Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

snakeweasel

abacomike said:

Snake, if the reports of the results of the lawsuits regarding red light cameras are related to witness cross examination, and the courts have stopped municipalities and counties from issuing tickets, what is missing here?

My understanding is that the courts have stepped in because of adjustments to the timing of the yellow light. That may have violated Federal law.

abacomike

imidazol97 said:

My oldest HP laptop is 11years old. Going strong but runs XP. Can't up grade to 10. 1New battery. Replaced hard drive when son unplugged it to move it to do school work and I Had t the battery out.

Didn't hp sell printer division to another company?

I think it's still owned by HP - they just split into two separate divisions/companies.  They wanted to separate the computer technology from peripherals, I believe was the rationale given.

nyccarguy

@isellhondas - I have an iMac that's fantastic.  I just got the base model.  They aren't cheap, but they work really well.  It is about 3 years old and still starts up as fast as the day I took it out of the box.  

Mr_Shiftright

I gave HP 3 tries. None of them lasted beyond 2 years. To be fair, they were cheap to buy. Just bought a Toshiba, so WE'LL SEE. :@ My HP printer was good, though.

graphicguy

oldfarmer50 said:

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

PF_Flyer said:

HBO is running the 7+ hour Godfather Epic right now. It's the first two movies edited together to tell the story in chronological order with some additional scenes that weren't in the originals. I think this is my favorite car from the movies, although the one that the ambulance passes on the causeway when Vito is coming home from the hospital is pretty cool too

don't think anyone would get a red and black one..

I remember them from the "good old days." That red and black with the "odd" side molding
is even one of the advertised Fords that year.

Like odd colors? Here's a few:

I still toy with the idea of getting a Mustang GT or Challenger Scat Pack, the Callenger would be purple. I would want it to be noticed.

I'd have to supplement it with a beater, though.

driver100

abacomike said:

snakeweasel said:

I keep telling my wife I am a genius!

Does she break out laughing when you say that?

Snake - driver has told his wife so many times and for so many, many years that he is a genius, she is beginning to believe him! 

It's called brain-washing!  

Actually, I think she has learned to tune me out when I tell her what a genius I am

snakeweasel

OK continuing the discussion about restoring a classic to original specs or putting modern innards into it I came on this. What do you think?

http://www.volocars.com/vehicles/6555/1937-cord-810-sportsman

qbrozen

Personally, I think its kind of a neat thing. But $150k neat? Not for me. And, I can't say I know a damned thing about such endeavors, but I get the feeling this would depreciate rather than appreciate like a true classic. Am I wrong?

stickguy

Kind of weird. Not sure what to think. Really just a kit car, no more a cord than those fiberglass SSKs are a Mercedes!

oldfarmer50

driver100 said:

"abacomike"?


But do Canadian cars meet all EPA requirements?  (i.e. emissions, fuel economy, safety features, etc.).  What about getting a Canadian car registered in the US?  What about titling the car?  Are there any duties that have to be paid?  Lots of questions.

Canadian cars would probably match or exceed EPA requirements....except possibly in California. There are brokers who will have any modifications made and who will do the paperwork. Probably more difficult if shipping the other way, from US to Canada.

It may take some paperwork and red tape but should be doable. If the car is under warranty it may not be valid. Mercedes makes you sign a waver that you will not export the car....oldfarmer, don't buy a Mercedes.

Let's see, a used out of warranty MB from another country, purchased from a stranger sight unseen off a website known for scams.

What could go wrong?

Mr_Shiftright

qbrozen said:

Personally, I think its kind of a neat thing. But $150k neat? Not for me. And, I can't say I know a damned thing about such endeavors, but I get the feeling this would depreciate rather than appreciate like a true classic. Am I wrong?

No you aren't wrong. For one thing, it's not a real Cord, it's a replica. Fiberglass. Very nicely done, with many real Cord parts, but still.....150K? You could buy the real thing in show condition for $300K and some change.

oldfarmer50

graphicguy said:

oldfarmer50 said:

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

PF_Flyer said:

HBO is running the 7+ hour Godfather Epic right now. It's the first two movies edited together to tell the story in chronological order with some additional scenes that weren't in the originals. I think this is my favorite car from the movies, although the one that the ambulance passes on the causeway when Vito is coming home from the hospital is pretty cool too

don't think anyone would get a red and black one..

I remember them from the "good old days." That red and black with the "odd" side molding
is even one of the advertised Fords that year.

Like odd colors? Here's a few:

I still toy with the idea of getting a Mustang GT or Challenger Scat Pack, the Callenger would be purple. I would want it to be noticed.

I'd have to supplement it with a beater, though.

That's what I do. The thought of salt on baby's bottom would make me cry. Can you get a Challenger in purple these days?

You can get pretty colorful with a Mustang.

driver100

oldfarmer50 said:

driver100 said:

"abacomike"?


But do Canadian cars meet all EPA requirements?  (i.e. emissions, fuel economy, safety features, etc.).  What about getting a Canadian car registered in the US?  What about titling the car?  Are there any duties that have to be paid?  Lots of questions.

Canadian cars would probably match or exceed EPA requirements....except possibly in California. There are brokers who will have any modifications made and who will do the paperwork. Probably more difficult if shipping the other way, from US to Canada.

It may take some paperwork and red tape but should be doable. If the car is under warranty it may not be valid. Mercedes makes you sign a waver that you will not export the car....oldfarmer, don't buy a Mercedes.

Let's see, a used out of warranty MB from another country, purchased from a stranger sight unseen off a website known for scams.

What could go wrong?



Good points, and the cars didn't look great either. The guy has a pretty good plan though, buys in Canadian $$$s, discounts 20%, sells in US $$$s and makes about 20%. That's if anyone goes for it. He should probably try to get rare cars that someone would pay big $$$$s for.

Even the pictures weren't great, there is snow and some of the cars have winter wheels and tires with no discs. I doubt if anyone is beating down his door.

abacomike

I pulled into a gas station fill my tank with PUG earlier.  Right in front of me filling his tank was a 2016 S65 AMG (S Class Coupe with a V12 6.0 Litre 621 hp built by AMG).  I asked him how he liked the car and he responded, "...for $250,000, you better LOVE it."

It was the same Diamond White Metallic color as mine, but it had that new Matte Finish.  I hated the exterior matte finish, but I sure didn't share my opinion with the guy.  White porcelain leather interior and two double tailpipes.  The interior was exquisite and it had those electronic dash gauges and dual view NAV monitor in the center dash.

For $250,000, you could probably get close to a Rolls Royce Wraith Coupe.  But it was a truly magnificent looking coupe. 

Mr_Shiftright

Buy it next year for $180K !

abacomike

Mr_Shiftright said:

Buy it next year for $180K !

You are probably correct!  They lose value quickly.  It weighs close to 5,000 lbs.

imidazol97

abacomike said:

I pulled into a gas station fill my tank with PUG earlier.  Right in front of me filling his tank was a 2016 S65 AMG (S Class Coupe with a V12 6.0 Litre 621 hp built by AMG).  I asked him how he liked the car and he responded, "...for $250,000, you better LOVE it."

It was the same Diamond White Metallic color as mine, but it had that new Matte Finish.  I hated the exterior matte finish, but I sure didn't share my opinion with the guy.  White porcelain leather interior and two double tailpipes.  The interior was exquisite and it had those electronic dash gauges and dual view NAV monitor in the center dash.

For $250,000, you could probably get close to a Rolls Royce Wraith Coupe.  But it was a truly magnificent looking coupe. 

For $250,000 car and he's filling his own gas tank?

Mr_Shiftright

abacomike said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Buy it next year for $180K !

You are probably correct!  They lose value quickly.  It weighs close to 5,000 lbs.

You can buy a 2013 S65 AMG, msrp of $266,000, with under 15,000 miles for about $110K. Do the math.

qbrozen

oldfarmer50 said:

< Can you get a Challenger in purple these days?

Yes, you can!

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yeah but that's when they go belly-up on you--unless of course you had the power to put them in the slammer if they didn't pay up. But I guess that's "debtor's prison" and isn't legal?

I think if they made the penalty for driving without insurance AND causing an accident 3 strikes and 25 to life mandatory sentence, it would cut down on both the uninsured and the "accident-eager-prone" driver's out there.

I would think that would violate the cruel and unusual clause in COTUS.

Pretty much every traffic fine in CA violates that clause of cruel and unusual punishment in my view. But if you call it a "fee" instead of a fine, doesn't that make it any less cruel or unusual?

graphicguy

oldfarmer50 said:

graphicguy said:

oldfarmer50 said:

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

PF_Flyer said:

HBO is running the 7+ hour Godfather Epic right now. It's the first two movies edited together to tell the story in chronological order with some additional scenes that weren't in the originals. I think this is my favorite car from the movies, although the one that the ambulance passes on the causeway when Vito is coming home from the hospital is pretty cool too

don't think anyone would get a red and black one..

I remember them from the "good old days." That red and black with the "odd" side molding
is even one of the advertised Fords that year.

Like odd colors? Here's a few:

I still toy with the idea of getting a Mustang GT or Challenger Scat Pack, the Callenger would be purple. I would want it to be noticed.

I'd have to supplement it with a beater, though.

That's what I do. The thought of salt on baby's bottom would make me cry. Can you get a Challenger in purple these days?

You can get pretty colorful with a Mustang.

Glad you asked....



http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1508-2016-dodge-charger-challenger-add-plum-crazy-paint-option/

andres3

snakeweasel said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

A bit draconian to say the least. All that will do is what it does in Mexico. When there's an accident, the uninsured unregistered driver just runs away, and you have a wrecked car and an empty bag.

That wouldn't fly in the US, if an owner can be mailed a red light camera ticket, someone can be blamed. And you might at least own 2 wrecked cars, some value there.

@snakeweasel see my complete refutation of this below.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

A bit draconian to say the least. All that will do is what it does in Mexico. When there's an accident, the uninsured unregistered driver just runs away, and you have a wrecked car and an empty bag.

That wouldn't fly in the US, if an owner can be mailed a red light camera ticket, someone can be blamed. And you might at least own 2 wrecked cars, some value there.

Red light camera tickets have been stopped here in Broward County by a district court judge. I think a lawsuit was filed indicating that you have the right to "question" or "rebut" the "accuser". In this case, you cannot cross examine a picture taken by a camera at a specific intersection. So, until something is done to correct the "law" or to have the legislature pass a bill that permits cameras to "charge" an individual with a traffic violation, all the investment dollars in leasing or buying cameras at certain intersections is now a wasted taxpayer expense.

Should be interesting to find out what the higher court(s) rule and/or what the legislature does.

the problem with that argument is that the camera is not accusing you, the city is. You cannot cross examine the picture simply because the picture is not a witness but evidence. You do have the right to examine and refute the evidence though.

Not true. Most States won't let you bring in the camera operator, installer, or company officials into your traffic court case. With the 7-11 or home security camera, the operator/installer/owner can testify as to how the camera's were setup, installed, record, and function. You can't do that with the red light camera operators, installers, recorders. The courts generally just accept the traffic camera system as infallible and you are guilty until proven innocent. 100% unacceptable in America.

It's like this, if you break into my house and my security system records you doing that and I call the police it's not the security system making the accusation, it's me. The video is just evidence I use to make a determination.

If you cannot use red light cameras because you cannot confront it as your accuser then you have to let a lot of people out of prison because there are many who are there based simply on evidence.

See my above comments in bold. In fact, I'd say the redlight camera evidence is hearsay, since no one took the picture, and no one is claiming ownership of the picture. When I introduce pictures into the courtroom as a defendent, I must testify that I took the pictures, or testify as to how the pictures were obtained (which could be hearsay)

graphicguy

Mr_Shiftright said:

MacPricey. $1299 and up.

But worth every penny........

http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac?afid=p238|sxAUeli84-dt_mtid_1870765e38482_pcrid_91262092807_&amp;cid=aos-us-kwg-mac-slid-

graphicguy

Most of you know my opinion of oil companies. Just to show how CRAZY INFLATED and manipulated prices have been over the last decade, Dutch Petroleum (Shell) just reported 2015 earnings, which was one of the worst years ever in the industry. With oil prices at historic lows (adjusted for inflation), the still made $10.7 BILLION.

What they've been charging the public is criminal.

imidazol97

What is a good way to adjust the color and all the adjustments on a new flat screen?
It seems that the color changes from channel to channel. I adjust and then change
channel later and there are aspects of the picture I don't like.

Is there a channel or something that serves as a true reference for color
to do my adjusting? Brightness? Contrast? Neutral? Warm? This set changes
more than my 30 inch tube-type Sony did from channel to channel.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

A bit draconian to say the least. All that will do is what it does in Mexico. When there's an accident, the uninsured unregistered driver just runs away, and you have a wrecked car and an empty bag.

That wouldn't fly in the US, if an owner can be mailed a red light camera ticket, someone can be blamed. And you might at least own 2 wrecked cars, some value there.

Red light camera tickets have been stopped here in Broward County by a district court judge. I think a lawsuit was filed indicating that you have the right to "question" or "rebut" the "accuser". In this case, you cannot cross examine a picture taken by a camera at a specific intersection. So, until something is done to correct the "law" or to have the legislature pass a bill that permits cameras to "charge" an individual with a traffic violation, all the investment dollars in leasing or buying cameras at certain intersections is now a wasted taxpayer expense.

Should be interesting to find out what the higher court(s) rule and/or what the legislature does.

the problem with that argument is that the camera is not accusing you, the city is. You cannot cross examine the picture simply because the picture is not a witness but evidence. You do have the right to examine and refute the evidence though.

It's like this, if you break into my house and my security system records you doing that and I call the police it's not the security system making the accusation, it's me. The video is just evidence I use to make a determination.

If you cannot use red light cameras because you cannot confront it as your accuser then you have to let a lot of people out of prison because there are many who are there based simply on evidence.

I think the big problem is the camera can catch a picture of a car going through a red light....the problem is, how can you prove who was driving the car. Back home, the fine is given to the owner of the car...not sure if that is really the best example of safeguarding our right to fair justice.

Well it is your car and you are ultimately responsible for it's use. If it was you then just pay the ticket, if it was someone you let the car to then go after them for the funds.

It does remind me when Volvo was about to release one of their new cars (C30 IIRC) I got the opportunity to drive one before they hit the dealerships at some event near my home. As we approached a light that was turning red the representative warned me about a red light camera at the intersection. Well in my wise a@@ style I responded "What do I care, this car isn't registered to me", then I blew through the light. Just kidding I stopped nice and smoothly and safely.

No, you are not responsible for the use of everything you own. That is a lawyer's fantasy and a lawyer's litigation filled dream-world. In America it is a BIG NO NO to blame the owner for something they didn't do. Even Bernie Sanders didn't want gun manufacturers to get sued over what people do with things. It is called personal responsibility, and the driver is that person of responsibility in regards to traffic infractions.

As to going after someone for the funds; good luck with that! It is hard to get someone to pay for something they don't want to pay. Even the Courts have a low success rate at getting people to pay fines. In CA, there have been stories of the BILLIONS owed to the Courts in late fees/fines, penalties, and overdue ticket fines.

First, it is not your job to play detective and find out who was driving such and such a car in such and such a place at such and such a date and time. LOL. Second, it is not your job to play collection agency to collect funds for the State. To the "snitch" letters these scamera companies send folks to rat out the possible driver that allegedly broke a traffic rule, they should respond with a "photo" of a middle finger and a stern letter castigating them for their Un-American behaviors. Also, payment should be made with a "photo" of the cash.

dino001

abacomike said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Buy it next year for $180K !

You are probably correct!  They lose value quickly.  It weighs close to 5,000 lbs.

Perhaps you can have one now for $1599/month for 12 months and 50 miles total mileage allowance, 3 dollars per mile over the limit :laughing:

abacomike

Mr_Shiftright said:

abacomike said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Buy it next year for $180K !

You are probably correct!  They lose value quickly.  It weighs close to 5,000 lbs.

You can buy a 2013 S65 AMG, msrp of $266,000, with under 15,000 miles for about $110K. Do the math.



Pathetic, isn't it? To spend that much money on a car and to lose at least 1/2 its value in 2-3 years is almost criminal. No one ever said buying a car is a sound investment - just and expensive toy.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

A bit draconian to say the least. All that will do is what it does in Mexico. When there's an accident, the uninsured unregistered driver just runs away, and you have a wrecked car and an empty bag.

That wouldn't fly in the US, if an owner can be mailed a red light camera ticket, someone can be blamed. And you might at least own 2 wrecked cars, some value there.

Red light camera tickets have been stopped here in Broward County by a district court judge. I think a lawsuit was filed indicating that you have the right to "question" or "rebut" the "accuser". In this case, you cannot cross examine a picture taken by a camera at a specific intersection. So, until something is done to correct the "law" or to have the legislature pass a bill that permits cameras to "charge" an individual with a traffic violation, all the investment dollars in leasing or buying cameras at certain intersections is now a wasted taxpayer expense.

Should be interesting to find out what the higher court(s) rule and/or what the legislature does.

the problem with that argument is that the camera is not accusing you, the city is. You cannot cross examine the picture simply because the picture is not a witness but evidence. You do have the right to examine and refute the evidence though.

It's like this, if you break into my house and my security system records you doing that and I call the police it's not the security system making the accusation, it's me. The video is just evidence I use to make a determination.

If you cannot use red light cameras because you cannot confront it as your accuser then you have to let a lot of people out of prison because there are many who are there based simply on evidence.

I think the big problem is the camera can catch a picture of a car going through a red light....the problem is, how can you prove who was driving the car. Back home, the fine is given to the owner of the car...not sure if that is really the best example of safeguarding our right to fair justice.

Well it is your car and you are ultimately responsible for it's use. If it was you then just pay the ticket, if it was someone you let the car to then go after them for the funds.

It does remind me when Volvo was about to release one of their new cars (C30 IIRC) I got the opportunity to drive one before they hit the dealerships at some event near my home. As we approached a light that was turning red the representative warned me about a red light camera at the intersection. Well in my wise a@@ style I responded "What do I care, this car isn't registered to me", then I blew through the light. Just kidding I stopped nice and smoothly and safely.

The Courts disapprove (and rightfully so) of unequal and unfair enforcement of the law. With camera enforcement, the Chronic Car Buyers group here on Edmunds gets away with no camera tickets because they keep trading in their new cars while the license plate is still "in the mail." Those who keep their cars longer suffer with identification plates on their vehicles which makes them unfairly discriminated against by the cameras.

graphicguy

imidazol97 said:

What is a good way to adjust the color and all the adjustments on a new flat screen?
It seems that the color changes from channel to channel. I adjust and then change
channel later and there are aspects of the picture I don't like.

Is there a channel or something that serves as a true reference for color
to do my adjusting? Brightness? Contrast? Neutral? Warm? This set changes
more than my 30 inch tube-type Sony did from channel to channel.

Here ya go....
http://www.amazon.com/Disney-WOW-World-Wonder-Blu-ray/dp/B0045ASBLG

abacomike

We were just talking about the Mercedes Benz AMG S Coupe. Well, I just got off the phone with my brother. I can't believe this!!! A few weeks ago he bought a 2016 Mercedes-Benz S550 4-MATIC 2dr coupe in Diamond White Metallic with Ash interior. MSRP was $136,500. He said he loves the car. I am not going to mention here what he paid for it mainly because no one would believe me - but trust me, it was well below the dealer's invoice - he took possession on December 31st, which is probably why he got such a great deal.

In my opinion, that car is one of the very best looking cars produced in the world. I feel like I just experienced something like a deja vu! You know, like, "...didn't I just experience something like this a few hours ago...?"

nyccarguy

@abacomike - now you HAVE to tell us.  They discount the daylights out of those S-Class.  Are those only in 4Matic?

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

abacomike said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Buy it next year for $180K !

You are probably correct!  They lose value quickly.  It weighs close to 5,000 lbs.

You can buy a 2013 S65 AMG, msrp of $266,000, with under 15,000 miles for about $110K. Do the math.



For fun let's do the math. Let's say it sold for 90% of MSRP originally. That's about 240,000 bucks.

After 3 years and 15,000 miles, you have a depreciation of $130,000 dollars, or about $8.67 per mile!

Over $40K per year just in depreciation! You could take a taxi cheaper.

driver100

CNET tested these 3 cars: Rivals: BMW M3 vs. Mercedes-AMG C63 vs. Cadillac ATS-V

Do you want to know the final order? Imid will be very surprised.....they chose the D3 ATS.
It's funny, in the review they found more things wrong with the ATS but they did like the handling and feel of it. They also liked the price, $20k less than MB, $10k less than BMW.

Rivals: BMW M3 vs. Mercedes-AMG C63 vs. Cadillac ATS-V

abacomike

nyccarguy said:

@abacomike - now you HAVE to tell us.  They discount the daylights out of those S-Class.  Are those only in 4Matic?

Yes!  They don't make an S550 Coupe in just RWD.  It only comes with AWD.

As for discounting S550 Coupes, they are not discounted like the S550 Sedan.  The coupes are in limited production, like the CLS Class.  They gave him over $50,000 for his 2015 E400 (above wholesale) and he got his USAA fleet incentive.  I believe he said he got the car for under $115,000 less his trade and the fleet incentive.  An amazing price!  My guess is that they also gave up their holdback in order to get to those numbers.

dino001

S65 is and ultimate "[non-permissible content removed] you, I'm so rich I piss money" car. The idea is to spend it and never see again. It would have been even better "statement" if the depreciation was 100%.

abacomike

dino001 said:

S65 is and ultimate "f... you, I'm so rich I piss money" car. The idea is to spend it and never see again. It would have been even better "statement" if the depreciation was 100%.

The E Class has the best value retention of the entire Mercedes-Benz line.  The S Class sedan really takes a beating.  The S Class coupe is a new model which was introduced in 2015 (replaced the CL coupe), but I expect that, too, will take a beating.  The CLS (which I have) is also murder on depreciation because it is a specialty car and because it is a 4 seater, not a tremendous demand for them. 

abacomike

dino001 said:

S65 is and ultimate "f... you, I'm so rich I piss money" car. The idea is to spend it and never see again. It would have been even better "statement" if the depreciation was 100%.

The E Class has the best value retention of the entire Mercedes-Benz line.  The S Class sedan really takes a beating.  The S Class coupe is a new model which was introduced in 2015 (replaced the CL coupe) but I expect that, too, will sustain a big hit.

oldfarmer50

snakeweasel said:

OK continuing the discussion about restoring a classic to original specs or putting modern innards into it I came on this. What do you think?

http://www.volocars.com/vehicles/6555/1937-cord-810-sportsman

I think that would be a kick to drive around town.

ab348

driver100 said:

Good points, and the cars didn't look great either. The guy has a pretty good plan though, buys in Canadian $$$s, discounts 20%, sells in US $$$s and makes about 20%. That's if anyone goes for it. He should probably try to get rare cars that someone would pay big $$$$s for.

Even the pictures weren't great, there is snow and some of the cars have winter wheels and tires with no discs. I doubt if anyone is beating down his door.

True for that guy making the offer. But if anyone is looking for a specialty or classic car, this would be a great time to shop for one in Canada. There is a real opportunity for someone in the USA to make a Canadian collector happy while getting a nice vehicle at a bargain price.

snakeweasel

qbrozen said:

Personally, I think its kind of a neat thing. But $150k neat? Not for me. And, I can't say I know a damned thing about such endeavors, but I get the feeling this would depreciate rather than appreciate like a true classic. Am I wrong?

I think it's neat too but a tad overpriced. It's value won't mimic a true classic and I think that it would defiantly depreciate over time. I just thought that since it sports modern mechanics it sort of fit what we were talking about.

There are some other cars that they have I would be more willing to buy.

snakeweasel

stickguy said:

Kind of weird. Not sure what to think. Really just a kit car, no more a cord than those fiberglass SSKs are a Mercedes!

While not quite a Cord it is a bit more than a kit car as the builder used a lot of original Cord parts.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yeah but that's when they go belly-up on you--unless of course you had the power to put them in the slammer if they didn't pay up. But I guess that's "debtor's prison" and isn't legal?

I think if they made the penalty for driving without insurance AND causing an accident 3 strikes and 25 to life mandatory sentence, it would cut down on both the uninsured and the "accident-eager-prone" driver's out there.

I would think that would violate the cruel and unusual clause in COTUS.

Pretty much every traffic fine in CA violates that clause of cruel and unusual punishment in my view. But if you call it a "fee" instead of a fine, doesn't that make it any less cruel or unusual?

What's cruel and/or unusual about them?

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

A bit draconian to say the least. All that will do is what it does in Mexico. When there's an accident, the uninsured unregistered driver just runs away, and you have a wrecked car and an empty bag.

That wouldn't fly in the US, if an owner can be mailed a red light camera ticket, someone can be blamed. And you might at least own 2 wrecked cars, some value there.

Red light camera tickets have been stopped here in Broward County by a district court judge. I think a lawsuit was filed indicating that you have the right to "question" or "rebut" the "accuser". In this case, you cannot cross examine a picture taken by a camera at a specific intersection. So, until something is done to correct the "law" or to have the legislature pass a bill that permits cameras to "charge" an individual with a traffic violation, all the investment dollars in leasing or buying cameras at certain intersections is now a wasted taxpayer expense.

Should be interesting to find out what the higher court(s) rule and/or what the legislature does.

the problem with that argument is that the camera is not accusing you, the city is. You cannot cross examine the picture simply because the picture is not a witness but evidence. You do have the right to examine and refute the evidence though.

Not true. Most States won't let you bring in the camera operator, installer, or company officials into your traffic court case. With the 7-11 or home security camera, the operator/installer/owner can testify as to how the camera's were setup, installed, record, and function. You can't do that with the red light camera operators, installers, recorders. The courts generally just accept the traffic camera system as infallible and you are guilty until proven innocent. 100% unacceptable in America.

It's like this, if you break into my house and my security system records you doing that and I call the police it's not the security system making the accusation, it's me. The video is just evidence I use to make a determination.

If you cannot use red light cameras because you cannot confront it as your accuser then you have to let a lot of people out of prison because there are many who are there based simply on evidence.

See my above comments in bold. In fact, I'd say the redlight camera evidence is hearsay, since no one took the picture, and no one is claiming ownership of the picture. When I introduce pictures into the courtroom as a defendent, I must testify that I took the pictures, or testify as to how the pictures were obtained (which could be hearsay)

A picture is not hearsay, no one has to take the picture for it to exist. I do believe that ownership of the pictures wouldn't be an issue, the issue would be that they exist and what they show.

Testifying on how the pictures were obtained is not hearsay. Hearsay is stating what you claim you heard someone say.

snakeweasel

graphicguy said:

Most of you know my opinion of oil companies. Just to show how CRAZY INFLATED and manipulated prices have been over the last decade, Dutch Petroleum (Shell) just reported 2015 earnings, which was one of the worst years ever in the industry. With oil prices at historic lows (adjusted for inflation), the still made $10.7 BILLION.

What they've been charging the public is criminal.

IIRC they were closing in on half a trillion in revenue to get that $10.7 billion. I think they had somewhere in the area of 3% of revenue as profit. In contrast those criminals at UPS had around 5% of their revenue as profit.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

abacomike said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

A bit draconian to say the least. All that will do is what it does in Mexico. When there's an accident, the uninsured unregistered driver just runs away, and you have a wrecked car and an empty bag.

That wouldn't fly in the US, if an owner can be mailed a red light camera ticket, someone can be blamed. And you might at least own 2 wrecked cars, some value there.

Red light camera tickets have been stopped here in Broward County by a district court judge. I think a lawsuit was filed indicating that you have the right to "question" or "rebut" the "accuser". In this case, you cannot cross examine a picture taken by a camera at a specific intersection. So, until something is done to correct the "law" or to have the legislature pass a bill that permits cameras to "charge" an individual with a traffic violation, all the investment dollars in leasing or buying cameras at certain intersections is now a wasted taxpayer expense.

Should be interesting to find out what the higher court(s) rule and/or what the legislature does.

the problem with that argument is that the camera is not accusing you, the city is. You cannot cross examine the picture simply because the picture is not a witness but evidence. You do have the right to examine and refute the evidence though.

It's like this, if you break into my house and my security system records you doing that and I call the police it's not the security system making the accusation, it's me. The video is just evidence I use to make a determination.

If you cannot use red light cameras because you cannot confront it as your accuser then you have to let a lot of people out of prison because there are many who are there based simply on evidence.

I think the big problem is the camera can catch a picture of a car going through a red light....the problem is, how can you prove who was driving the car. Back home, the fine is given to the owner of the car...not sure if that is really the best example of safeguarding our right to fair justice.

Well it is your car and you are ultimately responsible for it's use. If it was you then just pay the ticket, if it was someone you let the car to then go after them for the funds.

It does remind me when Volvo was about to release one of their new cars (C30 IIRC) I got the opportunity to drive one before they hit the dealerships at some event near my home. As we approached a light that was turning red the representative warned me about a red light camera at the intersection. Well in my wise a@@ style I responded "What do I care, this car isn't registered to me", then I blew through the light. Just kidding I stopped nice and smoothly and safely.

The Courts disapprove (and rightfully so) of unequal and unfair enforcement of the law. With camera enforcement, the Chronic Car Buyers group here on Edmunds gets away with no camera tickets because they keep trading in their new cars while the license plate is still "in the mail." Those who keep their cars longer suffer with identification plates on their vehicles which makes them unfairly discriminated against by the cameras.

Actually the courts agree with it, say your car hits another car and drives away you are legally responsible for it unless you can show that someone else was driving it.

Mr_Shiftright

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yeah but that's when they go belly-up on you--unless of course you had the power to put them in the slammer if they didn't pay up. But I guess that's "debtor's prison" and isn't legal?

I think if they made the penalty for driving without insurance AND causing an accident 3 strikes and 25 to life mandatory sentence, it would cut down on both the uninsured and the "accident-eager-prone" driver's out there.

I would think that would violate the cruel and unusual clause in COTUS.

Pretty much every traffic fine in CA violates that clause of cruel and unusual punishment in my view. But if you call it a "fee" instead of a fine, doesn't that make it any less cruel or unusual?

What's cruel and/or unusual about them?

What's cruel is that you go through a red light (allegedly) and then you get a bill in the mail that adds up to, with various "fees" that have nothing to do with traffic, about $490 bucks. Some of these fees are for things like "court construction" and "emergency medical services". Not likely the legislature will reverse this trend for ever upward-spiraling bogus fines, because the revenue per annum is about $500 million...yeah, that's right...1/2 billion dollars.

snakeweasel

So basically it's a car that you want to buy as a 1 or 2 year old used car.

tjc78

So are probably 95% of vehicles sold, no?