waterinthefuel
Commander
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2003
- Messages
- 2,728
[SIZE=-1]They've just recently improvised speedvans in our city. They are parked, sometimes borderline in dangerous places along roads, to catch speeders. They have issued 4000 tickets in the first two months of existence. Their locations are already predictable and obviously aren't trying to catch speeders who really could hurt someone, the speeders in neighborhoods with thru-streets. Those are the people who complained, yet they never see the speedvans. Instead, they are often found on 4 lane divided highways with everybody going in the same direction, hardly a place where a speeder would risk a life.
Now the same company has put up red-light cameras at several intersections in our city, again, not intersections with known high levels of red light running, intersections of which 3 out of 25 are along one street, amazingly the street that the city councilman who pushed hardest for the cameras lives.
It has been discovered that 58 percent of the profit goes to Redflex, the out of nation company, and 42 to our city gov't.
This is my problem, first with the speedvans. They take a photo of the person "speeding", but it could easily take a photo of the car next to them, or in the case that they changed lanes, the one who just took that spot in the road when the photo was taken. They've even stated that almost 60 percent of the photos are rejected. Also, it simply takes a photo of the plane and it sends the ticket to the owner of the vehicle via snail mail. If that person lent that car out, or didn't even know someone was driving it then, they'd still have to pay. That's wrong. Other than that, I don't speed so I don't care.
The main problem I have is with the red light cameras. There is no way a camera can make a safety decision. Especially if you are on a motorcycle and decide at a yellow light to slam on your brakes and stop, you could very easily become roadkill from the car behind you not expecting you to do that. If you would continue through the intersection, you could get a ticket for running a red light, even though that is obviously the safer choice. You shouldn't have to pay in making a good, safe decision like that. You also could get caught in an intersection in bad traffic, stuck there by an unexpected stop in traffic ahead. The light turns red, bang there you are, stationary, "running" a red light.
Interesting excerpt from a lawyer's website:
"It is extremely easy to beat this type of ticket in court. Your easiest defense is to simply throw the ticket away. If it does not come with a return receipt that requires a signature, there is no proof that you actually got the ticket and they cannot prosecute you on that. What the legal system wants you to do is just send in the fine and not ask any questions. This can be a big money maker for some communities. One other form of defense to utilize on your behalf is the fact that when you are accused in court you must be faced by your accuser. Obviously the computer cannot appear in court as a defense method for the prosecution. Also, you do not have to identify yourself as the driver of the vehicle because it would violate your sixth amendment rights against self incrimination."
-Norman G. Fernandez, attorney at law, and Jes Beard, attorney at law in Chattanooga, Tennessee
What are your views on these things?
[/SIZE]
Now the same company has put up red-light cameras at several intersections in our city, again, not intersections with known high levels of red light running, intersections of which 3 out of 25 are along one street, amazingly the street that the city councilman who pushed hardest for the cameras lives.
It has been discovered that 58 percent of the profit goes to Redflex, the out of nation company, and 42 to our city gov't.
This is my problem, first with the speedvans. They take a photo of the person "speeding", but it could easily take a photo of the car next to them, or in the case that they changed lanes, the one who just took that spot in the road when the photo was taken. They've even stated that almost 60 percent of the photos are rejected. Also, it simply takes a photo of the plane and it sends the ticket to the owner of the vehicle via snail mail. If that person lent that car out, or didn't even know someone was driving it then, they'd still have to pay. That's wrong. Other than that, I don't speed so I don't care.
The main problem I have is with the red light cameras. There is no way a camera can make a safety decision. Especially if you are on a motorcycle and decide at a yellow light to slam on your brakes and stop, you could very easily become roadkill from the car behind you not expecting you to do that. If you would continue through the intersection, you could get a ticket for running a red light, even though that is obviously the safer choice. You shouldn't have to pay in making a good, safe decision like that. You also could get caught in an intersection in bad traffic, stuck there by an unexpected stop in traffic ahead. The light turns red, bang there you are, stationary, "running" a red light.
Interesting excerpt from a lawyer's website:
"It is extremely easy to beat this type of ticket in court. Your easiest defense is to simply throw the ticket away. If it does not come with a return receipt that requires a signature, there is no proof that you actually got the ticket and they cannot prosecute you on that. What the legal system wants you to do is just send in the fine and not ask any questions. This can be a big money maker for some communities. One other form of defense to utilize on your behalf is the fact that when you are accused in court you must be faced by your accuser. Obviously the computer cannot appear in court as a defense method for the prosecution. Also, you do not have to identify yourself as the driver of the vehicle because it would violate your sixth amendment rights against self incrimination."
-Norman G. Fernandez, attorney at law, and Jes Beard, attorney at law in Chattanooga, Tennessee
What are your views on these things?
[/SIZE]
