|
Post by Doug on Oct 31, 2006 11:26:40 GMT -5
But that one is modified in original condition it would be worth $50k more.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 11:28:27 GMT -5
Oh, bullshit. You are saying the green one will fetch $50K more than the yellow one?
|
|
|
Post by SteveO on Oct 31, 2006 11:52:51 GMT -5
"No matter where you go, there you are."
How True,
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 31, 2006 12:14:30 GMT -5
Some states require front plates. Some don't. Texas does. Texas doesn't care what kind of car you drive. If you drive it in Texas, it will have a front plate. If you think there aren't ways to attack a plate to the front of any car without reducing the value of that car, you haven't looked long enough.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Alexander (fmrly. Camalex) on Oct 31, 2006 12:26:27 GMT -5
doug -- digital photo can atleast be tested, scrutinized and analyzed to ascertain whether any mofication occured -- last time I checked even polygraph tests were not admissable. I'd rather cross-examine a picture than a cop any day.
As to a jury trial for traffic violation -- doug you're aabsolutely off the wall. And you'd be abusing the system to suggest that a jury trial is necessary for moving violations. There are plenty of capable and fair judges who you can plead your case to -- but keep in mind these ultra-Libertarian points of view won't carry much water with law and order tyes. they're too busy dealingw ith the bad guys to deal with you like the most important citizen of this country.
As to the effect the violation would have on my driving record -- I solve this simply -- I don't lend my car very often (at all) and I have good friends who would fess up. If I trusted them to borrow my car, I'd trust them to come to court with me and explain it to the judge.
I like low proerty taxes and I like drivers who follow the traffic rules -- if camera can't help witj that -- I'm all for it. And I use EZpass and PayPal and Amazon.com for the same reasons -- unnecessary expenses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2006 13:10:57 GMT -5
McCoy has already made my point, but I'll expand on it. It is NOT an offense to merely own the car that blows a red light. The offense is against operating the vehicle in that manner. So, the City/State cannot get a conviction on the photo, unless it pretty clearly shows the driver.
Bill says the owner needs to get the driver to pay the ticket. I disagree with that, pretty strongly. When charged, even with a traffic offense, we are NOT obligated to talk with, or cooperate with the state. Hell, it's purely an adversarial relationship, and our entire legal history protects us against being forced to provide evidence against ourselves. The worst thing that could come of such a program would be to rationalize some exception to the single most important premise in our criminal justice system. It's enough to simply remain silent, then point out that the prosecution has failed to prove you are the driver. New technology is cool, but not cool enough to erode 1,000 years of common law, or constitutional restrictions against self-incrimination.
That being said, I susepct the cameras could be valuable, as long as the City/State is aware that it probably won't be sufficient evidence, alone, to justify a conviction of anything. Mailing the tickets to the registered owners is just plumb dumb, and will invite a lot of unnecessary trials, ending in acquttal. It will probably be up to some judge or JP to simply start dismissing the tickets when they arrive, to avoid the institutional burden.
Doug overstates the "presumption of innocense" thing. No one is required to presume that the cop (or any witness) is lying. No one is required to presume that evidence is faked. In fact, it is the opposite: Jurors are usually instructed to judge the credibility of witnesses/evidence in its entirety, without presuming perjury or manufactured evidence. IF the officers testimony is contradicted, the fact-finder wieghs its credibility against the contradictory evidence. If there's no contradictory evidence, there's no reason to wiegh it at all, and NO presumption attaches to it. You are entitled to beleive it, unless it seems incredible. The vast majority of all criinal cases, including traffic involve the word of a cop against the defendant. Again, no presumption does or should apply. You judge each case, depending on the relative credibility of the witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Oct 31, 2006 13:18:37 GMT -5
As for the driver, some photo systems take shots of both the car with the license plate, and the driver behind the wheel.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 31, 2006 13:24:15 GMT -5
My only ticket in the last fifteen years was issued by photo radar in Paradise Valley, AZ, for speeding. I didn't know I'd gotten a ticket until days later. By that time, I couldn't recall the circumstances, or whether I was guilty or not. THAT's what bothered me about it.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 13:27:47 GMT -5
My only ticket in the last fifteen years was issued by photo radar in Paradise Valley, AZ, for speeding. I didn't know I'd gotten a ticket until days later. By that time, I couldn't recall the circumstances, or whether I was guilty or not. THAT's what bothered me about it. Since then, use of the photo radar has increased, and the town has been renamed Burn in Hell, AZ.
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Oct 31, 2006 13:35:37 GMT -5
As to the effect the violation would have on my driving record -- I solve this simply -- I don't lend my car very often (at all) and I have good friends who would fess up. If I trusted them to borrow my car, I'd trust them to come to court with me and explain it to the judge. I like low proerty taxes and I like drivers who follow the traffic rules -- if camera can't help witj that -- I'm all for it. And I use EZpass and PayPal and Amazon.com for the same reasons -- unnecessary expenses. I got a photo radar ticket in DC. They don't put any moving violation or points on your record, you just pay the fine. My son got a red light ticket in Fairfax, Va and it was the same deal--no moving violation, just revenue for the county. dick thaxter
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 13:45:41 GMT -5
I got a photo radar ticket in DC. They don't put any moving violation or points on your record, you just pay the fine.
My son got a red light ticket in Fairfax, Va and it was the same deal--no moving violation, just revenue for the county.
I like it! No points against your record to affect your insurance, and maybe a little deterrent effect on future driving behavior!
|
|
|
Post by Tim Alexander (fmrly. Camalex) on Oct 31, 2006 13:51:35 GMT -5
nothing hurts more than cash....
|
|
|
Post by loopysanchez on Oct 31, 2006 13:53:00 GMT -5
Now, how about let's take the next step and install severe-tire damage spikes in residential areas that will pop up anytime a sensor measures sound above 90 db and below 100 Hz coming from a car stereo. Let those trunk thumpers buy a new set of tires every time they drive down the block, and it would probably only take 2 or 3 trips before they figured out how to turn down their goddamn music.
Meanwhile, all us normal folks could buy stock in Goodyear and make a killing!
|
|
|
Post by mccoyblues on Oct 31, 2006 13:55:33 GMT -5
I was just reminded of a good story about photo tickets that happened to a friend. Seems he was travelling somewhere in Europe. He entered a long tunnel that had radar and cameras. He was speeding through the tunnel and when he got back home he received 4 tickets. One for each time he passed a camera in the tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 13:57:59 GMT -5
Now, how about let's take the next step and install severe-tire damage spikes in residential areas that will pop up anytime a sensor measures sound above 90 db and below 100 Hz coming from a car stereo. Let those trunk thumpers buy a new set of tires every time they drive down the block, and it would probably only take 2 or 3 trips before they figured out how to turn down their goddamn music. Meanwhile, all us normal folks could buy stock in Goodyear and make a killing! A little heavy-handed, but I like it! My dream is a remote that allows homeowners to just point at a passing boombox car, instantly rendering its stereo mute. A separate switch would shut off motors on blapping Harleys that venture past.
|
|
|
Post by mccoyblues on Oct 31, 2006 14:02:43 GMT -5
trunk thumpers and loud Harleys.... what "hood" do you guys live in. The loudest vehicles that pass my house are soccer mom vans full of screaming brats and the ocassional Honda Civics with 4" exhaust tips.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 14:05:39 GMT -5
trunk thumpers and loud Harleys.... what "hood" do you guys live in. The loudest vehicles that pass my house are soccer mom vans full of screaming brats and the ocassional Honda Civics with 4" exhaust tips. I live at the end of a long, wide, straight residential steet that comes to a T right by my house. At the other end is a sports bar/restaurant. Need I say more?
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Oct 31, 2006 14:05:55 GMT -5
Maryland uses these a lot.
Some posters are correct that if you are charged with a moving violation that puts points on your record, etc., you should be able to go to court and fight it, because that is basically a low-level criminal conviction. However, the photo tickets are considered just like a parking ticket, it's an administrative function, not criminal, and therefore, you don't have the same constitutional rights to juries, etc. you don't get points, it doesn't go on your record, etc. When a cop writes a parking ticket, he doesn't know who parked the car there, but the registered owner is still legally responsible.
I'm not sure exactly how you get a conviction for making a turn (which seems like a moving violation) using still photography.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2006 14:12:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure exactly how you get a conviction for making a turn (which seems like a moving violation) using still photography. Sequential stills, I bleeve.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 31, 2006 14:20:01 GMT -5
We need an electronic karma system for drivers. Get smited enough by others who have to share the road with you and your car ceases to operate.
|
|