Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

snakeweasel

Might be a good reason to wear ski masks

This day and age do you really want to drive around in a ski mask?

No front license plate is a "fix it" ticket, with the worst being a $15 fine

I think here its just a warning and you have 10 days to fix it, then if your caught its a fine.

ruking1

..."This day and age do you really want to drive around in a ski mask? "...

I do think you get the concept. There are many covers that can and do obscure one's face.

Yes I ran around for 14 years on one vehicle without a front license plate. NEVER in that time and 250,000 miles in that vehicle was I EVER stopped, let alone stopped for that reason. But then, I am not a red light runner because it is VERY VERY dangerous, and the truth is it doesn't matter to me whether there is law enforcement present or not.

snakeweasel

That is pointing out a "positive" effect and therefore a defense of them

Its not as much pointing out a positive effect as much as it is trying to explain a circumstance. Now If i just out of the blue said that I would concede that I was arguing for them, but I was just responding to a point.

The accuser CANNOT be the State,

The accuser is the state, an accuser does not have to see the offense just have knowledge of the offense and a reason to believe that the accused committed the act. If the accuser has to see the offense then many crimes cannot be prosecuted. Say someone breaks into your home when your away, nobody sees the person do it so they cannot be prosecuted? Or lets put it this way, the state didn't see Scott Peterson killing his wife, yet the state accused him of doing it.

It has been shown that these courts do not allow the cross-examination of the camera

How do you cross examine a camera? You can present evidence to support your case. You can present the picture and show why it wasn't you. Either way you have your day in court.

They then have record that the person in the picture is the person who is walking in requesting the bigger pictures. BINGO, self-incrimination.

Wrong!!! that is not self incrimination no more than going to court if a police officer gave you a ticket and the police officer points you out. That is a streach.

Still I see no evidence on your part that you are not forced to forgo your right not to self incriminate.

I see no evidence, other than you grabbing for straws, of self incrimination. Going to the police department to see a picture of you running a red light is not self incrimination. Saying "yes thats me" is but thats not what is going on.

snakeweasel

I get the concept.

Plus I think few people ever get nabbed for lacking a front plate. And even then it must be mostly when they are stopped for other things.

redmaxx

Look, you keep forgetting that they are not issuing a ticket at first. They issue you a tattle sheet. At this point all they know is that someone in a car with your license plate ran the light. They do not know it is you. At this point, if you walk in to get the pictures, they DO NOT know that you personally ran the light. But they have a picture of who did. When you walk in, it is all over for you, because they now have a record of who came and got the picture as well as a security camera to link it all together. This is not a stretch.

The accuser is the state, an accuser does not have to see the offense just have knowledge of the offense and a reason to believe that the accused committed the act.

Would you say that it is proper for the State to go around accusing people of crimes that they have no evidence that they committed?

I see no evidence, other than you grabbing for straws, of self incrimination. Going to the police department to see a picture of you running a red light is not self incrimination. Saying "yes thats me" is but thats not what is going on.

By walking in the door you are implicitly saying yes that is me!!! Why is it so hard for you to see that?

Wrong!!! that is not self incrimination no more than going to court if a police officer gave you a ticket and the police officer points you out. That is a streach.

WRONG! An officer that issues a ticket can testify that they saw the infraction and testify that the person on the witness stand is the person who comitted the infraction. An officer CANNOT do that with a camera.

How do you cross examine a camera? You can present evidence to support your case. You can present the picture and show why it wasn't you. Either way you have your day in court.

You cross-examine the Redflex engineers who maintain the camera, but you don't get that opportunity. Is the State supposed to just assume that Redflex is maintaining it properly and not cutting corners?

Edit:

What if it was you? I know, you're going to argue that you should just pay the fine, but it is the principle of the thing. The State has no reasonable grounds to be accusing you of something when they do not know it was you.

snakeweasel

Yes it is a st reach because it is not and never was self incriminating. Self incriminating is saying you did it, walking in to see evidence is not the same.

Would you say that it is proper for the State to go around accusing people of crimes that they have no evidence that they committed?

But you forget that they have evidence.

By walking in the door you are implicitly saying yes that is me!!! Why is it so hard for you to see that?

Because it is hard for me to believe a falsehood. Walking in the door is in no way, shape or form an admission to guilt. If anything it is a declaration of innocence, because if you were proclaiming yourself guilty there would be no reason to go in to check out the evidence.

There is no court in this land that will convict you on the basis that you went in and checked out the evidence.

An officer CANNOT do that with a camera.

Yes they can they do it all the time, all they have to do is say "here is a picture of the crime being committed and there is the defendant in that picture. Its done all the time in cases such as robbery when a camera in a store or bank records a crime (or don't you like those either?).

What if it was you?

First off I don't run red lights so I wouldn't be me. Secondly if it was me and I knew I was guilty of doing it I would be a man and pay the piper. If it was me and I knew I didn't do it I would sic my lawyer, Harvey Birdman, after them.

redmaxx

But you forget that they have evidence.

But they do not have evidence of exactly which person did it. An extension of this problem is the case of twins. It is the State's job to figure out who ran the red light, not you. If your brother/sister did it, it is not supposed to be your job to do their work and point the finger at who did it.

Yes they can they do it all the time, all they have to do is say "here is a picture of the crime being committed and there is the defendant in that picture. Its done all the time in cases such as robbery when a camera in a store or bank records a crime (or don't you like those either?).

I was hoping you would say this, and your example makes it all the better. So you go into court and say "it wasn't me." The officer says, "yes it was and here is the picture of you coming to get the picture of the red light camera". Oops. Self-incriminating is not limited to verbal testimony. For your example, let's say that this robber gets into a car in view of the camera. Let's also say that this camera records the license plate of the car that drove away. Would it be proper to arrest the owner of the car? No. They need other evidence.

snakeweasel

So you go into court and say "it wasn't me." The officer says, "yes it was and here is the picture of you coming to get the picture of the red light camera". Oops. Self-incriminating

Sorry that example is not self incriminating. No more than you saying I didn't do it and someone else saying you did.

Would it be proper to arrest the owner of the car?

You bet your sweet little...... that the owner of the car will be a prime suspect and will be grilled in interrogation.

redmaxx

Sorry that example is not self incriminating. No more than you saying I didn't do it and someone else saying you did.

I'll spell it out for you.

1. Someone runs a red light.
2. You get a tattle notice in the mail.
3. You go to pick up the pictures.
4. You show your ID to get the pictures. They can now testify that the person on the ID is the person in the red-light camera picture which is also the person that they mailed the tattle notice to.

This is self-incrimination just as going back to the scene of a murder to pick up a murder weapon. You'd have to be blind not to see it. The difference here is that it is NOT voluntary and you must take some action on the tattle notice. What about the twins example?

You bet your sweet little...... that the owner of the car will be a prime suspect and will be grilled in interrogation.

No, sorry, that is enough to say "don't leave town" but not enough to arrest them.

snakeweasel

This is self-incrimination just as going back to the scene of a murder to pick up a murder weapon.

I don't know how else I can tell you that its not self incriminating since you NEVER ADMITTED TO DOING IT!!!!!!!!. Self incrimination by definition requires you to say you did it. By your definition anyone testifying against you is self incrimination and that is just not so.

redmaxx

Bzzzt! Try again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination

By walking in, it is indirectly self-incrimination.

snakeweasel

According to that site (which I wouldn't take legal advice from anyway) Self-incrimination is "the act of accusing oneself of a crime for which a person can then be prosecuted." The courts say identifying yourself by is not self incrimination since you are just identifying yourself not accusing yourself of anything. It's much the same as signing a tax return is not self incrimination.

Walking in is NOT self incrimination in any way shape or form since it is NOT accusing yourself of a crime. Argue that it is in a court of law you better get ready for some laughter.

redmaxx

Except you conviently forgot that is says:

"Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person."

Information, such as you presenting an ID with your picture on it voluntarily is indirect self-incrimination.

snakeweasel

Information, such as you presenting an ID with your picture on it voluntarily is indirect self-incrimination.

Uh, wrong. The key words are "information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed" identifying yourself is NOT incriminary. Any first year law student will tell you that. Indirect self incrimination is when you disclose information about a crime that is not generally known.

Say during an interrogation you say "I never stabbed joe in the chest" and the police never disclosed to you or the public that Joe had been stabbed. That is indirect self incrimination seeing that you didn't say you did it but the only way you could know that is if you did do it.

Again identifying yourself IS NOT SELF INCRIMINATION.

xwesx

I always thought that only one car was allowed to be in the intersection at a time.

Same here. It would be good to get some clarification, though. I see the multiple lefties going on yellow/red. One car waiting in the intersection to turn, fine - the rest of us will just have to wait, but we will get our turn soon enough.

The ones that I see as 'hogs' are the ones who will not enter the intersection on a green until the turn is clear. At most intersections, that can mean we all sit there for many cycles of the light because NONE of us go until that driver in front feels the intersection is clear long enough to make the turn from a stop (behind the crosswalk). :sick:

xwesx

Now how many times have you seen, been in or heard of an accident when someone was given a ticket by a policeman who didn't witness the accident?

I can raise my hand to this one. But then, I am an honest bloke who can readily admit when he is wrong. :sick:

gogogodzilla

Actually when people know there are officers LOOKING for redlight runners

And if people know there is a red light camera there there is enforcement. The key word is "know".

----

So why is it that so many of the speed-limit and red-light cameras are 'hidden'?

Doesn't that mean the local government doesn't want to enforce the law...

For shame.

:shades:

gogogodzilla

Link:

British man blows up speed camera

gogogodzilla

I've simply decided that, in the event of a red light at an intersection containing a red-light camera, I will stop - regardless of the situation or danger.

For red-light camera ticket regardless of the situation or danger.

And if an accident occurs, I will sue the local government and red-light camera company for requiring me to do so.

:P

xwesx

While this whole conversation is overly long and tedious, I agree that unless you say one way or another, you are not self-incriminating. All you are doing is saying that you are the owner of the car - which is on record anyway, so who cares? Since the "tattle" is being assigned to your automobile, you have a vested interest in knowing who is driving your car in such a poor manner.... Your other motives remain your own. Perhaps you were NOT driving the car? Perhaps you were driving, but want to know if the image clearly shows you as the driver so as to determine if there is wiggle room in court? Again, your motive is your own, but as it is your vehicle, you do have a vested interest.

That is all I am saying though, because I would rather us leave this line of discussion for a while.

snakeweasel

I've simply decided that, in the event of a red light at an intersection containing a red-light camera, I will stop - regardless of the situation or danger.

Are you implying that you wouldn't stop at a red light if there wasn't a red light camera?

redmaxx

That is all I am saying though, because I would rather us leave this line of discussion for a while.

I agree. :sick:

redmaxx

I can't speak for gogogodzilla, but in my case I am more lienient in deciding whether or not I can stop in time. If there is a camera there, I don't want to go through the time and hassle, so I'll just slam on the brakes as hard as I can to "technically" bring the car to a stop "in time", even if someone is right on my bumper or my passengers don't feel well, etc.

stickguy

took a trip from Phila. to ALbany NY this week. Mostly the usually dimwits, but on the way home, so a couple of real winners.

A semi, an 190 Merc and an early '90s Camry seemed to be having a tiff. This was on the MY Thruway, where it is 2 lanes with a modest size shoulder.

At one point, the semi pulled out into the left lane, in a opening barely longer than the truck. THe Merc was attempting to pass, in between weaving in/out of traffic (which was fairly light), and almost ran into the back of the truck. The Camry had to slam on the brakes at one point, as he attemted to run up the right lane, and cut off the truck before hitting the car in front of him.

Well, all this was modestly entertaining, as I dropped back a bit to stay out of the way, but I think the Semi driver got POd at the Camry. He was having trouble staying in lane (kept drifting onto the shoulder), and at one point started pacing the slower car in the right lane.

Well, this drove the Camry driver nuts, so he did the usual bob/weave, and tailgated grandpa in the right lane. But, no success, so he decides to pull out and pass ON THE RIGHT SHOULDER! He got about even with Gramps, but must have had 2nd thoughts, becasue he dropped back behind. Maybe becasue the shoulder isn't very wide, is covered with debris, has rumble grooves gut into it, and assorted potholes.

At some point, the truck got back in the right lane, and Mr. Camry and the Mercedes dissapeared into the horizon.

It's hard to really describe the dynamics, but I honestly was expecting a wreck, so I slowed up to get away from the dopes. I was sort of hoping for the Camry to take a flight into the woods though, or at least see him up the road pulled over.

fintail

Nice....stupid guy, but he's on the right track.

After yesterday's chaos, I didn't see a single bad driver on today's commute home. Traffic moved at the limit or slightly above, no errant eaters or phone yappers...the most annoying sight was a dope in an Evo who didn't want to get out of first, just to make noise.

210delray

I always thought that only one car was allowed to be in the intersection at a time.

I think it varies by state. I bet the VA driver's manual doesn't say.

There was an intersection nearby where a two lane road crossed a 4-lane divided highway with only stop signs for the smaller road. The state put up a "no double stacking in median" sign, which I assume meant two cars going the same direction from the minor road couldn't wait in the median.

I have never seen this sign anywhere else before (VA or other states). At any rate, the signs were removed once a traffic signal replaced the stop signs.

euphonium

Your patient postings re: Red light cameras is acknowledged, however, perhaps you are mixing in your arguments facets of both Criminal and Civil law. Running a light is violating a Civil law and applying the aspects of Criminal law is out of order.

redmaxx

Your patient postings re: Red light cameras is acknowledged, however, perhaps you are mixing in your arguments facets of both Criminal and Civil law. Running a light is violating a Civil law and applying the aspects of Criminal law is out of order.

In California, it is criminal.

snakeweasel

The exhaust cloud was so thick that you could not see through it until it had cleared out.

That was you? Well with the smog control and inspections around here those cars are few and far between. I see them more downstate where they don't have those types of inspections.

Now that you mentioned it on my lunch time walk the other day I saw a cop with a truck that didn't have a drivers side door on it pulled over (the truck the cop pulled over didn't have a drivers side door for all you wise guys out there).

grbeck

snakeweasel: And when I give mine you ignore it, the most likely reason is that it doesn't support your view.

Which seems to be the same reason you are ignoring magnette's example.

snakeweasel: First it is antidocial and therefor should be used only if you can give some supporting documentation.

And your examples aren't? Magnette is describing his firsthand experience, based on what he has witnessed...as are you. Considering that Great Britain has made much more extensive use of cameras for all sorts of traffic control purposes, and thus has much more experience with the possible side effects, I'm giving more weight to his example.

And Great Britain's government - and attitudes regarding traffic enforcement - aren't THAT different from those of the U.S.

We aren't talking about Saudi Arabia or Yemen here.

snakweasel: Finally it is on speeders not red light runners which is what we are talking about. It would seem that the red light cameras have had a different response here.

The issue is on the use of cameras and possible side effects from their widespread deployment, not on WHAT particular (mis)behavior they are used to track. Once they are installed to track one use, it becomes easier for that particular government to take the next step and expand their use for another purpose.

snakeweasel: If you are trying to link the reduction in police officers to the use of red light cameras you better be prepared to provide some proof.

I never said that...as you said, don't put words in my mouth. They don't taste good.

What I said was that Philadelphia has cut patrols aimed a combatting serious crimes.

Given that Philadelphia has cut patrols aimed at preventing serious crimes, what makes you think that they won't reduce police officers dedicated to traffic control to save money? Especially when red-light and speed cameras can issue tickets (ensuring a steady stream of revenue from fines) while eliminating traffic patrols (and thus, the expense of having a live body sitting in a vehicle paid for by the city).

snakeweasel: I know that Philadelphia is having a budget crises and the reduction in police officers is linked to that not cameras.

As I said before, I never linked the current reduction in police officers in Philadelphia to the use of red-light cameras.

What I said was that if Philadelphia, faced with a budget crunch, is willing to cut the number of police officers whose presence is designed to deter serious felonies, what makes anyone think that they won't eliminate traffic patrols when red-light and speed-control cameras are available to generate fines without the associated personnel expense?

This has the unintended negative side effect of allowing other behavior to flourish, as there is a reduce police presence in the area.

snakeweasel

Which seems to be the same reason you are ignoring magnette's example.

Sorry if you read the post you can see why I am not addressing it. It really doesn't directly apply to the discussion at hand.

I never said that...

Then why mention the correlation between the two? Why even mention the reduction in the police force at all if it has nothing to do with red light cameras?

As I said before, I never linked the current reduction in police officers in Philadelphia

Again why mention it then? It has nothing to do with the conversation at hand so why mention it?

loncray

Um, what? Running a light is a Traffic (hence Criminal) violation in VA - in what state is it Civil? It's a violation of traffic ordnances, is prosecuted by the Commonwealth (District elsewhere) Attorney, and is not a dispute between two private parties. What on earth leads you to your conclusion that it's civil? Criminal (actually traffic) law is absolutely in order here.

snakeweasel

While you are correct that traffic offenses are criminal they are often referred to as quasi laws. Basically misdermeaner that are handled more administratively than judicially and don't criminalize the offender.

fintail

Out of order? Are you a judge? I would say someone with no legal credentials declaring what is "out of order" is really out of order...

Laws aren't right just because they are laws...

euphonium

Thank you for stating what I was attempting to say. Criminal deals with homocide, embezelment, arson, and other acts of violence. Running lights is not an act of violence unless intentional, but a misdemeaner.

snakeweasel

Since when is embezzlement an act of violence?

xwesx

Hahahahaha, great story.... in a way. It reminded me of the time (again, in high school), when I decided that it was better to let someone else do some body work on my van than for me to do it myself. This was a 1971 Ford Econoline (unibody), so all of the quarterpanels that were smashed needed replacing by cutting off non-damaged pieces from wrecks and then welding them onto my van. I did this for the front right quarter, but decided that was ENOUGH! So, I called up the college and they said, "sure, bring it by and we will look at it." So, I did some checking into regulations about safety equipment, etc, and the regs said nothing about a windshield, only that the vehicle must have "operational wipers." Well, I installed the wipers and let the blades sit on the dash (sans windshield), put the grille back on so that I had headlights installed, and headed into town. The college said they would not touch it (the students had no interest in it because it was not a muscle car!), so I took it down to a body shop in town to see what they would charge. They wanted $1100, so I said fine. I tarped it up, left them a key, and headed home with a friend.

Fast foward 3 months to December 5th. I get a call from the body shop asking me why the van was there. I told him, told him the quoted price, and he laughed at me, saying that they would charge me at least 3x that. He said, "get it out of here today or we will send it across the street to the crusher." So, chalk full of naivety, I ask a friend to drive me in to get it. He says, "are you sure?! You have a basketball game at 7 and its only 5 degrees!" Well, those were both compelling arguments, but I did not want to see my precious van crushed either. He takes me and BARELY gets me there because the roads were so slick from a snow/slush we had received earlier in the day prior to the temperature plummeting. I bundled up with every warm cloth I had available, and, looking like a mummy, drove that silly van the 20 miles home. It took me until the 3rd quarter of the basketball game before it felt like warmth was finally seeping back into me! :surprise:

xwesx

Oy.... too funny. This whole conversation has me in stitches. I suppose, though, the answer to your particular question would depend on who you asked.... and when!

grbeck

snakeweasel: Sorry if you read the post you can see why I am not addressing it. It really doesn't directly apply to the discussion at hand.

One of the subjects being discussed is the possible effect of the widespread deployment of traffic cameras on police presencse.

It has been brought up by other posters that increased reliance on traffic cameras could result in less police presence. In support of this, I cited an editorial in a London newspaper by a bicyclist who claimed that more traffic cameras have resulted in less police presence, which has in turn resulted in a deterioration of driver behavior.

Magnette, who lives in Great Britain, supported this contention, based on his firsthand experience.

So, yes, it applies directly to the discussion at hand.

snakeweasel: Then why mention the correlation between the two? Why even mention the reduction in the police force at all if it has nothing to do with red light cameras?

First, no direct correlation was ever mentioned. As I said before, it's best not to put words in another poster's mouth.

I'll break this down to make it easier to understand.

Given that:

1. Philadelphia has cut regular police patrols to save money during a budget crunch; and
2. most people would rank this type of law enforcement as more important to maintaining public safety than traffic law enforcement; and
3. traffic cameras offer a way to assess fines and give the appearance of "enforcement" without relying on a paid police officer in a municipal vehicle paid for with taxpayer money; therefore
4. it is not a stretch to imagine that if cash-strapped municipalities (and Philadelphia isn't the only one) will cut regular police patrols, they will be more than happy to rely on traffic cameras as a quick way to generate revenue while reducing employment of (expensive) traffic enforcement police officers; which, in turn, will
5. lead to less police presence, and a deterioration of driver behavior not monitored by the traffic cameras.

So, yes, that has plenty to do with the conversation at hand.

210delray

Can we move on, please?

There are clearly 3 hot-button issues on this board, traffic cameras, speed limits, and left-lane campers.

Let's move on to a "cooler" issue.

C'mon fintail, you must have a winner today -- it's Friday after all!

snakeweasel

One of the subjects being discussed is the possible effect of the widespread deployment of traffic cameras on police presencse.

If you can show me where in the U.S. the use of cameras resulted in the reduction of police presence then do so. Do infer things between two unrelated issues.

grbeck

If there is difficulty understanding how an example of government action in one area increases the possibility of a similar action by a government in a closely related area, it's best to follow 210delray's advice and move on to another topic.

redmaxx

Um, what? Running a light is a Traffic (hence Criminal) violation in VA - in what state is it Civil? It's a violation of traffic ordnances, is prosecuted by the Commonwealth (District elsewhere) Attorney, and is not a dispute between two private parties. What on earth leads you to your conclusion that it's civil? Criminal (actually traffic) law is absolutely in order here.

In AZ it is civil. Most traffic violations are civil violations in AZ, but going 86+ MPH is criminal. Sure, it's a misdemeanor, but still, it's criminal.

redmaxx

If you can show me where in the U.S. the use of cameras resulted in the reduction of police presence then do so. Do infer things between two unrelated issues.

The Loop 101 in AZ in the Scottsdale corridor. Cameras installed and cranking out violations means much reduced police enforcement! Don't believe me? Read the news articles on the crack-downs they had before the cameras and then come drive the segment.

imidazol97

I drive in out and of the city on what used to be a 4-lane main state highway feeder street/road. I had avoided it for a long time because of the city's use of cameras. I've started using it more and I haven't seen a city policecar on the road in a year perhaps. Considering that the road goes through a less than top quality neighborhood area, I would think I would see a police car every 2nd weekly trip in and out, but they're nowhere to be seen; don't need them because now they have cameras at two of the lights to give out tickets to the nonlocals who still use the road in/out of downtown or to access Interstate 75 downtown to travel south.

fintail

The locals were surprisingly well behaved in today's commute. Well, all save for a moron in a brand new Range Rover (it wasn't wearing plates yet and the driver was suspiciously young - so either a salesperson/car shuttler etc from the dealer, or another worthless local trust-funder) yapping on the phone. He made a random lane change into the left lane, then slowed below the limit to enjoy his conversation, and several cars had to pass on the right. Hopefully soon someone will brake check him hard enough to put the posermobile on its roof.

snakeweasel

First off reduced enforcement in one spot does not equate to overall reduced police presence. Can you site a source where overall police presence for the entire area has been reduced?

gogogodzilla

I've simply decided that, in the event of a red light at an intersection containing a red-light camera, I will stop - regardless of the situation or danger.

Are you implying that you wouldn't stop at a red light if there wasn't a red light camera?

---

Depends on the situation. Before the red-light cameras, should a semi be riding my [non-permissible content removed], I wouldn't stop (as a quick stop with a semi about 2 inches off my bumper would result in an accident).

Now? I'll stop, have the car/semi hit my car, and sue the heck out of all parties that required, without exception, for me to stop at the intersection.

If the state takes away our ability to adapt to the circumstances... then the state becomes liable for any of the consequences that result.

:shades:

whahappan

"If the state takes away our ability to adapt to the circumstances... then the state becomes liable for any of the consequences that result."

Au contraire, government is all about power without responsibility and authority without accountability. I would have thought you would have known this by now. :shades:

redmaxx

Your question was to show a place in the US where police presence was reduced after introducing cameras. You did not ask for overall police force reduction, that would be silly.