Posted on 03/15/2009 12:35:41 PM PDT by george76
CLIVE, Iowa - Minutes after Neel Manglik illegally turned right on a red light in the Des Moines suburb of Clive, a video popped up on a computer at an office park outside Scottsdale, Ariz.
The $75 citation arrived in the mail weeks later, making Manglik one of the millions of Americans ticketed as part of a growing industry that is making handsome profits for companies that operate video cameras at busy intersections throughout the nation.
As more cities sign up and others invest their profits into more cameras, those companies expect increased revenue for years to come.
What's less clear is whether the cameras improve safety. While studies show fewer T-bone crashes at lights with cameras and fewer drivers running red lights, the number of rear-end crashes increases.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
not about safety.
They are about generating cash for municipalities
The thing that people don’t grasp...is that these cameras cost a tremendous amount of money and are state-of-the-art. You have to be able to walk into a court room and readily state facts with no doubt.
Germany built up a vast empire with this red-light cameras and became a technological development center. But along the way...came people who readily walked into court...challenged the cops...and eventually got their clients out of the situation.
Eventually, these towns who got into high-cost contracts...will admit this was a terrible idea.
Some cities have very short yellow lights to increase revenue.
If illegally short yellow lights are adjusted to fair seconds, then revenue drops.
i’m sure the denver compost will follow up.
I’ve seen pictures from the U.K. of how people sometimes deal with this. They hang an old tire containing a few ounces of gasoline around the camera and set a match to it.
Here in Sacramento it is $370.
If the camera doesn’t get a clear photo of the driver, what do they do then? I mean, you just can’t issue a ticket to a car, especially if there are multiple people that drive the car. Who broke the law? Everyone denies and the police will not waste the time and resources to prove the case. Remember, the burden of proof is on the state to prove who was driving, the driver has not burden to prove he was not driving.
Just how do “they” handle cases like this?
LOL!
I just got flashed last week up in PA...I had to make a split second decision as to whether I could stop when it turned yellow without getting hit in the arse and decided to keep going...saw it turn red just as I was passing under it (very short yellow I might add) and then in rear view saw the flash.
Bastards.
They do issue it to the owner of the car. Owner has the option of paying the fine or identifying who was driving.
Keep warning that the box we free people are placed in is getting smaller and smaller. Within a few years, all citizens will be slaves of Government and the Government will be communists. American citizens have little voice now and will have less in the future. How do we stop it?
They are already in charge. Only they call themselves "Progressives".
Unintended consequences.
Revenue collection oriented law enforcement has become a considerable danger to the general public and an infringement upon rights in the property confiscation {forfeiture} portion of it. It is becoming a revenue Oligarchy. But I'll just address saftey.
On one stretch of interstate on I-75 in Knoxville for example it isn't uncommon to see 8 or more cruisers {some are unmarked} in a two mile stretch in the median. These morons park as to face oncoming traffic then when Barney sees a speeder Barney quickly pulls out against {facing} traffic and does a U-Turn across three lanes of traffic. Barney thinks it's safe because Barney has his blue light on. In the mean time people are having to swerve and maneuver in congested traffic to keep from hitting Barney or someone else getting out of his way so Barney can make his quota. STOP REVENUE ORIENTED LAW ENFORCEMENT NOW!
Oh and I forgot to mention thses sorry tyrants put a red light camera at a place where they can be sure to catch persons taking someone to the cities second busiest Emergency Room be it even at 2:00am and no traffic where a flashing yellow would suffice. One of the least busiest intersections but one where a person in an emergency might need to run it if traffic allows to do so safely. It's all about revenue.
Fines are meant to serve as a deterrent. They are set high enough to get broad compliance; even if only a small percentage of offenders are caught. When you make it virtually certain that offenders (or innocent registered car owners) get caught — there's no justification for keeping the fine so high.
Any amount of a fine higher than necessary to achieve compliance with the law; is simply a cash grab.
** (Don't get me started on the horrors of becoming a surveillance society.)
Good points - how do you prove who was driving? Also, what of my right to face my accuser in court? Who is my accuser? The inanimate camera? They person in AZ that confirmed what the technology saw? The local that reviewed it? I would argue that the local cops are acting on hearsay evidence. What of extenuating circumstances? “Sorry about that, I saw someone approaching me from behind at a high overtake speed and felt it would be unsafe to stop.” What are they going to do - there is no camera angle that shows the view in your rear view mirror. Are they going to take away our right to avoid an unsafe situation? Hey, I will do anything, lines, lanes, signals be darned, to avoid a collision. I have the fundamental right to self protection.
You're expecting some due process with these things? Don't be foolish! There is no way to fight it and the judges are in on the scam. There's no appeal, comrade. The only thing you can do is pay the fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.