California Committee Would Give Photo Ticket Points To Non-Drivers

This just shows that those promoting camera enforcement are only interested in the money and they don't care whose rights they trample on to get it. It's time to ban the cameras and vote out any politicians who have supported them.

That bill is completely insane and I think it should be unconstitutional

http://stopab666.org/

It takes away our rights.

What we actually need to do is pass an initiative setting the automated enforcement fines at $4 with no additional charges or assessments, and all that money to be earmarked for affordable housing. None to run the cameras, none to run the courts, none for police. They have to use other money for that.

Those cameras would be gone overnight.

I love how laws are changed, or don't apply in certain situations. It's no different than making a moving violation the equivalent to a parking ticket, just because it makes it easier to collect money. To force a spouse to testify against their partner, should either be completely acceptable, or not. How can it be both ways? Oh, because the fine is $500, and someone is going to pay it. Not only are they taking away money, but they're taking away rights too. Well done, well done.

EDIT

Steevo, I just went to the link you provided, I think it's funny that they're calling it the Devil's Bill. So true! Everything listed there is absolutely astounding! ATS and Redflex being behind the creation of the bill is sickening. Hasn't Redflex done enough damage? Apparently not.

EDIT AGAIN!

I love this! This is from Steevo's link, scrolling down to where it talks about the Redflex corruption scandal.

"By the way, just consider for a moment how bad you must be to get kicked out of Chicago for corruption."

I'm surprised they aren't saying "it's to protect the children."

Just think of the administrative screwups from a stolen car!

Fred

The laws in California were always particularly good for the citizens, meaning the ticket had to go to a person not to a car, because as you all know cars cannot violate laws all by themselves. The citation had to have a clear picture of the driver.

In Arizona the speed cameras on the freeway were always a civil law thing, so they could just send a ticket to the vehicle owner. It's all about the money.

This would change the California laws so they can ticket a car owner, even with no picture of the driver.

That is something that is pervading our society the last few years: A gradual lowering of standards. I am seeing it all over, and if you don't know what to look for you might not notice it. But it's there.

BTW, assemblyman Wieckowski who is carrying this bill for the red light camera companies is an attorney, and is a registered Democrat.

Draw whatever conclusions you like from that, but I for one try hard to avoid voting for attorneys running for office.

For different reasons I rarely vote for Democrats.

Even if they never get their day in court, never plead guilty and are never convicted.

If that sounds OK to you your standards are too low.

This all sounds unconstitutional to me. But if it were to pass it might be in effect for three or four years until it gets through the legal system and is actually ruled unconstitutional. What a lot of misery would be caused during that period!

If you live in California call your assemblymember and state senator and urge them to oppose this bill and the taking of our rights that it represents.

The governor and attorney general refuse to uphold the California Constitution. She thinks recent polls are more important than the voters. Of course I am refering to Prop 8.

Just wait until they get away from just moving violations...

Forget about stolen cars. There have been cases of students printing up phony car tags onto card stock on computer printers and using them to "prank" their teachers by deliberately running a red light at a camera with these mounted on the car. Now California is passing a law that, if this happens to you, you are still "legally" responsible unless you can identify who did it!

Of course, a few cases of this happening against California law makers might change things, although I would never advocate that (because it would be wrong).

In other threads I've spoken about how the current system doesn't work since the penalty is only financial and not issued by the state. This bill highlights the biggest problem with red light cameras and why I stay entrenched in the middle ground trying to find a way to make the cameras work "fairly and equitably".

Red light cameras are like the medicines you take. Neither actually can fix the root problem but only provides relief for the symptoms. Think about it. If the medicines you took actually cured the problem you were experiencing you would be lost to the pharmaceutical companies as a customer. The pharamceutical companies cannot have that, as their profit is directly derived from the pills they sell. Big pharma would seriously impact their business model if they actually cured the root cause.

Red light cameras function on the same model. It has been conclusively shown that a longer yellow light signal leads to fewer accidents. Longer yellow light signals are a cure to the problem, albeit in this instance not a cure of the red light camera company's making. If the problem is cured, the red light camera companies and the legislatures that authorize them would have their business models impacted because of the cure.

Just as Big pharma has no incentive to market pills that actually cure the root cause of the problems people suffer from, red light camera companies and the legislatures that authorize them have no incentive to cure the root cause of most minor traffic violations. And why is there no incentive? Because big pharma and red light camera companies are private entities whose existence is justified only so long as they generate profit for their shareholders and partners.

Since red light cameras are not going away anytime soon, a system that works fairly and impartially is needed. Unfortunately, such a system may well be a utopian pipe dream. The human parasite is ruled by its baser natures and constantly fails to rise above the muck that it surrounds itself with.

Because they're "legislators" they are exempt from those tickets. That's always the first group made not responsible for their actions. "Do as I say..."

......every right will be taken away.......at least that is there goal.......

California need the revenue to support their welfare state.

Constitutions are so 18th Century, doncha know. /sarcasm off

While I don't like it, it's the same theory as a parking ticket.

It's legal because some laws were changed. And now, some more. And pretty soon, there will be some more.

When money is tight, suspend the constitution. What a joke!

GREED!

... parking tickets don't set you back $500 and a point.

It's a race between Maryland and California to see who can most disregard the Constitution (with New York a close third).

Cal has this bullhonkery, and Maryland will have licenses and fingerprinting to exercise a Constitutional right (SB281).

Who ever wins, WE lose.

You can throw NJ into that mix as well. Did you know that at one time NJ had outlawed runny eggs? Couldn't order sunny side up at a restaurant.

That good old argument "If you don't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" doesn't really fit this, does it?

That California bill was pulled for the year today. It's dead. Until at least January.

Sounds unconstitutional to me anyway.