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
Please note that I will not like to be called paranoid by any member here, but I am concerned at the evidence before me that forces me to think.
from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4643415/Spy-chie- - - f-We-risk-a-police-state.html
Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, has warned that the fear of terrorism is being exploited by the Government to erode civil liberties and risks creating a police state.
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 6:08AM GMT 17 Feb 2009
Dame Stella accused ministers of interfering with people’s privacy and playing straight into the hands of terrorists.
“Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy,” Dame Stella said in an interview with a Spanish newspaper.
“It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state,” she said.
Dame Stella, 73, added: “The US has gone too far with Guantánamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification.” She said the British secret services were “no angels” but insisted they did not kill people.
Dame Stella became the first woman director general of MI5 in 1992 and was head of the security agency until 1996. Since stepping down she has been a fierce critic of some of the Government’s counter-terrorism and security measures, especially those affecting civil liberties.
In 2005, she said the Government’s plans for ID cards were “absolutely useless” and would not make the public any safer. Last year she criticised attempts to extend the period of detention without charge for terrorism suspects to 42 days as excessive, shortly before the plan was rejected by Parliament.
Her latest remarks were made as the Home Office prepares to publish plans for a significant expansion of state surveillance, with powers for the police and security services to monitor every email, as well as telephone and internet activity.
Despite considerable opposition to the plan, the document will say that the fast changing pace of communication technology means the security services will not be able to properly protect the public without the new powers.
Local councils have been criticised for using anti-terrorism laws to snoop on residents suspected of littering and dog fouling offences.
David Davis, the Tory MP and former shadow home secretary, said: “Like so many of those who have had involvement in the battle against terrorism, Stella Rimington cares deeply about our historic rights and rightly raises the alarm about a Government whose first interest appears to be to use the threat of terrorism to frighten people and undermine those rights rather than defend them.”
In a further blow to ministers, an international study by lawyers and judges accused countries such as Britain and America of “actively undermining” the law through the measures they have introduced to counter terrorism.
The report, by the International Commission of Jurists, said: “The failure of states to comply with their legal duties is creating a dangerous situation wherein terrorism, and the fear of terrorism, are undermining basic principles of international human rights law.”
The report claimed many measures introduced were illegal and counter-productive and that legal systems put in place after the Second World War were well equipped to handle current threats. Arthur Chaskelson, the chairman of the report panel, said: “In the course of this inquiry, we have been shocked by the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures in a wide range of countries around the world.
“Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.’’
A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government has been clear that where surveillance or data collection will impact on privacy they should only be used where it is necessary and proportionate. The key is to strike the right balance between privacy, protection and sharing of personal data.
“This provides law enforcement agencies with the tools to protect the public as well as ensuring government has the ability to provide effective public services while ensuring there are effective safeguards and a solid legal framework that protects civil liberties.”
In her interview, in La Vanguardia newspaper, Dame Stella also described the shock of her two daughters when they discovered she was a spy and told how she used most “gadgets” when she was in office except for “a gun’’.
from: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/colorado-looks-to-double-speed-camera-revenue/
Colorado Looks to Double Speed Camera Revenue
By Robert Farago
February 17, 2009
With municipal budgets tight across the state of Colorado, members of the General Assembly are looking to offer relief. The Colorado state Senate Transportation Committee voted 4-3 on Thursday to boost the cost of a speed camera ticket from $40 to $75. The measure, Senate Bill 143, also extends the reach of photo ticketing to include nearly any road that runs through the state.
Last May, the state authorized the use of freeway photo radar which allows the placement of automated ticketing machines on high-speed roads by erecting a sign that says “work zone.” The bill introduced by Colorado state Senator Bob Bacon covers most of the remaining roads within the state by allowing photo ticketing on any road with a speed limit of 50 MPH or less. Combined with the higher fees, the revised program is expected to generate millions in additional revenue. The Senate committee voted to direct this money into funding accounts labeled “traffic safety.” The bill must now be considered by the full Senate.
Although the legislature is targeting vehicles traveling through work zones, studies show that such laws do nothing to protect actual workers. Work zone fatalities are caused far more often by construction equipment than automobiles. A number of attempts to increase ticketing in the state have also created problems. A Fort Collins speed camera falsely accused a gardener’s truck which, when new, had a top speed of just 99 MPH of blasting through a 30 MPH zone at 132 MPH. Colorado Springs police officers were caught falsifying records in order to meet a ticket quota.
Senate Bill 143 (Colorado General Assembly, 2/12/2009) »
The point here is that the attraction to grab money is so strong that politicians are trying to sneak in this revenue stream however they can. Hence in this case, the private contractor's van parked on the roadside is sufficent to declare it a "work zone" so that the automatic fine generated is increased.
But it is the law, right? It is all for safety right? So not speeding is enough! However, even if you do not move over, the police will give you another ticket in Colorado.
Blind obedience to law is a great thing, right? But it is only a civil infarction, so no points on the licence. Hence it must be okay, right? So what if the private company get their cut, and thus would be interested in increasing the revenue stream however they can, at least the state gets thier much-needed money, so there is no conflict of interest, right?
Cameras in stores and banks both deter crime and help authorities capture perpretators. Sometimes the perp can be apprehended on site where store security cameras are monitored by security personnel.
Phota radar is just a very efficient method of "instantly" determining, documenting and punishing the law violator. In future years, when our DC leaders have completely turned our country into a socialist state, perhaps we will all be required to have an rfid type chip (size of rice particle) implanted in our heads as a means of instant id in event of some law violations AND as condition to qualify for National Health Care.
If you CHOOSE to not have "your privacy violated" then slow it down.
It is here already. Some members of our military already have this chip implanted.
WAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTT a minute! Does this explain larsb's admirably supportive stance towards photo radar? Maybe he is just acting on orders from the voices in his head telling him this is a good thing for all of us.
And it STILL will slow people down.
And I STILL won't care because I won't get snapped.
But if I do get snapped, then I musta been speeding.
You know why?
Because about 99% of the time, when I enter a marked highway work zone, I am the only car which slows down per the work zone signs !!!
If this or anything else "tricky" can get more people to do SLOW DOWN WHEN THE SIGNS TELL YOU TO DO SO, then I'm all for it.
Yes yes, I know you have no problem with it. However, USA is still a democracy and I am really very very thankful for that!
The wheels turn slowly, but such wrongs can be rectified. People with your views only make it more difficult, but hey, that is truly a part of democracy isn't it?
If you would just BELIEVE me when I say things, I wouldn't have to look all this up and you wouldn't have to spend time reading it.
Why are people who post here "assumed to be liars" until we prove otherwise?
Case Law on Automated Speed Enforcement technology
You should offer other points of view the same courtsey that you ask for youself. Asking for proof is not meant to call you a liar. Say something, then you should be able to offer something more than "I KNOW I am right so you should accept it!"
After all, this forum is not the Marines, may I respectfuilly remind you.
And I have never flatly accused anyone o lying when they say something.
Disagreeing with what someone believes is not the same as thinking they are not telling the truth.
I might say something that indicates a difference of beliefs, but I seldom flat out say, "Oh Yeah? Prove it Mister !!!" like seems to be requested of me quite often.
People who think "speeders should shut up and pay their fines without whining" make what more difficult?
I don't think speeders have the legal right to speed, so it would be hard for me to agree with something that "violates the rights of speeders."
Very comical idea - "speeders having the right to speed" - that's a good one !!!
Now, do I agree that some "speed traps" can violate DRIVER'S RIGHTS? Yes, in some unusual circumstances, perhaps.
But SPEEDERS having the RIGHT to speed? Um, no...........
Photographic Enforcement of Traffic Laws By Robert R. Blackburn, Daniel T. Gilbert, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, United States. Federal Highway Administration
Published by Transportation Research Board, 1995
ISBN 0309058600, 9780309058605
67 pages
Please comment on how the following, taken from you reference, gives it any weight as the law?
from Chapter 5: Legal and Acceptability Issues
page 27: LEGAL ISSUES: The legal issues surrounding the use of ASE in U.S. speed enforcement are many-faceted and complex. However, to discuss these laws... ... is beyond the scope of this synthesis... "
However, you seem to state that this issue is "Simple and Cut and Dried". Why does your reference contradict you directly?
page 28: "There are not present court cases that specifically discuss a right to privacy under the First Amendment with regard to driving" and then followed by a series of quoted cases that deal with totally different issues.
Time to move on please. Thanks !!!
No, you may please move on! I am right here.
If you want to evolve in your thinking, please tell me what court cases apply to photo radar. Your reference contradicts you totally. I asked for cases which listed how privacy invasions have not been ruled in regard to photo radar cases, but there are no such case as it clearly states in your own reference!
There are a bunch of State Attorney Generl's opinion, not tired out in court. There are cases related to provacy and birth control issues and sanctity of marrige, but no court cases relevant to photo radar as being discussed here.
Anyway, why ask me to move on? I wouldn't want you to do the same if you extend me the same courtsey.
Anyone who can post a link to that case will be my hero.
Let me convert page 31 into text and then we can talk about it.
There are also radar detectors for radar guns etc. that are quite good.
I have used both. I found why VA outlaws radar detectors. Their cops run continuous K band. You can detect them at a 2 miles.
The Fresnel covers do work too. The dude used to have to get out of his little shack to physically read my tags at Reagan National Airport
His camera didn't work on my car.
.
Texas case, 1970:
"There is no actionable invasion of the right of privacy for a person whose photo is taken on a public highway."
Dang, I don't hate it when I'm right.
.. the percieved opposition it had in the early 1980s. It provides the prosecution a means for positive identification of the driver in those cases in which the driver or owner wants to challenge the citation in court.
LEGAL OUTCOME OF AFFIXING ACCOUNTABILITY ON REGISTERED OWNERS FOR MOVING TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS
The legislation most likely to succeed the consitutional challenges maintains civil sanctions, such as fines, for violations of minor traffic offences, such as speeding (24).
In essence, the legislation that makes the registered owner vicariously liable for the offense, though by means of presumption, will likely be upheld in accordance with the recent trend of courts' decisions. The concept is very similar to the presumption imposed on the imposed on the registered owner for a typical parking violation.
TRANSLATION INTO SIMPLE ENGLISH: The use of photo radar has grave constituional problems. However, we may be able to make it work if we use only civil penalties to get the money. After all, if a parked car can get a ticket, we should be able to ticket high speed traffic automatically. It will LIKELY be upheld because we have these other unrelated cases to go by!
Page 31 then goes on to cite City of Chicago vs. Hertz to prove ticketing a parked car. It then quote Uniform Vehicle Code 16-214 which deals with Presumption in reference to illegal parking. Then in the right hand column, it states a "SUMMARY OF STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS REGARDING ASE EQUIPMENT" from District of Columbia, Mishigan, Minnesota, Nebvada and Texas.
TRANSLATION INTO SIMPLE ENGLISH: Since we can get way with the presumption that the owner of an illegally parked car can be ticketed, we can assume that we can ticket the owner of a moving car. See, the Attorney Generals of these States agree with us because it brings money into state coffers, and maybe we can use this argument to get away with this.
This is frigging hilarious. However, it is far far short of proof so robust you want me to go away! What this shows only is increasing desperation at an unsupportalbe position.
And no, I cannot see your face when I write this!
See my post about the Texas case to see what I meant when I said "court cases have refused to declare photo radar systems as privacy invasions."
'Nuff said............
Yes, it will slow down some people before radar, but people will speed-up after it. Other people will invest in license covers and radar detectors. 55mph on interstate is a joke, even cops are driving 75mph.
"To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on an issue directly related to automated traffic enforcement."
and:"There are not present court cases that specifically discuss a right to privacy under the First Amendment with regard to driving"
Therefore, you are agreeing that my contention has been right all along.
Thank you so much for supporting my case!
And your quote from 1970 does not even refer to photo radar because IT DID NOT EXIST THEN!
If you CHOOSE to not have "your privacy violated" then slow it down.
If the cameras are out there, they'll be taking your photo whether you are speeding or not. Not all cameras are just triggered by an event like speeding or running a red light. Many are on 24/7.
Different terms, but Wiki says "The Dutch company Gatsometer BV, founded by the 1950s rally driver Maurice Gatsonides, invented the first road-rule enforcement cameras."
Here is the link again in case you missed it last time.
There is NO ACTIONABLE INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY FOR A PERSON WHOSE PHOTO IS TAKEN ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY.
I can't be much clearer than that.
More on Page 28, right side column:
People vs Rhoades in Illinois in 1979: Defendant parked in a retail lot did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the face of observations made by a nearby State Police trooper.
More and the final straw in my argument being proven without further doubt:
Texas vs. Brown, 1983: The use of a flashlight will not activate constitutional protection under the 4th Amendment. Therefore, an officer's
observation through the instrument of photography will not infringe on the personal privacy of the driver of a vehicle where the face of the driver is open to public scrutiny. The Supreme Court held that the standard of whether the Fourth Amendment should be applied largely depends on whether or not a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In the case of a driver, who is observed in the open view of photographic radar, he or she definitely cannot claim protection of the Fourth Amendment.
I can't be much clearer than that.
Nonsense. Sophisticated, informed drivers realize that it's perfectly safe, and, if anything, improves safety.
The infantile approach is to blindly treat all laws as equal, and believing that just because the government says so, we should obey.
That may work with some people, but most posters here have graduated from the sixth grade.
xrunner2: Various other rmiscreants get enjoyment from violating laws. Should we excuse all of that because of their "rights" possibly of "enjoyment"
Because those laws actually benefit society. People who can think for themselves realize that driving 80 mph in the 65 mph zone is perfecty safe; driving with a .20 blood alochol content is not. Those with the ability to use the priniciples of logical reasoning know the difference.
Incidentally, I drove on the Pennsylvania Turnpike this past weekend for a considerable distance. Most people were traveling at about 75 mph, with quite a few driving at 80 mph.
The simple fact is that informed drivers realize that the de facto speed limit is 75 mph, and are driving accordingly, and some drivers are going faster than that. And it's perfectly safe. The main problem was caused by slowpokes traveling at 60 mph.
So with that broad generalization, you are stating that you believe anyone who obeys the law and agrees with set speed limits and follows them is, by your definition, "UNSOPHISTICATED." ??????? I'd have to guess that the millions and millions of drivers who drive the speed limit or near it would be quite offended to hear you say that.
If you believe that so strongly, I suggest you get a custom-made bumper sticker that says, "Anyone driving less than 10 MPH over the limit is UNSOPHISTICATED and knows NOTHING about SAFETY."
Driving 10+ miles over the limit is safe and improves safety?
That's pretty "out there" dude.
And I have never heard of a law setting "de facto" speed limits.
In a letter dated September 14, 1970 (Opinion No. M-692) Texas Attornet General Crawford C. Martin responded to several issues related to the use of photo radar in Texas.
His opinions were: (not court judgements or even facts mind you)
1. There is no actionable invasion of the right of privacy for a person whose photo is taken on a public highway. The individual's right of privacy must give way to the state's use reasonable exercise of police power.
Sounds like a police state to me "RIGHT TO PRIVACY MUST GIVE WAY TO POLICE POWER". Right, so said one Attorney General and untested in any court of law with counter arguments.
2. The photo radar instrument must be properly set up and recently tested for accuracy to be accepted as proof in court.
Even he recognises that you cannot leave such critical equipment to be used by private contractors who have a clear financial interest in fleecing people.
3. The unattended photo radar instrument poses a more difficult question. Yet, assuming the photo radar meets the rules of evidence, it should be admissible as proof of identification of the defendant and the speed of the vehicle.
I would love to see you explain his last statement. He did not say unattended photo radar as we are discussing it is okay. He says that IF the unattended photo radar meets the rules of evidence (AND IT DOES NOT!) it should admissible!
Please see my post above listing his complete opinion, not one snippet taken out and twisted to mean something else!
A retail lot is private property!
"Texas vs. Brown, 1983: The use of a flashlight will not activate constitutional protection under the 4th Amendment."
I assume you do know the difference between a flashlight and automatic photo radar!
I sure hope this is not mere comedy, but something more intellectual than that! Iam beginning to suspect that you did not even read the entire thing, but stopped at reading one stence that seemed to meet your pre-conceived notions.
Read post 800 again and this privacy discussion can end.
I intend to continue as the issues raised are very important for all of us. If you feel you can be productive in making intelligent comments, I would welcome your participation.
The Arizona Constitution clarifies this right even further by providing that "[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."
In Katz v. United States, Justice Harlan resolved the Fourth Amendment question by concluding that there is a twofold analysis to determine whether a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy. First, the individual must manifest an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search; and second, that expectation must be one which society is prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable. Therefore, to hold that photo radar violates the Fourth Amendment or Arizona Constitution, a defendant must not only have a subjective expectation of privacy in the operation and identification of his motor vehicle, but that expectation must be one that society would recognize as objectively reasonable.
Time and again, the Supreme Court has been unwilling to protect a privacy expectation in items intentionally or inevitably exposed to the public.
In Harris v. United States, the Court held that the observation of objects in
plain view does not implicate the Fourth Amendment so long as the officer has a right to be at the place of observation. It is quite obvious that a person operating an automobile on a public street is in plain view of the public eye. Thus, when a driver rolls out on a public thoroughfare "[the vehicle's] occupants, and its contents are in [the] plain view"
of any surveillance vehicle legally parked in a public median.
In addition, "[t]he Court has recognized that the physical characteristics of an automobile and its use result in a lessened expectation of privacy therein . . . ."
Automobiles, unlike homes, are subject to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and controls, including periodic inspection and licensing requirements. As an everyday occurrence, police stop and examine vehicles when license plates or inspection stickers have expired, or if other violations, such as exhaust fumes or excessive noise, are noted, or if
headlights or other safety equipment are not in proper working order.
Furthermore, because a driver is required by law to place the automobile's license plate in plain view, it is unreasonable to have an expectation of privacy in such object. Consequently, detractors must focus their Fourth
Amendment challenges on the photograph identifying the driver as the culpable party.
A significant factor in analyzing a Fourth Amendment "search" is the intimacy of detail that a given surveillance technique reveals. If that technique is unduly invasive, providing intimate, personal detail, then a constitutional question may arise. The picture from a photo radar or photo red--light camera is nothing more than a typical 35mm photograph. This method of surveillance is actually "less offensive than surveillance cameras at convenience and grocery stores."
Additionally, which is more invasive: A clearly marked police vehicle that photographs drivers exceeding the speed limit by at least eleven miles per hour; or, an armed officer who can: (1) pull a driver over for even
going only one mile per hour over the speed limit; (2) detain him during the issuance of the citation; and (3) search his person and his vehicle once stopped?
For these reasons, it is doubtful that photographing a vehicle and its driver
with the photo radar technology used in Arizona today violates any legitimate right to privacy.
From this PDF, page 14:
See Page 14
vcheng says, "Please feel free to drop out of the discussion if you feel your handicap in carrying on a mature discussion and leave it to people like the rest of us in this forum. I intend to continue as the issues raised are very important for all of us. If you feel you can be productive in making intelligent comments, I would welcome your participation."
And insulting me is an indication that you are not comfortable with your position in the discussion.
Post # 800
Post # 800
Post # 800
plain view does not implicate the Fourth Amendment so long as the officer has a right to be at the place of observation.
Why leave out the part above the officer being present? Where is the officer in photo radar? (I see that you edited your post to include the snippet. Thank you, but it changes the meaning a whole lot does it not?)
I have quoted the entire paragraph. Please show me how I have misinterpreted it.
I am not insulting you, and I am not making comments like "Talk to the hand!". I welcome your particpation, but please reciprocate with civility, that's all I request of you.
vcheng says, "He says that IF the unattended photo radar meets the rules of evidence (AND IT DOES NOT!) it should admissible!"
You misinterpreted it by inserting your opinion of "IT DOES NOT" and HE never said that.
That's a misinterpretation.
DID
THAT
ALREADY
and you were still "pestering me" for it.
That's where the "talk to the hand" came from, which is an appropriate response to such a situation.
I'm not sure why you cannot see my clearly posted evidence.
I am not pestering anybody, but trying to further a debate that is important for all of us. I just cannot make the leap from other unrelated cases to justifying the use of photo radar as blithely as some already have.
However, all opinions are welcome, but please be prepared to defend your positions in an intellectually honest way without taking offence because none is intended, at least from my side.
I'm Googling my shitookus off, but so far nothing found.....
Anyone................?
Beuller????????????
Bueller????????????