Not waving any flags. You asked about a downside. I showed an example of an unforeseen downside. History is full of unforeseen downsides. Could you have foreseen prior to 9/11 that four planes would be hijacked on the same day, at approximately the same time and flown into buildings? Doubtful. Asking me to enumerate possible abuses of a technology that has only come into use in the past decade and which is truly understood completely (hopefully) by very few is unreasonable at best. It seems that whenever someone asserts that a constitutional amendment is a source of a controversy, they also seem to be on the side that is against that amendment. As another example, while gun owners universally agree that the second amendment (right to bear arms) is absolute, it is the anti-gun lobby that finds it to be "controversial".
Hmmmm... Red light cameras are not per se a bad thing. Rear end collisions go up? Sure in some instances, but that's not cause of the red light camera, that's cause of tail gaiting. All anyplace has to do to make it OK to do is make accepting the fact that you may be photographed while driving for law enforcement needs part of licencing. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilage. Many insist on forgetting that. We have the right against self incrimination, but here in CA there's the implied consent law, that means that if we don't do a requested drunk test, it's as though we failed. This is an example of how consitutional rights can be abridged by licensing mechanisms. I'm not saying that there aren't abuses of red light camera systems by municipalities or the companies that try to install them. But that's the implementation, not the technology, that is at fault. But I want to hear if jnky dodged his front licence plate ticket! Matt
It is being challenged online and via the court voice system as we speak. I should hear back from them in 3-6 weeks. The only proof I even have that I have talked to them is the timestamped copy of their confirmation email. Meanwhile the registration for the car is coming up, which I am positive I won't be able to complete since it will show an unpaid falsely issued parking ticket.
Found this to be a bit interesting.... The bottom line is there are not tickets issued the taxpayers of Dallas are on the hook to make up the difference. Sure are a lot of better ways the city can spend a million bucks than pay off a private firm.
So, let's hypothetically say everyone in who parks in Dallas for a year becomes the ideal citizen, pays the meter, and never incurs a parking ticket. This sudden lawfulness by it's citizens would cost the city millions of dollars? Something's backwards, next time I'm in Dallas (or first time since I've never been there) I'm going to just drive flat out through the city, park illegally, and commit a few acts of vandalism, you know, to save the city some money.
That hypothetical will never happen.... ever been to Dallas? Anyway, this is the danger of outsourcing. The contracted company will only do the work for a minimun amount of money (fair enough), then there are layoffs in those that do a job that actually brings income (stupid, but not surprising) and the unintended consiquence is that the revenue target is missed, and a bunch of the savings created by the layoffs goes down the tubes. Yet another example of dumb policies. They abound. My sister works for a fed department. In one of the budget squeezes, they had to do a 10% across the board budget roll-back. Payment enforcement had a marginal payback rate of 50:1 (each marginal dollar spent in increased enforcement created $50 in savings or fines). Enforcement was rolled back 10% too. Just brain-dead. Matt
Interesting point. I wonder if someone will take that to the Supreme Court to stem the tide of robotic justice? Reminds me of a Dr. Who episode that had a justice machine to enforce the law. IIRC, the Dr. got it twisted up in logic to the point where it had to execute itself. In a rape/murder trial where there are no living witnesses, but enough circumstantial and DNA evidence to convict, who are the witnesses that confront the accused?
Wouldn't that apply to a red light camera as well? Or, is it an artificial intelligence system that identifies the plate and issues the citation without human intervention?
OK, let's see how many different things wrong we can find with red light cameras: 1. Right to face your accuser (already covered). 2. Not being conducted by a law enforcement agency, but by a third (for profit party). Would you be so nonchalant about it if your local government decided to outsource their traffic enforcement to some rent-a-cops for a piece of the fines? 3. Since no points are being issued to the driver, it further supports the notion that repeat offenders are not being removed from the road thus making it a pure revenue collecting exercise. 4. The camera issues a ticket to the car. Not the driver. This creates for errors, of which I was fortunate to be a victim off. I drove through a red light in a neighborhood I've never been in. Thankfully, I was not driving my care, so the registered owner was held responsible. Thankfully she was a lawyer and was able to beat it in court. But the point is, they are error prone. 5. Manipulation of traffic light timing to make them more efficient (already covered) 6. No evidence that they reduce accidents and in some cases actually increase them (see #5) Some one can fill in the rest of the things that they find wrong with it. To address your question more directly, there is a burden of evidence in forensic cases that gets scrutinized by other experts, defense attorneys and judges. Something that rarely happens in traffic citation situations. It is not cost efficient to fight traffic tickets with a help of lawyer. Last year I had a speeding ticket for going 55 in a 35 zone. I got pulled over because of the car I was driving (Mini Cooper with large racing numbers on the doors). Somehow the guy in the Toyota Camry who passed me did not draw the cop's attention. When the cop approached my car and I rolled down the window there was a certain change in his attitude once he saw it was a middle aged white guy behind the wheel who had his registration and insurance in order. Yes, he profiled me based on the car. Would I have loved to hire a lawyer and meet this guy in court and ask why he did not pull over the car that was traveling at least 15 mph faster then me? Yes. But it was cheaper to pay the ticket and go to traffic school. Additionally, when I called to contest the ticket that started this thread I was told that I can put the plate on and send them a picture and $10 and it would be dismissed. Why is that information not on the ticket? Because they would much rather have you just pay the $25. If the front plate was soooo necessary, then when you did get cited for it, putting it back on would be a requirement, not an option.
I agree with many of your points. Setting up RLC systems just to earn revenue is not the right thing to do. Shortening the yellow light duration to increase revenue should be criminal. I think that anyone who gets rear-ended at such a light should sue the hell out the controlling authority until the practice stops. At the very least, a big stink should be made about it through whatever media can be used. However, I'm not sure the misuse of the RLC system means that it couldn't be used to good effect. The reason that the rear-end accidents increase at RLC intersections is that they are reducing the yellow duration. What if RLC systems were implemented with an increase in the yellow duration? Those articles indicated that T-bone collisions went down at RLC intersections. Longer yellow should prevent an increase in rear-end collisions. What would be the problems with that? If the chances of my being hit by an SUV running a red light were lowered, I think that would be a good thing. I'm not a fan of front plates and got a GoMiniGo bracket so I could remove it for local driving and put it on for driving through enforcement areas. In the end I just leave it on because it is easier. I don't see how the cost efficiency affects the constitutionality. If you don't want to go to the expense to defend your rights, that doesn't mean you don't have them. Annoying, yes. A violation of your constitutional right to face your accuser? No. You could have gone to court and confronted him. Maybe he wouldn't show. Maybe he would and claim he didn't see the Camry, or couldn't get a speed reading on it. Mostly, you are just mad because you got caught for something you did do, and someone else got away with it. I thought about putting racing stripes on the side of my MINI, but didn't because it would increase my chances of being profiled. Bums me out that cops have these human failings. Maybe if they were robots... :devil: I think you give government more credit than it deserves for being oranized and efficient. I can think of lots of bureaucratic reasons that option wasn't on the ticket. The chances of the intent, you attribute to it, actually getting implemented seem small to me. They just aren't that efficient. :lol:
thus this is the reason why no matter which state i move to i will always keep my indiana tags...military FTW...ive been pulled over a few times and every cop wanted to start a pissing match with me over why i had no front plate plus my plate number (IC911)...how blind do you have to be to NOT NOTICE THE OUT OF STATE TAG...its not hard to get on ur little computer and run the plate to see that it is legal and that Indiana does not require front plates... and yes red light cameras do cause more accidents...case in point...when i was stationed in san diego i worked at a command next to the SD Int Airport...leaving work and heading home i would turn at the same intersection every day (except when a train was rolling through)...its Harbor Drive and Grape St...now before the redlight cam was put in if someone just passed through as it was turning red no big deal...they moved on and it was fine...after the cam was put in...if that sucker was turning red on them because the city did manipulate the yellow...for a test i actually sat there in traffic one afternoon and timed it..but i digress...fact is when that cam was installed more people were apt to do 1 of 2 things...either punch it and try to beat the light...or what happened more often was to try to beat the light realize they werent going to make it and slam on the brakes...when all the other traffic behind them was moving as well...needless to say i saw many rear end collisions and myself was almost wrapped up into one because the jackhole behind me thought i was going to run the light but i was already applying brakes long before and stopping before it turned to yellow...unless it just turned yellow i didnt risk it... back to the ticket...a car in motion that is not in a parking structure or gov parking lot is NOT the jurisdiction of PARKING ENFORCEMENT...that is why we have police officers...real cops not f***ing meter maids...but typical california government with their backwardass laws and even more backward leaders come up with some of the more hairbrained ways to make a buck...then piss it all away...it sure as hell doesnt go to road repair...i have a bent control arm back in my apt in florida that proves that fact...the money either goes to their own pockets or to welfare or to some illegal immigrant
I am sure they could be used to good effect. But for the most part, they are not. For the most part, it consistently appears that RLC's are are a revenue stream first and safety tool second. Where did I say any of that? Once again, where in that particular example did I say that my constitutional rights were violated? Where did I say I was mad about getting a speeding ticket for speeding? I think you are missing the point somewhat. Maybe it's my fault and I am not being clear enough. I think the odds of them actually hiring a $10,000 consultant to figure out that by omitting the lines of text informing violators that they have the option to fix the violation will result in X amount of violations not being fixed thus resulting in $25 fine instead of $10 dismissal fee being collected and therefore bringing in Y amount of extra revenue played a more direct role then plain old incompetence. To think that the option was omitted from the tickets as simple oversight is a bit naive. Also, you seem to think that I am mad about getting a no front plate ticket. That could not be further from the truth. I drive without front plates and I accept the consequences of my actions. I had another ticket for no front plates a few month ago. Nobody heard me ***** about that one, even though it was issued on a Sunday on a street that did not require parking enforcement on that day. Se la vie. They caught me fair and square. My complaint on this one is the fact that the ticket was issued by an agency that had no authority to issue the citation at that time and the fact that the individual who issued the ticket lied about the circumstances under which it was issued. That is why I am fighting that ticket. Sorry if all of that got you confused.
The yellow-light duration has an interesting history in a way. They were shortening it's duration even before red-light cameras where even invented. It's been a while since I've read up on all this history but the cliffnotes are as follows. -Originally yellow duration was set to be a certain time based on the speed vehicles were actually driving on a given stretch of road. -This was changed to be a certain time based on the speed-limit on a given stretch of road. -This was then reduced by one second further and supplemented with a one second period where all lights at an intersection are red sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. -Now most traffic signals are maintained and programmed by a specialized company who may or may not follow these guidelines, there's not much enforcement checking yellow-light duration these days.
This was part of the discussion of Nathan's inference that RLCs are a violation of the 6th amendment.
Oh, OK, got that. I do agree with Nate that there is a 6th amendment issue. Also, it could be argued that since the cameras are not being operated by a law enforcement agency whose members are trained and empowered to enforce the law, but by a third party that such third party lacks the jurisdictional authority to issue citations. I would love to see someone argue these things, but certainly it won't be me. I don't have the resources.
Couple issues.... If via legislation a state wants to extend the ability to cite to a non-law enforcement official, that's OK by me. Is it wise? Probably not. Is it unconstitutional? I don't really think so. One can do a "citizens arrest" and yes, law enforcement gets involved at some point. Bounty hunters are not official law enforcement agents, yet get to enforce law as well. While distasteful, as long as "I"s are dotted and "T"s are crossed, I don't see any fundimental way to argue the point on these things. And it's going to get worse... The Governator wants to put speed ticket capabilities on intersections that have red light cameras. And it's plainly to raise revenue. But on the other hand, it would catch people who were speeding! And tons and tons of states put on tons and tons of court fees. This has nothing to do with justice, but does have to do with revenue production to keep the court system from running as far in the red. Conflict of interest? Sure... Illegal or unconstitutional? Not at all... Matt
While bounty hunters are not official law enforcement, they are licensed, regulated and governed. The also have to go through some training (not sure how long, or how much, but it wasn't a couple of weekends in the classroom). A good friend of mine did that for a few years not too long ago. The point I was making of having a non-law enforcement personnel enforcing the law is the lack of training.