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
|
Replying to: euphonium (Dec 26, 2008 4:32 pm) How can that be if it's all a Liber plot?  I predict they'll increase the number of cameras, this isn't about Left or Right it's all about the "Cha-Ching"! 
|
|
|
|
|
Now, let me get this all straight here. The libs are against cameras because they will take away their cushy government money and the cons want them so they can fund a war in some arab country? I think you guys are making the wrong arguments here. It's not the libs or the cons that want to suck your wallet dry...IT'S BOTH OF THEM. The only difference is where they waste it once they get it. I don't think either side spends the money they take from me in my interest as it is. I sure don't want to give ANY of them any more. I'm kind of torn on this issue. I get angry every morning when I come up to a particular stop light on the way to work and people are still zooming through after I have had the green light for several seconds. I also don't like the possibility that in the future I will be cited by some robot every time I drift 1 mph over the speed limit. I guess I see the need for traffic enforcement but I think that cameras should be use ONLY at documented problem sites, ONLY on a temporary basis, and ONLY after signs are put up warning people that they are liable to be cited. As to the political argument, write a check to your favorite bunch of crooks.
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Dec 27, 2008 6:22 am) I hear you on wanting to catch the real offenders but I don't think that's going to happen with photo enforcement.
|
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Dec 27, 2008 7:49 am) I remember the same opinion was offered to oppose the parking meter, radar, and the breathalyzer, but they have come to be accepted as will, hopefully, photo enforcement. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Dec 28, 2008 5:11 pm) True. But don't all those methods have a human involved as a witness? One of the things that makes me uncomfortable about these robot devices is that you can't confront your accuser. |
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Dec 29, 2008 10:30 am) Remote parking meters These things are out there already, but more as a deterrent I guess: What is a Car Breathalyzer? But you could see where the interlock could phone home and dispatch a cop. |
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Dec 29, 2008 10:30 am) What's the big deal of "confronting your accuser?" Either you were speeding or not. The same "challenge" you would make to a human officer can be made in court if you dispute the ticket. The judge makes his/her decision either way.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Dec 29, 2008 11:28 am) It's a constitutional right and arguably one of the most important. The same "challenge" you would make to a human officer can be made in court if you dispute the ticket A camera cannot testify as to when the accuracy of it's radar was last calibrated, nor car it testify to the state of weather. traffic etc at the time of the alleged offense.
|
|
|
Replying to: andys120 (Dec 29, 2008 1:12 pm) The state of the weather, traffic, etc does not matter. A Speeder is a Speeder is a Speeder. There are no "legal exceptions" to the speeding law. If there were extenuating circumstances like "I was taking my sick to the " then you can bring that up when you challenge the ticket. You'll get your say, and will only have to argue with the judge, not both the judge and the officer. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Dec 29, 2008 1:27 pm) |
|
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
