Almost spoke to soon!
On xmas eve had to run to 24hr Walgreens to buy some last minute gifts and a cop pulls me over and tells me he pulled me over for no front plates. Asked for my license and registration and proof of insurance, I gave him all three he asked if I had current tags and luckily I got them the day before. And said OK have a good day sir and get those 2010 tags on. No ticket!
Having written a few tickets in another life, most states have a section for "Unsafe Operation Of a Motor Vehicle". It is very general and almost anything can be cited under it needing only the officer's comments in court. The judge can agree or not.
If you are upset about cops not having to pull you over for equipment violations, get over it. There are areas where there doesn't even need to be cops. A traffic light camera can get you a ticket for running a red light. Probably wont be long until we have speed cameras, as they do in Britain. Who knows, maybe the cameras will get you equipment violation tickes as well. Cameras could catch window tints...
The front license enforcement varies with the area. In Monterey County, it is hardly ever enforced. Lots of cars here with no front plates. Go to San Francisco or Santa Monica, and they are all over you for front plates. Reason, those areas have traffic light cameras and they need the front plate to identify the car. So, the front plate enforcement, while a revenue enhancer, is also a means to reduce the number of people running red lights. Reducing red light runners saves lives.
In the eyes of the law, not having a front license plate is an impediment to their trying to save lives.
Interesting articles. Since Monterey doesn't have red light cameras, I wasn't aware of these issues. It looks like the shortening of the yellow light duration is increasing the rear end collisions, and the duration is being shortened to enhance revenue. That's pretty scandalous. In effect, they are reducing safety to make money.
And add this to the mix. Is requiring a front plate in order to facilitate red light camera efficiency is not in fact treating everyone as a criminal? Why not get a DNA sample from all newborns since some of them will grow up to be rapists, or killers?
Front plates have been required in California for a very long time. Red light cameras are just inspiring enforcement. Perhaps your issue is with having license plates at all.
I'm sure there are people who would like to have DNA identification for everyone. It would be much easier to identify criminals. Might be useful for health care as well. A downside would be that employers might want to discriminate against people with certain genetic traits. I think there may already be laws against that. What are some of the other downsides? Criminals would certainly be unhappy about it.
I recall when social security numbers were first issued. A lot of people were very unhappy about that.
Fresno installed a bunch of these and have since removed all of them for the same reason, not generating income. Now they just have cameras located in the gang associated areas of the city :lol:
Not knowing what the downsides might be is no reason to drop guard and abandon vigilance. I believe the fourth amendment of the constitution deals with privacy rights:
Not to be grandiose about it, but I am sure the European Jewish leaders thought the same thing in the late '30s when they turned down Hitler for war funds: "What could the down side be?"
DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas , and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs." The rancher says, "Okay , but dont go in that field over there," as he points out the location.
The DEA officer verbally explodes saying, " Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me." Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the rancher. "See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand? "
The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.
A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull......
With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he'll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs.....
If the red-light camera was really about safety they would be a) set up to catch red-light runners from states that don't require front plates, and b) in some way remove a dangerous driver from the road.
While this is slightly off topic of the original posts, camera enforcement seems purely revenue driven. A camera; speed, red-light or otherwise, does nothing to stop a drunk or dangerous driver, apprehend a car thief, or aide a stranded motorist. Further proof of this is the fact that many of the tickets issued by these cameras (which is typically through a private, third party company and not an actual law enforcement agency) usually don't have any points or ramifications associated with them beyond a fine so that people will just pay them and be done with it.
Not knowing the downsides makes it difficult to argue against someone promoting the upsides.
Privacy rights seems to be a matter of controversy. It has been one of the issues people have wanted to ask Supreme Court nominees during the confirmation process. There seem to be various interpretations of Amendment 4 regarding privacy. Useful to have sound arguments against a particular issue, rather than hoping to depend on the privacy interpretation.
Huh? Don't see how this relates, other than to try and gain points by waving the Nazi flag.
The sixth amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to… be confronted with the witnesses against him”. This is commonly called the right to face your accuser. With a camera violation, there is no accuser to confront or question. There is no one who can testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation. And even if there is an officer overseeing the operation of the camera, it’s unlikely he’ll remember the events of that particular day.
