|
Post by Marshall on Oct 31, 2006 9:11:03 GMT -5
I was talking to a guy yesterday that got a $90 traffic ticket in the mail. Seems he was driving in the city (Harlem & Irving) one day a couple weeks ago. He was driving along in the left lane and realized he needed to turn right at the corner. He checked his mirrors. There was no conflicting traffic, so he safely executed a right turn from the left lane.
. . . , seems that it's one of the corners in the city that has camera surveylance (for your own protection). Well, in the mail comes a traffic ticket for $90 with a photo of his van (license plate prominently visible) making the right turn from the left lane.
Now there's fine surprise !
Big Bro is w a t c h i n g.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 9:34:34 GMT -5
I have no problem with that, Marshall. It matters not a whit to me that the driver concluded that it was a safe maneuver -- for the system to work it has to have integrity, and that means that everyone is obliged to follow the rules or pay the penalty. If we leave it up to drivers to decide when it is and isn't safe to obey the law, there is no law.
I wish they had ticket-writing-cameras at each and every controlled intersection, in fact.
I honestly do. I am so sick and tired of cars, trucks, buses, even cops on slow patrol, running red lights. It has gotten really dangerous out there. And many of those same drivers are on the phone.
I damn near got killed last month by a freaking TRAIN that ran a red light!
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2006 9:44:26 GMT -5
I would want to go to court and see a witness. A camera isn't a witness. You have a right to see the witnesses against you in court.
How do you know they weren't photoshoping the pictures. No witness to cross examine no case.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 9:50:32 GMT -5
I would want to go to court and see a witness. A camera isn't a witness. You have a right to see the witnesses against you in court. How do you know they weren't photoshoping the pictures. No witness to cross examine no case. Go to court if you want to fight it. The photo is not a witness, you are right -- the photo is EVIDENCE. Accuse them of Photoshopping, if you wish. But why would they? The public good from the system outweighs any such concern, in my view. Believe me, they won't have to doctor the results to get enough revenue to pay off the system in short order. We had a pretty effective system in Minneapolis until a lawsuit derailed it. I approve of that, too. Someone working the system to get it changed. But I wish the cameras were working again. I think they ultimately saved a lot of lives and injuries.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2006 10:01:37 GMT -5
They would because they are all private businesses that run them and they get paid on how many they catch. When they sued in San Diego they found over 10,000 fake tickets issued.
They do it for the money.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 10:05:57 GMT -5
They would because they are all private businesses that run them and they get paid on how many they catch. When they sued in San Diego they found over 10,000 fake tickets issued. They do it for the money. I recall that they shut down San Diego's system because it was determined that the timing of the yellow lights was set up to maximize profits for the contractor. Show me where I can verify that 10,000 FAKE tickets were issued, please.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2006 10:07:38 GMT -5
fake ticket those taken on the yellow lite not the red
|
|
|
Post by Tim Alexander (fmrly. Camalex) on Oct 31, 2006 10:08:51 GMT -5
I trust a digital photo just about as much as I trust someone's recollection - so I'm fine with the camera set-up -- besides, we have better things for our cops to do than to be handing out tickets to adults who should know better and still fasil to observe the traffic laws.
Doug -- if this happens to you, go ahead and fight the ticket but remember it's our tax dollars at work and our resources spent while you fight a ticket you probably deserved all along.
|
|
|
Post by mccoyblues on Oct 31, 2006 10:11:36 GMT -5
Another issue is who was driving the vehicle. The vehicle may be registered to me, but what if a co-worker or my brother was driving the van. Why should I be ticketed. Where is the proof of who was driving.
I'd fight this as far as I had to take it.
If the city wants to issue tickets for such minor traffic offenses they should pay for a cop on the corner, not a camera.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2006 10:12:13 GMT -5
You trust a dig photo? Remember "presumed innocent" that means that you presume that the picture was a fake till it is proven that it's not. Unless you don't like our court system that is based on "presumed innocent"
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 10:13:36 GMT -5
Another issue is who was driving the vehicle. The vehicle may be registered to me, but what if a co-worker or my brother was driving the van. Why should I be ticketed. Where is the proof of who was driving. I'd fight this as far as I had to take it. If the city wants to issue tickets for such minor traffic offenses they should pay for a cop on the corner, not a camera. YOU pay for a cop on every corner! And if someone else is driving your car, you get them to pay for the ticket. They owe you.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2006 10:18:08 GMT -5
When I sit on a jury I presume the cop is lying until proven other wise because that's what presumed innocent means
|
|
|
Post by mccoyblues on Oct 31, 2006 10:26:26 GMT -5
Bill, you missed the point completely. It's stupid to put a cop on every corner, it's also stupid to allow cameras to take the place of well trained police officers.
And on the point of paying the ticket, the money isn't the issue. It goes against my driving record, my insurance gets affected. How do you get past that.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 10:29:16 GMT -5
Bill, you missed the point completely. It's stupid to put a cop on every corner, it's also stupid to allow cameras to take the place of well trained police officers. Well, I agree with HALF of that! As for the insurance issue, good point -- I have not heard/read about provisions to address that issue when the driver is not the owner. I must research that question when I have some time later today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2006 10:29:34 GMT -5
I make a right hand turn from the left lane and I get caught, I'm paying the ticket. I'm not fighting it or starting some BS process if I did something illegal. Sorry, guess I'm just not wired that way. If I didn't? Well, then I'm going to fight it.
My wife gives me hell because I stop at stop signs in the middle of nowhere. I guess it's actually a STOP (that is unless no one is coming) SIGN, huh?
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 10:47:05 GMT -5
I make a right hand turn from the left lane and I get caught, I'm paying the ticket. I'm not fighting it or starting some BS process if I did something illegal. Sorry, guess I'm just not wired that way. If I didn't? Well, then I'm going to fight it. My wife gives me hell because I stop at stop signs in the middle of nowhere. I guess it's actually a STOP (that is unless no one is coming) SIGN, huh? I once got a $75 ticket from a Minneapolis meter maid for "Illegal Display of Front Plate." The plate was wedged up against the windshield inside the car, clearly visible, while I awaited a new plate bracket from my car dealership to replace one that a car-wash mutilated. My car was legally parked. I was pissed, and part of my pissiness was that a lowly meter maid had exercised such enforcement abuse. So I went to the hearing officer and they listened and said too bad, the law is in place to allow police and the public to easily ascertain your license number, and never mind MY reasons for it not being on the bracket, it wasn't, and that was my responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2006 10:49:28 GMT -5
Hey Bill do they make you destroy antique cars by putting a plate on the front?
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 10:52:41 GMT -5
Hey Bill do they make you destroy antique cars by putting a plate on the front? 1. No, they don't make you destroy antique cars. 2. Yes, you have to put a plate on the front. Most people attach them to the FRONT LICENSE PLATE BRACKET THAT THE CARMAKER DESIGNED AND INCLUDED FOR THE CAR.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2006 11:05:32 GMT -5
So if I have a 38 ford with no place to attach the license plate I have to drill holes in my $75,000 car that has 500 original miles. I'd be suing big time, like people did over the center stop light, or seatbelts in cars before seatbelts. I'd be making a lot of money.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 11:09:33 GMT -5
So if I have a 38 ford with no place to attach the license plate I have to drill holes in my $75,000 car that has 500 original miles. I'd be suing big time, like people did over the center stop light, or seatbelts in cars before seatbelts. I'd be making a lot of money. Lots of people have survived the atrocity of attaching front plates to '38 Fords, Doug. There are worse things in life.
|
|