You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views Photo Radar

Photo Radar

1788 messages,  Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Safe Driving

Messages Page 108 of 180 1 ... 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 ... 180 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#1064 of 1788 Re: Let me be more clear: [steve_] by fintail Feb 20, 2009 (1:10 pm)
Replying to: steve_ (Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am) We all know how well-managed Chicago is, with awesome politicos that are the envy of the free world
#1065 of 1788 Re: Let me be more clear: [oldfarmer50] by fintail Feb 20, 2009 (1:11 pm)
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Feb 20, 2009 12:36 pm) I rarely go more than 10 over unless it is a special road, no need to worry
#1066 of 1788 Re: Let me be more clear: [xrunner2] by boaz47 Feb 20, 2009 (1:42 pm)
Replying to: xrunner2 (Feb 20, 2009 5:43 am) "Won't tell the police who was driving your car? Is that "obstruction"? That in itself should get you arrested."   Not if the other person is your wife.
#1067 of 1788 Re: Let me be more clear: [steve_] by xrunner2 Feb 20, 2009 (1:54 pm)
Replying to: steve_ (Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am) Wonder if any case about 24/7 cameras on city streets ever was heard in Supreme Court?   Mayor Daley very powerful. He did not like lakefront (Michigan) Meigs airport because it interferred with his long range plans for parks, museum campuses. Additionally, he felt that proximity of airport to downtown skyscrapers was a terrorist threat. While folks were debating the pros and cons of keeping the airport, contractors were slipped in one night with bulldozers and they destroyed the runways. Case closed. The manager that oversaw that destruction then later became Ex-Gov Blago's top staffer.   Maybe someday, years from now, Hollywood will make a movie about Da Boss, just like Don Corrleone. Can imagine a scene in it where the Boss's top manager says that the airport issue is in peril and we are in danger of losing our argument. The Boss raises his right hand, shuffles his thumb and forefinger at the manager and says to get rid of the runways asap and make sure there is no bad news about it. Replies to this message: vcheng (Feb 21, 2009 3:53 pm)
#1068 of 1788 Re: [xrunner2] by kernick Feb 20, 2009 (2:04 pm)
Replying to: xrunner2 (Feb 20, 2009 10:30 am) Rat someone out? Absolutely. First read them the riot act for violating the law in "your" car, and then, turn them in.   Uhm right, in an ideal world. There are many people assaulted or even killed for doing such things. You can turn on COPS or any other similar show to see that people have no problem becoming belligerent even to a cop with a gun and pepper-spray.   Anyone violating laws in a borrowed car is undeserving of harboring/protecting or sympathy   Most of our police forces would then have lost their licenses. I hardly ever see a police-car driving under or at the SL. The last police car I saw on a 50mph roadway passed me easily, when I was doing 55-60mph.
#1069 of 1788 Again, a law that is unenforceable by andres3 Feb 20, 2009 (3:34 pm)
is by nature ridiculous.   If you can just claim your long lost cousin from out of Country was driving your car, then why even bother with Photo Radar?   You need someone to verify who the driver is at the time of the violation, and right after, when handing over the citation itself and serving it upon that driver in the proper manner.
#1070 of 1788 Cameras by wesleyg Feb 21, 2009 (1:38 pm)
I live in Cleveland and yesterdays paper had an article that a red light camera citation in the city was dismissed because the Cleveland ordnance states the "owner" is responsible, the attorney argued the car was a lease and therefore the driver was not the "owner".   Judge agreed and dismissed, now the band wagon will roll until this is resolved. Replies to this message: steve_ (Feb 21, 2009 2:04 pm) boaz47 (Feb 21, 2009 3:11 pm)
#1071 of 1788 Re: Cameras [wesleyg] by steve_ HOST Feb 21, 2009 (2:04 pm)
Replying to: wesleyg (Feb 21, 2009 1:38 pm) Here's a news link about it:   Loophole For Leased Vehicles Found In Red-Light Camera Law   And it only costs $225 to appeal the ticket. Replies to this message: boaz47 (Feb 21, 2009 3:11 pm)
#1072 of 1788 Re: Cameras [steve_] by boaz47 Feb 21, 2009 (3:11 pm)
Replying to: steve_ (Feb 21, 2009 2:04 pm) Yes, this is more like it. It might cost $225 to appeal but it will cost the city dearly in court time and cost. And now they have to go back and rework the law. If the change it to the driver rather than the owner the driver has to be clearly seen or you simply deny you were driving. I would suggest adopting the habit of some citizens in Japan and start driving around the city with a dust mask on.
#1073 of 1788 Re: Let me be more clear: [xrunner2] by vcheng Feb 21, 2009 (3:53 pm)
Replying to: xrunner2 (Feb 20, 2009 1:54 pm) xrunner2 and steve_host: You, and some others may find this article interesting.   Please note that this is not a court decision but it attempts to present both sides of the issue of 24/7 camera surveillance, and may serve as additional material for thoughtful discussion in this forum. Also note that this refers to camera surveillance of people, and presumably directly by law enforcement agencies and not private contractors. Even here there are important considerations and not everything is settled, or has caught up with new technology.   I think that the difference between anonymity and privacy is going to be an important one in our future in determining the correct uses of new surveillance technologies.   from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=364600   Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places And The Right to Anonymity   Christopher Slobogin   Vanderbilt University - School of Law   Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 72, 2002   Abstract:           Government-sponsored camera surveillance of public streets and other public places is pervasive in the United Kingdom and is increasingly popular in American urban centers, especially in the wake of 9/11. Yet legal regulation of this surveillance is virtually non-existent, in part because the Supreme Court has signalled that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. This article, written for a symposium on the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and technology, contests that stance, at the same time it questions whether the traditional, "probable-cause-forever" view of Fourth Amendment protections makes sense in this technological age. Based on an analysis of the panoptic effects of government camera surveillance among them "anticipatory conformity," fear that private facts will be exposed, and possible decreased loyalty to a surveillance-driven government. This article first argues that the courts should recognize a constitutional right to anonymity in public places. Although courts have rejected constitutional challenges to public camera surveillance, they have yet to address the constitutionality of overt camera *systems*, with zoom and nightvision capacity and the storage and dissemination advantages that digitization brings. Such camera surveillance can chill speech and association, infringe on the rights to movement and repose, and undermine the general right to privacy. It also infringes the Fourth Amendment interest in avoiding unregulated government intrusions. To bolster the latter point, the article reports a study I conducted to ascertain the relative intrusiveness of overt, systematic camera surveillance in the eyes of the public. The results of a survey of almost 200 prospective jurors indicate that camera surveillance is viewed as more intrusive, to a statistically significant degree, than a number of investigative techniques the Supreme Court has found to implicate the Fourth Amendment, including roadblocks.   Building on this latter finding, the article relies heavily on the Court's roadblock jurisprudence in constructing a framework for regulating public camera surveillance. The Court's recent decision in Edmond v. Indianopolis held that a brief seizure at a roadblock set up with the primary purpose of detecting crime may not take place in the absence of individualized suspicion, a significant, difficult-to-detect crime problem (such as illegal immigration), or a crime problem that immediately threatens life and limb (such as drunk driving). The article argues that this caselaw should be read to limit camera systems to areas where a significant crime problem exists, and to require individualized suspicion for targeted camera surveillance. Based on Fourth Amendment and related constitutional jurisprudence, it also contends that the camera location decision must be made by politically accountable officials with public input, that rules governing notice of the surveillance and maintenance and disclosure of surveillance results are mandatory, and that accountability requires direct sanctions on those who violate these rules and periodic dissemination of information about surveillance practices. The article concludes with the suggestion that the traditional Fourth Amendment model requiring probable cause, backed by the exclusion remedy serves neither societal or individual interests well. Surveillance of large numbers of people cannot be justified at the probable cause level, and should not have to be. Nor is the suppression remedy an effective deterrent in this context, since at best it benefits an infinitesimally small number of people subjected to illegal surveillance, and in any event is a poor remedial fit with the types of violations that public surveillance is likely to involve. The dissonance between public surveillance and the individualized suspicion/exclusionary rule model suggests a need for rethinking both the type of justification and the manner of implementation the Fourth Amendment requires.

Messages Page 108 of 180 1 ... 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 ... 180 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views Photo Radar