Red Light Cameras

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I disagree. I know for a fact that people have driven more carefully around intersections they know have cameras. I think it's kind of ridiculous to think it does absolutely nothing, other than make money for the city.

And I don't really have a problem with the city making money off people breaking laws.

I can spin this a different direction, too. People who can't pay attention to the speed limit signs are the same way. Should we just not monitor speeds because people are doing it whether it's being watched or not?

These things are laws. I have no problems with enforcing them more efficiently. Even if it prevents very few accidents, it still prevents them.

You disagree with the 6th Amendment to the Constitution?

I agree that if they want to write tickets for people breaking the law, then that is what they should (and are entitled to) do.

But.. they aren't that serious about it... or they'd have done it.

 

[3074326]

You disagree with the 6th Amendment to the Constitution?

I agree that if they want to write tickets for people breaking the law, then that is what they should (and are entitled to) do.

But.. they aren't that serious about it... or they'd have done it.

I disagreed that people don't pay attention.

I know two people who have received tickets? Because of that, I've assumed that they were serious about it. If not, my opinion changes.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I disagreed that people don't pay attention.

I thought you were arguing in favor of the cameras.

I know two people who have received tickets? Because of that, I've assumed that they were serious about it. If not, my opinion changes.

By uniformed officers? If so, then, I'm fine with it. If it's by camera, then... not so much. That was my point - giving the job to cameras is Unconstitutional. If they're serious about intersections, then they need to put actual people out there to enforce the law.

 

[Gatorubet]

I am in litigation about two camera radar speeding tickets of me exceeding the speed limit....allegedly.

The local small town set up these vans that take pictures of you and then they send you a ticket in the mail with a link to the video. It is a non criminal thing, and they assess you a bill apiece. Well, the first notice I got was the dunning letter saying that I now owed $200 more for the late fees. I asked exactly where was the privity of contract, how did I agree to any of this, and if it was not criminal but civil, how was there a meeting of the minds as to terms. How did they know if was me driving? How can they prove they sent me notice, as they did not use registered mail or have an officer obtain my signature on a ticket/affidavit. How could I cross examine the person who says it was me and that I was speeding - that the radar was accurate or certified?

They turned me over to collections. They have an out of state law firm. The plot thickens.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I disagree. I know for a fact that people have driven more carefully around intersections they know have cameras. I think it's kind of ridiculous to think it does absolutely nothing, other than make money for the city.

And I don't really have a problem with the city making money off people breaking laws.

I can spin this a different direction, too. People who can't pay attention to the speed limit signs are the same way. Should we just not monitor speeds because people are doing it whether it's being watched or not?

These things are laws. I have no problems with enforcing them more efficiently. Even if it prevents very few accidents, it still prevents them.

They had those fucking things in Heath, until the city overwhelmingly rejected the fucking things at the polls. It's about money. If it was about protection, had someone ran 80mph all the way down S.R.79, they'd have issued as many tickets as cameras...but they don't. One ticket.

If you're so worried about accidents, maybe you should write your congressman and ask for no motorized vehicle legislation.

 

[3074326]

I thought you were arguing in favor of the cameras.

By uniformed officers? If so, then, I'm fine with it. If it's by camera, then... not so much. That was my point - giving the job to cameras is Unconstitutional. If they're serious about intersections, then they need to put actual people out there to enforce the law.

I guess if being in favor of cameras makes me against the 6th amendment, then yes, I'm against it in that sense.

They had those fucking things in Heath, until the city overwhelmingly rejected the fucking things at the polls. It's about money. If it was about protection, had someone ran 80mph all the way down S.R.79, they'd have issued as many tickets as cameras...but they don't. One ticket.

If you're so worried about accidents, maybe you should write your congressman and ask for no motorized vehicle legislation.

I already stated that if they're not being serious about it then my opinion changes.

Your last statement makes it sound like I think things are getting out of hand. I don't. I just think that if it's implemented and punishment is given.. it would help prevent accidents. You always make it sound like I'm ready to jump off a cliff at any given point. And I never am.

 

[jwinslow]

By uniformed officers? If so, then, I'm fine with it. If it's by camera, then... not so much. That was my point - giving the job to cameras is Unconstitutional. If they're serious about intersections, then they need to put actual people out there to enforce the law.

What if they try you in a court of law, use the pictures as evidence, and provide you with defense? Would it then be constitutional?

I'm no lawyer, so perhaps it is unconstitutional, which leads back to your previous posts about rewriting it

 

[MightbeaBuck]

They turned me over to collections. They have an out of state law firm. The plot thickens.

You're going through what many have gone through in Toledo.

Many people have found that if you do nothing, simply ignore it, it seems to go away. Seems to.

Because of so many non-payers, the Toledo police are now booting cars that haven't paid their tickets. The law somehow states, as pointed out earlier in this thread, that the person isn't at fault, the car is to blame. No trial is required because it would be dumb to try a car. So they punish the car by booting it until they have received payment for the ticket, a late fee, and a little extra to cover the cost of the booting (and possible towing).

Because of this, the folks that live out of Toledo, and do most of their business outside of Toledo, have no reason to pay, while residents do. I live outside of Toledo, but work there and do quite a bit of shopping there. If I got a red-light-camera ticket, I'd be apt to pay.

I'm rooting for you. I don't like this law, this ongoing civil court drama. I want to be able to ask my accuser about his sobriety when he wrote this ticket. about his state of mind, etc.
In Toledo, with this "civil" b.s. you can't have a jury, or even a judge. If you fight it, you meet with a representative of the firm that owns the cameras (an accountant? possibly). In some ways better than a lawyer, in more ways worse. And this person has a vested interest in making you pay!



Those who maintain that these cameras make the city money are not interested in a fair balance between "liberty and justice for all". They have no concern for our unalienable rights.

And to those that respond that throwing out the sixth amendment is okay by you. Can we choose an amendment to get rid of for you to enjoy also?
Is a warrant-less search okay by you? Since you have nothing to hide, you have no problem if Law Enforcement breaks your door down and proceeds to search the premise for illegal contraband? You have none, therefore you have no problem, right?

...yeah, right

 

[Mike80]

Did the "others" ever watch the video you posted? Apparently the camera(s) did not prevent a single one of these accidents.

Your evidence shows a waste of time and money.

I know the flash of the camera sometimes startles me, and I start to either jump on the brakes, or if I have my foot on the brake already, I start to gun the car. Either way, the flash almost caused an accident a couple of times. I imagine it has happened to others also.

No, not those "others"

Not my evidence. I know that these cameras are reactive at best and won't stop one person from running a red light.

Cameras or not, most of those people that blew through those redlights were seriously blatant at it while others were clearly not paying attention.

Kinda like gun laws, the only people who pay attention to the law will obey it.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I guess if being in favor of cameras makes me against the 6th amendment, then yes, I'm against it in that sense.



I already stated that if they're not being serious about it then my opinion changes.

Your last statement makes it sound like I think things are getting out of hand. I don't. I just think that if it's implemented and punishment is given.. it would help prevent accidents. You always make it sound like I'm ready to jump off a cliff at any given point. And I never am.

This ain't about you, Numbers. I hate the idea of big brother essentially saying, we didn't catch you, but you're busted.

Every gov't that sets up these cameras is SERIOUS. It's about adding some coin to their coffers. They can't raise taxes for fear of getting voted out of office, so they install cameras to levy a tax. It affects people with small buisnesses in the area. I didn't so much as look towards Heath for a purchase while the cameras were there. Lastly, the company that makes and installs the cameras gets a cut of my ticket money. So if I sat out at the corner of a busy intersection and filmed wreckless driving, then turn it over to the police, I could get a cut also, right?

 

[MaxBuck]

... I find these cameras violative of the Constitution.

Get real. How many traffic courts work on Constitutional principles? They're based on Judge Roy Bean and the kangaroo courts of the Wild West.

My answer? Who flipping cares. It's a traffic law; get over it.

 

[Gatorubet]

Get real. How many traffic courts work on Constitutional principles? They're based on Judge Roy Bean and the kangaroo courts of the Wild West.

My answer? Who flipping cares. It's a traffic law; get over it.

Hell, if it were any kind of court that would be fine. My "appeal" is to talk to somebody in Toledo.

 

[buck1973]

Hell, if it were any kind of court that would be fine. My "appeal" is to talk to somebody in Toledo.

If you receive a citation from a red light camera in Columbus, you have the right to a hearing.

 

[MaxBuck]

If you receive a citation from a red light camera in Columbus, you have the right to a hearing.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What if they try you in a court of law, use the pictures as evidence, and provide you with defense? Would it then be constitutional?

I'm no lawyer, so perhaps it is unconstitutional, which leads back to your previous posts about rewriting it

As I said on page one - the pictures of you running a red light are evidence of you committing the violation. I have no issue with that. The prosecution would still have to bring in a guy to establish how it works, that it was working on such and such a day, and so on. But, yes, it's evidence.

As for re-writing the Constitution, that's fine with me. However, the right to face your accuser is not one of the things I would re-write. It may be, by popular vote, something that would get tossed aside. I don't know. It sounds to me like most people don't care about the right to face your accuser (at least in this context), so ...

Get real. How many traffic courts work on Constitutional principles? They're based on Judge Roy Bean and the kangaroo courts of the Wild West.

True. Unfortunate, but more or less accurate.

My answer? Who flipping cares. It's a traffic law; get over it.

I care only because this is the kind of "taking of your freedom" that I believe is important. I believe this because it is related to the government's exercise of it's coercive power. In my view, the most important limits in the US Constitution are those which limit the Government's ability to prosecute.