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 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
|
Cities have to balance their budgets absolutely. I agree with larsb that the concept of "greed" does not apply in this context. However, the raising of necessary funds must be done according to avenues already available to the cities and other taxing entities, and shortfall cannot be used as the only justification for photo radar while ignoring so many other related issues. And there are so many possibilities for fund-raising, but probably not relevant to the present forum. 
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 23, 2009 9:38 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Feb 23, 2009 9:52 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Feb 23, 2009 11:33 am) |
|
|
The Escort Passport 9500ix radar detector makes the claim that it contains locations of stationary red light/photo cameras, etc. I do not own a radar detector but after 10 years of ticket free driving I know my time is coming...and a pre-emptive $500 radar detector may save more $'s in the long run than it's initial cost. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 23, 2009 8:02 am) If you are going to fast for conditions, that is not speeding, that is driver error in judgement, skill, and vehicular capabilities. My reason for being against photo radar isn't because I want to speed without getting caught, it's because I want to drive reasonably, safely, AND EFFICIENTLY without being fined. The speed limits in California are ridiculous for the most part, and not a good way to cause efficient traffic flow. If you work for a living, you are most likely for higher speed limits. Those who don't work for a living, could probably live with 55 just fine. I need my productivity to stay high, so 55 won't do. If you have more citations than you do accidents, maybe the problem is with the law and/or law enforcment, and not the driver. If police officers have caused more at fault accidents with your vehicle than you have caused at fault accidents period, total, all inclusively, then there's a big problem. Right now the score is 1 to 0 in my favor. In 14 years of driving, I've created no at fault accidents involving another vehicle. In that same time frame I've been rear ended by a police officer driving a city cop car once. I've been rear ended twice total. I've been hit while parked once too, in the side. All it takes is some driving skill to drive safely, not slow speeds. |
|
|
I'm against slow speed limits. I'm against photo radar. However, if speed limits were raised appropriately, I would no longer be a habitual "speeder." Even if speed limits were raised to 100 MPH (maximum), I'd still be against photo radar as it spits in the face of the Constitution to which I believe in. I sincerely believe the writers of the Constitution to be far more intelligent than the current crop of Politicians. That is my main reason for opposing photo radar. I also oppose photo red light and stop sign non-sense! I also oppose that running through a red light or stop sign at 99 MPH is the same as a California stop violation, with the same fine! What happeed to cruel and unusual punishment? $400 bucks for a right turn on red? Give me a break! Are the cities greedy? maybe not the right word. Are they money grubbing self serving interests? Absolutely!
|
|
|
Please note that I am not condoning speeding in any way. But police should do the policing of all offences, including traffic violations. This news story caught my eye because of the legal concerns about due process from the county prosecutor as they relate to photo radar. Please also note that the contention that photo radar issues civil citations is not a valid one in my opinion, since the prosecution of such violations was turned into a civil matter as a means of bypassing due process restrictions that normally would have applied. That issue has still not been definitely settled yet, but our legal system will eventually get around to that issue as well. from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2698.asp County Prosecutor Dismisses Criminal Speed Camera Citations Top prosecutor in Maricopa County, Arizona will dismiss criminal photo radar citations on legal and constitutional grounds. Motorists will no longer be sent to jail on the mere accusation of a machine in Maricopa County, Arizona. County Attorney Andrew Thomas yesterday announced that he will dismiss all criminal speeding and reckless driving cases brought to him when the only evidence presented is a photo radar ticket. Thomas condemned the process that imposes jail time on those accused of driving 20 MPH over the speed limit without any human witness to the alleged crime. "The bottom line is, the way the law is written and the way our Constitution is written, to bring criminal prosecutions based on photo radar evidence only is not something our office can do, or frankly should do, given the Constitutional mandates," Thomas said. In 2008 the legislature specifically eliminated license points from tickets issued under the statewide freeway ticketing program (view law). Lawmakers understood that motorists would be more likely to pay tickets without challenge if the only penalty was a $181 monetary fine that did not boost insurance rates or threaten a license suspension. This revised legislative language prohibits criminal prosecution. "Notwithstanding any other law, if a person is found responsible for a civil traffic violation or a notice of violation pursuant to a citation issued pursuant to this section, the department of transportation shall not consider the violation for the purpose of determining whether the person's driver license should be suspended or revoked," Arizona Code Section 41-1722 states. "A court shall not transmit abstracts of records of these violations to the department of transportation." Under state law, criminal speeding is a class three misdemeanor that carries license points and the possibility of license suspension, plus thirty days in jail and a $500 fine. Thomas' decision is a slap in the face to the state Department of Public Safety (DPS) which has used high-profile photo ticket arrests as a public relations tool. In August, for example, a young motorist was led in handcuffs out of the Sky Harbor International Airport with a DPS camera recording the event for distribution to local media. Last week, DPS issued another press release citing similar arrests as a justification for the automated ticketing program. "Ongoing apprehensions of major violators are further evidence enforcement works," the press release stated. "DPS recently arrested three suspects for reckless driving and criminal speeding. Video and photos of the suspects are available on request." Thomas says he became personally involved after looking more closely at what the state police was asking him to do. "DPS keeps pressing us on this," Thomas said. "The cases we are receiving underscore why we have these constitutional rules. Some of the cases that were brought to my attention -- there was one case in which the defendant was male but the driver in the photo appeared to be female. In another one the age didn't match, and a much older woman, someone in her seventies, was the defendant but it appeared that someone else was driving the vehicle." Thomas said the proper way to prosecute the crime is to have a live police officer witness the offense, identify the individual responsible and testify to these facts in court. "You have to have a witness," Thomas said. "It isn't something you can just ignore.... The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a broad interpretation of the rights of defendants under the Confrontation Clause... Arizona courts have interpreted this clause as giving defendants the right to question and cross-examine witnesses. There is no opportunity to question or cross-examine a camera." Thomas did not offer an opinion on the legality of the civil photo radar citations because his office does not handle them. In January, Maricopa County Justice Court Judge John C. Keegan declared the civil speed camera tickets unconstitutional (view decision). The Maricopa County Attorney's Office is one of fourteen in the state, although many of the other jurisdictions look to Maricopa County for guidance.
|
|
|
andres3 says, "All it takes is some driving skill to drive safely, not slow speeds." If that were true, then we could all take a 24-month government-sanctioned driver school and eliminate ALL WRECKS from our roads !!! Fact is that even the most skilled drivers with the best reflexes still can have wrecks. The slower you are going when this unavoidable crash happens, the fewer forces will be applied to your body and car, allowing you to have less severe injuries.
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Feb 24, 2009 5:48 am) And once again, here we have (as I have always stated on this board) the Law Enforcement Agencies are huge fans of photo radar enforcement because it makes their job easier to do and still tickets speeders identically as if a human stopped and ticketed them. Opposing it when the people who use it the most and know the most about it are fans of the technology does not make sense to me.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
