I can see where I would from time to time decide that it's the better solution, as I outlined above. I'm not waiting 3 minutes for a light to change if I've got a person gushing blood in my backseat... I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, and if there aren't any cars coming, and I've looked both ways, I can figure out if its safe to go...

Anyway, this whole "I don't care if they tap my phone, I've got nothing to hide" "Let them shoot pics of stuff and call it a civil matter, I don't run lights, what do I care?" crap is slowly erroding away the Constitution. There's something to be said for the principle of something, and not simply whether it will effect you personally. They can only take away your freedoms if you let em, and frankly, in modern day America, we aren't just letting them, we're (in some cases) fucking ASKING them to. It's absurd.

Couldnt have said it better myself

 

[Golferdow01]

Not to pick on you GD, but it's this kind of attitude that fucking pisses me off with America.

I don't run lights either, as a matter of course. But, I can see where I would from time to time decide that it's the better solution, as I outlined above. I'm not waiting 3 minutes for a light to change if I've got a person gushing blood in my backseat... I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, and if there aren't any cars coming, and I've looked both ways, I can figure out if its safe to go...

Anyway, this whole "I don't care if they tap my phone, I've got nothing to hide" "Let them shoot pics of stuff and call it a civil matter, I don't run lights, what do I care?" crap is slowly erroding away the Constitution. There's something to be said for the principle of something, and not simply whether it will effect you personally. They can only take away your freedoms if you let em, and frankly, in modern day America, we aren't just letting them, we're (in some cases) fucking ASKING them to. It's absurd.

That's fine bkb. If someone is gushing blood and you get a ticket for running a light, then you have a good reason to complain.

I am a law abiding citizen and realize that I need to give up rights in order to make this country what it is. These detectors are not changing my life in a big way at all so I don't really mind them.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

GD - First, I want to say, I was merely using your posts as a sounding board to make a larger point, and again didn't mean for it to be directed at you. (You probably know this, just wanted to make it clear where I'm coming from)

Second, since you responded - You are under some very misguided belief that you have to give up rights (more than those presently "given up" anyway) to live in an ordered society.

That's overstating it a bit, since I don't think we have a "right" to run red lights... but on the overriding issue of affording the Gov. enforcement authority without actual human observation is tantamount to our Constitutions inherent mistrust of Governmental activity. Again, if we allow the Gov. to wittle away at what it takes to secure order, the Gov. becomes oppressive.

The arguement (your argument) that "Ive got nothing to hide" rests on the absurdity that the counter arguement is "I do have something to hide and I believe strongly that I have a right to run red lights." The counter argument, as I've tried to articulate, is where do we draw the line of what we'll allow the Gov. to do at our expense? Again, I'm not for some lawless run red lights at every opportunity chaos. But, I am for the sixth amendment's assurance that I will have an opportunity to confront witnesses against me. I am for the 4th Amendment's right to be free from unlawful search and seizure (Which, incidently, the camera question only marginally - if at all - concerns) (EDIT: Upon some reflection, there may well be some "warrant" requirement to the extent that you have a "presonal" right to be assumed NOT to be committing a crime, so I think the 4th actually plays a larger role than I originally gave credit for). I refuse to afford the Gov. the opportunity to whittle these assurances away with niceities - and "unargueable niceities" at that (Unargueable to the extent that the counter arguement is "Well, I think I have a right to run red lights)

Now, again, this camera stuff has been guised in a "Civil" context, thus attempting to sheild itself from the Constitutional protections. BUT, it's STILL state action, and State action is indeed governed by the COnstitution, civil or no. The problem, of course, is the 6th A. for example, just simply doesn't attach to civil matters....

Anyway, I presume you are not a drug deal either. Would you be agreeable to a new rule that says the Cops can just show up and rummage thru your things when ever they want just to be sure? I mean, aside from taking up a few moments of time, you've got nothing to hide...

I maintain, there must be at a minimum, some level of probable cause in criminal and quasi-criminal matters. I can't say, Well, GD lives in such and such a neighborhood, and there's a lot of drugs there, I'm gonna go rummage thru his things. Likewise, I can't say, (as the Gov.) "Well, lots of people are running this red light, lets set up non-manned survellience and tag em" If it's a sufficient problem, then by all means, put a cop there. If it's not of that level of concern, then keep your filthy hands off my desert.

I refuse to give the Gov. a blank check on the theory that Well, screw it, I'm a law abiding citizen.

 

[Golferdow01]

I understand your points. Of course there is the arguement "Where do we draw the line"? If we continue to give up smaller freedoms then the government will take and take until they control our lives. I believe we need people to oppose government action.

I think my words labelled me as someone who's all for the cameras, and I might have worded myself terribly. I'm more neutral, I could honestly care less.

 

[BB73]

Anyway, this whole "I don't care if they tap my phone, I've got nothing to hide" "Let them shoot pics of stuff and call it a civil matter, I don't run lights, what do I care?" crap is slowly erroding away the Constitution. There's something to be said for the principle of something, and not simply whether it will effect you personally. They can only take away your freedoms if you let em, and frankly, in modern day America, we aren't just letting them, we're (in some cases) fucking ASKING them to. It's absurd.

Have you seen how extensive the traffic cameras are in London?

timesonline.co.uk

london_carmonitoring

 

[Wingate1217]

My problem with this is that you never know how long a light will be yellow for. Some of them seem as long as five seconds, and others about a half a second.

The original idea regarding lights at intersections is of course safety related. It was thought that the mere act of fining someone would led to lower traffic accidents at intersections. This has happened as it was designed however, a noticeable increase in rear end accidents has occurred due to the fact that the natural instinct of the driver is now to slam on his/her brakes in order to not get a "ticket".

Most cities will say that the safety angle outweighs any of this downside aspect (rear end accidents) but when several of the cities have been caught red-handed moving the standard delay from yellow to red from approx. 2.5-4 seconds to 1-2 seconds it smacks of revenue enhancement not safety. It will be interesting to see how long the delay is set in Columbus.

 

[scooter1369]

My problem with this is that you never know how long a light will be yellow for. Some of them seem as long as five seconds, and others about a half a second.

I think it was in DC or sourrounding area that this situation came up. They had a camera at one light on a long stretch of road with several lights. The one with the camera had the yellow set to a full second less than all the other lights. Lawyers contested the tickets and many got thrown out.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Have you seen how extensive the traffic cameras are in London?

timesonline.co.uk

london_carmonitoring

A telling line from your first link:

Thousands of cameras installed originally to counter terrorism or robbery could end up trapping more motorists than criminals.

More patriot act, anyone?