OT - Obscuring licence plate for lawlessness

[QuikSand]

Here in Maryland, we have seen a recent proliferation of automated enforcement devices to assist the local police departments. That's a long-winded way to say we have cameras at intersections that take pictures of cars who run red lights.

On a recent visit to the center where these tickets are processed, I was pretty impressed by the standards used in determining whether the car was clearly violating the law in any situation -- there are an awful lot of pictures thrown out because it's not perfectly clear that the person entered the intersection while the signal was already red. That was reassuring to me.

For what it's worth, the jurisdictions using these cameras have generally seen pretty impressive results -- a significant drop in the number of offenders (especially when the cameras are adjoined by signs indicating their presence) and over time, a drop in the number of accidents. Cameras at the most dangerous intersections are bound, statistically, to save lives by their presence.


However, in passing, one of the managers mentioned a trend that is apparently picking up steam here -- a product you can buy and spary (I think) onto your license plates, which makes your tag number very hard to read, at least by these cameras. Apparently, the product is getting hawked on political talk radio shows, and is selling pretty well -- and I'm seeing more and more plates with a dull gray sheen to them, indicative of this product.


Okay -- I have a pretty healthy libertarian bent, and I'm not really a fan of this technology on balance. I even have a certain (though perhaps incomplete) sympathy for people using radar detectors, as I can understand the mentality involved.

But here -- I just don't get it. I can't interpret the use of "tag spray" as anything but saying "It's very important to me to be able to run red lights." Who is out there who would argue this?

I guess I'm just frustrated a bit at the notion of fair-minded concept of civil disobedience gone wrong here. If you reject a law because it doesn't seem fair... I think you're on to something. But who wants to see more people running red lights? Does anyone really rebel against order in traffic? Even an anarchist likes to be able to go on green, doesn't he?


Grumble, grumble...

[HornedFrog Purple]

Do you feel the same way about radar detectors?

Edit: Misread the part in your post about them. To me, it's the same thing and if they are being allowed, I guess it's hard to determine which one of these products are the greater evil.

[QuikSand]

Do you feel the same way about radar detectors?

Only to a modest degree. I guess I don't feel that driving 70 in a 55 zone on an open highway creates a material risk to anyone. I recognize that it's against the law to do so, and I'm not a "letter of the law" hardliner in any sense.

That's where I see a difference -- wanting to protect yourself from a ticket when conducting an activity that nearly every driver does, with presumed minimal risk to others, doesn't seem totally outrageous to me. But aggressively defending your right to run a red light -- that, to me, is taking the same concept too far. Running a light is clearly unsafe behavior, it directly contributes to countless accidents and injuries, and it's very hard for me to sympathize with anyone who stands up for the right to do it without fear of retribution.

To me, it's along a continuum that might end up with something like a "clean breath" pill that would allow an intoxicated driver to beat a breathalyzer test. Even if I'm a libertarian, I don't really want a bunch of people feeling emboldened enough to continue driving drunk, knowing they won't get caught because they use some device. I prefer that that kind of law stay in place, and remain enforced effectively -- for the sake of society.

I'm not to the point where I'd ask for a ban on the "tag spray" stuff ... but I just really question the motivations of the people who are using it.

[albionmoonlight]

I share your frustration. This isn't about libertarianism; it's about not paying fines. I wish that people would just admit that rather than somehow relate their rather boring desire to run red lights and not get caught to the high minded ideals of personal liberty and freedom.

[clintl]

But here -- I just don't get it. I can't interpret the use of "tag spray" as anything but saying "It's very important to me to be able to run red lights." Who is out there who would argue this?


A couple of things - one, I think there will always be a certain percentage of people who believe it's their duty to thwart law enforcement surveillance technology, whether or not they actually intend to actually break the particular law the technology is designed to enforce.

Second, I'm guessing that some of these people may have heard of a case here in California (San Diego, I believe) in which the "integrity" of the system in place was called into question because of the financial arrangements with camera vendor (i.e. the vendor was getting a cut of the fine for every ticket issued). I think a judge found that the cameras were being too aggressive and giving out some unwarranted tickets, made a mass dismissal of cases based on his findings, and San Diego (or whatever city it was) renegotiated the contract as a result. There were also some legal problems early on with the implementation in Sacramento County, but I can't remember what they were now. But a mass dismissal of tickets resulted from those problems, too.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm not to the point where I'd ask for a ban on the "tag spray" stuff ... but I just really question the motivations of the people who are using it.
I disagree. If there is a product, the sole purpose of which is to prevent the enforcement of a good law against you, I see no problem with making it illegal.

Of course, I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that there is no other use for this stuff.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Well when it comes right down to it, these are products that are both intended to circumvent the law. One tells you when you are breaking it, the other intends to "hide" you.

The other thing I would think it would be for is to get through an automated toll booth.

I see your point though, I also am pretty much convinced from my line of work that 5-10 mph difference in a moving car(s) accident is just as if not more deadly.

[stevew]

Perhaps some feel that the cameras will be used by the government to track peoples movement as well. Not that i agree with these people, but it could be more than "i just want to run stop lights."

[Ksyrup]

One problem I have with these systems is that (a) they aren't everywhere; and (b) up until this technology became functional, hardly anyone was being busted for running red lights. And now, in places that don't use this technology, no one gets busted. So, we've all learned to drive a certain way - it's been condoned, as far as I'm concerned, when someone runs an obviously red light, and the cop at the intersection does nothing about it - but in some areas, it's now gone from a judgment call that is largely passed up, to an absolute violation.

Not saying I agree with using these products to get out of paying fines, but I understand the frustration with it. The entire system of "policing" has nearly always been about exercising discretion, with a lot of it being "if they aren't around, I can break the rules." Suddenly, that's all being replaced with an automated system. But no one has even been taught to actually drive the speed limit, or that obeying the traffic rules is an absolute. Or, at least, in practice, absolutes are never enforced.

Hell, when you're driving next to a cop doing the speed limit, and you pass him going 5 miles over, he still doesn't pull you over. But at the next light, if you run through it and he does nothing about it, you could still get a ticket in the mail. The two systems can't peacefully co-exist because they create uncertainty and confusion.

I think there's a Questec analogy in here somewhere. But I guess my opinion is, if that's the way it's going to be, it should be done that way everywhere, so that people can get used to driving under those conditions.

[QuikSand]

One problem I have with these systems is that (a) they aren't everywhere; and (b) up until this technology became functional, hardly anyone was being busted for running red lights. And now, in places that don't use this technology, no one gets busted. So, we've all learned to drive a certain way - it's been condoned, as far as I'm concerned, when someone runs an obviously red light, and the cop at the intersection does nothing about it - but in some areas, it's now gone from a judgment call that is largely passed up, to an absolute violation.

I don't share your perception that running red lights has become an accepted practice, either by drivers or law enforcement. I don't have any real first-hand knowldege, but there's a pretty firm sense in my mind that were I to run through a red light in the presence of an officer, I'd get a ticket (correctly).

Maybe I'm wrong about that, and there is the kind og "slippage" you suggest.

The lines get even more blurry when you start to talk about automated, camera-based speed enforcement... but I hadn't even intended to raise that issue.

[KevinNU7]

Hell, when you're driving next to a cop doing the speed limit, and you pass him going 5 miles over, he still doesn't pull you over.
Don't ever come to Rhode Island

[Solecismic]

I don't know why, but I speed all the time, and don't see anything wrong with it. But I see someone running a red light, and it really bothers me.

I consider radar detecters "cheating," and won't use one. I'd be in favor of banning the use of plate spray, not necessarily because of the red light thing, but because increasingly, crimes are being solved by camera surveillance of places like parking lots, and I could imagine that this spray would become de rigeur for criminals.

[QuikSand]

I don't know why, but I speed all the time, and don't see anything wrong with it. But I see someone running a red light, and it really bothers me.

I agree with this statement in its entirety.

[Rich1033]

In Toledo they have just added radars to certain intersections. So now it will take a picture of cars speeding and cars who run red lights. I believe that is going a little overboard.

[albionmoonlight]

Another wrinkle to this discussion: The use of the criminal law as a revenue generation mechanism by municipalities. Part of the reason that we ticket and fine people for speeding, running lights, etc. is to discourage behaviour that we consider dangerous. However, a nice side benefit of these fines (esp. in small towns) is that the money goes to the city coffers.

I would imagine that having automated radar detectors is driven more by the need to get fines without paying cops to issue the tickets than it is by a legitimate concern for preventing speeding.

[albionmoonlight]

Dola: I don't really know which way the above point cuts--but I think that it certainly part of the calculus.

[NoMyths]

One reason speeding is a concern (and that folks don't always think about): it's not always the danger you may pose by driving unsafely, but the potential for a mechanical problem to become catastrophic. If your tire blows out while you're traveling 70+, for instance, most drivers will have a harder time controlling the results than if they were traveling 50. Having had tires blow out at both speeds I consider myself a bit experienced with the distinction. :)

Besides, if you consider the amount of time you're actually saving by speeding--in most cases, a matter of seconds-- it's really not worth the added danger.

At any rate, it's something I remind my girlfriend about whenever she's leadfooting it to Olive Garden. :)

[QuikSand]

I am very familiar with the revenue argument. An interesting "spin" on it is this...

Okay, let's assume what you're saying is basically true. The city is having trouble getting enough money to its police department to support the number of officers needed to properly patrol the dangerous intersections. So, they opt to put up these red light cameras, which pay for themselves with revenues generated by offenders.

Would it have been better for the city to raise taxes to provide the services they felt were necessary? Should they raise taxes to put more officers on these corners?

[QuikSand]

At any rate, it's something I remind my girlfriend about whenever she's leadfooting it to Olive Garden.

I think you are attacking the wrong problem. There's nothing at Olive Garden worth hurrying for.

[NoMyths]

I think you are attacking the wrong problem. There's nothing at Olive Garden worth hurrying for.:D

[Ben E Lou]

I think you are attacking the wrong problem. There's nothing at Olive Garden worth hurrying for.You haven't had their raspberry white-chocolate cheesecake, apparently.

[NoMyths]

Another reason I think about it: on average, three people a day are killed in automobile accidents in this state. Three.

[Ksyrup]

I don't share your perception that running red lights has become an accepted practice, either by drivers or law enforcement. I don't have any real first-hand knowldege, but there's a pretty firm sense in my mind that were I to run through a red light in the presence of an officer, I'd get a ticket (correctly).It has in this state. In fact, sometimes I wonder whether people are competing to be the last car through an intersection after the light has turned red. And, I've seen cop cars sitting at intersections (maybe they're off duty, maybe they're doing something else, I don't know) who do nothing about it. I remember one instance in particular, because I made the typical comment to wife, "Where's a cop when you need one?" when we saw someone blow through a red light obviously late, and then I saw one on the other side of the intersection, first in line, just sitting there.

I'm not saying you can do that everytime in front of a cop be confident you aren't going to get pulled over, but I've seen enough non-enforcement of it that even I've pushed the envelope when it's close. The old joke, "A yellow light doesn't mean slow down, it means speed up" is pretty accurate in Florida.

[Huckleberry]

I think you are attacking the wrong problem. There's nothing at Olive Garden worth hurrying for.

Unless you're Jeeber, in which case it's your paycheck.

[Franklinnoble]

I think you have to consider that perhaps the "tag spray" (or whatever it is) could also be effective in thwarting photo radar - which I despise, and I consider to be nothing more than an easy cash-cow for most local governments.

Overall, I have a problem with the proliferation of "big brother," Minority Report-style government and law enforcement for petty crap like traffic violations. Traffic laws are, frankly, easy to enforce and easy to collect fines from, and the whole system is a big, fat, smelly scam. There's bigger criminal threats to society that are patently ignored for the sake of developing a better speed trap.

And what's the end result? People get speeding tickets while they're going about their otherwise law-abiding, taxpaying lives. They have to pay fines for the tickets, and then they have to take absurd remedial driving school classes that are overpriced and generally condescending and useless wastes of time so that they don't get points on their driving records which will only serve to jack up their insurance premiums. Yeah, that's good government.

As a footnote, I'd like to add that I'm not ranting about this because of any personal circumstance. I haven't had a ticket in over 6 years. I just think the system is corrupt, convoluted, and counterproductive.

[Ksyrup]

I consider radar detecters "cheating," and won't use one.
Funny story about radar detectors...

In the neighborhood my wife and I used to live in, we lived next to a guy who worked as an EMT. He had some sort of device - I have no clue what it was or what it's true purpose was - that could set off radar detectors. At that time, we had relatives in South Florida and made the 7 hour drive fairly often, so to keep ourselves amused during the drive, we would borrow the device for the trip, and when some shithead doing 95 and using his radar detector would fly up behind us or someone else and flash his lights/generally act like an asshole, we would let him pass by us, then activate his radar detector. And it never failed. They would all jump off the accelerator and look around. It was hilarious., I remembe one guy we kept repeatedly hitting for like 45 miles, until he just figured it was a malfunction or something, and he took off.

Great stress and boredom reliever.

I know, I'm evil.

[Ben E Lou]

I think you have to consider that perhaps the "tag spray" (or whatever it is) could also be effective in thwarting photo radar - which I despise, and I consider to be nothing more than an easy cash-cow for most local governments.

Overall, I have a problem with the proliferation of "big brother," Minority Report-style government and law enforcement for petty crap like traffic violations. Traffic laws are, frankly, easy to enforce and easy to collect fines from, and the whole system is a big, fat, smelly scam. There's bigger criminal threats to society that are patently ignored for the sake of developing a better speed trap.

And what's the end result? People get speeding tickets while they're going about their otherwise law-abiding, taxpaying lives. They have to pay fines for the tickets, and then they have to take absurd remedial driving school classes that are overpriced and generally condescending and useless wastes of time so that they don't get points on their driving records which will only serve to jack up their insurance premiums. Yeah, that's good government.

As a footnote, I'd like to add that I'm not ranting about this because of any personal circumstance. I haven't had a ticket in over 6 years. I just think the system is corrupt, convoluted, and counterproductive.I agree wholeheartedy, and I'll add to that footnote that I haven't gotten a ticket since the early 90's (and I'm still pissed off about that one :mad: )

[stevew]

Funny story about radar detectors...

In the neighborhood my wife and I used to live in, we lived next to a guy who worked as an EMT. He had some sort of device - I have no clue what it was or what it's true purpose was - that could set off radar detectors. At that time, we had relatives in South Florida and made the 7 hour drive fairly often, so to keep ourselves amused during the drive, we would borrow the device for the trip, and when some shithead doing 95 and using his radar detector would fly up behind us or someone else and flash his lights/generally act like an asshole, we would let him pass by us, then activate his radar detector. And it never failed. They would all jump off the accelerator and look around. It was hilarious., I remembe one guy we kept repeatedly hitting for like 45 miles, until he just figured it was a malfunction or something, and he took off.

Great stress and boredom reliever.

I know, I'm evil.


I want a similar device, except one used for cell phones. Figure someone is loudly talking on one in an enclosed room....boom, their signal goes out, and they have to go outside or something.

[Fritz]

I have this general concern about unmanned surveilance.

All of this stuff is just data, and once collected it just sits in some database waiting for someone to access it.

[albionmoonlight]

Would it have been better for the city to raise taxes to provide the services they felt were necessary? Should they raise taxes to put more officers on these corners?
In general, I do not think that it is good public policy for governmental entities to have a tangible stake in the outcome of criminal proceedings.

A little background to help inform the discussion. Academics like to talk about two different types of crime. Malum per se and Malum prohibitum. We say that some crimes are bad in themselves (murder, theft, etc.)--that they target behaviors that are just wrong on a deeper level. Other crimes (speeding tickets, etc.) are just wrong because we say they are wrong. There is nothing inherently immoral about going 51 mph on a road when the limit is 50. There is something inherently wrong about killing someone with malice. There are, of course, crimes which fall between these two extremes (complex environmental regulations come to mind), but that need not really concern us now.

In addition, certain crimes require no wrong intent. It is a crime to go 51 MPH, even if you did not mean to. It is not a crime to kill someone if it was an unforeseeable accident.

These two factors taken together make certain "crimes" like speeding different from other "crimes" like murder. There is no sense that you are a bad person--no stigma--if you are caught speeding. Everyone knows that speeding laws are arbitrary, and for all we know, you may not have even meant to speed, but just got careless. Indeed, some people really just view speeding tickets and the like as just some form of tax.

Which gets to your question--is that proper? Should cities use the criminal law as a revenue generator? Even if it is just that subset of criminal law that everyone knows is "not really a crime?"

I still come out no. I give my government the power to tax me and the power to enforce the laws. I beleive that it cheapens the awesome power of the second grant to turn it into a weakened version of the first. It's not a huge deal, but it does start to water down what exactly it means for the state to enforce criminal laws generally.

Also, on a practical level, when a cop pulls you over for speeding and sees the joint in the ashtray, things just got a lot more complicated. I don't really appreciate the state giving officers more reason to stop us and search us and our possessions--solely to make more money.

And they can always just start a lottery if they want a non-tax tax.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

To make the point more clearly: I beleive that the government should do all it can to limit the instances in which officers need to detain and/or search people. Revenue generation is not a good enough justification for encouraging such detentions and searches, IMO.

[judicial clerk]

The cameras are used for more than just stop light enforcement. They are used to catch speeders. I know b/c I got one. So the spray is not necessarily used by people to facilitate running red lights.

I do hate red light runners. I always wish I was a cop when I see it. I imagine that I would be such a prick when I pulled them over... "Looks like you are in a hurry! Well, I guess you are going to be really late now, cause this is gona take a while." same goes for the people who dangerously spped and weave through heavy traffic on the freeway or big streets.

[gstelmack]

There's bigger criminal threats to society that are patently ignored for the sake of developing a better speed trap.
Actually, that is not necessarily the case. Here in Cary a few months ago the town sent out an e-mail warning that they were going to put more cops on traffic enforcement, and so people should be a bit more careful about how they drive. The reason is that what most people think of as "crime" (robberies, etc) is pretty low around here, but traffic accidents and the accompanying loss of life, property, and money is growing. Significantly more damage is being done to people by red-light runners, speeders, and reckless driving than by people breaking into houses.

Cary makes plenty off taxes, so traffic fines are not a huge revenue source.

[gstelmack]

To throw another log on this fire: what about people driving with NO tags at all? I think this is finally dying down, but there was a span of a year or two where it seemed like once a week I'd spot someone with no tag in their car at all...

[albionmoonlight]

How does your city know your email address?

[TRO]

I hate the argument that speeding isn't bad because everybody else does it. If everybody jumped off... you get the picture.

The faster you go, the more damage is done. If everybody is going faster, it just makes the potential damage worse, not better.

I readily admit that I don't always adhere to a posted speed limit. Partially because I don't want to be going 20 MPH slower than the general traffic flow where it would be driving dangerously slow. But I also don't always adhere to a speed limit because some speed limits are slower that the situation calls for.

I feel no sympathy for people who receive speeding tickets (and I have 1 on my record), the fines need to be paid because if we all slow down, people will walk away more than they are carried away from accidents. I would like to see the fines go to charities or to see volunteer work instituted in lieu of fines, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[gstelmack]

How does your city know your email address?
I registered on their web page. I get e-mail a couple of times a week talking about town news (street closings / work, sewer spills, etc), upcoming events (sports league signups, weekend activities at town parks, etc), any important news releases from the town, etc.

[Solecismic]

I readily admit that I don't always adhere to a posted speed limit. Partially because I don't want to be going 20 MPH slower than the general traffic flow where it would be driving dangerously slow. But I also don't always adhere to a speed limit because some speed limits are slower that the situation calls for.


Neither do I. I'm relatively young, my car is in good running condition and I've always had extremely fast reflexes. I've never been in an accident. We all analyze situations and set our own limits. I almost never even go the speed limit when there's significant snow on the road.

I realize we need speed limits, and by and large most police officers are good about determining whether someone is speeding recklessly or just going a little fast. I've only had four tickets my entire life, two of them when I was 20 and was always that guy who was zooming past you on the freeway going 85. None in nine years now. And I speed just about all the time.

I just don't want to see the patrollman's judgment taken out of the equation here. These cameras are going to miss the idiot who cuts someone off and causes real damage. Traffic laws are important because otherwise, people would test their limits (as I have) and might misidentify them (as I haven't).

But using cameras loses sight of the big picture (pun intended), which is trying to lower the number of accidents. If you cause an accident, regardless of the speed you were traveling, you should be held responsible.

[BishopMVP]

if we all slow down, people will walk away more than they are carried away from accidents.So how far do you take it? If everyone drove 30 on the freeway, it would save lives, but I don't think anyone is advocating a speed limit that low. OTOH, almost all people agree some limit should be set, but as evidenced by their actions on the roads, ~90% of people feel they are too low (at least in MA, where 80-85 is the average rate of travel on highways). Usually, engineering studies bear this out (at least in the Northeast. Some states like Montana actually set theirs higher.) This leads to an attitude where "If everyone is doing it, then I don't deserve to get a ticket." and unless you want to increase the speed limits across the country, things like radar detectors and this spray will have high demand.

If they are being used to run red lights, that's disgraceful, but I'm betting most people get them for speeding cameras (I'm pretty sure DC has installed some, at the least.)

[Abe Sargent]

we have an America Tools of Crime law, that makes certain, ennumerated tools that are solely used for crime and have no other legal purpose illegal. For example, there is this machine that simulates the sound ofa quarter falling into a payphone. You could make free calls with it, and it had no other purpose, so it was added to the list. The spraying of a plate may also end up thusly.

-Anxiety

[Draft Dodger]

I do hate red light runners. I always wish I was a cop when I see it. I imagine that I would be such a prick when I pulled them over... "Looks like you are in a hurry! Well, I guess you are going to be really late now, cause this is gona take a while." same goes for the people who dangerously spped and weave through heavy traffic on the freeway or big streets.

we have an intersection in our town that without fail will have 2 or 3 people running the light each time it changes. I have always said that if I was a cop, I would just plant myself near that intersection and write tickets all day long.

[sabotai]

we have an intersection in our town that without fail will have 2 or 3 people running the light each time it changes. I have always said that if I was a cop, I would just plant myself near that intersection and write tickets all day long.

That's pretty much every intersection in New Jersey.

[Draft Dodger]

That's pretty much every intersection in New Jersey.

yeah, but my state doesn't suck. :D

[Solecismic]

we have an intersection in our town that without fail will have 2 or 3 people running the light each time it changes. I have always said that if I was a cop, I would just plant myself near that intersection and write tickets all day long.

Is it that one with the separated left turn and that confusing crosswalk downtown? If so, that's the last red light I ran.

[Draft Dodger]

Is it that one with the separated left turn and that confusing crosswalk downtown? If so, that's the last red light I ran.

I think you mean the "circle" downtown, but no that's not it.
this is the big intersection by the post office closer to 101.

[mtolson]

QS:

I don't condone the tag spray of clear lense cover users but I do understand why some use it. I live in Maryland close to the DC line and have a couple of friends that use the products. They each have been to court numerious times regarding bogus tickets generated from red lights cameras in DC. A little while back it was documented on local news regarding problems with DC red lights cameras not working correctly and people getting fined huge amounts of money. Lights jumped from green to red in less than a second, cameras went off prematurely. DC may not be as advanced in this area as MD.

Hell, DC can't even get high school schedules printed out before the first week of school ends this week.

Marc

[kcchief19]

Speeding and running red lights to me are almost apples and oranges. There are degrees of speeding. I only have a problem with speeding when the speeder endangers other drivers. Frankly, I don't want to pay a ticket or the resulting insurance increase, so I keep it pretty close to the speed limit when I know or think cops are on the prowl and 10 miles over at other times -- like one of my cop acquantices says, "9 nine you're fine, 10 you're mine."

I don't have a problem with someone speeding on an open highway -- it's your funeral. I'm a little put off with people who do 85 in the passing lane at rush hour because they make it impossible for people to get into the passing lane, but that's another issue. The "speeders" I want to go to prison are the "weavers." The closest I have ever come to an accident are the times when someone is going 25+ over the speed limit and weaving from lane to lane. We can pass all the pound-me-in-the-ass laws against those people that we want in my book.

But red lights are different. Running a red light almost always puts someone in danger. My observations have been that it is not speed that causes most accidents but rather the "differential" in speed -- two cars going 75 in a 55 zone are not as dangerous as one car going 75 interacting with another car going 55. The differential in red light areas is even greater -- you run a red light at 45, you're going to have a hard time avoiding a car turning into traffic going 5 mph.

I was like everyone else when I was younger. I had a car with a top speed of 140, although the fastest I ever had the guts to get it up to was 125. I would drive 90 in a 55 on my way to work all the time. I was an idiot. As I have gotten older, I find myself drawn to "zero tolerance" laws in other countries -- few speed limits and few laws, but if you get involved in an accident you lose your license for life and if you get caught driving without a license you got to jail.

[Fritz]

That's pretty much every intersection in New Jersey.

is that why they made those right turn only thingys?

[JimboJ]

Another big use for that license plate spray is so people can go through those EZ Pass toll booths without paying. If you go through the EZ Pass booth, and you don't have a transmitter in your car, a camera will take a pic of your license plate and they'll fine you.

[Buccaneer]

I'm surprise Quik didn't link this since we both share some experiences with this organization

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/esnr/autoenfor.htm

Colorado is a state that permits 'photo red' but being a Home Rule State (thank the Lord), each jurisdiction can opt out. Of course Colorado Springs, being quite conservative and libertarian, does not permit the use of this technology. The great 'govt of the people' bastions of Denver and Boulder do, so I have no direct experiences or comments on its use (and abuse).

[Mac Howard]

Don't you guys have much in the way of "speed cameras" - mobile radar operated cameras for speeding? The main use of these sprays here is to avoid these. I have no sympathy for red light running but, having been fined for travelling at 74 mph on a 70 mph freeway at 6 in the morning with not another car in sight because of a speed camera, I'm not a friend of these. There's just no sensible discretion in their use (a traffic cop wouldn't have looked twice let alone book me).

[Axxon]

Well, folks had to try something once this didn't work.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp

[Axxon]

Don't you guys have much in the way of "speed cameras" - mobile radar operated cameras for speeding? The main use of these sprays here is to avoid these. I have no sympathy for red light running but, having been fined for travelling at 74 mph on a 70 mph freeway at 6 in the morning with not another car in sight because of a speed camera, I'm not a friend of these. There's just no sensible discretion in their use (a traffic cop wouldn't have looked twice let alone book me).

I know that this sucks but in a way, here anyway, I like this idea. Anything which takes away from the day to day confrontations with law enforcement can help to alleviate some of the tensions between the police and the citizens they protect.

I know most people tense up, drive more rigidly and generally hate it when a police officer is around and that's not a good thing to feel about the police. If things such as routine speeding stops are handled mechanically, at least at first, then things may be better.

Now, I do think someone at the photo place should have the discretion and be called on to use it and not ticket you for what you described but if the camera shows willful disregard or serious safety issues, then by all means, ticket away.

[ISiddiqui]

is that why they made those right turn only thingys?

They're called jughandles, but probably that's one reason ;).

[Tekneek]

I see your point though, I also am pretty much convinced from my line of work that 5-10 mph difference in a moving car(s) accident is just as if not more deadly.

I've found that the police are usually out on Sunday mornings when traffic is especially light. When you are the only car in a mile stretch of straight road, you could be doing 100 over the limit and not pose any additional risk to others. It should not be the job of the police to protect you from yourself.

[Tekneek]

Perhaps some feel that the cameras will be used by the government to track peoples movement as well. Not that i agree with these people, but it could be more than "i just want to run stop lights."

This would be the only "legitimate" reason I would have for myself. Things like this are always abused by the government. Just like how they got access to tracking cellphones for emergency purposes, and routinely use it for other purposes now.

[Ben E Lou]

I've found that the police are usually out on Sunday mornings when traffic is especially light. When you are the only car in a mile stretch of straight road, you could be doing 100 over the limit and not pose any additional risk to others. It should not be the job of the police to protect you from yourself.Heh. I agree wholeheartedy, and I'll add to that footnote that I haven't gotten a ticket since the early 90's (and I'm still pissed off about that one :mad: )
Yup, the reason I'm still pissed off about that one is that it was given to me at about 7:00 on a Sunday morning. I was doing 57 in a 40, on a four-lane road with no one, other than a hiding cop, around me.

[Tekneek]

I would imagine that having automated radar detectors is driven more by the need to get fines without paying cops to issue the tickets than it is by a legitimate concern for preventing speeding.

Excellent point. It is a way to increase revenues (presumably an automated device will always issue more tickets than a human would) while saving the costs of actually employing humans to do the work. That's probably the ONLY true motivation that communities have for installing them and is likely a huge point made in the sales presentation. More than ever, government is hungry for money and will take it anyway they can get it. A lot of people agree to this method because it is under the guise of "safety" and "protecting the kids."

[Tekneek]

Besides, if you consider the amount of time you're actually saving by speeding--in most cases, a matter of seconds-- it's really not worth the added danger.

I used to believe this argument, until I made my own experiments. Two trips to Orlando, which actually involved generally the same weather situation for the trip and same amount of construction zones... One I never exceeded the speed limit, to the best of my ability, and the other I went at the same speed as the vehicles around me (within reason, never more than about 80 mph at any time). I ended up knocking off over two hours when I was speeding like everyone else. That may be a matter of seconds, but it is over 7,200 seconds.

If I travel the same over-the-limit speed as the other cars on the highway on the way into work, during the week, I save about 15 to 20 minutes over my usual method (never going more than 5 over). If you are doing 30 miles or more on the highway, speeding can save a lot more than a few seconds. If you are on city streets and dealing with lights, speeding usually is just a matter of seconds and not a smart idea. This is from my own personal experience.

[Tekneek]

Would it have been better for the city to raise taxes to provide the services they felt were necessary? Should they raise taxes to put more officers on these corners?

No, they should reduce the salaries of the mayor and other politicans/bureaucrats if they need more police.

[Tekneek]

There's bigger criminal threats to society that are patently ignored for the sake of developing a better speed trap.

I've beaten that dead horse a lot around here. It irritates me everytime I see the Gwinnett County police running their Sunday morning speed traps, when they routinely refuse to show up at burglaries that could be within a quarter-mile of their own police station.

[Yossarian]

I was doing 57 in a 40, on a four-lane road with no one, other than a hiding cop, around me.

I hear this kind of argument a lot.

Honestly, my response is "and?"

Speed limits are decided on a range of factors including how built up the area is, how 'bendy' the area is, previous history of accidents etc.

I dont want "some bloke" making decisions on whether or not its safe to go faster than the limit.

I dont care if you cant see any cars.

I dont care if you cant see any pedestrians.

Because maybe YOU are an aware driver but there are hunners of complete nut jobs and I dont trust their decision making.

Its not your call. It should never be "joe schmoe"'s call. Because Joe Schmoe is an idiot.

Just get over the boy racer thing and live with the speed limits (aimed at 'i wanna speed' drivers in general noone in specific).

I mean, how much time do you save by speeding on a normal occasion? Going to work in the morning, you'd be lucky to save 5 mins unless you live a real large distance from work (i say this blanket statement because i see a lot of drivers speed ahead only to catch up with them at lights etc).

[Tekneek]

I dont care if you cant see any pedestrians.

Because maybe YOU are an aware driver but there are hunners of complete nut jobs and I dont trust their decision making.

Pedestrians are not allowed on the highways I travel on. If you're trying to walk across it, or even alongside it, you are already in the wrong.

I am not of the opinion that I should be restricted merely because some other fool is going to act irresponsibly.

[Ben E Lou]

Because maybe YOU are an aware driver but there are hunners of complete nut jobs and I dont trust their decision making.???

[Yossarian]

Pedestrians are not allowed on the highways I travel on.

Over here we have speed cameras on an assortment of roads, including those in built up residential areas. Is some fool is walking on a motorway (highway) then he's a dumbass and is probably going to get hurt or arrested..


I am not of the opinion that I should be restricted merely because some other fool is going to act irresponsibly.

In that case, why not remove all speed limits, traffic lights, etc. If we all act responsibly then we dont need all these rules.

[Yossarian]

???

literally... hundreds

non literally.. lots

[Tekneek]

In that case, why not remove all speed limits, traffic lights, etc. If we all act responsibly then we dont need all these rules.

I'm onboard with that. The biggest threats on the road are not the speeders. It's the people who don't signal their lane changes, who follow too closely, who cut other drivers off, don't properly tie down their loads, and those who can't be bothered to properly maintain their vehicle. I don't think I've ever seen an accident on a highway that was caused merely by someone speeding. It was caused by some other lack of respect for the other drivers on the road.

[Yossarian]

but the consequences are more serious if someone is speeding no?

[Super Ugly]

I have to agree with Yossarian on that one. Too many people round here get killed all the time because drivers always seem to think that it's okay for 'them' to exceed the speed limit. They always think that it's some 'other' dickhead who's going to hit somebody.

But at the same time, wherever I've been to the States, I've noticed that for all the roads--even those shitty little ones in housing estates--there are rarely any pedestrians walking alongside them ... I guess the speeding issue is very different here in Britain than it is in the USA?

[JAG]

The biggest threats on the road are not the speeders. It's the people who don't signal their lane changes, who follow too closely, who cut other drivers off, don't properly tie down their loads, and those who can't be bothered to properly maintain their vehicle.

I'd like to see a lot more tickets issued for improper lane changing.

[Tekneek]

I'd like to see a lot more tickets issued for improper lane changing.

Around here the police are big offenders of that one.

[Tekneek]

I have to agree with Yossarian on that one. Too many people round here get killed all the time because drivers always seem to think that it's okay for 'them' to exceed the speed limit. They always think that it's some 'other' dickhead who's going to hit somebody.

We've got a lot of VIPs who are exempt from normal rules. These aren't the sorts who speed under control and when the conditions are safe for it. These are the types who speed regardless and expect everyone else to make room for them to do it. These types also park improperly by taking up multiple spaces, or park in the fire lanes because they simply must park at the curb, and feel that the 'emergency shoulder' on the side of the road was put there for them to get around traffic jams that the rest of us plebeians have to wait in.

[Ragone]

Speeding and running red lights to me are almost apples and oranges. There are degrees of speeding. I only have a problem with speeding when the speeder endangers other drivers. Frankly, I don't want to pay a ticket or the resulting insurance increase, so I keep it pretty close to the speed limit when I know or think cops are on the prowl and 10 miles over at other times -- like one of my cop acquantices says, "9 nine you're fine, 10 you're mine."

I don't have a problem with someone speeding on an open highway -- it's your funeral. I'm a little put off with people who do 85 in the passing lane at rush hour because they make it impossible for people to get into the passing lane, but that's another issue. The "speeders" I want to go to prison are the "weavers." The closest I have ever come to an accident are the times when someone is going 25+ over the speed limit and weaving from lane to lane. We can pass all the pound-me-in-the-ass laws against those people that we want in my book.

But red lights are different. Running a red light almost always puts someone in danger. My observations have been that it is not speed that causes most accidents but rather the "differential" in speed -- two cars going 75 in a 55 zone are not as dangerous as one car going 75 interacting with another car going 55. The differential in red light areas is even greater -- you run a red light at 45, you're going to have a hard time avoiding a car turning into traffic going 5 mph.

I was like everyone else when I was younger. I had a car with a top speed of 140, although the fastest I ever had the guts to get it up to was 125. I would drive 90 in a 55 on my way to work all the time. I was an idiot. As I have gotten older, I find myself drawn to "zero tolerance" laws in other countries -- few speed limits and few laws, but if you get involved in an accident you lose your license for life and if you get caught driving without a license you got to jail.

Chief.. kc has some really crappy areas for red lights... for example that bottleneck of disaster that is 152 going into liberty.. how many red lights in a 1 mile stretch of road are really needed?

But what really gets me is the tiny po dunk towns that pop up near high travel areas.. lets take Po-Dunk town #210 for example.. thats Randolph.. which is about 2 miles in total size.. and is the only way to Ameristar casino.. max speed limit in randolph is... wait for it.. 15, i'm particullarly fond of the "Kids in play" sign, considering i've yet to see anyone actually enter or leave one of the 3 houses in the entire town, but lets not forget the trailer that is city hall, and the three 60k police interceptors they have parked outside of it.. one of which is probably worth more then the entire net worth of anyone who lives in randolph.. and i also get the feeling the judge for randolph also does patrols.. but i digress..

I've been pulled over once in my life (did you know a cop can pull you over if you stay in the passing lane for too long... i didn't, thankfully i was wearing my seat belt, so he let me off with a warning because of that..)

[Tekneek]

I've been pulled over once in my life (did you know a cop can pull you over if you stay in the passing lane for too long... i didn't, thankfully i was wearing my seat belt, so he let me off with a warning because of that..)

I want to see this happen. I see people hog this up mile after mile, most not even bothering to reach the speed limit either.

[Ksyrup]

is that why they made those right turn only thingys?
You know, I never could figure out why people from up north, especially Jersey, would clog up the left lanes down in South Florida, usually doing at or under the speed limit. Absolutely drove me nuts. Until I visited Jersey, and realized that they don't have any left-hand turn lanes, but those ridiculous 3-right-turns-to-go-left lanes.

To them, the left lane is like the right lane to the rest of us sane people.

[cuervo72]

Jersey has a million of those damned circles (roundabouts, for some) too.

The jughandles bugged the hell out of my wife (from South Florida, incidentally) when she first saw them driving to my parent's old house (there is one in particular on the boulevard - Route 1 - in NE Philly, right near the Beer Take Out that used to be a Krispy Kreme years ago).

[Axxon]

I want to see this happen. I see people hog this up mile after mile, most not even bothering to reach the speed limit either.

I've named these folks "Keepers of the Speed."

I don't mean it in a good way either. :)

[Apathetic Lurker]

Another wrinkle to this discussion: The use of the criminal law as a revenue generation mechanism by municipalities. Part of the reason that we ticket and fine people for speeding, running lights, etc. is to discourage behaviour that we consider dangerous. However, a nice side benefit of these fines (esp. in small towns) is that the money goes to the city coffers.

I would imagine that having automated radar detectors is driven more by the need to get fines without paying cops to issue the tickets than it is by a legitimate concern for preventing speeding.

Obviously you have never been to Blasdell NY. Here part of the tickets given out are done by state troopers. NY State has decided, in it's infinate wisdom, that since it's troopers gave out 8% of the tickets last year they are "entitled" to ALL the money from speeding tickets in that town($500,000).

[Blackadar]

Let me throw a curveball here regarding the original question...

In NC, if they see your car going through a red light, they send YOU the ticket. And they don't take a photo of your face. Just your car and license plate.

Here's my issue - what if I'm not driving the car? My wife and I change cars all the time. She drives sometimes. I drive sometimes.

I've lent my car to my parents and friends. What if my wife ran the red light? What if my parents did it? What about my son when he's old enough to drive? Yet by mailing me a ticket, I'm presumed guilty. So essentially I can get a ticket for something that I didn't do? Now I'm in the position of having to defend myself and my wallet against this - taking my time and money? That's crap.

To me, the whole thing smacks of Big Brother and these kickbacks to the police departments brings into question the motivation for issuing the tickets.

I'd use the spray in a heartbeat. Not to run red lights. To protect my rights and thumb my nose at the inherent unfairness of the system.

[Ksyrup]

Luckily, in Southern California, they take a picture of both your face and your license plate, to allow positive identification.

At least, that was the attempted alibi Dabney Coleman used on an episode of Columbo once. Too bad for him Columbo realized that there was no shadow under his nose, so the face must have been a mask, destroying his alibi.

What were we talking about again?

[gstelmack]

I've found that the police are usually out on Sunday mornings when traffic is especially light. When you are the only car in a mile stretch of straight road, you could be doing 100 over the limit and not pose any additional risk to others. It should not be the job of the police to protect you from yourself.
What if you blew out a tire, lost control, and slammed into a house on the side of the road? Cars end up in houses about once or twice a year around here...

[gstelmack]

Let me throw a curveball here regarding the original question...

In NC, if they see your car going through a red light, they send YOU the ticket. And they don't take a photo of your face. Just your car and license plate.

Here's my issue - what if I'm not driving the car? My wife and I change cars all the time. She drives sometimes. I drive sometimes.

I thought the assumption in this case is that you are responsible for your car. Wife vs. husband is likely not a big deal (barring one having a lot of points on their license), insurance will go up the same. But if you loan to someone outside of your immediate family, aren't you still considered responsible for the use of your car? To me this is similar to being reponsible for a guest you bring to any of a number of locations / events.

[QuikSand]

I thought the assumption in this case is that you are responsible for your car. Wife vs. husband is likely not a big deal (barring one having a lot of points on their license), insurance will go up the same. But if you loan to someone outside of your immediate family, aren't you still considered responsible for the use of your car? To me this is similar to being reponsible for a guest you bring to any of a number of locations / events.

Every jurisdiction I know of will drop the charge if you assert that you were not driving the car at the time. But you still have the hassle of having to show up to make your argument, so there remains a practical element to this argument.

[Apathetic Lurker]

I've beaten that dead horse a lot around here. It irritates me everytime I see the Gwinnett County police running their Sunday morning speed traps, when they routinely refuse to show up at burglaries that could be within a quarter-mile of their own police station.


They just want to ticket all those responsible church-goers. After all, they wouldn't hassle the police if stopped.Not at all dangerous. So it is safe for the police . :)

[henry296]

I believe in Maryland you get no points if caught by a red light camera, but you do if caught by a cop.

[Tekneek]

What if you blew out a tire, lost control, and slammed into a house on the side of the road? Cars end up in houses about once or twice a year around here...

Sorry, I was specifically referring to highway driving and there are no houses alongside those roadways.

[QuikSand]

I believe in Maryland you get no points if caught by a red light camera, but you do if caught by a cop.

That is true in Maryland, and in nearly all jurisdictions using this type of technology.

[Tekneek]

That is true in Maryland, and in nearly all jurisdictions using this type of technology.

Why do they feel the punishment should only be financial for one and not the other? The fine from the camera should be less expensive than when a Cop gets you as well, then, considering their expense is lower.

[Blackadar]

I thought the assumption in this case is that you are responsible for your car. Wife vs. husband is likely not a big deal (barring one having a lot of points on their license), insurance will go up the same. But if you loan to someone outside of your immediate family, aren't you still considered responsible for the use of your car? To me this is similar to being reponsible for a guest you bring to any of a number of locations / events.


Then why are rental car agencies excluded from these tickets? :)

If caught speeding, why doesn't the owner of the car get the ticket and not the driver?

Responsbility always goes with the individual committing the infraction, not the owner of the property.

[QuikSand]

Why do they feel the punishment should only be financial for one and not the other?

I think the practical reality is that you can't afford to clog up the court system with actual tickets being contested over the prospect of points. So, the governments have decided that the financial disincentive is generally enough to get people to reduce or eliminate the illegal/unsafe behavior.

There's also an element of policital reality needed here, too -- the people who complain about these proposals have some success in watering them down, and this is such an instance, to a degree, I suspect.

[Buzzbee]

But here -- I just don't get it. I can't interpret the use of "tag spray" as anything but saying "It's very important to me to be able to run red lights." Who is out there who would argue this?

I guess I'm just frustrated a bit at the notion of fair-minded concept of civil disobedience gone wrong here. If you reject a law because it doesn't seem fair... I think you're on to something. But who wants to see more people running red lights? Does anyone really rebel against order in traffic? Even an anarchist likes to be able to go on green, doesn't he?


Grumble, grumble...

I started to post in this thread several times, but held off. However, after reading comments and giving it a little thought, I'll toss my coins in as well.

Someone above raised a point, lost in the banter regarding speeding and cops and enforcement and such, that was somewhat glossed over. I'd like to bring it back to the surface. The comment was basically along the lines of "I don't want to be spied on and therefore am against the use of cameras to record where I am."

While this might be a valid concern, *I* don't think that it is the true reason people are against cameras or a true justification for using the spray. I believe it is really just a rationalization to cover the true reason. IMO, the real reason is that people just don't like getting caught. If you get pulled over by a cop it isn't as big a deal because that cop only caught you 1 out of a thousand times that you may have coasted through when that light just turned red. With the cameras, it's possible that you might get nailed every time. People don't like that concept and as a result turn to devices like radar detectors and "tag spray".

Think about the backlash if GPS devices were installed by car manufacturers to identify cars that are speeding. Most people wouldn't argue that they should be allowed to break the law (notice I said MOST, for you people that feel we should be able to drive as fast as we feel we can), what would upset most people is the fact that they would no longer be able to get away with breaking the law.

$0.02

[Blackadar]

What upsets me is that I think it's a violation of the Constitution. Due process, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[QuikSand]

What upsets me is that I think it's a violation of the Constitution. Due process, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Every jurisdiction using this sort of technology entitles those charged to a defense in court. You are absolutely enabled to present your own evidence or refutation of the charge. ...and all that.

[Chubby]

Obviously you have never been to Blasdell NY. Here part of the tickets given out are done by state troopers. NY State has decided, in it's infinate wisdom, that since it's troopers gave out 8% of the tickets last year they are "entitled" to ALL the money from speeding tickets in that town($500,000).
oh it's all of NY, not just that town. It was slipped into the late-for-the-20th-year-in-a-row budget. it is going to eliminate the pleading to a lesser charge deals as before the law took effect, the town got to keep the $ of any infractions (which is what you would now plead guilty to) and now they don't so why do it. It's going to clog the fuck up of the courts because I know my ass is still pleading innocent knowing full well they don't want to go to trial over 5,000,000 speeding tickets :)

[Axxon]

I started to post in this thread several times, but held off. However, after reading comments and giving it a little thought, I'll toss my coins in as well.

Someone above raised a point, lost in the banter regarding speeding and cops and enforcement and such, that was somewhat glossed over. I'd like to bring it back to the surface. The comment was basically along the lines of "I don't want to be spied on and therefore am against the use of cameras to record where I am."

While this might be a valid concern, *I* don't think that it is the true reason people are against cameras or a true justification for using the spray. I believe it is really just a rationalization to cover the true reason. IMO, the real reason is that people just don't like getting caught. If you get pulled over by a cop it isn't as big a deal because that cop only caught you 1 out of a thousand times that you may have coasted through when that light just turned red. With the cameras, it's possible that you might get nailed every time. People don't like that concept and as a result turn to devices like radar detectors and "tag spray".

Think about the backlash if GPS devices were installed by car manufacturers to identify cars that are speeding. Most people wouldn't argue that they should be allowed to break the law (notice I said MOST, for you people that feel we should be able to drive as fast as we feel we can), what would upset most people is the fact that they would no longer be able to get away with breaking the law.

$0.02

Maybe people just aren't comfortable with intrusive devices monitoring their actions.

After all, In real life we have the following

http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html

I don't want that much government intrusion and I imagine lots of other law abiding folk feel the same way. It doesn't matter so much about catching bad guys.

The FBI has proven in the past that they're not above tapping and spying on people who are deemed foes of the administration so even law abiding citizens have to worry about the potential for abuse but of course the stock answer is that it's only for use against "bad guys."

[Blackadar]

Every jurisdiction using this sort of technology entitles those charged to a defense in court. You are absolutely enabled to present your own evidence or refutation of the charge. ...and all that.

Why should I have to defend myself if I wasn't driving?

They should have to prove I was driving before issuing the citation/fine. It's clearly not being done here. To me, it's akin to being presumed guilty - therefore, it's unconstitutional.

[gstelmack]

Think about the backlash if GPS devices were installed by car manufacturers to identify cars that are speeding. Most people wouldn't argue that they should be allowed to break the law (notice I said MOST, for you people that feel we should be able to drive as fast as we feel we can), what would upset most people is the fact that they would no longer be able to get away with breaking the law.
You mean like rental car companies have been doing for years now?

[QuikSand]

Why should I have to defend myself if I wasn't driving?

They should have to prove I was driving before issuing the citation/fine. It's clearly not being done here. To me, it's akin to being presumed guilty - therefore, it's unconstitutional.

They do have to prove it. You as the accused have every right to challenge the ticket, to argue that you were not driving, to argue that the evidence against you does not prove that you violated the law, and so forth. All the same rights that any accused gets when charged with a crime.

Your standards seems to be that you must be proven guilty even before charges can be filed against you. That's an absurd standard, for this situation or any other.

Yes - this mechanism can lead to inconveniences, and I agree with those who compain about that (and have done so above). But this "unconstitutional" argument is nonsense.

[QuikSand]

Why should I have to defend myself if I wasn't driving?

They should have to prove I was driving before issuing the citation/fine. It's clearly not being done here. To me, it's akin to being presumed guilty - therefore, it's unconstitutional.

You, of course, would then conclude that every parking ticket is unconstitutional as well, right?

[Blackadar]

Actually, QS, you're off base because you don't know the laws in NC. I suggest you learn them before commenting.

In North Carolina, tickets may not be appealed in court. How are citations appealed? The SafeLight staff will set up an appointment for the owner with a hearing officer for an administrative hearing. See the link for appeal procedures. The hearing officer will review the information provided by the vehicle owner and decide whether to withdraw the citation. So I don't get to go to a Judge. I don't get a hearing in Court. I have to go to a "safelight" officer to appeal. In other words, I must appeal to the same authority that's making money off the cameras - a conflict of interest, if there ever was one.

What if the registered owner was not driving the vehicle? Too bad. "The owner is responsible for paying or appealing the citation to the SafeLight office. If the car had been reported stolen at the time of the violation, the owner must submit a copy of the filed police report." Again, guilty until proven innocent. If a bank is robbed and my car is identified in the getaway, do I automatically get charged and arrested until I'm proven innocent?

What happens when drivers get caught? Fines are based on photographs or videos of car license plates. Photos are captured automatically when a vehicle enters the intersection after the signal has changed to red. The vehicle owner is identified from registered vehicle files, and a citation is are mailed to the owner's address. Again, no effort is made to identify the culprit of the moving violation. It was found that the camera to identify the driver would REDUCE the number of paid fines and would also reduce the money going to the County, so they elected not to install such cameras. This isn't law enforcement. It's a revenue stream. Profit motive and police work do not go together.

[Craptacular]

I've been pulled over once in my life (did you know a cop can pull you over if you stay in the passing lane for too long... i didn't, thankfully i was wearing my seat belt, so he let me off with a warning because of that..)
If you look at the signs that say "Keep Right Except to Pass" or "Slow Traffic Keep Right", they are rectangular with a white background and black text, are regulatory signs, and are enforceable just like a speed limit sign. Don't know if the road you were on had this posted, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

[stevew]

Some day, the technology used in Predator drones will be adapted cheaply for traffic usage. Bank on that.

[Tekneek]

What happens when drivers get caught? Fines are based on photographs or videos of car license plates. Photos are captured automatically when a vehicle enters the intersection after the signal has changed to red. The vehicle owner is identified from registered vehicle files, and a citation is are mailed to the owner's address. Again, no effort is made to identify the culprit of the moving violation. It was found that the camera to identify the driver would REDUCE the number of paid fines and would also reduce the money going to the County, so they elected not to install such cameras. This isn't law enforcement. It's a revenue stream. Profit motive and police work do not go together.

This demonstrates some of the worst aspects of government in our country. A government that has completely forgotten that it is supposed to by the people and for the people. It is unreasonable to leave out safeguards against improper traffic citations simply because you don't want to bother with the expense or would be unhappy with the drop in tickets issued. If you don't want to go all the way, then don't do it at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A few interesting things from the actual bill that created the law authorizing various NC cities to use the cameras.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/html2001/bills/AllVersions/Senate/S243vr.html
) The owner of a vehicle shall be responsible
for a violation unless the owner can furnish
evidence that the vehicle was, at the time of the
violation, in the care, custody, or control of
another person.

Your aren't driving? Then you don't pay. The only proof required is a sworn statment that the person receiving the ticket is not ""was not driving a vehicle at the time and location designated in the citation."

A violation detected by a traffic control photographic system shall be deemed a noncriminal violation for which a civil penalty of fifty
dollars ($50.00) shall be assessed and for which no points authorized by G.S. 20-16(c) shall be assigned to the owner or driver of the vehicle nor insurance points as authorized by G.S. 58-36-65.

Which explains why judges/courts are not involved -- it isn't a criminal matter, it's a civil matter. Similar to zoning violations. That's also why the standard of proof is different than a traditional criminal matter -- if you have a 12-foot pink flamingo in your yard & that's a violation of local ordinance, there's a logical & reasonable assumption that you're responsible for the contents of your yard. If somebody else put it there, then show some proof. Same thing applies here -- if it's your car, then you damned well better be responsible for it.

[QuikSand]

Actually, QS, you're off base because you don't know the laws in NC. I suggest you learn them before commenting.

In North Carolina, tickets may not be appealed in court. How are citations appealed? The SafeLight staff will set up an appointment for the owner with a hearing officer for an administrative hearing. See the link for appeal procedures. The hearing officer will review the information provided by the vehicle owner and decide whether to withdraw the citation. So I don't get to go to a Judge. I don't get a hearing in Court. I have to go to a "safelight" officer to appeal. In other words, I must appeal to the same authority that's making money off the cameras - a conflict of interest, if there ever was one.

Missed this the first time.

In just about every state, in just about every circumstance, a civil procedure like this allows for a judicial appeal, as part of people's generally guaranteed due process. It might not be the ordinary course of things, but I'm very confident in speculating that there is, in fact, a judicial process for redress available for the accused, even in NC.

In addition to the things that have already been proven inaccurate above, I suspect even your first assertion is wrong. You are right, though, that I have not spent any time researching NC laws in particular. In most cases in this thread, i used qualifiers like "in nearly every jurisdiction using this technology" and such, and I just got tired of doing so. It's possible there are exceptions, and it's possible that NC is an exception to one or more of the generalizations I have mentioned.

[Blackadar]

I took the information directly off the GSO red light website, which is run by the county - so I don't think anything is "inaccurate". Nor did I see anything above that conflicted with what I wrote.

[Samdari]

I, for one, am not in favor of running red lights, nor of ensuring others' rights to do so, but I am more disturbed by the "big brother is watching" aspect of these cameras than I am by the running of red lights. Despite your learning that many of the photos are thrown out, these cameras are still extremely unfair - they give the ticket to the car's registered owner, regardless of who is actually driving.

If you want it, there is a reasonable defense for obscuring the plates, besides wanting to preserve one's right to drive like an idiot in an effort to cut one's commute by 3-4 minutes. Some people feel that allowing any additional technological surveillance is part of a larger erosion of their right to not be constantly monitored by the government. The libertarian point of view would be (if I understand correctly) to fight all government attempts at surveillance of citizens without a warrant. They would view that as a larger, more important issue than traffic safety at a few intersections.

[rkmsuf]

Enemy of the State people!

[BishopMVP]

In just about every state, in just about every circumstance, a civil procedure like this allows for a judicial appeal, as part of people's generally guaranteed due process. It might not be the ordinary course of things, but I'm very confident in speculating that there is, in fact, a judicial process for redress available for the accused, even in NC.I don't know how it works in NC, but I know in Massachusetts you go to a court magistrate hearing (basically kangaroo court) first, then are given the option to appeal to a judge. The state Legislature talked about removing the option to appeal completely, but after the Governor vetoed it, they settled on a $20 fee to appeal. So when I got a ticket, went through the system, I was found not guilty, but I had still been forced to pay $20 to the state. So I wouldn't be surprised if some states had completely abolished the right to judicial appeal in minor traffic violations.

It also brings up a different question. Is the $20 fee just to be allowed in court an infringement on the right to a trial/due process at all?

[Blackadar]

I don't know how it works in NC, but I know in Massachusetts you go to a court magistrate hearing (basically kangaroo court) first, then are given the option to appeal to a judge. The state Legislature talked about removing the option to appeal completely, but after the Governor vetoed it, they settled on a $20 fee to appeal. So when I got a ticket, went through the system, I was found not guilty, but I had still been forced to pay $20 to the state. So I wouldn't be surprised if some states had completely abolished the right to judicial appeal in minor traffic violations.

It also brings up a different question. Is the $20 fee just to be allowed in court an infringement on the right to a trial/due process at all?

In my view it is because it becomes an obligation to pay the government just to defend yourself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

They would view that as a larger, more important issue than traffic safety at a few intersections.

And, as is often the case lately, they'd be dead wrong.











:D

[Tekneek]

I am not aware of what the law is regarding traffic citations in Georgia, but I spent a day waiting at the City of Atlanta courts for a charge to be immediatetly thrown out (and the "Judge" actually asking the police officer to justify our time and his). One thing I read on the documentation they distributed and heard repeatedly from the Judges was that if you were assigned to those particular courts you could not appeal to any higher court. Maybe they are just lying to intimidate people into going along with their system.