Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/02/arizona-speed-camera-scheme-hits.html
Arizona speed-camera scheme hits roadblock
It looks like Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano's scheme to partially close the state's billion-dollar deficit with $100 million-plus raised by robotic speeding-ticket dispensers has hit a snag. The state senate has put forward three proposals that would hinder or outright halt Janet's funding plan, two of which would go to the ballot for approval by ticket-averse voters, likely putting them beyond the reach of the governor's political machinations.
The first of the proposals, Senate Bill 1470, would prohibit the use of automated speeding cameras on state roads. Cities and towns could still use them on local roads, but drivers wouldn't be subject to the indignity of robo-traps on the state's often sparsely traveled highways.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1032 would put the ban contained in Senate Bill 1470 before the voters, for extra emphasis.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1033 would allow voters to require that only motorists traveling faster than 85 percent of other vehicles on any given section of road could be ticketed. A traffic study would determine the prevailing speed. The measure would allow common usage to trump the often arbitrary speed limits imposed by political authorities.
While I don't know of any polling on the issue, mail to the governor's office on the matter of photo radar has run overwhelmingly against, so it's likely that voters would hand Janet her head if given a chance to do so.
But even if the governor gets her way and the state highways are dotted with automated revenue machines, I think it's appropriate to point out that a speeding camera on a lonely stretch of highway constitutes a great opportunity for some target shooting.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/tech/107617.php
Lawmakers want to ban Arizona highway speed cameras
Cities, counties would not be affected
PHOENIX - Arizona legislators on Wednesday proposed legislation to scuttle Arizona's groundbreaking program of using speed enforcement cameras on highways.
The main sponsor, Republican Rep. Sam Crump of Anthem, said speed cameras are annoying, unfair, intrusive and even dangerous because of backups as motorists abruptly slow near cameras.
"It's the No. 1 thing I'm hearing from constituents as well as people outside my district," Crump said. "Arizona has a proud heritage of leaving its citizens alone to the greatest sense possible, and I find that the photo radar speed cameras are really a violation of that heritage."
Passage would shut down a Department of Public Safety program launched in September. A contractor has deployed 69 of 100 planned mobile and stationary cameras that are triggered by radar or other sensors.
The bill would ban state and local cameras on state highways but not affect those used by municipalities or counties on local streets and roads.
Crump said the prohibition could take effect immediately upon the bill becoming effective. Or the shutdown could be done in stages by first slashing the fines to only the amount necessary to pay the contractor to satisfy any requirements in the two-year contract, he said.
Gov. Janet Napolitano, who proposed the first-in-the-nation statewide program in January 2007, said the cameras are intended to improve highway safety. Crump said it's apparent the real motivation is ticket revenue.
A DPS spokesman, Lt. James Warriner, said Wednesday the agency takes no position on the bill, but thinks the cameras improve highway safety.
With some cameras still not deployed, Warriner said the agency is studying possible deployment of cameras on an additional Phoenix-area freeway but also is awaiting word from the incoming administration of Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer on whether she wants implementation of the program to continue.
For now, Warriner said, "We haven't been told that they're not going to do it."
Brewer, who is expected to become governor next week upon the resignation of Napolitano to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary, has not staked out a position on the camera program.
However, Brewer told The Associated Press in a recent interview that she had heard lots of complaints from Arizonans about the program. Napolitano won authorization for the program in the state budget enacted in June over opposition by most majority Republican lawmakers.
The anti-camera bill was introduced by Crump and 11 other representatives.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/134428
Speed cameras record streaming video 24/7
Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
January 22, 2009 - 4:52PM , updated: January 22, 2009 - 5:32PM
Surprised state lawmakers learned Thursday that the photo enforcement cameras they authorized last year to catch speeders are actually taking - and keeping - videos of everyone who passes.
The information came out as a House panel debated legislation to outlaw the operation of fixed and mobile cameras on state roads. Backers of the legislation complained that the cameras are really designed to generate revenue and not to improve public safety.
But they learned that the cameras do more than snap still photos of those clocked driving at least 11 miles over the speed limit. In fact, they actually are recording streaming video around-the-clock.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, said what's worse is that Redflex Traffic Systems, the private company hired by the state to set up and operate the cameras, advertises that it has technology that actually can scan in the license plates of every vehicle that passes the cameras. And that, Biggs said, allows creation of a database that can find out where people have been at any given time.
Biggs said there is no expectation of privacy on public roads.
"But this is more invasive than ever experienced," he said.
Foes of photo enforcement weren't the only ones who appeared troubled by the revelation.
Rep. Eric Meyer, D-Paradise Valley, voted to keep the system alive, saying he believes it saves lives. But Meyer said lawmakers need to address the issue of whose photos are taken and kept by the government.
"That absolutely concerns me," he said.
Rep. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, said he crafted HB2106 because last year's legislation authorizing the Arizona Department of Public Safety to set up the cameras never got a full debate. Instead, it was tucked into the state budget, a move he said was designed more to raise money to pay for various programs than to actually benefit public safety.
DPS Cmdr. Thomas Woodward said the evidence shows that when the cameras went up, both the number and severity of accidents went down.
Crump said he doesn't believe that to be the case.
But the discussion quickly turned after Woodward revealed that Redflex had actual around-the-clock videos from each of the fixed and mobile cameras. Biggs said that little bit of information has been kept from both lawmakers and the public.
"At the bare minimum, everybody should be made privy to the fact that if you're driving on everybody's highways we're taping you, 24/7, and we're going to hold it for 90 days," he said.
DPS Lt. James Warriner said there's a legitimate reason for doing the recording and keeping the tapes. He said they have proven useful in finding hit-and-run drivers and even in identifying someone who stole a motorcycle.
Warriner said the videos are for law enforcement use only and not a public record.
Biggs, however, said that doesn't mean others won't be able to access those tapes.
He said that information might prove useful to attorneys or private investigators in civil or divorce cases who might seek to prove to a court that someone was not where he or she was supposed to be.
Warriner conceded the videos could, in fact, be used that way if a lawyer could get a subpoena.
"If a judge signs off on that and orders us to release it, we're going to have to release it," he said. But Warriner said such a court order would have to be issued within 90 days of the event or there would be nothing for his agency to produce.
Warriner said, though, his agency is willing to stop the around-the-clock taping if that is what lawmakers want.
"We are acting under what the legislators gave us last year," he said. "If they see fit to make changes, we'll go out and do it. We just want to keep the program because we know it's making an impact on lives and the public."
At this point, the future in doubt, the committee voted 5-2 to kill the program which, in turn, would eliminate the videos.
Meyer voted against the bill, saying his main concern is public safety.
"I'm approaching this from my history of service in the emergency department (of hospitals) where I see the result of the accidents that occur on a freeway," he said. "These systems seem to dramatically reduce the number of accidents and increase the safety of our freeways."
Meyer said the program could be saved - and some of the objections addressed - by altering the laws governing how the photo enforcement system is operated, including the use of the video cameras.
An aide to Gov. Jan Brewer said she was studying the contract - as well as how the photo enforcement system was adopted as part of the budget process - before deciding whether it should be canceled.
http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/12/arizona-speed-camera-rebellion-piece.html
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Arizona speed camera rebellion piece published in the Republic
My column on the growing insurrection, including sabotage, against radar speed cameras on Arizona's highways appears in The Arizona Republic here: Rebellion mounting vs. speed cameras
Arizona officials can defend the use of speed cameras to raise revenue all they want, but they have a problem on their hands.
The opposition started with the usual public demonstrations by groups like CameraFraud and has now graduated to sabotage. Based on experiences elsewhere, this is only the beginning.
In the UK, Australia, Maryland and elsewhere, the roadside Peeping Toms have been pulled from the ground, spray-painted, smashed, burned and otherwise rendered not-so-revenue-enhancing. In Britain, a shadowy character known as "Captain Gatso" has organized endless efforts to turn more than 1,000 cameras into expensive scrap metal since 2000.
Note that the latest news is that a man from Glendale took after one of the spy eyes with a pick-axe.
I have some questions about things like that. Right now I have to sign a release before something like that can take place. The drawbacks of a HMO. But if they go for universal health that could be one of the results.
There is at least one poster in here that shouldn't care. After all the government is only here to care for us. :surprise:
More Phoenix Local News
08:18 PM Mountain Standard Time on Friday, November 28, 2008
By Azfamily.com
Part of protest PHOENIX - Protesters are trying to put a damper on photo radar cameras across the state.
Over the past few weeks 100 photo enforcement cameras have been added to the states highways and interstates, some are stationary, others are mobile vans.
Since that happened protesters have covered some of those cameras with Post-it notes, signs, even silly string.
We even found videos online dedicated to putting an end to photo enforcement here in Arizona.
And those videos caught the attention of state officials.
“It blurs the shot, so we can fix that but that is man hours, that is ADOT people coming out, and Redflex people working to fix that, it's just, this is law enforcement equipment you're tampering with,” said DPS.
The people shown in those You-Tube videos do not claim responsibility for the vandalism to the speed cameras.
I can go find 15 articles quoting law enforcement saying photo radar is helpful in speed enforcement efforts.
You can post 100,000 stories about the pros or cons of photo radar, but these points remain irrefutably true:
1. Most people arguing against photo radar are either overly paranoid "Big-Brother-type" worriers, or speeders who don't like to get caught.
2. The fact that the way to avoid photo radar tickets is to not speed.
Because willfully destroying state property has no valid legal defense.
As of today, anyway.
The jury would have to ignore the law to acquit someone of that crime.
Check out A Time to Kill. Fun book.
Let democracy work, and it will be just fine I am sure.
larsb:
I can go find 15 articles quoting law enforcement saying photo radar is helpful in speed enforcement efforts
Please do. Let's further the debate.
"I'm approaching this from my history of service in the emergency department (of hospitals) where I see the result of the accidents that occur on a freeway," he said. "These systems seem to dramatically reduce the number of accidents and increase the safety of our freeways."
Meyer said the program could be saved - and some of the objections addressed - by altering the laws governing how the photo enforcement system is operated, including the use of the video cameras. "
It's not the photo radar concept itself that is faulty - it's the way the system is being implemented which is in question.
Take my word for it. Most enforcement agencies are fans of the photo radar concept because they understand how important it is for public safety to slow people down.
No sir. I post full links and the text where possible so that everybody can read and form their own conclusions, rather than being told what is good for them.
I did the same thing, using the part I liked, just as you did in #629.
No worries.............:)
Quote from above posts: "Government officials freely acknowledge that the purpose of speed cameras is not safety, but revenue generation."
Right, $174 million coming from people's pockets is for safety.
Oh dear, who should I believe?
However, one might say it is clear and cut and dried. But what does this mean:
larsb: "It's not the photo radar concept itself that is faulty - it's the way the system is being implemented which is in question."
So may be we need to think a little bit more? May be it is not as clear as one might think, or likes to portray it in this forum.
What say you my fellow forum member? That there are issues with photo radar that are in question?
You must realize there are people that have never seen a law they don't like.
The highway patrolman who stops you generally does not give a twit about "high finance" at the state level. He cares about keeping the roads safe.
The pencil-pushers care about revenue. They are not the ones making enforcement decisions.
I did not say "government bean counters" care about enforcement.
I said the agencies which are in charge of PUBLIC SAFETY care about how fast people drive, and photo radar is just another tool on their belt like a Tazer.
I ain't one of them folks, amigo.
I've been around for 45 years, coming up fast on 46. I haven't seen too many unjust laws enforced in America in my lifetime.
When I was young I was opposed to anti-marijuana laws because of "personal experience" with that issue. ( Still not sure why alcohol and cigarettes, which kill FAR more people than Mary Jane does, are legal while Mary sits in the corner. Legalize it and tax it and make a ton of money.)
I was opposed to seatbelt laws until I got informed and saw the light.
I'm not sure prostitution should be illegal. Many countries legalize it and monitor it and give the girls AIDS testing and keep them off drugs and take the Pimps out of the equation. ( We could do that here too, and tax it, and make a ton of money. )
But I have two kids. And I care about public safety and what happens on the roads. I know for a fact that human bodies suffer less damage in low-speed crashes than in high-speed crashes. Slowing people down reduces insurance rates, saves lives, and saves people from being crippled and suffering brain damage and lost limbs etc etc.
I'm for just about anything that keeps people from using their cars as 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-thousand pound battering rams.
I'm compassionate toward my fellow man in wanting them to remain healthy and whole. I ain't apologizing for that.
That's just it..........right there................
There ARE no deeper issues for Photo radar systems when they are DONE RIGHT.
One Speeder. One radar gun. Two clear, irrefutable pictures. One ticket mailed. One ticket paid.
That's what the photo radar system is all about. All the rest just boils down to government doing it's job.
There ARE no deeper issues for Photo radar systems when they are DONE RIGHT.
Right now, as they stand, all I am trying to suggest, in a systematic and respectful way, is that THEY ARE NOT BEING DONE RIGHT, indeed, given our constitution, it may NEVER be possible to get them right.
Q.E.D. sir.
P.S. Just to be careful to avoid any misunderstandings, Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which literally means "that which was to be demonstrated". The phrase is written in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument, to signify that the last statement deduced was the one to be demonstrated, so the proof is complete.
It's been done here in Tempe AZ streets for several years now, clicking away, catching speeders, with no major problems.
Well, let's see:
from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5383726.stm
Europe to rule on speed cameras
The motorists claim existing laws affect the right to a fair trial
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights are considering a test case after two UK drivers challenged a ruling over speed cameras.
Currently, the owners of vehicles caught speeding on camera are obliged to declare who was driving at the time.
The drivers say this breaches their right to silence. Following a hearing, judges are considering a ruling that could impact on millions of UK drivers.
Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman said he believed the government would win.
Motoring campaigners are divided over the case but ministers have said they would "vigorously" defend current laws.
Idris Francis was issued with a penalty notice after his car was caught on camera breaking a speed limit in June 2001.
The 66-year-old from Hampshire refused to reveal who was at the wheel at the time, so was fined for failing to sign a speeding notice.
In April 2000, a car belonging to Gerard O'Halloran, 72, from London, was caught by a speed camera.
He initially admitted the offence but later tried to withdraw his admission, claiming he signed the statement only because he feared he would be punished if he did not.
The pair appealed to British courts but were turned down. They eventually decided to take their cases to the European courts.
This offends against a very important principle - namely that you should not have to incriminate yourself
Mr Ladyman, told BBC News he was confident the government would win the case.
"It is not a form of duress," he added.
"If you were speeding you can pay a small penalty and have three points on your licence as an alternative to going through the hassle of going to court and potentially a much bigger fine and a much bigger penalty," he said.
"The fact the alternative of going to a court is there means there are no human rights being undermined here, there are no long-standing liberties being undermined."
Evidence collection
Liberty's legal director James Welch said vehicle owners had two choices when presented with a speeding notice - to name the driver, or to refuse to provide information - both of which carried similar penalties.
Idris Francis was "disappointed" after UK courts rejected his appeal
"This offends against a very important principle - namely that you should not have to incriminate yourself," he said.
"You should not be made subject to a criminal penalty in order to make you provide information that then forms part of the prosecution case against you."
Mr Welch said the issue was less important in cases involving more serious charges - such as death by dangerous driving - because speed camera evidence would rarely be used.
He said that, if the case was successful, the government would have to find new ways of collecting evidence in speeding cases.
'Devastating effect'
The Department for Transport said the case concerned "the requirement for vehicle keepers to identify the driver of a vehicle identified on a speed camera".
"The applicants claim this requirement breaches the right against self-incrimination and thereby their right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The UK government does not accept this claim."
The case renews the debate about speed cameras, with campaigners on either side joining the argument over the case.
Paul Smith from Safe Speed, who believes cameras divert motorists' attention away from the roads, said British justice had been "undermined for the sake of nothing more than needless mass prosecutions".
Jools Townsend from the Brake charity, who supports speed cameras, said if the pair won their case it would have a "devastating effect" on road safety in the country.
The court's ruling on section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is not expected for several months.
(Please note that speed camera with average speed determinations and ANPR technology are part of the Lords' concerns).
from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/peers-warn-surveillance-state-is-- - threat-to-freedom-1547668.html
Peers warn surveillance state is threat to freedom
Lords committee seeks dramatic reduction of intrusion into private life
By Ben Russell, Home Affairs Correspondent
Friday, 6 February 2009
In a devastating critique of the spiralling use of CCTV, databases and information sharing, they warn that the growth of information collected about every man, woman and child in Britain is a "serious threat" to principles at the heart of the constitution. The Lords Constitution Committee, which includes the former law lord, Lord Woolf, and the former attorney generals, Lord Lyell and Lord Morris of Aberavon, call in a report for new safeguards to prevent government and private databases damaging historic rights to privacy and civil liberties.
Committee chairman Lord Goodlad, a former Conservative minister, warns: "The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state and other organisations risks undermining the longstanding traditions of privacy and individual freedom which are vital for democracy."
He adds: "The UK now has more CCTV cameras and a bigger national DNA database than any other country. There can be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards a situation where every detail about us is recorded and pored over by the state."
The peers warn that the "collection and processing of personal information has become pervasive, routine, and almost taken for granted."
The report is being published as ministers prepare proposals to gain unprecedented access to details of every email, internet connection and telephone call made in Britain. Proposals to allow ministers to sanction the sharing of confidential personal data across Whitehall and beyond are also being debated by MPs.
But peers warn that the expansion of surveillance "represents one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the Second World War."
They write: "There has been a profound and continuous expansion in the surveillance apparatus of both the state and the private sector."
The report calls for a dramatic slimming of the national DNA database, arguing samples should not be kept if people are not charged or convicted, and insisting the law should be changed to ensure DNA samples given by volunteers are removed.
The peers call for senior judges to oversee surveillance. They say ministers should review the powers of local councils to authorise surveillance and say compensation should be paid if people are monitored unlawfully by police or the security services. They also demand that a powerful committee of MPs and peers be established to oversee the data powers of the state.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow Justice Secretary, said: "This is a damning indictment of the reckless approach of this Government to privacy. Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing its effectiveness or protecting the privacy of innocent people."
David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, said: "This highlights how the Government has ridden roughshod over our freedoms in establishing its surveillance state. Ministers would do well to remember the British state belongs to the British people, not the other way around."
Shami Chakrabarti, director of pressure group Liberty, said: "Our postbag suggests the House of Lords is more in touch with public concerns than our elected Government."
We could have "post vs. post" battles all dang day.
The point is, there are and have been photo radar systems installed which were GOOD systems, and there have been photo radar systems installed which were not-so-good systems.
But the concept itself is a sound one.
And in Phoenix, it has slowed traffic on some highways and streets.
PRIME EXAMPLE: Today, this morning, 2-13-2009, 6:15 AM MST, Phoenix AZ, on my drive to work, short stretch of SR 143. Photo Radar camera van, moving to it's recently common morning location near the end of this short freeway. Cars backed up 5 deep behind it, in both lanes, going 55 MPH. I was car 6 in the "fast" lane of two lanes. As soon as the van pulled over to start setting up, the cars beside and right behind it SPED UP to at least (in my estimation) 65 MPH and opened a huge distance in front of me for the next 60 seconds of driving until the freeway ended. When that van is parked there on weekday mornings, I often see this event:
1. Me driving 55 mph.
2. Car tailgating me, trying to go faster.
3. Me moving over to let them pass.
4. The car accelerating past me.
5. The car seeing the "Photo Enforcement Area" yellow sign.
6. The car hitting their brakes.
7. "FLASH"
8. Other cars near that area hitting their brakes.
9. Me smiling.
Don't try to tell ME it does not slow down the traffic. I see it almost EVERY DAY.
Like I said, the "Big Brother" crowd.
The photo radar system is not and will never be a intrusion into anyone's "private life."
This is no competition, but a respectful debate, fortified with references to support logical arguments.
The full, formal title of the House of Lords is The Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
I'd tell the Queen that to her face.
"they are just plain wrong" but you are so convinced that you are so right that there is no chance that the US Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the UK House of Lords have even small chance that they are right and are trying to hear all sides of the argument before rendering decisions, and may be, just may be, you should not be so steadfast in your dogmatic and simplistic beliefs? After all, your 10 year old supports your line of thinking, so it must be right.
As before, I respect your right to hold that opinion.
My focus on this forum has always been defending the proper use of photo radar systems in America.
I only mentioned England because vcheng tried to say that maybe photo radar systems could never work, and England is a place where they have used them for a while. That's the only reason jolly old England was even brought up.
In this case, simple is the key.
One speeder, one ticket, one driver slowed down at a time.
No one gets their privacy invaded.
The data is not used against the driver in any unintended fashion.
The speeder WILLINGLY made the decision to speed.
The speeder pays the fine.
The city/state collects much-needed money.
vcheng says, "After all, your 10 year old supports your line of thinking, so it must be right. "
And that's sort of taking what I innocently mentioned about my daughter and putting an unnecessary and unpleasant spin on it.
(from the dictionary: Simplistic: based in simplism, i.e the act or an instance of oversimplifying ; especially : the reduction of a problem to a false simplicity by ignoring complicating factors)
Similarly, I mentioned your child only to point out that you used the argument that the issue was so simple that even a 10 year old had no problem understanding it. Again, I do not want any perception of unpleasantness to cloud your discussion.
To reiterate: The issue of photo radar is not a simple one, and our discussion here will remain polite and focussed on the issues, not personalities.
Meaning: Thousands deprived of their due process rights, one at a time.
No one gets their privacy invaded.
Meaning: The Arizona cameras were recording live video of everybody, speeding or not, and not even the legislature knew about it.
The data is not used against the driver in any unintended fashion.
Meaning: It has a lot of grave unintended consequences.
The speeder WILLINGLY made the decision to speed.
Meaning: The driver was maintaining the 85th percentile rule and trying to minimize speed differential with other vehicles around him.
The speeder pays the fine.
Meaning: No, the citation holds the registered owner of the vehicle responsible, not the speeder, and it is issued by a private party under contract with a financial interest in issuing as many tickets as possible, not a sworn LEO who has witnessed the infraction.
The city/state collects much-needed money.
Meaning: It is a money grab disguised as safety.
All of my statements have clear references in previous posts to support my points.
"You folks are trying to tie WAY too much other stuff into the issue of Photo Radar. Photo radar is not hard to understand.
Get caught speeding.
Pay your fine.
My 10-yr-old daughter understands that perfectly well. Hard to understand why all the smart guys and gals on this forum have a hard time with it."
Get caught speeding. Pay your fine.
THAT is the part that is simplistic, and it IS. All the rest of the stuff is just logistics.
When you say "Thousands deprived of their due process rights, one at a time." I cannot adequately in this type of forum more strongly state that this is completely untrue.
You are allowed every possible legal opportunity to defend yourself from any photo radar ticket. You can argue with a judge. You can request a jury trial. You can make every feasible argument.
Your defense is not hampered ONE IOTA.
You are simply wrong here. I just took your comments word for word from #653 and replied to them one by one, with your own words intact.
That is your opinion, unsupported by any facts or references, unlike my arguments fully supported by creditable references.
Thus, I have proved you wrong multiple times, but you are persisting in stating an unsubstantiated, unsupported and indefensible simplistic opinion.
Merely repeating this will not make it right sir. Of course you are entitled to continue holding this opinion, but please do not expect others to accept it merely because you say "take my word for it".
This is an important issue that cannot be left to be decided by such an approach as is evident by your weak arguments. There is some time before the slow wheels of democarcy turn and right this egregious error that is presently being perpetrated.
Of this I have no doubt.
You have "proved me wrong" exactly ZERO times. So let's not get cocky.
When I said, "take my word for it" I meant that the articles to prove my stance existed - not that you had to believe MY view, but that you needed to take my word that the articles existed and said what I told you they said.
And:
There is NO invasion of privacy from photo radar systems.
You are in a public place, and courts have REPEATEDLY declared that there is no expectation of privacy in the public domain.
The use of the picture is to enforce speed laws. No different than if you got stopped by an officer who got you out of your car and recorded you on his dash camera. Courts have also shown THAT type of image to NOT be a violation of privacy.
In short, "invasion of privacy" arguments are just ANOTHER METHOD in which people who want to speed are trying to get the cameras removed.
You can have your opinion on the matter. But in this case, it is wrong.
Please provide the links and the complete text if possible, to support your opinionated stance.
1. Me driving 55 mph.
2. Car tailgating me, trying to go faster.
3. Me moving over to let them pass.
4. The car accelerating past me.
5. The car seeing the "Photo Enforcement Area" yellow sign.
6. The car hitting their brakes.
7. "FLASH"
8. Other cars near that area hitting their brakes.
9. Me smiling.
Don't try to tell ME it does not slow down the traffic. I see it almost EVERY DAY.
Wow, what a great example of how impeding the flow of traffic can create a crash. So you stay there, block traffic, and finally move over. Right when the speed of traffic is normalized, everyone has to slam on their brakes. That sounds really safe. Sign me up.
Please, let's see them and discuss what they might or might not say.
"that there is no expectation of privacy in the public domain."
Then why was the program in Arizona just voted down 5-2: Because it was illegally storing live video of everybody, without legal authority, and unknown to the legislature.