Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Now watch and see all the agressive and/or defensive responses appear :P
Pretty much at least once a week I seem to get stuck at a light that won't change. I give it a little time, then run it. Am I an evil lawbreaker too?
Not to mention the revenue and crony capitalism side of electronic enforcement. Always some well connected company who has applied some grease lurking in the background for their chance to cash in. But it's about laws and safety!
Just keep right (the "sensible" thing to do - it works well in places where motoring is much more evolved) and all will be well.
There's an attitude on the part of mostly younger, male drivers that they have all the expertise and skill. Therefore they are tremendous drivers and everyone else should get out of their way: the laws don't apply to them.
On the other hand, it's the older, more seasoned drivers who actually can make calculated judgements as to whether the speed limit is too low or it's safe to drive above the limit in the conditions local to them as they drive along.
The younger drivers should be throttled down to a speed that is safer so they don't kill other people with their flambouyant ignoring of speed limits and driving rules. They suffer from too much testosterone and ego affecting the clarity of their thinking as they speed, tailgate, and try to force other drivers out of "their" lane.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's the whole problem. You can't questions the state's camera evidence. There was no operator, no one who witnessed the camera function properly. No one to verify the camera was functioning properly the day it took a photo.
It is impossible to get the State to bring in the camera manufacturer's representative, the camera installer, and so forth into the court room. In CA, the STATE/People accuse you but they have no lawyer, it is written into state law that for infractions (traffic tickets) there will be no prosecutor/DA against you in exchange for your loss of rights to 1) trial by jury, 2) an appointed lawyer to defend your, and 3) potential jail time is not possible as a penalty. So supposedly in exchange for losing those rights you get to face no DA.
Usually you face an officer who is merely a witness (the sole witness of the prosecution. Since the officer in a camera case isn't even a witness, it's a big sham! How do you go about questioning the evidence? It is already assumed to be foolproof and infallible by the court just like radars (even though radars are wildly inaccurate and error prone).
If you let your brother/sister/mother/father/son/daughter borrow your car to drive to the supermarket, and they "run" 5 red light camera's on their way to the store, do you really think you as the owner should have five points added to your license due to a family members' driving?
If you let your cousin borrow your gun, and they commit murder, should you be held accountable for murder? When is personal responsibility going to come back to our country?
Since when is letting the police know who was driving your car self incrimonation?
Since you might have been the driver and didn't know their was a SCAMera at that intersection. Why should you have to admit that you were the driver? That is called doing the prosecutions work for them. Pleading the 5th isn't a box you can check on the ticket they mail you. There is a space to check you'll pay, a space to say you weren't the driver, but you have to FILL IN who was if so, or you are presumed guilty! I don't even think they provide a box to check that your innocent! LOL.
Everyone is entitled to a defense in the courtroom guilty or not guilty. The State needs to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt whether you are guilty or not guilty. If they can't, then due process has not been served by accusations that can't be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Any evidence that the decreased time on the road safety benefit, is equally or fully eliminated by the INCREASED hazard of going faster? Any evidence going faster is an increased hazard at all? Isn't it really a problem with going too fast FOR CONDITIONS, or not paying attention, and not a problem with speeding at all?
Based on accident statistics, with people driving faster then ever, speed limits higher than they have ever been in a long time, (a few exceptions you mentioned noted), you'd think accidents wouldn't be plummeting like they are. There are a lot of reasons accidents went down when speed limits were reduced to 55, but the reduced speeds weren't one of them.
Your example is a unique and complicated issue. You describe it as a residential road, complete with houses, lawns, and kids. But if the average driver is doing 15 over the limit then the speed limit is way too low. I know I don't see people doing much over 45 near houses here in CA.
Therefore, the problem is probably with the road. The lanes are probably too many, or too wide. In CA, it isn't a residential street if it's over a certain width. Obviously, school areas, residential areas can get "special" speed limits that makes sense, but they have to fall under the right definition. If you make the road too wide, obviously people will go faster. There's a lot of reasons people might feel SAFE going 50 in that 35 zone. There could be many other factors as well.
The point is, if that street doesn't fit a reasonable definition of residential, then those people need to bulldoze the houses, and/or MOVE. It is either that, or have the city rebuild the road in such a way where people will be encouraged to go slower (speed bumps, traffic calming measures and such). I'm not a fan of making roads slower on purpose for that purpose (wastes gas and causes more pollution) such as putting stop signs every 100 feet, stop lights every 200 feet, or other such non-sense. Another way is to make the road VERY narrow, or maybe erect barricades so the children CAN't run into the street and keep a barrier between OUT OF CONTROL vehicles and the lawn.
What sort of logic is that???? If there's a road set at 35mph and the average person is driving 50mph you're going to blame the road?? How about blaming the driver? How about a little individual responsibility?? If a person doesn't have the physical or mental ability to keep their speed under 40mph in a 35mph zone then they shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Now if someone wants to petition the city or county to raise the speed limit, collect signatures, etc., than that's the way to do it in a democracy. Not to disobey the law and then "blame the road."
Surely you must be talking about someone else and not me!
However, I do believe laws like speed limits are set so arbitrarily for the most part, that breaking them is just fine almost all of the time whether police are watching or not. The only problem is that when they are watching, you'll get hit with massive fines and insurance revenue schemes that increase with every point on your license; meanwhile the unsafe drivers on the road that actually cause all of the accidents all the time get away with murder! (literally sometimes with hit - and -run accidents that cause injury leading to death!).
Why just the other day on the news there was video of a motorcyclist, getting rear-ended for no good reason, run over, thrown from his bike, moderately injured luckily and will survive (broken ribs about the worst thing). The driver of the car was UNlicensed and UNinsured and yet isn't even arrested. Spending too much time on revenue generation CHP?????? I think so.
You can't even get a CHP officer to write an accident report short of someone dying these days without being very insistent!!! (they are so lazy!). They'd rather not write a report even in a 4 vehicle crash. I told my wife, next time that happens and your rear-ended and your not at fault, ALWAYS MAKE THEM write a report, even if you have to curse them out to make them do it. INSIST, and then insist some more. All the excuses are BS and it's just laziness. If the damage is over $500 the DMV says they should write a report and the accident should be reported. WEASELS! Enough of my rant against the CHP. I'm sure there are some good officers out there, but there's a lot of bad apples in my experience and from what I've heard of others in my circle.
Funny, I'm actually still thinking of joining the CHP, but I'd like to get assigned to San Diego area where I live, and as a rookie, I hear that might be 1 in a 1,000 chance (more likely assigned to some desolate area for a graveyard shift).
But Bobw3, you said that people spend time trying to justify wrong and illegal actions. I can agree that the way the law is currently written, certainly about 75% of drivers are illegally driving every day (probably 95%). However, I see nothing WRONG about it. You say it's clearly wrong? What's clear about it? The data just doesn't back it up.
Jensad??? can you hook me up with a job?
You must of missed where studies show that most everyone doesn't pay any attention to the posted speed limits. They drive what is reasonable, prudent, safe, and most importantly, COMFORTABLE to them, regardless of the speed limit.
This is why speed limits should be set in a scientific manner at the 85th percentile speed of average daily flow of traffic. That way the fastest 15% are outliers, and the slowest of the slow don't negatively impact the speed limit. Limits should be exactly that, the maximum safe speed limit. Do I need to show you Webster's definition of a limit?
Speaking of democracy, in most States I believe the laws are written that cities/municipalities should be setting their speed limits according to traffic engineers recommendation to measure, and then use the 85th percentile speed. Something tells me that the 35 you mention was set arbitrarily by some politician and/or crooked cop trying to make a lot of money, and not by the 85th percentile method. There's your problem.
The CITY has disobeyed the law first, and the people aren't having it! They will ignore unlawful laws. And rightfully so, as they can prove in court to a judge that's willing to listen to reason.
What sort of logic is that???? If there's a road set at 35mph and the average person is driving 50mph you're going to blame the road?? How about blaming the driver? How about a little individual responsibility?? "
Actually, here in CA there is a law that the road has to match the speed that drivers use. It was put in to keep cities from settting up speed traps, but I have seen the speed increased on several roads near my house in the past couple of years. I think they use speed sensors that we have in the roads here in LA, or maybe they use speeding tickets.
I think you need to better understand what "democracy" really means. Go look that up in Websters.
BTW...you're not a tea-party birther are you...you have that same sort of confused logic
Though I blame Bush for most all the bailouts, since he could have NOT kicked the can down the road and made the right decision for ONCE! His legacy will be worst president in history, who couldn't even man-up and make the republican choice of not bailing bad companies out.
Cash for Clunkers was another idiocy.
Any speed limit not set to the 85th percentile method is corrupt to me!
In CA the law says so, and they can measure average vehicle traffic speed with a simple traffic engineering survey (they don't need to rely on pre-installed sensors (they can place their own) or speeding tickets to find out the average speed. So why do local governments feel they can ignore some laws, ignore the Constitution so freely, and yet enforce the specific laws they choose to generate revenue with?
The salary is excellent, the danger of dying is great, and as there are in almost every aspect of police work, many separations/divorces. But heck go for it, and if it is something you like then apply.
I honestly wish you well and if you do join, (1) stay in good physical shape, (2) do you best to help others but don't get youself or them killed, and (3) if you are married, sit down with your partner and get their side as they will have the big job of supporting you in your new profession.
(Would I do it again, yes, but at 70, being retired, and my wife and I have 8 grandchildren, its more fun just to collect my retirement check each month and love our familie(s). (I.e. life is too short not to love loves ones.)
Good luck to all and stay safe.
jensad
This of course sets up an interesting side bar/line for extra curricular money making opportunites. So the FHP used to routinely stop (JUST happened to be) black drivers. There were widespread allegations that whole cars loads of folks were routinely relieved of cash and valuables. Natually this sounded way over the top and not plausible. As a result, the allegations were never taken very seriously.
Well, along came patrol car cams. Now EVERY STOP was recorded. For whatever reasons, the stopping of ONLY black drivers did not abate (blacks are known to be ONLY less than 10% of the driving population on this interstate) So under the freedom of information act (or whatever reason/s) the actual tapes were obtained. The complaints were filed in court and the FHP knew they had a good case, as they had the same evidence the complaintants had. So the complaintants asked the court whether they wanted the case to last less than one hour or (literally) thousands of hours. All of a suddent the lights came on as folks realized over 98% of those tapes showed black folks being stopped.
What sort of logic is that???? If there's a road set at 35mph and the average person is driving 50mph you're going to blame the road?? How about blaming the driver? How about a little individual responsibility?? If a person doesn't have the physical or mental ability to keep their speed under 40mph in a 35mph zone then they shouldn't be allowed to drive.
If the speed limit is reasonable, about 85 percent of drivers will obey it. Are speed limits actually set for safety, or revenue? And I don't just mean revenue going to the government through speeding tickets. Insurance companies lobby for low speed limits and subsidize enforcement efforts, so that more tickets are written and more drivers can get their premiums raised.
The only problen is that you are confusing witness and evidence.
no one who witnessed the camera function properly. No one to verify the camera was functioning properly the day it took a photo.
But if the camera took the picture then by default the camera functioned properly. If it didn't you wouldn't have the picture. Unless there is some type of malfunction that causes the camera to take pictures of things that never happened. But then again we are not living in the twilight zone.
It is impossible to get the State to bring in the camera manufacturer's representative, the camera installer, and so forth into the court room.
Is it needed? what can they provide to either side that isn't already given?
In CA, the STATE/People accuse you but they have no lawyer, it is written into state law that for infractions (traffic tickets) there will be no prosecutor/DA against you in exchange for your loss of rights to 1) trial by jury, 2) an appointed lawyer to defend your, and 3) potential jail time is not possible as a penalty.
You can give up your right to a trial by jury but you cannot lose it.
Usually you face an officer who is merely a witness
Not a witness but an "evidence technician" who is trained in the handling of that particular type of evidence. People legally and honestly get convicted based solely on evidence. Not only in traffic tickets but in cases up to and including capital crimes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
No, I really think that they will have those points (well we don't have points here in IL) applied to them. I will make sure that they be upfront and admit to being the driver.
My son did some toll violations here in my sister in laws car. I made sure he was the one who paid those fines.
If you let your cousin borrow your gun, and they commit murder, should you be held accountable for murder?
I could very well be considering the circumstances revolving around the case. If my cousin askes to borrow my gun so he can kill someone specifically telling me he will use it to kill then I am as guilty of the crime as he is.
Since you might have been the driver and didn't know their was a SCAMera at that intersection. Why should you have to admit that you were the driver?
If you were the driver I would expect you to man up and accept responsibility and either admit you did wrong or take it to court.
Pleading the 5th isn't a box you can check on the ticket they mail you. There is a space to check you'll pay, a space to say you weren't the driver, but you have to FILL IN who was if so, or you are presumed guilty! I don't even think they provide a box to check that your innocent!
can't say since I don't run red lights so I never got one (which is why I don't have that much of an issue with them). But I do know that on normal tickets there are instructions if you want a court appearence so I would think the same will apply.
Everyone is entitled to a defense in the courtroom guilty or not guilty.
I am pretty sure you can have your day in court.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But I would expect some people to claim driving faster gets you through the residential area faster so there is less time for a kid to run out infront of you.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So effectively CA has eliminated speed limits. So if every one drives past your house at 100 MPH they set the SL to 100?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Weasels everywhere! :surprise:
I'm outta here.
Not unique at all. There's similar roads throughout my town--4-lane streets with the limit set at 30-35 mph when the road itself could sustain a much higher speed. But the roads are lined with homes and yards. I would bet there's many, many such roads in urban and suburban America.
And maybe it's complicated for you, but I don't see how it's complicated at all. It's a good example of why speed limits can NOT be set based on the capabilities of the "upper class vehicles" that drive them, but on other factors... like SAFETY of those who live and walk and play near the roads.
Also, it would help if you read my post again. I did not say the average driver on the road is going 15 over the limit. I said that I see many drivers at that speed (estimated of course). The road isn't that wide. It's just wide enough for 4 lanes, 2 in each direction. It has been that way as long as I can remember, which is over 40 years. I expect it's four lanes because, as I explained, it's a main east/west non-freeway road through town and gets a lot of traffic. One lane in each direction would be a big bottleneck.
The point is, if that street doesn't fit a reasonable definition of residential, then those people need to bulldoze the houses, and/or MOVE.
Right. It's the fault of the people who live on the street, not the fault of the drivers who either can't read (speed limit signs) or think they can ignore the signs because, obviously, the law does not apply to them.
It is either that, or have the city rebuild the road in such a way where people will be encouraged to go slower (speed bumps, traffic calming measures and such).
Great. I can post the address of City Hall, if you wish to make the first donation to that project. It will be an expensive one.
Another way is to make the road VERY narrow, or maybe erect barricades so the children CAN't run into the street and keep a barrier between OUT OF CONTROL vehicles and the lawn.
Sure, make the road very narrow... which will cut the speed to way below 35 mph and create a huge traffic bottleneck. That is preferable to the people who are ignoring the speed limit to simply SLOW DOWN???
As far as erecting a barrier along the road to keep cars off lawns, what might that look like? Maybe like those concrete barriers that are on roads under construction, or in front of building entrances so terrorists can't drive a truck loaded with explosives into the building? That would look great in these residential neighborhoods, wouldn't it? Would be zero cost too I expect. Would also make snow plowing along that road quite an adventure in the winter. Where would the snow go, with the barriers there?
Or just maybe, instead of moving hundreds of families out of their homes (millions, if we look at every such situation in the country), or going to the expense of redesigning the road, or putting up ugly and impractical barriers along the road... drivers could simply obey the law, heed the posted speed limits (which are there for a reason other than raising revenue), and SLOW DOWN!!
My first thought was to post one of these:
Oh, well, now you're just being completely unreasonable. :sick:
I always wondered how the highway department knew where the slow children lived.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Are you sure about that? How do you know the camera's timing was correct? How do you know the lens' were clear, clean, and focused. On a red light violation, timing is of the utmost importance because if your .001 microns past the limit line (front bumper edge) before that light goes red you are fully legally in that intersection. How do you know the photographic evidence wasn't tampered with, altered, or fixed in some way? Photoshopped anyone? How do you know the evidence wasn't corrupted or compromised in some way on it's way to SCAMERA Company ABC or XYZ? How about the evidence being compromised on it's way to "dead officer Joe Blow" for signature and issuance of the "official" citation? Can the officer really testify as to the State's security and protection of the evidence while in transmittal (and unobserved by anyone) time frame. Surely, the officer can't speak to the red light camera companies procedures handling the "evidence" as you call it. Too much opportunity for tampering and corruption if you ask me, the evidence should be thrown out.
What about knowing if the yellow light length of time meets legal standards, and someone didn't shorten the yellow light just to simply increase redlight violations and revenue? It has happened. Can the officer or the camera verify the light signals were working properly at the time of the violation? I've seen many intersections where all lights were flashing yellow or red due to some malfunction or other. Who is to say that the timing of the light signals themselves was operating correctly since there can be no testimony to that fact for the prosecution.
You see, all of these issues are why you need an officer to issue this type of citation as a witness. When he sees you run the red light, he can immediately verify that A) your light was red, and
Is it needed? what can they provide to either side that isn't already given?
Yes, ever heard of doctored photos? Heck, with today's technology, it's not hard to effectively doctor VIDEO, let alone photos. Can a still picture really verify time frames? Heck, even with video, how do you know the video camera's timer is working properly, is correct, and accurate? Is it fully synchronized with the light signals? You want to say there's never been a mechanical malfuntion or computerized error in the history of mankind don't you? But you know that's foolish. Humans and computers make mistakes all of the time in the real world, you don't need the twilight zone for that.
You can give up your right to a trial by jury but you cannot lose it.
In CA, I'm 100% certain our right to trial by Jury is lost in infraction/traffic cases. They don't need to ask you to waive it, you don't have it. If the charges pose potential jail time, then you have your right to trial by jury. If they don't, you do not! It's one of our due process rights taken away by a greedy corrupt STATE hungry for traffic revenue at all costs. First you lose that right, then you lose the right to a defending attorney, then you lose the right to due process with SCAMERAS where you are guilty until proven innocent, what's next? Camera's in our bedrooms and garages (better put on that seat belt before you exit the garage and even your own driveway!).
When I said officer's were merely a witness.... I was talking about a normal typical issued citation by the officer who witnessed the alleged violation. That is a legitimate certified accusation. The scamera issuing a ticket which is supposedly reviewed by an officer and signed is not a legitimate accusation.
That is true :P
However, I've seen signs around schools that say a low speed limit but with the caveat "when children are present." I believe the same applies in residential areas. If you don't see any children on or near the road, it's impossible for one to run out in front of you. Now if you see 10 children playing on the sidewalk, surely, you should adjust for conditions and slow down a bit. But why should you have to drive like a snail when visibility is excellent and no one is around?
That would be ideal, but unfortunately our local governments in CA are lawless reckless unconstitutional bandits. They ignore the laws and do whatever they please, it's like the wild WEST.
However, CA does have a maximum speed law which states that you can't go over 65 no matter what, unless, and only unless it's posted 70, and if so, you can't go over 70 MPH no matter what.
It's an absolute maximum speed law and it doesn't matter if your bleeding out and near death driving yourself to the hospital, you are still guilty of speeding if you are going 65.00001 MPH or 70.00001 MPH in those zones (or faster). The only question in the law's eyes as currently written is whether you were going any faster than the 2 numbers on the sign. That's why the CHP gets away with so much nonsense.
Now on city roads, urban, rural with lower speed limits, it falls under the BASIC SPEED LAW, which does include "reasonable and prudent" in its definition. So you can drive quite a bit faster than the posted speed limit of say 35 or 40 as long as conditions permit that to be reasonably safe.
The only speed limits that really mean anything in CA are the MAXIMUM speed limits, and of course school, construction zones. Also I think there's defacto residential speed limits (but the definition includes that it can't be a residential street if it's over X feet wide).
Yes.
How do you know the camera's timing was correct?
Because they take a picture of the light.
How do you know the lens' were clear, clean, and focused.
You are really grasping at things now. Think about it, if the leans wasn't clean or clear or in focus they wouldn't be able to read the plates.
On a red light violation, timing is of the utmost importance because if your .001 microns past the limit line (front bumper edge) before that light goes red you are fully legally in that intersection.
Technically no, you cannot enter the intersection at all. If any part of your car goes past the stop line you are in violation of the law. However the red light intersections here I have done that and have yet to get a citation.
How do you know the photographic evidence wasn't tampered with, altered, or fixed in some way?
Really? You really think that they would go through the trouble of photoshopping a picture ust to issue a citation? Photoshopped photos can be discovered.
How about the evidence being compromised on it's way to "dead officer Joe Blow" for signature and issuance of the "official" citation?
You have made the dead officer claim before and I have asked for some support for it, I am still waiting. Doesn't make you look good.
Can the officer or the camera verify the light signals were working properly at the time of the violation?
The burden for that would be for you to prove that the lights were shortened since you are making said claim.
You see, all of these issues are why you need an officer to issue this type of citation as a witness.
No, if you look at it rationally with some legal knowledge you can see that an actual witness is not needed. But then again I am looking at this with no agenda.
Lengthen the yellow light and most all violations disappear immediately, far more effective than scameras at improving safety, but thats another story!
Actually no, you can still be cited for running a red light even if the light is still yellow. The law stats that when the light changes to yellow if you can safely and reasonably stop before the intersection you must stop. Many years ago I saw that exact thing happen. My friend was being passed by another car appraoching the intersection. The light turned yellow the guy passing stopped before the intersection but my friend went through the yellow light. He got a ticket for running a red light and lost in court. The reason why is that faster traffic in front of him was able to stop so he should have.
Yes, ever heard of doctored photos?
Addressed, lets discuss this once you can prove that just one of those photos were doctored.
In CA, I'm 100% certain our right to trial by Jury is lost in infraction/traffic cases.
Last time I checked CA was part of the Union and the 6th amendment has not been repealed.
I have yet to see where this is uncostitutional. Don't like red light cameras then don't run red lights and you won't have a problem.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Commonsense logical drivers know that red light right turns should be considered a YIELD, and not a STOP, but this is law enforcements favorite revenue maker besides speeding!!! The law is wrong and says you must make a complete stop, which no one really does, I've observed that 100% of law enforcement does the California stop as well (with no code 3 sirens on either, and this includes stop signs as well
So my experience with scameras came as a surprise, a red light violation from a video camera? In Escondido, since it wasn't generating enough revenue once they legalized their yellow light durations, they started issuing tickets for right turn violations on red.
This opens up a whole bunch of cans of worms. Not only does the violation and video now need to prove the light was red when I ran it, but it also needs to prove I didn't come to a complete stop. There are multiple elements to this crime, which makes it easier to defend. There was only one angle of video from behind my vehicle, and that was it, so it was really hard to tell if I came to a complete stop. This was a gray/borderline case if there ever was one, yet they still issued the ticket for some odd reason. I either slowed down to about 0.001 MPH, or made a complete stop for .01 seconds, which is still good to meet the law's requirements. If I stopped completely for even one NANOsecond, I met my obligation under the law.
Without a side view of my vehicle coming near a stop, the STATE really has no evidence you didn't stop in close call cases. I would need a video of at least 100 frames per second to pass the reasonable doubt test as a juror. If the wheels spokes don't move at all in any two frames, INNOCENT, if you can't find two frames with the wheel not moving, guilty. But I need AT LeAST 100 frames per second for that, in video, and from the side. The STATE has none of that; yet they continue the scam to try to steal $500 out of people's wallets!!!
I called the Escondido police and told them to relook at the video and reconsider. They did, ticket dismissed and I didn't even have to go to court. Dropped charges. Escondido is lucky cause I may have been the one who got their whole sham system eliminated through the courts if they hadn't dismissed it.
Yes.
Very naive of you to think that a camera can NEVER malfunction in any way, shape, or form.
Are you saying no scamera company has ever made a mistake and sent a citation to the wrong plates? OH BOY please say that!!!
Please tell me they've never misread or misinterpreted the photo or tried to guess (incorrectly at that) at the unclear letter or number. Remember, one digit or letter off, and it could go to someone else that wasn't even in the STATE at the time of the alleged violation! You think they drop all the "gray" cases and photos, or do they go after the money anyway?
In CA, you are right, you can't pass the limit line once the light goes red. HOwever, if the light is yellow when you cross that limit line, you are legally in the intersection and you may proceed legally through it despite the fact the light turns red while you are in the intersection.
The only thing that matters in CA is if the light is yellow/green, or red when you cross that limit line. Cross it before it turns red, you are 100% legal. Cross it after, and you are 100% illegal. In CA there is no judgement made to "if you could have stopped" or other such nonsense.
Your state may differ.
While I am not an advocate of mindless adherence to speed limits, I will take this opportunity to remind folks that the greatest threats come not from those seen, but rather from those unseen.
I don't think anyone would ever borrow a car and say out loud "oh yeah, I'm planning on racking up 10 camera tickets for you!" So your example doesn't really work. They won't tell you they were planning to murder someone most likely, and for sure, they won't tell you they are planning on running 10 red lights (which might just be all safe right turns on red at 1 MPH).
If you were the driver I would expect you to man up and accept responsibility and either admit you did wrong or take it to court.
Why should I have to take it to court to defend myself when the STATE doesn't even have any evidence of who the driver was? It's called not filing charges due to lack of evidence, yet in traffic cases, Scamera companies do it routinely, making charges with little to no evidence.
I have never in my almost 33 years seen that happen. Not once. There is no charge in CA called "speeding up to make the light." If you exceed the Prima Facie speed limit you might have an issue though. The charge would be speeding!
Speeding is the preferable charge to a red light violation though, it costs about half as much since the fines for red light violations are through the roof in CA.
I always advise drivers in CA that if your ever caught in a split second decision in no mans land (with a sudden yellow and slamming brakes, or speeding up) choose to either slam brakes or speed up! The worst possible choice is to coast through the intersection without slowing down nor speeding up, because then your liable to get a MORE expensive red light ticket. I'd rather get the speeding ticket and fight it in court then the alternative and much more expensive battle.
I tend to choose to save my brakes and just speed up to get through beyond a shadow of a doubt in time before the yellow changes. Don't wanna take any chances with short yellows changing on me. :mad:
Huh? You must have had very different training than I did... or my kids. Perhaps you are saying that those of us who understand what coming to a full stop means have no commons sense or we are illogical. :confuse:
A red light means essentially the same thing as a stop sign when it comes to taking the free right turn. Surely you aren't suggesting that a stop sign really means yield. Some states don't even allow free right turns.
I am no fan of red light cameras. They are cropping up all over the place around my neck of the woods. I wouldn't have a problem with them if they were used for the very blatant drivers (perhaps those who enter an intersection when it is already red, etc.)
I imagine that is the case here, too. I doubt the person gets ticketed for "running a red light" assuming they did make it into the intersection on yellow, but generally folks will be running 4-5 over the SL, then gun it to get through, thereby putting them well over the limit. I don't know if the drivers are ticketed or not (perhaps just a "warning" about the general foolishness of that sort of behavior?), but the law enforcement folks aren't shy about turning a 30-second delay into a few minutes for those drivers.
As for the slamming on the brakes or speeding up... I don't buy it. If you would have to speed up to make a light, you should stop. If the choice is either slamming on the brakes or continuing on through, continuing is generally the preferred option (but it should not require any significant change in speed). If you have to speed up, that means you feel there is a good chance the light would be red before you made it to the intersection. If that is the case, you wouldn't even have to "slam on the brakes" to stop.
I agree that in unfamiliar areas, a slight speed increase might be warranted in that sort of situation due to the unknown length of the yellow, but that would be a rare situation and not a matter of habit.
However, I am sure some here would argue that if a child darts out from, say, behind a car parked in a driveway and into the street, and you hit him before you can react (because, let's say you were going 50 in a 35 zone since 35 was like creeping along like a snail to you), it's the child's fault, not yours. Or maybe the parents' fault for owning the home near the street. In fact, the driver might feel justified suing the child's parents for whatever damage was caused to his/her car from the impact.
The call it running a red light because it is running a red light. Doesn't matter how fast you go through it it still is running a red light. Why should it have a distiction? Armed robber is no less if you get away with only a buck.
Commonsense logical drivers know that red light right turns should be considered a YIELD, and not a STOP
How so? Are you trying to justify law breaking?
The law is wrong and says you must make a complete stop,
How is it wrong that you must make a complete stop?
Personally I think that there should be more stringent enforcement of the law, especially when someone makes the right turn on red and cross traffic has to try to avoid them.
they started issuing tickets for right turn violations on red.
If the Violations occured then why not issue the violations if you can prove the violation occured?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I never said that a camera can never malfunction. I just said that it cannot take pictures of things that never happen. It cannot malfunction in such a way as to take your picture as you are going through the light and show my plate (unless you are driving my car). And most malfunctions would result in no citation.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Nope, just saying that if it is out of focus or the lens is unclean to the extent that the plate cannot be fully read then a citation is not issued. I have talked to several police officers here that review each and every picture prior to a citation being issued. every one has told me they have to be able to read the lates.
So if they cannot issue a citation without a readable plate then how do they send the citation to the wrong person?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Nope, not really but then neither did yours that I was replying to.
Why should I have to take it to court to defend myself when the STATE doesn't even have any evidence of who the driver was?
The driver is presumed to be the registered owner of the car which in most cases is the driver for the vast amount of time. If you were not the driver just tell the court who was.
making charges with little to no evidence.
Actually the photo is the evidence, now all we need to do is determine who is te driver. Since the ultimate responsibility is that of the owner of the vehicle then they either have to take the responsibility or get the responsible part to own up.
You might not like it but thats the way the cookie crunmbles.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D