Photo Radar

fintail · February 2009

Claims about being responsible and mature or nonsense.

If the public sector could live within a budget and not always need to seek new revenue streams to exploit under the lie of "safety", then there would be no need for this stuff.

It never fails to amaze me how those who claim to support small government wish for there to be massive centralized power along an Orwellian surveillance grid.

xrunner2 · February 2009

Orwell grid is most likely to start on left coast. MS commercial in 84 for mac had Orwell tones. MS mentality pervasive in sleepless and wet city. Keep drinking the coffee and stay awake lest the body snatchers and pods take over. HMMM? Ipods and invasion of body snatchers/pods a coincidence or what?

Goofy tracking of citizen lives more likely in OR or WASH than in blago/messiah land.

fintail · February 2009

I'm seeing a lot of self-titled republicans in full support of an infinite surveillance grid and the massive increase in governmental power that would come with it. Nice yet sad attempt at giving blame. Seems it goes both ways.

oldfarmer50 · February 2009

Note: I responded to this post before and the hosts deleted it because they thought it was too personally directed. I didn't think so but be that as it may, I'll try to keep it more issue directed.

Larsb wrote: I did not cry when... he went on to list a variety of surveillance items all beginning with "I did not cry when...".

This reminded me of a famous speech made my Rev. Martin Niemoller in 1946 about how people lose their freedoms by not opposing injustice because it does not effect them personally. He said:
"I did not speak up when they came for the communists, because I was not a communist." He then repeats the phrase for a number of other groups who are taken away without his protest. Finally, he says "And then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up ."

Larsb's mantra was so chillingly similar that I had to respond. I didn't mean to imply anything negative about any particular poster but that position is scary to me.

Photo Radar should be considered from this perspective.

oldfarmer50 · February 2009

"...I'm seeing a lot of self-titled republicans..."

Careful, some of your biggest supporters on this board are republicans. When it comes to grabbing your money and freedom both parties are just as bad. They only differ in the justification they use for doing it.

Speaking of republicans one of my pro-union red dog democrat friends tells this joke:
Republicans are the party that tells us that government doesn't work. They then get elected and go about proving it.

xrunner2 · February 2009

Re: Post 514

Photo radar comparison to communism tactic makes no sense. We lose our freedoms when we don't oppose injustice? Where is the injustice?

Do not see connection between losing a feedom because of photo radar. Are we "free" to drive our vehicles on roads that use photo radar? Has any government authority banned certain individual drivers from driving on roads that employ photo radar?

larsb · February 2009

I concur completely.

No one loses a single iota of "freedom" when they get a photo radar ticket.

You just got caught speeding, dudes. That's it. Pay up.

oldfarmer50 · February 2009

"...Photo radar comparison to communism tactic..."

Actually my reference was to [non-permissible content removed] tactics but since you and others don't see the parallel there's no point in belaboring it. I just hope we don't wake up some morning and have to give the party salute to the camera in the bedroom or fear getting a ticket.

euphonium · February 2009

Advice that is not to be trusted due to the messenger's axe being grounded. :P

boaz47 · February 2009

Just how much are we willing to let machines control our life? I know there are times it seems like a good idea to take the word of a Photo camera against a human and I know we have nothing to fear from the government, well I am not sure about that but I hope we don't. But I have to wonder how far this is from phone tapping? If only the guilty have anything to worry about from a camera what about your telephone? Should the government monitor all phone calls? How about the things we argue about in these forums?

I don't have the answer to this one but I do know the traffic light photo cameras aren't a cool thing. Yes they can do their job but the time between yellow and red can be manipulated, or in some cases has been manipulated so yellow becomes stop rather than a warning the light is about to change.

My real question is how would you fight a camera picture that was a glitch? Do any of us know of any other machines that never misfire? Like maybe your computer? we know it happens even on the space shuttle and in F-16s so can we trust the computer calibration absolutely on Photo Speed cameras? Or are we saying it is better if a few innocent people get a ticket so as to catch the far more common guilty person?

I once got a ticket because the DMV said I owed penalties on an old Subaru I had. I had to go to court and then to the DMV to clear it all up. It seems as if the computer, or someone programming the computer misplaced the decimal point on my renewal and it said my Subaru was worth 2.1 million rather than 21k. They thought I underpaid on my registration but something like 125K. I still have a copy of the registration bill and we laugh about it all the time. But it wasn't funny when I was getting the ticket.

stever · February 2009

We typically warn new members about self-promotion around here but sometimes they don't take the first hint. Even when we warn them that the other members don't like being sold to, nor will y'all tolerate soliciting. Oh well... :shades:

Boaz, how would you fight a camera picture that was a glitch?

The same way you'd fight a speeding ticket that you got because of an old fashioned radar gun. Go to court, get the calibration records, etc. Big expensive pain, in other words.

boaz47 · February 2009

"Big expensive pain, in other words."

I guessed that but I was simply pointing out that I have never had a machine that never slipped. I have bought hostess doughnuts that were supposed to have 8 and only got seven. I even got a ticket i the mail for parking in Pomona. I had to prove that I didn't own the car. It was one I had sold over 18 months before the ticket was issued and I had sent the form into the DMV when I sold it. So the computer would have issued a speeding ticket to me if it was a speed camera or a red light camera. Yes I could fight it but it would cost me to do so. As it was I had to prove I sold the car by sending in the sales documents to the court house.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard the excuse of " we couldn't get the records for that day because the computer was down" or "it had to be re-booted." I also don't know if I like being responsible for a ticket if someone else was driving my car. I also don't know how I feel about being forced to testify against a relative if they were driving my car just to avoid a ticket. But now that we have furlough Fridays in California maybe they can give a few "Chips" off without pay to pay for the cameras?

andys120 · February 2009

revenue drives tickets.

larsb · February 2009

If you are willing to speed, you should be willing to contribute to the local and state coffers.

They don't have any of my money since around 1993 (my ticket in 2000 was paid by taking a Defensive Driving course and paying that company).

Anything that makes a speeder think, "OOoooh, maybe I better hit the brakes a little in this area because I might get caught speeding" is not a bad thing for anyone.

stever · February 2009

Fines don't seem to be helping to reduce the number of speeders.

They should require mandatory driver's ed, supported by a nominal fee of $10 to help defray a part of the cost. Two days of classroom retraining for the first ticket would probably do wonders for the speeding and accident rates.

Assuming the authorities are serious about changing driver behavior.

larsb · February 2009

Fines don't deter EVERY speeder, like the death penalty does not deter EVERY murderer.

But fines DO deter SOME speeders, and the ones who are caught more than once are almost ALWAYS deterred after that second or third time.

xrunner2 · February 2009

Re: your 2nd sentence about not fearing anything from the government. I will take my chances much more readily with a photo camera and its tolerances than I will from our most recently elected US government. We have an admin and Congress that willingly approved a tax cheat to oversee Treasury and IRS. Photo cameras pale in contrast to tainted high US govt officials.

boaz47 · February 2009

I grew up distrusting a police state. I learned we have some freedoms in our country that are anti police state. That was one of the reasons we didn't allow phone taps without a court order. Our founding fathers decided we had a right to face and question our accusers. When a police officer gives us a ticket we have the right to question that officer to see if there was any reason we shouldn't have received a ticket. It was a principal that it was first person to first person. A technician can't testify for the officer. But with a photo camera we have to assume no jurisdiction has tampered with the device to make it post a speed that may or may not be true.

I just don't believe that no municipality in the US would not adjust the camera to pad the coffers a bit. It is the concept of being presumed guilty that bothers me. The camera takes your picture and says you are doing 45 in a 35. Easy to do but you have to prove you didn't do 45 in a 35. If I bring in my GPS showing I was only doing 35 will it hold as much weight as the photo camera? If my passenger swears my speedometer was only showing 35 who is more dependable? The Machine is "assumed" to be correct and I find that disturbing.

Lets say they add voice to the camera. Should they be allowed to use what they hear against the citizen? If not what is the difference? You see two people talking and hear one say they robbed a store should they be arrested? Is the sound machine less dependable than what we see?

It just goes against just about everything I ever learned about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

vinnyny · February 2009

Making matters worse is the fact that the actual organizations administering these systems have a profit motive. Forget about machines failing to perform as programmed and making "honest mistakes". I'm concerned about captialism being applied to law enforcement.

Hundreds of red light tickets were dismissed in San Diego because the company running the red light cameras had purposely manipulated the yellow light times to increase revenues.

Only fools support laws that assume people are guilty until proven innocent. This nation was founded on much higher principles than that...

boaz47 · February 2009

"Hundreds of red light tickets were dismissed in San Diego because the company running the red light cameras had purposely manipulated the yellow light times to increase revenues."

I have read about that happening in some other counties. Because the systems cost so much sometimes they press the envelope a bit when people get used to the lights and where they are.

stever · February 2009

Not exactly photo radar, but it will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up a bit eh?

Driver does handbrake turns on M62 motorway after row with girlfriend (Telegraph UK).

"A driver performed two handbrake turns on a motorway after stopping on the hard shoulder during a row with his girlfriend."

larsb · February 2009

Anyone who equates Photo Radar with a "police state" has REALLY never lived in one.

Neither have I.

But I bet if you talked to Iraqis under Saddam who got taken out of their houses at night, taken to a dungeon, tortured and beaten and disfigured, you would understand what a real police state was. Or be a Kurd and have nerve gas dropped onto your city and die on the street, bleeding through your skin and out of your eyes, vomiting with your baby in your arms. Or be a 13-year-old girl in a crowd who was spotted by Saddam's Son and taken back to the palace and raped.

Or even in Russia, where "police brutality" is not a definition in their culture.

Getting caught speeding is nothing like any of THAT. At All. Pay your fine and be happy you did not get beaten for speeding.

xrunner2 · February 2009

I would say that the photo radar equipment should be leased or bought from vendors or suppliers and the the government agency maintain control of the equipment. The vendor/supplier should have no benefit from volume of tickets issued. The vendor/supplier role should be limited to providing parts, service, training for calibration accuracy/reliability. Maybe State DOTs should have an overall code on photo radar operations/procedures that all sub-government entitities within the state would abide to.

Perhaps those receiving photo radar tickets who claim to have not been speeding can take issue to court and challenge calibration/maintenance and other factors of the photo radar system. This has been successfully done with regular radar over the years.

grbeck · February 2009

larsb: But fines DO deter SOME speeders, and the ones who are caught more than once are almost ALWAYS deterred after that second or third time.

We should use the threat of government sanction - fines, arrest, whatever - to deter dangerous behaviors.

Only the uninformed believe that driving 80 mph in the 65 mph zone on a limited acess highway is dangerous.

Going after these behaviors only increases cynicism regarding government (and ALL traffic laws) and encourages the development of things like radar detectors and license plate covers.

larsb · February 2009

grbeck says, "Only the uninformed believe that driving 80 mph in the 65 mph zone on a limited acess highway is dangerous"

You are accusing almost every police enforcement organization of being uninformed.

I can see no realistic expectation of the truth of that statement.

If the safe travel speed is 80 mph, like in some areas of Texas, then the speed limit is set accordingly.

It's not allowed to drive 95 in an 80 zone either.

euphonium · February 2009

Only fools support laws that assume people are guilty until proven innocent.

Applying the Rules of Criminal Law to issues of Civil Law reveals the fool.

larsb · February 2009

What do you mean "assume they are guilty" ??

Assumptions don't have evidence. Photo radar DOES.

If it's you in the car, and your car was identified, and you were driving and can be clearly seen as the driver, your speed is assigned to you, and you are ticketed as such.

There is no assumption of guilt. There is evidence of an illegal act. No different than getting a speeding ticket from a human officer.

boaz47 · February 2009

""There is no assumption of guilt. There is evidence of an illegal act. No different than getting a speeding ticket from a human officer. "

Once again I have to toss the BS flag. It has already been posted that the owner of the vehicle is mailed the photo radar ticket. The assumption is made that you were driving. It is also assumed the photo radar is correct and you have to show proof that it isn't. We can't arrest people on assumptions. The leader of our treasury department didn't pay his taxes for four years. They decided it was a honest mistake and can't assume he did it with the intent of defrauding the government. Do I have to agree? Nope but he can't be prosecuted based on my assumptions. The very basis of our laws is innocent till proven guilty. So they should have to prove I was driving not simply that my license plate was speeding. But they don't and that makes you prove you are innocent. Not only that you have to prove who was driving if your weren't. That is not our responsibility. For instance if my wife was driving my car I can't by law be forced to testify against her. Classic first year law. But in the case of photo radar if I don't drop a dime on my wife I am guilty. That is not how the law is supposed to work. We have a constitutional right against self incrimination so if I were driving your car you could be ticketed and if you said I was driving I can't be forced to admit it so you would be assumed guilty. That isn't what would happen when an officer stopped you and asked for license and registration. Or is there no constitutional rights we shouldn't discard?

oldfarmer50 · February 2009

"...We have a constitutional right..."

Sure, but who pays attention to a bunch of old "clauses" and "rights" any more? Especially when I'm mad at some joker who can blow the doors off my hybrid without shifting past 2nd. gear.

Dang it, if I can't get over 50, no body else should either.

boaz47 · February 2009

I see it all the time. Attacks on the 1st amendment because we don't like what some people have to say, believe or meet to talk about the same.

Attacks on the second amendment is common, people assume they know what the founding fathers meant about what constitutes keeping arms.

This new attack seems to be on the 4th 5th and 6th amendments.

But like someone said earlier, those who will trade freedom for security deserve neither. Or to be more exact mr Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Something Germany should have listen to before 1938.

andys120 · February 2009

Applying the Rules of Criminal Law to issues of Civil Law reveals the fool.

Every state I have lived in treats speeding as a criminal offense, not a civil offense.

stever · February 2009

Be careful what you wish for perhaps. At least with photo radar, you'll only get a speeding ticket, and the camera won't care if you have your seat belt buckled or if your insurance is in force or if your license expired the week before.

"Aggressively going after speeders is one aspect of an overall plan to boost the police department's revenue. [H]e estimates his department could increase revenue in a six-month period by $90,000 if more officers are issuing tickets."

Boise Police may issue more tickets to boost revenues (KTVB)

oregonboy · February 2009

mr Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Something Germany should have listen to before 1938.

And those living in the US of A should have heeded, post 9-11.

As much as I hate red-light runners, I have serious reservations about the way traffic-law enforcement cameras are administered.

oregonboy · February 2009

"Aggressively going after speeders is one aspect of an overall plan to boost the police department's revenue."

Law enforcement should NEVER be about revenue. That's just wrong! :mad:

stever · February 2009

Oh I don't know that it's solely just about the revenue. Clamping down on speeders or aggressive drivers in town should be a good thing and if it generates some revenue, maybe my taxes won't go up so fast.

From my link:

"Ticket numbers are down by nearly 5,000 over the past four years despite more people on the roads and more complaints about aggressive driving."

That tells me that the Chief has good reasons for shifting priorities around a bit in addition to figuring out a way to generate some money. Other calls are down too, so the patrol officers should have time to do more traffic control.

And if you don't like the ticket, you have a real live warm body to argue with then and there. :shades:

boaz47 · February 2009

"And if you don't like the ticket, you have a real live warm body to argue with then and there."

Yes and the advantage to that is the officer has some leeway Like when you are rushing to the hospital with a family member. Been there done that got the coffee cup and Tee shirt. Got a warning and then an escort to the hospital, somewhat over the speed limit if I remember.

wesleyg · February 2009

I follow this discussion about every day and would like to throw in my thoughts from perhaps a different perspective. I have written maybe four thousand or so citations, speed, red lights, just about everything.

Occasionally when stopping a violator, I have had every intention of writing the offense but when speaking to the driver, the situation was not as it seemed, there were mitigating factors etc.

You can never have this opportunity with a camera, it doesn't care whether your bleeding 5 year old is in the car, your mother just had a heart attack and is in the ER four miles away, it goes on and on. I'll take the citation from the officer after I've spoken to him or her, but it makes me sick to take it from the infernal machine, just my thoughts.

larsb · February 2009

OK, then if you INSIST on saying it's an assumption of guilt, then what exactly is a ticket handed to you by a human officer? Or a ticket issued by a Meter Maid?

How are those different than the ticket you get mailed from Photo Radar?

Hint:

IT'S NOT DIFFERENT AT ALL.

larsb · February 2009

boaz47 says, "Like when you are rushing to the hospital with a family member."

Those exact same arguments are valid with a Photo Radar ticket also.

Take your documentation from the hospital with the date and time of the event, and when it matches to the ticket, then BOOM it will be dismissed.

You are just arguing them with a judge rather than an officer.

boaz47 · February 2009

"Occasionally when stopping a violator, I have had every intention of writing the offense but when speaking to the driver, the situation was not as it seemed, there were mitigating factors etc. "

Thank you for that input. I will always prefer dealing with a human over a machine. Getting the ticket will cost me no matter what happens after that. If I go to court I might get the fine reduced but it still cost me. If the ticket is never issued because the officer decides not to issue it it doesn't cost me the time or the money.

The other disadvantage of Photo Radar is it doesn't care what the weather is like. There are times when the posted limit is far too fast for the conditions. I have seen officers give tickets for unsafe driving in the fog. I am sure they do for rain and ice as well. These are things a machine simply can't do. And the machine we are talking about doesn't care if you are driving or not. If you pull my brother over when he is driving my car you give him the ticket. The Photo camera gives me the ticket. That alone is a presumption of guilt I don't care for.

euphonium · February 2009

on a commission basis. The more they issue tickets, the more they make. Less time eating doughnuts, drinking coffee, & more effective at the job. Their salary cocoon would not exist any more.

boaz47 · February 2009

Once again I see you don't know how the system works in our state. You still will pay a minimum for going to court. If you are working you still will take the day off of work. All because a machine doesn't care why you are doing something. May happen with an officer but then again they can not issue the ticket in the first place. No minimum fine and no day off work. even if some don't care and believe taking a day off and paying a minimum fine is a small price to pay for their idea of security. I say allow officers do do their job and don't try to replace humans with machines.

larsb · February 2009

boaz47 says, "The Photo camera gives me the ticket. That alone is a presumption of guilt I don't care for. "

Simple solution to that problem. Simple as Dirt.

Don't SPEED.

fintail · February 2009

That would be awesome!

And maybe put judges and prosecutors on a similar scheme, so the more criminals they "convict", the more they make. Surely no room for abuse in a setup like that. The already awesome American justice system would become exponentially better!

ingvar · February 2009

But everybody drives 75mph in 55mph zone on I90 in IL just because 55mph is plain stupid. :P

larsb · February 2009

I understand that.

But if a Photo Radar installation is put on that road, then either the traffic flow will slow down (which has happened in Phoenix metro highways in areas where the cameras are known to exist) and only the most severe speeders will get ticketed, or most people will keep driving 75 MPH and a LOT of them will get ticketed.

This is not a forum where we really need to argue the benefits of faster speeds on highways. A lot of you believe in that, and I'm not particularly against that either.

What I am not a fan of is people complaining when they get a photo radar ticket. You were caught speeding, so just pay your fine and get on with life.

Whatever the speed limit is set to by the people in charge, then that's the maximum speed people should drive. It's not a "suggested speed" it's a MAX speed.

Just obey the posted limit, and if you do CHOOSE to exceed it, then expect to pay the consequences.

larsb · February 2009

Go to Foxnewsdotcom and read the story about the top 10 most dangerous highways in America.

In five of the top ten, excessive speeding is mentioned as a major component of WHY the road is in the Top Ten list.

Speed kills, dudes. Slow down and have a better chance of living.

Looks like we have 10 more roads where more effective speed enforcement is required.

elias · February 2009

I have received many speeding tickets, all of them for driving around 75 or 83 mph on the highway, in both 55 & 65 zones.
They were all civil violations and include many from these states:
MA, NH, NJ, FL, CT, NY.

"I am not a crook"! :shades:

stever · February 2009

Is there anyone in here who has never gotten a speeding ticket?

Besides me that is? :shades:

larsb · February 2009

If not, the rest of us should maybe worship at

Steve's Altar Of LawFullNess

Photo Radar

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles