new & interesting places for your GPS

Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano expressed an opinion today on Fox News Channel that the Red Light Cameras may be unconstitutional. Check out the video.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1661779416001/are-red-light-camer...

There may be hope yet

--
romanviking
2 3 4
Page 1>>

Well, it wouldn't be a worry

Well, it wouldn't be a worry at all if people would just obey the law & STOP at redlights. (and obey other traffic laws)

Red Light Camera - Ulitmate Cash Register

Just try stopping in time at the 3 second yellow doing 35mph. Also, try to anticipate when you are behind a tall truck providing limited sight distance.

The mayor of our city told me a friend of his got caught following a truck through the yellow.

It would be more acceptable of the yellow would stay on longer or if the challenge to ticket would be easier to do.

--
romanviking

My 2 Cents

I really think we should keep our political views out of what is said and who said it.
One important thing I've learned, NEVER discuss Politics and Religion with friends, you soon may discover you don't have as many as you used to.

The subject matter is redlight cameras and should they be legal. I don't like them and consider them a revenue generator. One way or the other if you drive properly and obey the local traffic laws you will suffer no consequences.

--
Nuvi 660 2460LMT Sold My 765T

traps

muell9k wrote:

if you drive properly and obey the local traffic laws you will suffer no consequences.

But I think this is the real problem. It would seem many of these are set up to produce situations where a driver is forced or trapped into a situation where then end up running a light. Short yellows, improperly placed stop lines, blind spots, all work to mess with drivers and increase revenue.

--
-Quest, Nuvi 1390T

Yesterday

romanviking wrote:

Just try stopping in time at the 3 second yellow doing 35mph. Also, try to anticipate when you are behind a tall truck providing limited sight distance.

Yesterday I was driving behind a truck, so I backed off a bit so that I could see the lights. The truck went through on yellow (turned red) and I stopped with no issue. This being in a 35 zone with ~ 3 second yellow.

This morning I wish the person who was driving behind a truck did the same thing, unfortunately not. The truck turned right on red and they went through the intersection well after the rest of us had green turn arrows and they went through nearly hitting about 4 or so cars that were turning. We were on the main road, while they were coming out of a side road into the intersection.

I still see no justifiable excuse for running a red.

--
Streetpilot C340 Nuvi 2595 LMT

it seems as

shrifty wrote:
romanviking wrote:

Just try stopping in time at the 3 second yellow doing 35mph. Also, try to anticipate when you are behind a tall truck providing limited sight distance.

Yesterday I was driving behind a truck, so I backed off a bit so that I could see the lights. The truck went through on yellow (turned red) and I stopped with no issue. This being in a 35 zone with ~ 3 second yellow.

I still see no justifiable excuse for running a red.

It seems some skipped the defensive driving portion of Driver Ed to major in Offensive driving. Too many drivers today have never heard of the 3 second rule, leaving yourself an out, getting the big picture, avoiding moving billboards and using mirrors along with signals.

--
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy, 35th U.S. president

Paying attention

Box Car wrote:

It seems some skipped the defensive driving portion of Driver Ed to major in Offensive driving. Too many drivers today have never heard of the 3 second rule, leaving yourself an out, getting the big picture, avoiding moving billboards and using mirrors along with signals.

Overall it seems that paying attention to driving doesn't have the same priority that it once had.

--
Streetpilot C340 Nuvi 2595 LMT

Question?

Many people say that red light cameras violate the US Constitution.
Could some one show me where this fact is in the constitution?
It has been in the Supreme Court decisions over many years that no one has the right to expect the right of privacy in public places so a camera in a public place is fair game. It means that if you break the law in a public place you pay the price unless the state has laws that forbid it.
Many people who have no knowledge of the Constitution do not realize that it states that if it is not stated or denied in the Constitution the states have the rights to impose the laws.

Confront the Accuser

If it is a right to confront the accuser, how does one confront a RLC?

Might be too simplistic. The machine is acting as the judge and jury, instead of an officer.

--
GPSMAP64s, Montana 600, GPSMAP60CSx (retired), fenix, Bad Elf, iPhone 6, iPad2, Yaesu VX-8R w/GPS, MacBookPro, all sorts of maps.

RLCs Produce Evidence

diesel wrote:

If it is a right to confront the accuser, how does one confront a RLC?

Might be too simplistic. The machine is acting as the judge and jury, instead of an officer.

I am not American and so I'm not familiar with the details of US constitution. But it seems to me that the "accuser" in a traffic violation is the state, and the state uses the RLC photograph as evidence. This is similar to any other crime where photographs or video are used to identify the perpetrator. The photo is accepted by the court as evidence of the commission of a traffic violation. And the level of "proof" is normally considerably less for violations of public safety laws than for indictable offences.

The difference with RLC is that the photographic evidence identifies the vehicle rather than the driver. But the law requires the owner of the vehicle to be responsible for its legal use.

I'd say you have a decent idea...

DanielT wrote:

I am not American and so I'm not familiar with the details of US constitution. But it seems to me that the "accuser" in a traffic violation is the state, and the state uses the RLC photograph as evidence. This is similar to any other crime where photographs or video are used to identify the perpetrator. The photo is accepted by the court as evidence of the commission of a traffic violation. And the level of "proof" is normally considerably less for violations of public safety laws than for indictable offences.

The difference with RLC is that the photographic evidence identifies the vehicle rather than the driver. But the law requires the owner of the vehicle to be responsible for its legal use.

I'd say you have a fairly good idea of the constitution. On a side note, I was in the Royal Tyrrell Museum last week.

--
Streetpilot C340 Nuvi 2595 LMT

Read this. I believe it may

Read this. I believe it may be relevant:

http://epic.org/amicus/jones/

--
Currently have: SP3, GPSMAP 276c, Nuvi 760T, Nuvi 3790LMT, Zumo 660T

Not really

bramfrank wrote:

Read this. I believe it may be relevant:

http://epic.org/amicus/jones/

This is about using GPS Trackers and not cameras. The only relevant portion to my untrained mind would be the fact the camera is in a public location and the vehicle, traveling on a public street has no expectation of privacy. But then again, this is about the vehicle and a public street/intersection. Most of the arguments about search and seizure are over the driver.

--
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy, 35th U.S. president

LIKE

muell9k wrote:

I really think we should keep our political views out of what is said and who said it.
One important thing I've learned, NEVER discuss Politics and Religion with friends, you soon may discover you don't have as many as you used to.

The subject matter is redlight cameras and should they be legal. I don't like them and consider them a revenue generator. One way or the other if you drive properly and obey the local traffic laws you will suffer no consequences.

--
Montana 650,62S,1450,Etrex Venture Hc

Seems to sum it up well

DanielT above seems to have captures the essence. Shrifty certainly summed up a potential nightmare situation that we all surely would never want to see have happen; maybe the truck was properly penalized.

I disagree with telecomdigest2's opinion RLCs being installed purely for revenue generation, but I suppose it depends on the local government.

Personally, I don't mind RLCs. I believe they do curb aggressive driving habits.

Until recently, we lived in

Until recently, we lived in Long Island, NY. In general, I normally would agree that red light cameras are fine. They hopefully curb the aggressive drivers, catch the people that otherwise would have gone uncaught, and generate some revenue for the county.

That is, until, I got a ticket. Well, my car, but my wife was driving.

My wife calls me on the phone, swearing that she did not run the red light. I am annoyed, but I said let’s look at the video (The Nassau county ones actually have a web site where you can see not only the photo of your car and the plate, but the video of the entire event).

What happened was my wife made a right on red. Her car did not come to a full and complete stop before making the turn. She (well, since it was my car, I) was guilty. A costly $50 lesson.

However, being the type of person I am, I showed the video to several friends who are cops. I asked if any of them would have actually stopped someone for doing what she did. I believe the video said she was going 6 mph. They all agreed that while technically she was guilty, it is not a stop they would have normally made.

The camera makes no judgment, which can be a double edged sword.

Middle Ground

wfjny wrote:

...
What happened was my wife made a right on red. Her car did not come to a full and complete stop before making the turn. She (well, since it was my car, I) was guilty. A costly $50 lesson.

However, being the type of person I am, I showed the video to several friends who are cops. I asked if any of them would have actually stopped someone for doing what she did. I believe the video said she was going 6 mph. They all agreed that while technically she was guilty, it is not a stop they would have normally made.

The camera makes no judgment, which can be a double edged sword.

A recent thread was discussing cameras in California where the municipalities decided to terminate their contracts for cameras. Those tickets were over $500 (which seems to me to be revenue driven - especially since the ticket proceeds were divided between the state, the county, and the municipality). Your wife's $50 seems in the reasonable range and consistent with ticket costs in my town for a similar offense.

The "rolling red light turn" is a real sticking point with most people - as it probably should be. I would be interested in knowing if you can find out and then post (since you have friends who are police officers) what the procedure for reviewing the photos and video entails. For example, if the rolling turn had been at 3 MPH, would the ticket have been issued?

My feeling is that those municipalities that handle the review of a camera potential citation in a manner close to what an officer on the scene would have done are probably accepted by the citizens.

put it to a vote

If we can put it to a vote.. They will go away..
nobody wants big brother watching..
and eveveryone know its for the MONEY...

Then again

wfjny wrote:

...What happened was my wife made a right on red. Her car did not come to a full and complete stop before making the turn. She (well, since it was my car, I) was guilty. A costly $50 lesson....

Two thoughts:

First, $50 is about the cost of 1-2 gas fillups so I wouldn't categorize this as a costly lesson.

Second, as a frequent pedestrian, I see rolling through a red light at 6 mph as a speed where I really wonder if the driver can fully assess the safety of making a red on right. So often, I see drivers make a red-on-right after checking left to ensure that no driver on the cross street is approaching that may rear-end them and possibly check the oncoming traffic to ensure that they don't have a left turn arrow--but forget that just feet ahead of you to the right, there may be a pedestrian in the crosswalk that you're about to hit. At about 9 feet per second, the driver has maybe 2-3 seconds to think to look and see if they're about to hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk--and frequently they seem to be almost through their right turn before their eyes look at their path into the crosswalk.

My take on this is that it's a $50 lesson--and with luck, will make a better driver of you and your wife. The life possibly saved might be mine!

[Soapbox mode off...]

red light cameras

Daughter just got a $100.00 ticket for turning right on a red light. I looked at the video and it was, in my opinion really iffy. She may have been going 1 mph rather than a full stop on a completely deserted intersection from all directions. This has never been about safety, only putting money into the coffers of the local village.

--
Dudlee

I drive a F-150

CraigW wrote:

First, $50 is about the cost of 1-2 gas fillups ....

$50.00 for 1-2 fill-ups? I wish... surprised

--
NUVI40 Kingsport TN

.

Dudlee wrote:

Daughter just got a $100.00 ticket for turning right on a red light. I looked at the video and it was, in my opinion really iffy. She may have been going 1 mph rather than a full stop on a completely deserted intersection from all directions. This has never been about safety, only putting money into the coffers of the local village.

wfjny wrote:

What happened was my wife made a right on red. Her car did not come to a full and complete stop before making the turn. She (well, since it was my car, I) was guilty. A costly $50 lesson.

My acquaintance got slapped with a $495 tickets (for right turn slow roll violations). Yes, violationS (plural), because he did it twice on different days. That's an expensive unnecessary lesson.

I wonder why RLC tickets are so low in other parts of the country except CA.

Unless

danshort@bluebottle.com wrote:

...
nobody wants big brother watching..

Unless it happens to solve a crime against one's self.

RLC

Read a story awhile back where a guy turned right after red (in a state supposedly where you did not have to come to a complete stop). He noticed he got flashed by the RLC, and, not believing it flashed him, did it 4 more times to check. It flashed every time.

A couple of weeks later he got 5 tickets in the mail for not wearing a seat belt.

--
NUVI40 Kingsport TN

First, this was a couple of

First, this was a couple of years ago, when Nassau County in New York first installed the Red Light Cameras.

Second, as it was explained to me at the time (if memory serves me correct), was that the video did show my wife’s speed the entire time. They apparently could give out speeding tickets, however, legislatively they can only give out non-point Red Light Tickets against the car (similar to a parking ticket). Unless the speed drops to 0mph, it generates a ticket.

The camera systems are done by an outside company, so the police don’t know much about them. Additionally, those that I asked were from the NYPD or Suffolk County. My wife took a lot of ribbing for it.

As to the fine, I do not know if it has changed, but by New York standards, I agree that $50 is a low fine. Still that means one less dinner out that month, one less waitress getting a tip, etc. Nassau continuously stated this is about safety, not about revenue, yet when the inadvertently installed one of the cameras on a local town property, and not county property, the town stated they wanted the revenue from the camera. The county took the camera down.

I'll let everyone else decide what that means...

Well, I've never seen a

Well, I've never seen a 3econd yellow light. And if you don't follow the truck so closely you can see the lights. Goes back to what I said, obey the laws & drive safely.

Well...

CraigW wrote:

Two thoughts:

First, $50 is about the cost of 1-2 gas fillups so I wouldn't categorize this as a costly lesson.

Second, as a frequent pedestrian, I see rolling through a red light at 6 mph as a speed where I really wonder if the driver can fully assess the safety of making a red on right. So often, I see drivers make a red-on-right after checking left to ensure that no driver on the cross street is approaching that may rear-end them and possibly check the oncoming traffic to ensure that they don't have a left turn arrow--but forget that just feet ahead of you to the right, there may be a pedestrian in the crosswalk that you're about to hit. At about 9 feet per second, the driver has maybe 2-3 seconds to think to look and see if they're about to hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk--and frequently they seem to be almost through their right turn before their eyes look at their path into the crosswalk.

My take on this is that it's a $50 lesson--and with luck, will make a better driver of you and your wife. The life possibly saved might be mine!

[Soapbox mode off...]

I don’t want to get into a heated debate about safety. What I will say is that my wife was approaching a very wide, yet open intersection. You can clearly see in the video, there were no pedestrians present. My wife was heading west, turning north. The only other car (the one that triggered the light change), was heading south. The light was yellow, and turned red as my wife hit the intersection. She was traveling slow (relative to the 30-35MPH Speed Limit), and continued with her turn. In this particular situation (no pedestrians, no cross-traffic), nobody was in danger.

By the letter of the law, she was indeed guilty. What I am saying that in most people’s judgment, she would not have been pulled over for her actions. Much like yesterday when I passed a cop doing 72 while in a 65. Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island have put up quite a few of these cameras. Many people feel it is just a new tax, and that they are bound to get one or two a year, similar to parking tickets in NYC.

We never got another ticket. Did our driving get “better”, or did we just choose to avoid certain intersections. Probably a bit of both.

However, I have heard of people slamming on their brakes at a yellow light, only to be hit from behind. In my opinion, I do not think these cameras are improving safety. However, I could be wrong. Just ask my wife, she tells me I am wrong all the time smile

It's pretty simple, really

If red light cameras are truly about safety and not revenue, then they will have a more than ample yellow light time (more than 4 seconds) that extends if you're close to and approaching the intersection like many non-camera-equipped smart lights do and/or they will give you a fraction of a second or even a second of extra time if the light turns red as you're entering the intersection. This avoids the "panic braking" behavior that causes rear-end collisions when a driver is unfortunate enough to be approaching the intersection just as the light is changing.

The idea is not to catch the drivers who had to make a quick judgement call whether or not to stop or go "on-the-fly" and were a second off, it's to catch the 8 additional cars who blatantly roll through the intersection while the light is already green on the other side, even after the delay they put in for safety. We've all seen this happen more than once, I know I have. All of those drivers deserve a ticket, and it should be significant.

ANY other behavior is revenue-inspired. This isn't rocket-science folks, apply some common-sense rules that don't put drivers in danger and they will welcome the red-light cameras overall.

Stop....

Dudlee wrote:

Daughter just got a $100.00 ticket for turning right on a red light. I looked at the video and it was, in my opinion really iffy. She may have been going 1 mph rather than a full stop on a completely deserted intersection from all directions. This has never been about safety, only putting money into the coffers of the local village.

A stop sign means stop...not slow down before turning. Are you saying that we can run through stop signs and red lights at deserted intersections???

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

.

farrissr wrote:
Dudlee wrote:

Daughter just got a $100.00 ticket for turning right on a red light. I looked at the video and it was, in my opinion really iffy. She may have been going 1 mph rather than a full stop on a completely deserted intersection from all directions. This has never been about safety, only putting money into the coffers of the local village.

A stop sign means stop...not slow down before turning. Are you saying that we can run through stop signs and red lights at deserted intersections???

We must obey traffic law (complete stop at stop signs / red light intersections) but I am sure no one would get hurt if we happen to slow roll thru the deserted intersections. Cops may also be more lenient when it comes to this type of situation.

RLC intersections in the area I'm familiar with are more relaxed. One day I saw a car slowly rolling through an intersection when making a right turn, followed by another car and another. Not one of them came to a complete stop. The RLC did not flash at all.

Guess what? The RLCs are now removed permanently. The reason? RLC program costs the city more than it generates in revenue.

I will only believe it when

I will only believe it when it actually happens.
Money Generator......not gonna go away any time soon!!!!

--
Garmin Nuvi 255W

???

farrissr wrote:
Dudlee wrote:

Daughter just got a $100.00 ticket for turning right on a red light. I looked at the video and it was, in my opinion really iffy. She may have been going 1 mph rather than a full stop on a completely deserted intersection from all directions. This has never been about safety, only putting money into the coffers of the local village.

A stop sign means stop.

Well that is true...but completely not relevant since the above quote is about red lights, not stop signs.

Follow the Money

chewbacca wrote:

Guess what? The RLCs are now removed permanently. The reason? RLC program costs the city more than it generates in revenue.

And if red light cameras were about "SAFETY" instead of MONEY, they would have happily kept a camera there anyway. For safety. For the children.

I think what farrissr meant to say is....

telecomdigest2 wrote:
farrissr wrote:
Dudlee wrote:

Daughter just got a $100.00 ticket for turning right on a red light. I looked at the video and it was, in my opinion really iffy. She may have been going 1 mph rather than a full stop on a completely deserted intersection from all directions. This has never been about safety, only putting money into the coffers of the local village.

A stop sign means stop.

Well that is true...but completely not relevant since the above quote is about red lights, not stop signs.

A stop sign redlight means stop.

--
Streetpilot C340 Nuvi 2595 LMT

Back to the original

This thread started with a faux noise person saying that the red light cameras "could be illegal" and many people jumped into the fray.
So far no one has come forward and shown us where this violates the USA Constitution.
If this is against the USA Constitution then it would have been stopped years ago but there is no Supreme Court decision saying so there fore it is still legal.
According to the USA Constitution a law is legal until found to violate the Constitution and then it is legal no more. Personal opinions do not matter.
This is equivalent to the USA standard that a person is "NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"
Any other way is anti USA.

RLC is traffic law.

RLC is traffic law.

are you a lawyer?

stevel123 wrote:

RLC is traffic law.

I'm not a lawyer but I stayed at Holiday Inn Express

It may be a law in CA but not in FL

Though Florida law states that these red-light cameras are illegal in some situations, the Temple Terrace Police Department hasn't done any anything wrong, said department spokesman Michael Dunn.

"(Running a red light) is not a traffic violation, it is a city ordinance violation," he said.

A report issued by Deputy State Traffic Operations Officer Mark C. Wilson on Nov. 27 said that "current Florida Law does not allow the use of red-light running Cameras for the enforcement of a traffic violation. The Florida Department of Transportation does not allow the use of red-light running cameras on any of our intersections on the State Highway System."

If it was a traffic "law" moving violation like speeding or running a red light in front of a police officer you will get a fine plus points against your license, since there was no officer present when you ran the RLC they can only fine you because it was only a ordinance violation.

What are the differences between ordinance and law?

Ordinances are passed by a local municipality and only have effect within the borders of that municipality. A law is passed by the state legislature and has effect throughout the entire state regardless of political borders.

--
Garmin 38 - Magellan Gold - Garmin Yellow eTrex - Nuvi 260 - Nuvi 2460LMT - Google Nexus 7

That's Only OK If..

Byoun94 said in part..

byoun94 wrote:

Goes back to what I said, obey the laws.....

And I'll go back to what I said..

"You do realize that sometimes there just might be a valid reason why a driver runs a red light. (Or doesn't obey some other traffic law!)

Not all traffic infractions are black or white as to reason why broken."

Nuvi1300WTGPS

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

California Senate Votes for Red Light Camera Bailout

What do you do if your RLC system doesn't meet (or is to expensive) for the rules of evidence?

Simple, You get a politician to change the rules of evidence to meet the RLC's needs or cost structure.

------

At issue is whether the Confrontation Clause principles upheld in the 2009 US Supreme Court case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (view case) apply to the evidence generated by automated ticketing machines.

Based on the high court's precedent, red light camera photos could be considered hearsay unless the technicians at the red light camera company responsible for generating the evidence subjected themselves to cross examination in court. The legislation introduced by state Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) would force the courts to dispense with cross examination in photo ticketing cases.

"The printed representation of computer-generated information, video, or photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant," Senate Bill 1303 states.

California courts have split on the issue of whether evidence produced by a red light camera company is hearsay.

http://thenewspaper.com/news/38/3808.asp

Point not taken

flaco wrote:

If it was a traffic "law" moving violation like speeding or running a red light in front of a police officer you will get a fine plus points against your license, since there was no officer present when you ran the RLC they can only fine you because it was only a ordinance violation.

Same in Tennessee. You can get fined, but no points can be taken.

--
NUVI40 Kingsport TN

Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional

I hate them. 68 years old, never had a ticket so now they are trying to pick on me.

Look Harder

kurzemnieks wrote:

This thread started with a faux noise person saying that the red light cameras "could be illegal" and many people jumped into the fray.
So far no one has come forward and shown us where this violates the USA Constitution.
If this is against the USA Constitution then it would have been stopped years ago but there is no Supreme Court decision saying so there fore it is still legal.
According to the USA Constitution a law is legal until found to violate the Constitution and then it is legal no more. Personal opinions do not matter.
This is equivalent to the USA standard that a person is "NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"
Any other way is anti USA.

The answer you were looking for was posted directly below your original request.

diesel wrote:

If it is a right to confront the accuser, how does one confront a RLC?

Might be too simplistic. The machine is acting as the judge and jury, instead of an officer.

In the video provided in the very first link, the reason it was being said that it's unconstitutional, is because people aren't being given the chance for "due process." The people that get the red light camera tickets, are not allowed to challenge the tickets, without even more expense.

.

twix wrote:

In the video provided in the very first link, the reason it was being said that it's unconstitutional, is because people aren't being given the chance for "due process." The people that get the red light camera tickets, are not allowed to challenge the tickets, without even more expense.

Don't confuse people with the facts, they already have their minds made up.

--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra

toll intersection

Knowing how crooked politicians are it will nor surprise me that if the “ordinance” was found unconstitutional they may change it to a “toll” for the privilege of going through a red light without stopping.

Just like they are doing now in some areas in South Florida with the HOV lane that are being changed to HOV/Express lane, they will charge a toll to a one person occupied vehicle for using the “express lane”, while multiple occupancy vehicles will travel FREE

http://www.95express.com/

--
Garmin 38 - Magellan Gold - Garmin Yellow eTrex - Nuvi 260 - Nuvi 2460LMT - Google Nexus 7

The judge is in

Quote:

The machine is acting as the judge and jury, instead of an officer.

I would disagree with the above statement because before you are given that ticket the company looks at the data and then sends it to the police department and they have the final say if the ticket is valid. If you choose to contest the photograph or movie then you are given a chance to "tell it to the judge". The judge is the jury and he/she has the final word and not the machine. It is no different then an illegal parking ticket. If you contest it the judge will determine the outcome and not a machine.
To many people are using buzz words that sound good to the ear but fail to realize what they are saying.
Many right wingnuts keep saying that English should be the official language of the USA. I say before it happens that the English speaking people learn the language themselves.
Stop mean stop and not a rolling stop.
Speeding is speeding and not 10mph over.
Red light means stop and not one can speed through if no one can stop me.
Right turn on red means stop and then turn unless local law says different.
I could go on but one should get the meaning.

It always tickles me how,

It always tickles me how, eventually some one always says "just repect the law and there is no problem".

No one here is advocating breaking the law, so that must not be the point or problem.

These RLC companies are for profit corporations. By law they have one single purpose - maximize profits for their shareholders. Period.

They deserve no "respect" as law enforcement would.

They will not drop their citation book and come to your aid when the tornado hits, the grainery explodes, or the levy breaks. Most, if not all, monitor you from well outside your local county or state lines. Hell, the largest US RLC company is headquartered in Australia.

Thay are not part of your community and they are not looking out for your safety or best interest.

So, please don't insinuate those who find falt and issue with RLC's are a group advocating breaking the law.

Red Light Cameras

A red light camera got installed on an intersection that I frequent in the Des Moines IA area. At about the same time the yellow light got shortened noticeably. I didn't document it with a stop watch before camera was installed, but it is substantial. I wonder if this is for safety.

I Agree

Here, here. You have the right to face your accuser and are innocent until proven guilty.

No

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:

Byoun94 said in part..

byoun94 wrote:

Goes back to what I said, obey the laws.....

And I'll go back to what I said..

"You do realize that sometimes there just might be a valid reason why a driver runs a red light. (Or doesn't obey some other traffic law!)

Not all traffic infractions are black or white as to reason why broken."

Nuvi1300WTGPS

The only time I could see this happening if it's a cop, emt, fireperson or other law person, I don't see any other reason for passing a red light. Maybe you could tell me who else is allow?

--
Nuvi 50LM Nuvi 2555LM

In criminal cases, yes

DiQuest wrote:

Here, here. You have the right to face your accuser and are innocent until proven guilty.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not in the Constitution. It stems from a supreme Court case dealing with criminal charges. Traffic violations are cival infractions.

I believe "face your accuser" was covered well on the first page of this thread by DanielT. Your accuser is the municipality and the proof they have is the photo/video evidence (which is sometimes thrown out by courts because they are not accompanied by the officer who reviewed them - thus no chance to confront that "accuser").

2 3 4
Page 1>>

sponsored links