Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics
540 messages, Last post on Sep 21, 2009 at 12:22 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gee35coupe (Jul 09, 2006 9:56 am) In the case of red light cameras, it generally does, in that the cameras photograph both the car and the driver to identify the alleged offender. Photographing from the rear is certainly possible, but it would require additional cameras that could be coordinated to photograph both the driver from the front and the license plate from the rear. As has been debated in the other forum, going 10 or so above the speed limit is the norm in most places. If a speed limit is being routinely violated, it is probably set too low. Traffic engineers generally advise an 85th percentile standard, which sets the limit based upon prevailing traffic speeds (the limit being set at a speed that 85% of drivers do not exceed), except in rare circumstances when drivers drive too quickly for hazards present in the area, such as blind driveways, school zones, etc. Unfortunately, many of our limits are set by legislators who know little or nothing about highway engineering, and set limits based upon political considerations, rather than safety. This is especially true for interstates, which generally have limits set by state representatives, invariably based upon numbers that have nothing to do with what is safe for the flow of traffic. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gee35coupe (Jul 09, 2006 9:56 am) I see it as no different than hiding a policeman on the side of the road to catch speeders. Its enforcing the law either way. Deal with it.
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 09, 2006 2:54 pm) It's fundamentally different, because you are unable with a camera ticket to confront your accusers. (Good luck if you think that you're going to get the individuals who installed and maintained the camera equipment to testify in court.) The Bill of Rights affirms the right of a defendant to face his accusers and to cross examine them, a minor constitutional inconvenience that is routinely avoided with camera tickets.
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 09, 2006 2:54 pm) This effectively forces the vehicle owner to either point the finger at someone else (effectively testifying for the prosecution, threatening the owner with a conviction if he doesn't cooperate) or else to incriminate himself by tacitly admitting that he is, in fact, the driver of the car, the latter of which treads pretty heavily on the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Typically in a criminal case, it would be the prosecution that is obliged to establish the identity of the driver. But with a camera ticket, it is precisely the opposite -- the owner is presumed guilty unless he accuses someone else. I can't see a good reason to stomp on the letter and the spirit of the Constitution just to generate some more bucks for the state. |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 09, 2006 6:22 am) Dead wrong. Our cameras our known to issue tickets when no violation has occurred.
|
|
|
In the case of red light cameras, it generally does, in that the cameras photograph both the car and the driver to identify the alleged offender. Photographing from the rear is certainly possible, but it would require additional cameras that could be coordinated to photograph both the driver from the front and the license plate from the rear. AZ does not have front license plates. We have two cameras, one for the mug shot, one for the license plate. |
|
|
Replying to: socala4 (Jul 09, 2006 3:15 pm) Before someone points out that it is a civil offense, not criminal, may I remind them that these cameras also record speed. Someone could steal your car and then speed through one of these lights at criminal speeds. Whose door do you think the police are going to be knocking on?
|
|
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/maryland-countys-red-light-cameras-net-2-85-m- illion-increase/
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: redmaxx (Jul 10, 2006 12:24 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: redmaxx (Jul 10, 2006 12:32 am) Since these cameras also take a very clear picture of the occupant they may come knocking (only if you didn't report it as stolen prior to it being nabbed) but they won't be doing much unless it was stolen by your identical twin.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
