-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Email
Print
Digg
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: josef on 1/6/09
If a police officer did not physically witness the traffic violation, I can't see how it can be legal. That is always the excuse when you call to report a hazardous driver or other incident not witnessed by an "officer" of the law...
I plan to fight if I am ever served with notice of a camera charged fine.
If a police officer did not physically witness the traffic violation, I can't see how it can be legal. That is always the excuse when you call to report a hazardous driver or other incident not witnessed by an "officer" of the law...
I plan to fight if I am ever served with notice of a camera charged fine.
By: attagirl on 1/6/09
That's why they call it civil instead of criminal. And that's why they can't put it on your driving record as an offense.
That's why they call it civil instead of criminal. And that's why they can't put it on your driving record as an offense.
By: nbouldin on 1/6/09
Wow. This makes it all better now. What exactly are the " benefits achieved" ? All I have to say is more cameras to film all aspects of public life......... safety through surveillance.
Wow. This makes it all better now. What exactly are the " benefits achieved" ? All I have to say is more cameras to film all aspects of public life......... safety through surveillance.
By: ntheknow on 1/6/09
Big Brother is watching you!
Big Brother is watching you!
By: serr8d on 1/7/09
Apropos..
"Santa's helpers disable Red-light cameras in Tempe"
http://tinyurl.com/8zuyjk
Apropos..
"Santa's helpers disable Red-light cameras in Tempe"
http://tinyurl.com/8zuyjk
By: Wil2hike on 1/7/09
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Don't run the red light and you won't have your picture taken - how hard a concept is this to understand?
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Don't run the red light and you won't have your picture taken - how hard a concept is this to understand?
By: Farmall on 1/7/09
The socialist state of MN threw them all out of the state. They ruled them all unconstitutional. Should I ever get one the tickets I will be looking for their argument for my cort date.
The socialist state of MN threw them all out of the state. They ruled them all unconstitutional. Should I ever get one the tickets I will be looking for their argument for my cort date.
By: RonB on 1/7/09
I guess a lot of things could be ruled "legal", but that doesn't mean the people want them. A 10 MPH speed limit would save lives, and probably be "legal". Anybody want that? We need to be VERY careful who we vote into office.
I guess a lot of things could be ruled "legal", but that doesn't mean the people want them. A 10 MPH speed limit would save lives, and probably be "legal". Anybody want that? We need to be VERY careful who we vote into office.
By: lupusman on 1/7/09
When a vehicle is issued a parking ticket, it is usually done without knowing who actually parked the vehicle in the space. And the ticket is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. If the vehicle is parked in certain restricted areas i.e. a fire lane, it can be towed and "owner's expense"! So how is issuing a ticket for a vehicle running a red light any different? People - we are not talking about a huge fine that would backrupt anyone - it's
$ 50! And an owner should know who was driving their vehicle at the time the vehicle went thru the red light. Comparing red light cameras to lowering the speed limit to 10 MPH is rediculous! I agree with Wil2hike - Don't run the light and you have nothing to worry about!
When a vehicle is issued a parking ticket, it is usually done without knowing who actually parked the vehicle in the space. And the ticket is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. If the vehicle is parked in certain restricted areas i.e. a fire lane, it can be towed and "owner's expense"! So how is issuing a ticket for a vehicle running a red light any different? People - we are not talking about a huge fine that would backrupt anyone - it's
$ 50! And an owner should know who was driving their vehicle at the time the vehicle went thru the red light. Comparing red light cameras to lowering the speed limit to 10 MPH is rediculous! I agree with Wil2hike - Don't run the light and you have nothing to worry about!
By: vdanr on 1/9/09
Good point lupusman and I totally agree. I think some people just want to complain for the sake of complaining!!!!! Negative attitudes and unhappy lives!!
Good point lupusman and I totally agree. I think some people just want to complain for the sake of complaining!!!!! Negative attitudes and unhappy lives!!
By: citizenkane on 1/9/09
If you do not pay the fine, there is no criminal charges, but they report it to a collection agency for payment. If you do not pay, this will count against your credit.
If you do not pay the fine, there is no criminal charges, but they report it to a collection agency for payment. If you do not pay, this will count against your credit.
By: madashell on 2/24/10
$50... WHAT!!! lupusman and vdanr, I just got one in San Diego, $446.00 + $57.00 (administrative, if I want to go to traffic school) + $27.00 actual traffic school= $530.00!!! This is MORE THAN HALF OF MY MONTHLY SALARY!!! We have all seen idiots trying to 'beat' red lights. That is NOT me! My speed, as recorded by the camera was 19mph. I suffered a nanosecond of inattention and BOOM! In 33+ years of driving, this is my first moving violation. Do the facts that this is my first offense; that my speed clearly shows I was not willfully breaking the law; or that the fine is a TREMENDOUS hardship to me matter??? NOT ONE BIT! As I told the person I talked to at SDPD, I did this; and I want to pay a fine ($100 would certainly be a sufficient deterrent)... BUT, $500.00!!! The SINGLE light I was caught at (4503 violators) generated over $2.25 MILLION in 2009! 38% to state of California, 36% to city of San Diego and 26% to county of San Diego (SD Union-Tribune). How have we gone from Thomas Jefferson to THIS??? Forgive me, but if we continue to be the proverbial 'frogs in boiling water' and just accept this incremental encroachment on our liberties, we truly have lost sight of what being a true American is all about. While the cameras themselves, I agree, probably cannot be challenged constitutionally, I do think the punishments can be. If a multi-millionaire robs a bank -while he will certainly be able to afford better attorneys- if he is convicted, he will receive the same punishment as I would, if convicted of the same. If that same millionaire runs a camera-ed red light, he will receive perhaps 1/100th the punishment I was given. I truly think THIS IS unconstitutional and MUST be challenged. I confess, I was one of those who all but cheered when I saw the flashes go off -WHEN IT HAPPENED TO SOMEONE ELSE! I am not that way now. If it happened to me, IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU! And when/if it does, you will feel just as governmentally-raped as I. Oh, one side note, the SDPD person I talked to assured me that the city actually LOSES money on these cameras (discrediting the SD U-T's pie chart altogether) and the cameras exist ONLY to increase traffic safety. But he then made a not so teensie-weensie slip, "For every camera that is profitable, there are several 'non-producers'" AND, "You should be thankful you got it now; next month they're going up to $600.00" Hmmmmm...
$50... WHAT!!! lupusman and vdanr, I just got one in San Diego, $446.00 + $57.00 (administrative, if I want to go to traffic school) + $27.00 actual traffic school= $530.00!!! This is MORE THAN HALF OF MY MONTHLY SALARY!!! We have all seen idiots trying to 'beat' red lights. That is NOT me! My speed, as recorded by the camera was 19mph. I suffered a nanosecond of inattention and BOOM! In 33+ years of driving, this is my first moving violation. Do the facts that this is my first offense; that my speed clearly shows I was not willfully breaking the law; or that the fine is a TREMENDOUS hardship to me matter??? NOT ONE BIT! As I told the person I talked to at SDPD, I did this; and I want to pay a fine ($100 would certainly be a sufficient deterrent)... BUT, $500.00!!! The SINGLE light I was caught at (4503 violators) generated over $2.25 MILLION in 2009! 38% to state of California, 36% to city of San Diego and 26% to county of San Diego (SD Union-Tribune). How have we gone from Thomas Jefferson to THIS??? Forgive me, but if we continue to be the proverbial 'frogs in boiling water' and just accept this incremental encroachment on our liberties, we truly have lost sight of what being a true American is all about. While the cameras themselves, I agree, probably cannot be challenged constitutionally, I do think the punishments can be. If a multi-millionaire robs a bank -while he will certainly be able to afford better attorneys- if he is convicted, he will receive the same punishment as I would, if convicted of the same. If that same millionaire runs a camera-ed red light, he will receive perhaps 1/100th the punishment I was given. I truly think THIS IS unconstitutional and MUST be challenged. I confess, I was one of those who all but cheered when I saw the flashes go off -WHEN IT HAPPENED TO SOMEONE ELSE! I am not that way now. If it happened to me, IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU! And when/if it does, you will feel just as governmentally-raped as I. Oh, one side note, the SDPD person I talked to assured me that the city actually LOSES money on these cameras (discrediting the SD U-T's pie chart altogether) and the cameras exist ONLY to increase traffic safety. But he then made a not so teensie-weensie slip, "For every camera that is profitable, there are several 'non-producers'" AND, "You should be thankful you got it now; next month they're going up to $600.00" Hmmmmm...