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
Not the UK, but right here in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave that I love!  Just another example of why Innocent until proven Guilty is important, and that machines cannot replace the POLICE. The burden of proving innocence CANNOT be placed on the registered owner. The Law Enforcement Agency has the burden of proving GUILT. from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/192.asp Another Chicago Camera Goof Proves Impossible to Fight Contesting a bogus red light camera ticket is an uphill battle in Chicago. The city of Chicago's new red light camera program is embarrassed again by an another error. This time, the city issued a ticket to Sharon Sweeney, the driver of a silver Lexus. She received a citation showing a Lexus photographed turning right on a red light apparently without stopping on October 31. It had a completely different license plate from her car. The plate was similar, but not identical, to the plate on her son's Toyota Camry. Sweeney wrote the city pointing out the obvious error. Weeks later she received a notice that because the city has not heard from her she had to come in for a hearing in person at the city's Revenue Department or pay the $90 fine. At the hearing, she pointed out the car in the photograph did not belong to her. The hearing officer said because she contested the ticket by mail, he could not give her a hearing and she would have to wait for the city to look at her case and inform her of their decision. Two months later, she heard nothing from them. She contacted Sun Times columnist Mark Brown who called the Chicago DOT whose spokesman was once again eager to email the violation video to the columnist just for asking. They eventually fixed the ticket. Moral of the story: call a columnist the next time you get a bogus red light camera ticket in Chicago. Article Excerpt: [Revenue Department spokesman Efrat] Dallal said Sweeney was "probably confused" about the process and that it all would have worked out if she had just been patient and waited for the city to complete its review. For some reason, Sweeney's not so sure. Source: Car owner seeing red over red light camera, red tape (Chicago Sun Times, 2/22/2005) |
|
|
Should Police Officers be regarded as being secondary to a photo enforcement camera? The police officer here was absolutely correct. He had witnessed an infarction, thus he was duty-bound to give the woman the ticket. He could not have delegated his duty to the camera, or should he have? Surely Police Officers should have something to say about this story: from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/163.asp California Woman Gets Red Light Camera Double-Jeopardy A Hawthorne, California woman received a ticket from a real police officer and a red light camera at the same time. The bill of rights protects individuals from facing more than one trial for the same crime, but California resident Lori Williams experienced just that. She admits to turning left against a red arrow in Hawthorne, being pulled over by a California Highway Patrol officer and being flashed by a red light camera. The officer insisted on giving the ticket even though he knew Williams might also get a ticket in the mail. Not only did she face two fines totaling $702 and a double set of demerit points against her license, but she also was forced to visit two separate courthouses to resolve the matter. She found nothing but useless recorded messages when she tried to call either court. "You go through, and you stand in the traffic line and you wait and wait and wait," Williams said. When she finally spoke to a judge, the ticket written by the human being was the one that was dismissed. Article Excerpt: He asked her if she saw the camera flash, then said: "Well, I'm gonna go ahead and write you a ticket. You may get one in the mail, too," [Lori Williams] said. "I didn't understand what he meant," Williams said. Source: A trip to traffic double-jeopardy (Daily Breeze (Hawthorne, CA), 2/14/2005) |
|
|
The Maricopa County Attorney has announced he will dismiss all criminal cases for speeding and reckless driving based solely on photographic evidence with no human eyewitness. link Maricopa is by far the largest and most populous county in Arizona. Attorney Thomas' dismissals do not include those fined for less than 20 mph based on photo radar. A Maricopa County Judge has declared those invalid.
|
|
|
Replying to: andys120 (Feb 25, 2009 10:40 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 24, 2009 6:21 am) If that was required in the US to get a driver's license, then accidents probably would be NEARLY eliminated, although you can never get rid of 100% of accidents. However, I think a vast majority of the accidents that happen today would no longer happen because it is a fact that the worst drivers on the road cause the most accidents, and of course, a majority of all accidents. I think that woudl be a good thing to potentially reduce accidents by 99% with a 24 month course where you either pass some strict criteria or you fail! Driving should not be a right, but a privilege you earn. That being said, although a higher speed accident is potentially more severe, those same higher speeds which help to improve traffic flow and reduce the amount of accidents, lowers my chances of ever having one in the first place. I'd rather have NO accident than one at 55 MPH. Also, why don't we just design our airplanes and trains to move at 10 MPH so that when they crash it is less fatal? The slower speed limits for safety argument is bogus when compared to lossed productivity and potential for reducing accidents all together. The cost of my time is greater than the extra 1 MPG you get going slower than me.
|
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (Feb 25, 2009 1:00 pm) Speed laws must be compromised with the successful and completed movement of goods, services, and people. No one in their right mind should want 10 mph speed limits or 100 mph speed limits. Happy Medium.... |
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Feb 24, 2009 8:01 am) So what happens when these speed controlling devices that force my vehicle to not exceed the speed limit causes me to be murdered and die? Example: Osama Bin Laden is driving a BIG RIG truck at 100 MPH and is barreling down the road in my rearview mirror towards me. In a hurry he's getting ready to commit another terrorist act by running over a bunch of people in cars on the freeway. He's coming after me and I'm next on his list, he's gaining on me and I need to speed up to avoid this fate he's got planned for me since I"m in one of those speed limited device controlled vehicles. I push on the gas to get away, but nothing happens. I get run over and suffer fatal trauma and injuries. This could have all been avoided in today's current vehicles which can easily out run a potential threat such as this. I will instruct my surviving family to sue every politician who voted for such a ridiculously bad idea in the future for my life which was lost due to such negligent thinking. There are a million scenarios where going over the speed limit is a SAFETY requirement! Sometimes, the right manuever to avoid a crash is to hit the gas, not the brakes! |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 24, 2009 10:17 am) 2. A mailman hands you a letter which contains a photo radar ticket that is a court summons. It is not the same result and process and you contend. If my friend is driving my car, then the mailman is handing me a summons to court, whereas in option #1 my friend is getting the ticket and going to court. It is not fair for me to be summoned to court for my friend's ticket which should have gone to him directly. It is NOT due process, and frankly, I should be able to sue the City for $1,000 for my wasted time.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 24, 2009 12:08 pm) Since safety and speed are not correlated in any reputable study, I for one, find that speed limit laws are put in place to justify Highway Patrol Officers' jobs and make money for corrupt governments and officials. Most speed limits in CA fall under the basic speed law which is Prima Facie? Therefore they are just guidelines, or recommendations and suggestions of speed for the road. Reasonable speeds always apply due to conditions. The only absolute speed limit law is the Maximum speed limit law (separate Vehicle Code). So as far as I'm concerned, only maximum speed limit signs are anything more than 2 numbers on an aluminum sign, and even then, since they are usually set ridiculously low, I pay no attention to them. |
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (Feb 25, 2009 1:14 pm) And darn the dead woman speeder. All her whining husband should have done was pay the ticket. why fight it the camera is never wrong. |
|
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
