Go to all that trouble to try and get out of something you are guilty of doing?
Can't you see that if people just would drive the speed limit, these issues would not even be around?
Why can't we just all drive the speed limit?
Now your talkin'!!! Counter-point: why does the gov't go through all this trouble just for a lousy speeding ticket? Do we really need expensive camera and video equipment everywhere?
Can't you see that if speed limits were reasonable then these issues would not even be around?
If speed limits were set high enough so that only about 5% of the population was constantly breaking the law, instead of 95%, I think the problems would be alleviated.
Why can't we all just set the speed limits reasonably, through traffic engineering surveys that are not biased towards small speed limits based on the lowest common denominator (a fully loaded school bus or van?)
If the speed limits were set reasonably, most would obey them, rather than the opposite. Studies show that when speed limits are raised, the average speed does not increase, only the percentage of people in "violation" of the law decreases.
Right now in my view speed limits are set artificially low for the people that buy Buicks that can't handle a curve and have their tires Psi at half inflation with bad brakes!!! Also, they are set artificially low so that cities can make big time revenue from fees and FINES, rather than taxes like they should!!! Let's tax people, but not fine them for being reasonable.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"In my experience, pleading the Fifth has usually meant "I'm hiding something."
Usually is not always and there is a reason we have the fifth. If you weren't guilty and didn't want to participate in a witch hunt you would be within your , Constitutional Rights to take the fifth. The reason is absolute and if the Judge wants to hear what you know anyway they have the "right" to wave prosecution and require you to testify. In my experience they don't want to do that because they "don't know" if the person in guilty or not. We are allowed to plead several ways, we can even plead Nolo Contendere, if that is the correct spelling. Not admitting guilt but not contesting either. It is a right. We need not give up rights because people are frustrated with people the speed.
A person could plead the fifth simply because they were so insenced at being brought before a judge for a crime they didn't commit that they aren't willing to make that same court's job one iota easier. Think about it, why do we have Miranda rights? What do they say is a right?
We have a right to remain silent and we have a right to talk to an attorney. If we have that right why give it up simply because we are standing before judge that already believe you were driving a car you may or may not have been driving?
I don't believe if you explained your position on the fifth ammendment during jury selection that you would be seated do you?
and therefore you cannot question it in a court of law which is your constitutional right.
Getting a ticket from an officer affords you the right to question him in court for accusing you of something. Getting a ticket from a camera that has no operator does not afford the same due process.
Officer, do you normally wear glasses and are you required to wear glasses while driving? Answer: Yes. Were you wearing glasses on the day you issued my citation? Answer: No (if being truthful) Your honor I rest my case.
With the camera, I'd put the machine on the stand! Camera, were your lenses clear and unfogged on said date and time? Camera, were your electrical systems functioning correctly on the said date and time? Camera, was your timing or CUP clock funtioning correctly?
I will get no answers to all of these questions. I can't put it on the stand.
Now, if you want cops to drive around with video cameras, then so be it, but you cannot be for breaking the constitution because you think speed limits mean something!
Our forefathers were a lot smarter than you, or I, and especially our boneheaded politicians of today.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Nope, it is still very much "in service" just like the rest of the Constitution. However, there is still a lot to be decided, case by case. That is why we have a Judiciary.
Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Insist Notice Be Given in Drug-Case Property Seizures
By LINDA GREENHOUSE,
Published: December 14, 1993
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Government may not seize a house or other real estate that it suspects of having been used in a drug transaction without giving the owner notice and a chance to contest the seizure at a hearing.
The 5-to-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, was the latest indication of the Court's discomfort with the Government's aggressive use of its forfeiture authority.
The Court ruled that the Government deprived a convicted drug dealer of his constitutional right to due process of law by taking possession of his house in Keaau, Hawaii, while he was out of the country, without notifying him or giving him a chance to object. The seizure came more than four years after the conviction, and the homeowner, James D. Good, had already paid a fine and served a year in prison.
The decision was the third time this year that the Court has curbed the sweeping power the Government claimed for itself to seize assets of suspected drug dealers. The civil forfeiture laws apply even if the property's owner has never been convicted of a crime, as long as the Government shows probable cause to believe that the property itself was used in committing a drug felony. Many states have similar forfeiture laws that are affected by the constitutional analysis today.
The decision applies only to real estate and not to more portable possessions. It resolved a procedural issue -- whether a hearing must precede rather than follow the seizure -- and not the merits of the seizure itself. In that sense, it was more limited than the Court's unanimous ruling last June that a forfeiture can be so disproportionate to the underlying crime that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "excessive fines."
Nonetheless, Justice Kennedy's opinion repudiated the Government's constitutional arguments and, to some degree, its motivation. For example, Justice Kennedy cited a 1990 Justice Department memorandum urging Federal prosecutors to make "every effort" to increase the income from forfeitures as a reason that property owners need the protection of a hearing "to ensure the requisite neutrality that must inform all governmental decision-making."
Due Process at Issue
The Government had argued that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process does not apply at all to civil forfeiture. Because forfeiture serves a "law enforcement purpose," the Government said, the only constitutional requirement was that the seizure be "reasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That amendment, barring unreasonable search and seizure, sets the standards for obtaining search warrants, which require no notice to the person whose property is to be searched.
But Justice Kennedy said that the broader protections of the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee also applied, because "here the Government seized property not to preserve evidence of wrongdoing, but to assert ownership and control over the property itself."
He continued: "Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights. At stake in this and many other forfeiture cases are the security and privacy of the home and those who take shelter within it."
Justice Kennedy's opinion, U.S. v. Good, No. 92-1180, was joined by Justices Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented, along with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas sounded particularly torn, saying that he approved of the majority's emphasis on private property rights and shared its concern over the breadth of the forfeiture laws.
But Mr. Good's case was not an "appropriate" one for setting new constitutional limits, Justice Thomas said, because he was persuaded that Mr. Good's rights had not been violated. He noted that Mr. Good was convicted of a drug offense involving his house and so was on notice that the house was a likely target for forfeiture.
In his opinion, Justice Kennedy appeared to take issue with this analysis when he said that it "founders on a bedrock proposition: fair procedures are not confined to the innocent." Four-Year Lag
Mr. Good, who had 89 pounds of marijuana in his house when the police searched it in 1985, was working in Nicaragua and renting out the house when the Government seized it more than four years later. The tenants were told to send their rent checks to the Federal marshal.
When Mr. Good learned what had happened, he challenged the forfeiture in Federal District Court in Hawaii. He lost in that court, but won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. The Bush Administration appealed, and the Clinton Administration carried on with the appeal after the Supreme Court accepted the case last March.
The question of whether the due process clause applies to forfeitures had divided the lower Federal courts for several years. The Federal appeals court in New York ruled in 1989 that notice and the opportunity for a hearing are required before seizure of real estate. The Federal appeals court in Atlanta had ruled three years earlier that there was no such requirement.
The Supreme Court last discussed the due process guarantee in the forfeiture context in 1974, when it ruled that the Government could seize a yacht without giving the owner notice. Today, Justice Kennedy said that the analysis used in that decision did not apply to the seizure of a home, because while a yacht can disappear, "real property cannot abscond."
There were also these other developments at the Court today. Veterans' Rights to Lawyers
Without comment, the Court refused to hear an appeal brought on behalf of several thousand veterans who say they were denied the right to a lawyer to handle claims growing out of their exposure to radiation during and after World War II. An 1864 law set a $10 limit on payments by veterans to outside lawyers, a limit that effectively prevented veterans from hiring lawyers until it was repealed by Congress in 1988.
However, the repeal did not affect cases filed before 1988. The veterans, who brought their suit in 1983, argued that the limit violated their rights to due process of law and to petition the Government. The Ninth Circuit rejected their constitutional challenge. The case was National Association of Ra
Would strongly agree that "only" police department personnel, either police officers or other persons within that are bonded, or similar, should be associated with photo radar equipment. Suppliers and vendors of photo radar should train police personnel on proper operation, calibration and routine maintenance.
Vendors and suppliers of photo radar should make bids to supply the equipment only when police departments put out requests for bids. Photo radar should be outright purchase or lease. If lease, dollar amount should be fixed and not tied in to volume of photos generated.
The automation concerns the entire chain from detecting offences to paying fines including the legal process (new law promulgated in June 2003) • Compared to other programs in numerous OECD countries (UK, The Netherlands, etc.), this particular program was exclusive in that:  it is fully automated  data processing is fully centralized at national level  use of digital pictures • Strong cooperation between all concerned departments: Transport, House Ministry, Defence, Justice, Finance (and Industry): creation of an Interministerial Mission
Fully centralized at a national level and private Industry has access to it? How about the department of Defence and Finance?
My point is that the information collected can be used in all sorts of ways, way beyond what was originally intended. That can have far-reaching consequences.
We better look into all aspects of photo radar, methinks.
Of course, similar procedures to guard photo radar pictures/data should be as stringent (assuming they are now) as for regularly issued traffic stop tickets.
As an aside, photo radar data is trivial in importance in comparison to new U.S. medical racord data base on all citizens that was "snuck" into the Pelosi/Obama Stimulus Bill.
Yes, the computerised health records issue is another thing that we as a society must provide input to, However, that is a whole another aspect of Big Brother, and not related to phot radar in anyway, so I'll pass on that for now.
Tollway data perhaps a threat to both speeders and law abiding drivers whereas Photo Radar design/intent to only nab law breakers.
Illinois Tollway users can choose to pay cash or use transponders. A user can register their vehicle with the Tollway, furnish a $40 deposit to use the transponder along with a deposit to start the account and then mount the transponder in the vehicle windshield.
One then drives through each toll station and automated detectors debit the account for the toll amount. The details of the event include the transponder serial number, vehicle, vehicle owner, toll station location, toll station lane and time of day (hr,min,sec).
Those who pass through 2 or more toll stations on a trip could have their average speed easily computed by Tollway software if it existed in that mileage between toll stations is a known factor and time of day is recorded. This could easily be done where posted speed limits between 2 serial toll stations on a driver's trip was constant, say 65 MPH.
Tollway users having a transponder account can view all details of their tolls at the Tollway web site.
So far, there has been no indication from the Tollway that they have or are considering using toll station data to determine speeders. If they are considering using the speeding data, might it be "just" as an extra Fee deducted from one's account for exceeding speed.
Another issue transponder users might worry about is the safety of toll data in terms of someone at Tollway determining movements of persons and then using for illegal activity.
xrunner: Great post. However, as long as there is the element of free will in getting a transponder, and there is an alternate process or lanes to travel on the same public highway, I see no problems with the scenarios you describe.
And that is pretty much how EZPass works in the northeast too. Near NYC, there are fewer and fewer booths for those paying cash and the time wasted at some times of the day is longer compared to the EZPass lanes, not to mention a higher cost, it can be very tempting to get the EZPass transponder.
But it is still the end user's decision, at least so far.
Transportation chief eyes taxing miles driven LaHood's says current gasoline tax not enough to fund infrastructure
updated 2 hours, 31 minutes ago Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn — an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.
Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.
Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.
The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.
Thinking outside the box
Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.
"What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.
LaHood said he firmly opposes raising the federal gasoline tax in the current recession.
The program that funds the federal share of highway projects is part of a surface transportation law that expires Sept. 30. Last fall, Congress made an emergency infusion of $8 billion to make up for a shortfall between gas tax revenues and the amount of money promised to states for their projects. The gap between money raised by the gas tax and the cost of maintaining the nation's highway system and expanding it to accommodate population growth is forecast to continue to widen.
Among the reasons for the gap is a switch to more fuel-efficient cars and a decrease in driving that many transportation experts believe is related to the economic downturn. Electric cars and alternative-fuel vehicles that don't use gasoline are expected to start penetrating the market in greater numbers.
"One of the things I think everyone agrees with around reauthorization of the highway bill is that the highway trust fund is an antiquated system for funding our highways," LaHood said. "It did work to build the interstate system and it was very effective, there's no question about that. But the big question now is, We're into the 21st century and how are we going to take care of our infrastructure needs ... with a highway trust fund that had to be plused up by $8 billion by Congress last year?"
Report expected next week A blue-ribbon national transportation commission is expected to release a report next week recommending a VMT.
The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.
The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.
Rob Atkinson, president of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, the agency that is developing future transportation funding options, said moving to a national VMT would take about a decade.
Privacy concerns are based more on perception than any actual risk, Atkinson said. The satellite information would be beamed one way to the car and driving information would be contained within the device on the car, with the amount of the tax due the only information that's downloaded, he said.
The devices also could be programmed to charge higher rates to vehicles that are heavier, like trucks that put more stress on roadways, Atkinson said.
Red light fees a mistake, city says Federal lawsuit claims extra cost deprived woman her due process By Jamie Satterfield (Contact) Friday, October 26, 2007
For months, citizens accused of running camera-monitored red lights in Knoxville were told they'd have to pay $67.50 just to have a hearing to contest the charge.
"The city acknowledges that was a mistake, having that incorrect language in the notice," attorney Michael S. Kelley told U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips at a hearing Thursday.
Neither Deputy City Law Director Ron Mills nor Municipal Court Administrator Rick Wingate could say how long it took city officials to discover that error.
"It was pretty early on," Wingate recalled.
Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., a private company tapped to administrate the camera-based enforcement program, was responsible for fashioning those citation forms. Redflex earns a cut of whatever monies the city collects from red light violators, according to the contract approved by Knoxville City Council in 2005.
Both men insist no one was actually forced to pay the fee merely to hold a hearing.
"If you win, you pay nothing," Wingate said.
Lose, however, and cough up the $50 fine and the $67.50 fee, which actually is supposed to represent court costs, according to Wingate.
That would not be all that different from the way a speeding ticket is handled - with one big exception. It typically does not cost more to fight a speeding ticket in court than to pay it in advance. In fact, it could wind up costing less, since a judge might well cut an offender a break for having an otherwise clean record.
But there is big incentive under the city's Red Light Photo Enforcement Program to go down without a fight. Pay the ticket, and it will cost you $50. Go to court and lose and the tab jumps to more than $117.
According to Wingate, there have been 367 hearings to contest a red light violation citation. He does not know how many citations have been issued. Redflex keeps up with that tally. Prior reports have put the figure at well more than 11,000.
Knoxville resident Judy Williams contends that extra "fee" for fighting a losing court battle is one more example of how the city's contract with Redflex is an unholy alliance designed to empty motorists' pockets while stripping them of their due process rights.
Williams, cited in August 2006, has filed a federal lawsuit over the enforcement program. She alleges it violates a wide range of laws and constitutional guarantees.
"The Knoxville Red Light Photo Enforcement Program intentionally trashes the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Tennessee," her attorney, David Hamilton, wrote in the lawsuit.
Hamilton's chief argument is that the city has taken a misdemeanor criminal offense, which carries a slew of constitutional protections, and turned it into a civil offense, skirting the rights guaranteed to someone charged with a crime.
Under state law, running a red light is a class C misdemeanor. Under Knoxville's ordinance that laid the groundwork for the bargain with Redflex, it is deemed a civil offense.
"They call them civil," Hamilton argued Thursday. "They are not. There is not a single case in which a criminal defendant has to pay to have a hearing. No one has ever threatened to charge a defendant to schedule a hearing to defend himself. It shocks the conscience of the court. It shocks the constitution. They have turned an attack on our constitutional rights into a business."
Kelley, who represents Redflex, counters that even though Redflex incorrectly stated on the notice that a person must pay to schedule a hearing, it is not illegal to require someone to post money on the front end of a civil case.
Kelley is asking Phillips to toss out the lawsuit before it ever reaches a jury.
He argues that Williams had plenty of options to fight her citation without jumping into federal court.
"The crux of the argument is that there was established an appropriate process for (Williams) to challenge the issuance of this ticket and challenge the entire red light enforcement system," Kelley said. "(Williams) chose not to do that. A plaintiff can't sit back and refuse to use that procedure and then file a federal lawsuit and say I've been deprived of my due process rights."
Phillips said he would issue a written ruling, likely within the next month.
We all sink and rise with all our fellow citizens. Luckily, the last time I checked, I was still a citizen of the US, living a happy, free and productive life (well, I like to think so, so there! )
No matter how strongly held or preached, one man's opinion is just that: ONE MAN's opinion. And that is the key. No matter whether we disagree with it or not, we should think about it, and all other evidence and form OUR OWN OPINION, which may or may not be the same. And nobody has a right to force their opinion down anybody's throat. Please remember that always.
Then, in all issues, including photo radar as being discussed here, we ALL have an input into deciding what should be done.
And that, ladies and gentlemn of the forum, is what I think USA is all about.
Anyway, moving on:
From my post #1038 above, the following excerpt is very important:
Report expected next week
A blue-ribbon national transportation commission is expected to release a report next week recommending a VMT.
The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.
Technically, it would be very simple to have a database of speed limits available for real-time lookup by the on-board equipment, and automatically restrict the vehicle speed to that applicable limit.
Sounds like a good solution. No speeding, that's for sure.
Would we like that? I know at least one person may be in favour, BUT PLEASE RESPECT HIS OR HER RIGHT TO HOLD HIS OR HER OPINION, HOWEVER STRONGLY YOU MAY FEEL THAT HE OR SHE IS WRONG.
By the same token, please feel free to express your opinions and thoughts here, for your continued participation here, and in all other society wide issues, is the soul of good citizenship.
(My my, let me please shut up, I do like to hear myself speak, now don't I? )
Oh, I guess I was confused. Some of the folks trying to refute your arguments have mentioned that they are more perfect drivers and (implied) more law abiding. I thought that since they were keeping score you would like to also. In previous posts I have been challenged by posters who claim that they have higher standing because they don't speed more than 1% of the time. You seem to be able to beat that figure so you are (according to that criteria) the better person.
I didn't make up the rules I just follow them.
I see now that you need no help is showing them the error of their ways. Please proceed.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I will proceed no matter what, but I will request all, including you, to increase their participation too. I am clear in my thoughts and firm in my beliefs, but I do know I am not the only wise person on earth (although my kids tend to remind me that I like to think that from time to time).
"Won't tell the police who was driving your car? Is that "obstruction"? That in itself should get you arrested."
Absolutely not. It is up to the state to PROVE guilt, not the defendants to prove innocence or rat someone else out. Like I said previously, the biggest problem with photo enforcement is that it doesn't prove who was driving. There are several other problems, as well, but that is probably the main one from a legal standpoint.
Well then how about VMT as part of OBD-3, coupled with a swipe card so that the driver is identified at all times, and then automatically billed for road use and any other infarctions that he/she may commit at all time while driving the vehicle? At least top speed can be governed to be below or at the speed limit for those particular GPS co-ordinates at all times.
xrunner2: Absolutely a noble sentiment. However, the Constitution places the responsibility on the law enforcement agency, not the citizen. Of course a citizen may be idealistic enough to do that anyway, and that would be perfectly acceptable.
However, not everybody might be as noble, and thus we need a system that works for all shades of opinion and character, under processes defined by the Constitution.
Well, at least that is my opinion only, which I am perfectly happy to let you voice your diasgreement, or otherwise, with.
Obstruction of what? Certainly not "justice", as Orwellian surveillance cameras are not "justice" in any way shape or form. Obstruction of overpaid underworked public servants collecting taxes to benefit their poorly planned organizations and irresponsible well-connected crony capitalist camera operators, maybe?
I am not aware of that being a legitimate crime...maybe it was in Soviet Russia or is in thought-controlled modern day UK, but the US is supposed to be above such nonsense...for now. A claim of "obstruction" with no details of what is being obstructed is funny...but probably not intended to be so. That's the type of government that deserves a purge, with nooses and blades if need be.
Arresting someone for such acts with the burgeoning social ills in this society is such a gross waste of publicly funded resources that it is hard to find words to describe it.
fintail: .."but the US is supposed to be above such nonsense..."
Why? We are just a collection of human beings just like many others on earth throughout history. We will remain above such nonsense only if we maintain our ideals and keeping working at supporting them. The day there is a majority of apathetic citizens is the day we begin losing everything, and I mean that literally and figuratively.
The photo radar issue is just one small piece. OBD3-GPS and VMT are even more worrisome for me personally, but obviously not for all here.
What we do need is continued dialogue to look at all aspects of these issues.
Oh gee thanks Steve_Host! I don't sleep very well as it is. The voices in my head always have an argument by about 10 pm, and this link definitetly DOES NOT HELP.
Are you trying to kill me prematurely or what?
Let me just say "I hope democracy continues to work" over and over and over again until..............I.............faa...lllllllll............................as..- ...........leeeeeeee..................................................p
fintail: "Perhaps there should be a general vehicle tracking or surveillance thread, encompassing more than cameras. "
That is the moderator's call. However, we are having problems maintaining civility in this thread as is. I cannot even begin to contemplate what would happen in a thread like that.
But maybe if I put on my helmet, and then post, I may be safe, well at least Big Brother comes a-knocking at my door!
"...if any poster here would turn in fin if he was nabbed by photo radar in the car you borrowed to him..."
I would not. What he does in my car is between he and I in as far as he breaches my trust in him to take good care of it. It is not my job to enforce the laws.
Oh, and I would chew his [non-permissible content removed] for speeding in my car. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Wonder if any case about 24/7 cameras on city streets ever was heard in Supreme Court?
Mayor Daley very powerful. He did not like lakefront (Michigan) Meigs airport because it interferred with his long range plans for parks, museum campuses. Additionally, he felt that proximity of airport to downtown skyscrapers was a terrorist threat. While folks were debating the pros and cons of keeping the airport, contractors were slipped in one night with bulldozers and they destroyed the runways. Case closed. The manager that oversaw that destruction then later became Ex-Gov Blago's top staffer.
Maybe someday, years from now, Hollywood will make a movie about Da Boss, just like Don Corrleone. Can imagine a scene in it where the Boss's top manager says that the airport issue is in peril and we are in danger of losing our argument. The Boss raises his right hand, shuffles his thumb and forefinger at the manager and says to get rid of the runways asap and make sure there is no bad news about it.
Rat someone out? Absolutely. First read them the riot act for violating the law in "your" car, and then, turn them in.
Uhm right, in an ideal world. There are many people assaulted or even killed for doing such things. You can turn on COPS or any other similar show to see that people have no problem becoming belligerent even to a cop with a gun and pepper-spray.
Anyone violating laws in a borrowed car is undeserving of harboring/protecting or sympathy
Most of our police forces would then have lost their licenses. I hardly ever see a police-car driving under or at the SL. The last police car I saw on a 50mph roadway passed me easily, when I was doing 55-60mph.
If you can just claim your long lost cousin from out of Country was driving your car, then why even bother with Photo Radar?
You need someone to verify who the driver is at the time of the violation, and right after, when handing over the citation itself and serving it upon that driver in the proper manner.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I live in Cleveland and yesterdays paper had an article that a red light camera citation in the city was dismissed because the Cleveland ordnance states the "owner" is responsible, the attorney argued the car was a lease and therefore the driver was not the "owner".
Judge agreed and dismissed, now the band wagon will roll until this is resolved.
Comments
Can't you see that if people just would drive the speed limit, these issues would not even be around?
Why can't we just all drive the speed limit?
Can't you see that if people just would drive the speed limit, these issues would not even be around?
Why can't we just all drive the speed limit?
Now your talkin'!!! Counter-point: why does the gov't go through all this trouble just for a lousy speeding ticket? Do we really need expensive camera and video equipment everywhere?
Can't you see that if speed limits were reasonable then these issues would not even be around?
If speed limits were set high enough so that only about 5% of the population was constantly breaking the law, instead of 95%, I think the problems would be alleviated.
Why can't we all just set the speed limits reasonably, through traffic engineering surveys that are not biased towards small speed limits based on the lowest common denominator (a fully loaded school bus or van?)
If the speed limits were set reasonably, most would obey them, rather than the opposite. Studies show that when speed limits are raised, the average speed does not increase, only the percentage of people in "violation" of the law decreases.
Right now in my view speed limits are set artificially low for the people that buy Buicks that can't handle a curve and have their tires Psi at half inflation with bad brakes!!! Also, they are set artificially low so that cities can make big time revenue from fees and FINES, rather than taxes like they should!!! Let's tax people, but not fine them for being reasonable.
You dident do what I axed you to do.......(go read all my posts for the last week)
See my post 981 for my response to this........
Wow, I bet you don't even speed on long trips to visit relatives either. That settles it, you have the moral high ground in this discussion.
I look forward to sharing the road with you. We can look out for each other as these speedsters from the southwest zoom by.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
That money doesn't have to be dedicated to the cop shops and the courts - you could allocate it to the general fund or for road construction.
Seems like there are plenty of reports of vandalism towards traffic cams.
Usually is not always and there is a reason we have the fifth. If you weren't guilty and didn't want to participate in a witch hunt you would be within your , Constitutional Rights to take the fifth. The reason is absolute and if the Judge wants to hear what you know anyway they have the "right" to wave prosecution and require you to testify. In my experience they don't want to do that because they "don't know" if the person in guilty or not. We are allowed to plead several ways, we can even plead Nolo Contendere, if that is the correct spelling. Not admitting guilt but not contesting either. It is a right. We need not give up rights because people are frustrated with people the speed.
A person could plead the fifth simply because they were so insenced at being brought before a judge for a crime they didn't commit that they aren't willing to make that same court's job one iota easier. Think about it, why do we have Miranda rights? What do they say is a right?
We have a right to remain silent and we have a right to talk to an attorney. If we have that right why give it up simply because we are standing before judge that already believe you were driving a car you may or may not have been driving?
I don't believe if you explained your position on the fifth ammendment during jury selection that you would be seated do you?
Getting a ticket from an officer affords you the right to question him in court for accusing you of something. Getting a ticket from a camera that has no operator does not afford the same due process.
Officer, do you normally wear glasses and are you required to wear glasses while driving?
Answer: Yes.
Were you wearing glasses on the day you issued my citation?
Answer: No (if being truthful)
Your honor I rest my case.
With the camera, I'd put the machine on the stand!
Camera, were your lenses clear and unfogged on said date and time?
Camera, were your electrical systems functioning correctly on the said date and time?
Camera, was your timing or CUP clock funtioning correctly?
I will get no answers to all of these questions. I can't put it on the stand.
Now, if you want cops to drive around with video cameras, then so be it, but you cannot be for breaking the constitution because you think speed limits mean something!
Our forefathers were a lot smarter than you, or I, and especially our boneheaded politicians of today.
from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DF1E38F937A25751C1A96595826- - - - 0
Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Insist Notice Be Given in Drug-Case Property Seizures
By LINDA GREENHOUSE,
Published: December 14, 1993
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Government may not seize a house or other real estate that it suspects of having been used in a drug transaction without giving the owner notice and a chance to contest the seizure at a hearing.
The 5-to-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, was the latest indication of the Court's discomfort with the Government's aggressive use of its forfeiture authority.
The Court ruled that the Government deprived a convicted drug dealer of his constitutional right to due process of law by taking possession of his house in Keaau, Hawaii, while he was out of the country, without notifying him or giving him a chance to object. The seizure came more than four years after the conviction, and the homeowner, James D. Good, had already paid a fine and served a year in prison.
The decision was the third time this year that the Court has curbed the sweeping power the Government claimed for itself to seize assets of suspected drug dealers. The civil forfeiture laws apply even if the property's owner has never been convicted of a crime, as long as the Government shows probable cause to believe that the property itself was used in committing a drug felony.
Many states have similar forfeiture laws that are affected by the constitutional analysis today.
The decision applies only to real estate and not to more portable possessions. It resolved a procedural issue -- whether a hearing must precede rather than follow the seizure -- and not the merits of the seizure itself. In that sense, it was more limited than the Court's unanimous ruling last June that a forfeiture can be so disproportionate to the underlying crime that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "excessive fines."
Nonetheless, Justice Kennedy's opinion repudiated the Government's constitutional arguments and, to some degree, its motivation. For example, Justice Kennedy cited a 1990 Justice Department memorandum urging Federal prosecutors to make "every effort" to increase the income from forfeitures as a reason that property owners need the protection of a hearing "to ensure the requisite neutrality that must inform all governmental decision-making."
Due Process at Issue
The Government had argued that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process does not apply at all to civil forfeiture. Because forfeiture serves a "law enforcement purpose," the Government said, the only constitutional requirement was that the seizure be "reasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That amendment, barring unreasonable search and seizure, sets the standards for obtaining search warrants, which require no notice to the person whose property is to be searched.
But Justice Kennedy said that the broader protections of the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee also applied, because "here the Government seized property not to preserve evidence of wrongdoing, but to assert ownership and control over the property itself."
He continued: "Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights. At stake in this and many other forfeiture cases are the security and privacy of the home and those who take shelter within it."
Justice Kennedy's opinion, U.S. v. Good, No. 92-1180, was joined by Justices Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented, along with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas sounded particularly torn, saying that he approved of the majority's emphasis on private property rights and shared its concern over the breadth of the forfeiture laws.
But Mr. Good's case was not an "appropriate" one for setting new constitutional limits, Justice Thomas said, because he was persuaded that Mr. Good's rights had not been violated. He noted that Mr. Good was convicted of a drug offense involving his house and so was on notice that the house was a likely target for forfeiture.
In his opinion, Justice Kennedy appeared to take issue with this analysis when he said that it "founders on a bedrock proposition: fair procedures are not confined to the innocent." Four-Year Lag
Mr. Good, who had 89 pounds of marijuana in his house when the police searched it in 1985, was working in Nicaragua and renting out the house when the Government seized it more than four years later. The tenants were told to send their rent checks to the Federal marshal.
When Mr. Good learned what had happened, he challenged the forfeiture in Federal District Court in Hawaii. He lost in that court, but won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. The Bush Administration appealed, and the Clinton Administration carried on with the appeal after the Supreme Court accepted the case last March.
The question of whether the due process clause applies to forfeitures had divided the lower Federal courts for several years. The Federal appeals court in New York ruled in 1989 that notice and the opportunity for a hearing are required before seizure of real estate. The Federal appeals court in Atlanta had ruled three years earlier that there was no such requirement.
The Supreme Court last discussed the due process guarantee in the forfeiture context in 1974, when it ruled that the Government could seize a yacht without giving the owner notice. Today, Justice Kennedy said that the analysis used in that decision did not apply to the seizure of a home, because while a yacht can disappear, "real property cannot abscond."
There were also these other developments at the Court today. Veterans' Rights to Lawyers
Without comment, the Court refused to hear an appeal brought on behalf of several thousand veterans who say they were denied the right to a lawyer to handle claims growing out of their exposure to radiation during and after World War II. An 1864 law set a $10 limit on payments by veterans to outside lawyers, a limit that effectively prevented veterans from hiring lawyers until it was repealed by Congress in 1988.
However, the repeal did not affect cases filed before 1988. The veterans, who brought their suit in 1983, argued that the limit violated their rights to due process of law and to petition the Government. The Ninth Circuit rejected their constitutional challenge. The case was National Association of Ra
Vendors and suppliers of photo radar should make bids to supply the equipment only when police departments put out requests for bids. Photo radar should be outright purchase or lease. If lease, dollar amount should be fixed and not tied in to volume of photos generated.
From: http://www.ibec-its.co.uk/files/Auto%20Speed%20Enforcement%20NOUVIER&JANIN.pdf
Slide #5 0f 20 total:
The automation concerns the entire chain from
detecting offences to paying fines including the legal
process (new law promulgated in June 2003)
• Compared to other programs in numerous OECD
countries (UK, The Netherlands, etc.), this particular
program was exclusive in that:
 it is fully automated
 data processing is fully centralized at national level
 use of digital pictures
• Strong cooperation between all concerned
departments: Transport, House Ministry, Defence,
Justice, Finance (and Industry): creation of an Interministerial
Mission
Fully centralized at a national level and private Industry has access to it? How about the department of Defence and Finance?
My point is that the information collected can be used in all sorts of ways, way beyond what was originally intended. That can have far-reaching consequences.
We better look into all aspects of photo radar, methinks.
Of course, similar procedures to guard photo radar pictures/data should be as stringent (assuming they are now) as for regularly issued traffic stop tickets.
As an aside, photo radar data is trivial in importance in comparison to new U.S. medical racord data base on all citizens that was "snuck" into the Pelosi/Obama Stimulus Bill.
Illinois Tollway users can choose to pay cash or use transponders. A user can register their vehicle with the Tollway, furnish a $40 deposit to use the transponder along with a deposit to start the account and then mount the transponder in the vehicle windshield.
One then drives through each toll station and automated detectors debit the account for the toll amount. The details of the event include the transponder serial number, vehicle, vehicle owner, toll station location, toll station lane and time of day (hr,min,sec).
Those who pass through 2 or more toll stations on a trip could have their average speed easily computed by Tollway software if it existed in that mileage between toll stations is a known factor and time of day is recorded. This could easily be done where posted speed limits between 2 serial toll stations on a driver's trip was constant, say 65 MPH.
Tollway users having a transponder account can view all details of their tolls at the Tollway web site.
So far, there has been no indication from the Tollway that they have or are considering using toll station data to determine speeders. If they are considering using the speeding data, might it be "just" as an extra Fee deducted from one's account for exceeding speed.
Another issue transponder users might worry about is the safety of toll data in terms of someone at Tollway determining movements of persons and then using for illegal activity.
Me also. But be careful, he has powerful friends here. I was deleted for saying the same thing.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
LOL. I think you have been watching too much "Law and Order".
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
And that is pretty much how EZPass works in the northeast too. Near NYC, there are fewer and fewer booths for those paying cash and the time wasted at some times of the day is longer compared to the EZPass lanes, not to mention a higher cost, it can be very tempting to get the EZPass transponder.
But it is still the end user's decision, at least so far.
Transportation chief eyes taxing miles driven
LaHood's says current gasoline tax not enough to fund infrastructure
updated 2 hours, 31 minutes ago
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn — an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.
Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.
Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.
The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.
Thinking outside the box
Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.
"What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.
LaHood said he firmly opposes raising the federal gasoline tax in the current recession.
The program that funds the federal share of highway projects is part of a surface transportation law that expires Sept. 30. Last fall, Congress made an emergency infusion of $8 billion to make up for a shortfall between gas tax revenues and the amount of money promised to states for their projects. The gap between money raised by the gas tax and the cost of maintaining the nation's highway system and expanding it to accommodate population growth is forecast to continue to widen.
Among the reasons for the gap is a switch to more fuel-efficient cars and a decrease in driving that many transportation experts believe is related to the economic downturn. Electric cars and alternative-fuel vehicles that don't use gasoline are expected to start penetrating the market in greater numbers.
"One of the things I think everyone agrees with around reauthorization of the highway bill is that the highway trust fund is an antiquated system for funding our highways," LaHood said. "It did work to build the interstate system and it was very effective, there's no question about that. But the big question now is, We're into the 21st century and how are we going to take care of our infrastructure needs ... with a highway trust fund that had to be plused up by $8 billion by Congress last year?"
Report expected next week
A blue-ribbon national transportation commission is expected to release a report next week recommending a VMT.
The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.
The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.
Rob Atkinson, president of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, the agency that is developing future transportation funding options, said moving to a national VMT would take about a decade.
Privacy concerns are based more on perception than any actual risk, Atkinson said. The satellite information would be beamed one way to the car and driving information would be contained within the device on the car, with the amount of the tax due the only information that's downloaded, he said.
The devices also could be programmed to charge higher rates to vehicles that are heavier, like trucks that put more stress on roadways, Atkinson said.
Red light fees a mistake, city says
Federal lawsuit claims extra cost deprived woman her due process
By Jamie Satterfield (Contact)
Friday, October 26, 2007
For months, citizens accused of running camera-monitored red lights in Knoxville were told they'd have to pay $67.50 just to have a hearing to contest the charge.
"The city acknowledges that was a mistake, having that incorrect language in the notice," attorney Michael S. Kelley told U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips at a hearing Thursday.
Neither Deputy City Law Director Ron Mills nor Municipal Court Administrator Rick Wingate could say how long it took city officials to discover that error.
"It was pretty early on," Wingate recalled.
Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., a private company tapped to administrate the camera-based enforcement program, was responsible for fashioning those citation forms. Redflex earns a cut of whatever monies the city collects from red light violators, according to the contract approved by Knoxville City Council in 2005.
Both men insist no one was actually forced to pay the fee merely to hold a hearing.
"If you win, you pay nothing," Wingate said.
Lose, however, and cough up the $50 fine and the $67.50 fee, which actually is supposed to represent court costs, according to Wingate.
That would not be all that different from the way a speeding ticket is handled - with one big exception. It typically does not cost more to fight a speeding ticket in court than to pay it in advance. In fact, it could wind up costing less, since a judge might well cut an offender a break for having an otherwise clean record.
But there is big incentive under the city's Red Light Photo Enforcement Program to go down without a fight. Pay the ticket, and it will cost you $50. Go to court and lose and the tab jumps to more than $117.
According to Wingate, there have been 367 hearings to contest a red light violation citation. He does not know how many citations have been issued. Redflex keeps up with that tally. Prior reports have put the figure at well more than 11,000.
Knoxville resident Judy Williams contends that extra "fee" for fighting a losing court battle is one more example of how the city's contract with Redflex is an unholy alliance designed to empty motorists' pockets while stripping them of their due process rights.
Williams, cited in August 2006, has filed a federal lawsuit over the enforcement program. She alleges it violates a wide range of laws and constitutional guarantees.
"The Knoxville Red Light Photo Enforcement Program intentionally trashes the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Tennessee," her attorney, David Hamilton, wrote in the lawsuit.
Hamilton's chief argument is that the city has taken a misdemeanor criminal offense, which carries a slew of constitutional protections, and turned it into a civil offense, skirting the rights guaranteed to someone charged with a crime.
Under state law, running a red light is a class C misdemeanor. Under Knoxville's ordinance that laid the groundwork for the bargain with Redflex, it is deemed a civil offense.
"They call them civil," Hamilton argued Thursday. "They are not. There is not a single case in which a criminal defendant has to pay to have a hearing. No one has ever threatened to charge a defendant to schedule a hearing to defend himself. It shocks the conscience of the court. It shocks the constitution. They have turned an attack on our constitutional rights into a business."
Kelley, who represents Redflex, counters that even though Redflex incorrectly stated on the notice that a person must pay to schedule a hearing, it is not illegal to require someone to post money on the front end of a civil case.
Kelley is asking Phillips to toss out the lawsuit before it ever reaches a jury.
He argues that Williams had plenty of options to fight her citation without jumping into federal court.
"The crux of the argument is that there was established an appropriate process for (Williams) to challenge the issuance of this ticket and challenge the entire red light enforcement system," Kelley said. "(Williams) chose not to do that. A plaintiff can't sit back and refuse to use that procedure and then file a federal lawsuit and say I've been deprived of my due process rights."
Phillips said he would issue a written ruling, likely within the next month.
Jamie Satterfield may be reached at 865-342-6308.
We all sink and rise with all our fellow citizens. Luckily, the last time I checked, I was still a citizen of the US, living a happy, free and productive life (well, I like to think so, so there!
No matter how strongly held or preached, one man's opinion is just that: ONE MAN's opinion. And that is the key. No matter whether we disagree with it or not, we should think about it, and all other evidence and form OUR OWN OPINION, which may or may not be the same. And nobody has a right to force their opinion down anybody's throat. Please remember that always.
Then, in all issues, including photo radar as being discussed here, we ALL have an input into deciding what should be done.
And that, ladies and gentlemn of the forum, is what I think USA is all about.
Anyway, moving on:
From my post #1038 above, the following excerpt is very important:
Report expected next week
A blue-ribbon national transportation commission is expected to release a report next week recommending a VMT.
The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.
Technically, it would be very simple to have a database of speed limits available for real-time lookup by the on-board equipment, and automatically restrict the vehicle speed to that applicable limit.
Sounds like a good solution. No speeding, that's for sure.
Would we like that? I know at least one person may be in favour, BUT PLEASE RESPECT HIS OR HER RIGHT TO HOLD HIS OR HER OPINION, HOWEVER STRONGLY YOU MAY FEEL THAT HE OR SHE IS WRONG.
By the same token, please feel free to express your opinions and thoughts here, for your continued participation here, and in all other society wide issues, is the soul of good citizenship.
(My my, let me please shut up, I do like to hear myself speak, now don't I?
With ideas like that I'm glad he's a FORMER Republican lawmaker.
I see, however a lone Republican holdout defeated an increase in CA's gas tax.
They're not all sellouts.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Please see: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/lahood-likely-pick-for-transportat- - - ion-secretary/
Oh, I guess I was confused. Some of the folks trying to refute your arguments have mentioned that they are more perfect drivers and (implied) more law abiding.
I thought that since they were keeping score you would like to also. In previous posts I have been challenged by posters who claim that they have higher standing because they don't speed more than 1% of the time. You seem to be able to beat that figure so you are (according to that criteria) the better person.
I didn't make up the rules I just follow them.
I see now that you need no help is showing them the error of their ways. Please proceed.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/02/20/2457315-what-do-you-think-about-tax- - ing-miles-driven-instead-of-the-current-gasoline-tax-system
Absolutely not. It is up to the state to PROVE guilt, not the defendants to prove innocence or rat someone else out. Like I said previously, the biggest problem with photo enforcement is that it doesn't prove who was driving. There are several other problems, as well, but that is probably the main one from a legal standpoint.
Anyone violating laws in a borrowed car is undeserving of harboring/protecting or sympathy.
However, not everybody might be as noble, and thus we need a system that works for all shades of opinion and character, under processes defined by the Constitution.
Well, at least that is my opinion only, which I am perfectly happy to let you voice your diasgreement, or otherwise, with.
The discussion should remain focussed on the issue of photo radar, and not the individual making the post.
And no, I am not a moderator, so please feel free to ignore me.
Arresting someone for such acts with the burgeoning social ills in this society is such a gross waste of publicly funded resources that it is hard to find words to describe it.
Word vs word...
Why? We are just a collection of human beings just like many others on earth throughout history. We will remain above such nonsense only if we maintain our ideals and keeping working at supporting them. The day there is a majority of apathetic citizens is the day we begin losing everything, and I mean that literally and figuratively.
The photo radar issue is just one small piece. OBD3-GPS and VMT are even more worrisome for me personally, but obviously not for all here.
What we do need is continued dialogue to look at all aspects of these issues.
The question would then become, why would I want to drive your car, and why would you let me drive your car? :P
Forced debt and consumerism are good at making people ignorant and apathetic. Hence they are being encouraged by those who shape this dying society.
Perhaps there should be a general vehicle tracking or surveillance thread, encompassing more than cameras.
CHICAGO MAYOR VOWS: 'THERE WILL BE A SURVEILLANCE CAMERA ON EVERY STREET CORNER IN CITY'...
Are you trying to kill me prematurely or what?
Let me just say "I hope democracy continues to work" over and over and over again until..............I.............faa...lllllllll............................as..- ...........leeeeeeee..................................................p
That is the moderator's call. However, we are having problems maintaining civility in this thread as is. I cannot even begin to contemplate what would happen in a thread like that.
But maybe if I put on my helmet, and then post, I may be safe, well at least Big Brother comes a-knocking at my door!
I would not. What he does in my car is between he and I in as far as he breaches my trust in him to take good care of it. It is not my job to enforce the laws.
Oh, and I would chew his [non-permissible content removed] for speeding in my car. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Not if the other person is your wife.
Mayor Daley very powerful. He did not like lakefront (Michigan) Meigs airport because it interferred with his long range plans for parks, museum campuses. Additionally, he felt that proximity of airport to downtown skyscrapers was a terrorist threat. While folks were debating the pros and cons of keeping the airport, contractors were slipped in one night with bulldozers and they destroyed the runways. Case closed. The manager that oversaw that destruction then later became Ex-Gov Blago's top staffer.
Maybe someday, years from now, Hollywood will make a movie about Da Boss, just like Don Corrleone. Can imagine a scene in it where the Boss's top manager says that the airport issue is in peril and we are in danger of losing our argument. The Boss raises his right hand, shuffles his thumb and forefinger at the manager and says to get rid of the runways asap and make sure there is no bad news about it.
Uhm right, in an ideal world. There are many people assaulted or even killed for doing such things. You can turn on COPS or any other similar show to see that people have no problem becoming belligerent even to a cop with a gun and pepper-spray.
Anyone violating laws in a borrowed car is undeserving of harboring/protecting or sympathy
Most of our police forces would then have lost their licenses. I hardly ever see a police-car driving under or at the SL. The last police car I saw on a 50mph roadway passed me easily, when I was doing 55-60mph.
If you can just claim your long lost cousin from out of Country was driving your car, then why even bother with Photo Radar?
You need someone to verify who the driver is at the time of the violation, and right after, when handing over the citation itself and serving it upon that driver in the proper manner.
Judge agreed and dismissed, now the band wagon will roll until this is resolved.