 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / May 2006Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
California Senate Bill 1300 will allow automated SPEEDING ticket cameras - also known as photo radar - to be mailed to you. It's in the state senate right now. Presently, the bill is restricted to a pilot program in only one town, Beverly Hills, and only in 25 mph zones. But it is early in the session and the bill could easily be amended to include other cities; also, there is no technical reason the cameras couldn't be used for the enforcement of higher speed limits. A current example is Scottsdale, Arizona, which recently installed cameras on an 8-mile section of the 101 freeway loop. Even though there was a 30 day period during which warning tickets were mailed out (Jan. 22 to Feb. 22), the Mar. 31 East Valley Tribune reported that in the five weeks after Feb. 22, more than 6500 REAL tickets were issued! The use of a pilot program ("It's just one town") as a way of getting a foot in the door may be part of a national plan by the industry - very similar legislation has just been passed by the Maryland legislature. (Article at: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/922.asp) To stop SB 1300, please call all the state legislators who represent the districts in which you live, work, or shop. Ask them to vote "no." Their phone numbers are in your phone book's government pages. The auto clubs are staying neutral position on the bill, so far. If you are an auto club member, call your club and talk to them - maybe they will change their position, and actively oppose the bill. If the auto clubs strongly oppose SB 1300, it will not pass. Club phone numbers are available at: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsjoin.htm#autoclubs Speak now or forever hold your peace. Now is the time to let your elected representatives, and your auto club, know what you think. Ed. Surely theres a Constitutional reason to ban those damn things. Its not going to stop there. I was one of the people to point out in big cities that the yellow times were set shorter and in some cases set so short they were violating Federal guidelines and yes I have been hauled into court to fight them and won. Knowing this issue, they still set a trial so I HAD to come in or be found guilty. They can't say this makes intersections safer because people are getting rear-ended from stopping when they have every legal right to go through a yellow light, even if it turns red after they get into the intersection. So speed cameras are next. Lovely. Search around and look at what they did in England about those. Find a site with pics. You'll see. Misuse of our tax money in my opinion. Good luck California. > California Senate Bill 1300 will allow automated SPEEDING ticket cameras - > also known as photo radar - to be mailed to you. It's in the state senate [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Ed. >Surely theres a Constitutional reason to ban those damn things. >Its not going to stop there. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >through a yellow light, even if it turns red after they get into the >intersection. People are getting rear-ended from stopping? No. That's a position only a piss-poor driver would take. People get rear-ended when other drivers are following closer than is safe. Regardless of the conditions or surroundings, the driver of the lead vehicle should be able to bring his/her vehicle to a complete stop as quickly as they desire, without being hit from behind. If they are indeed hit from behind, the driver of the following vehicle is operating that vehicle in an unsafe manner. Lay the blame where it belongs. >So speed cameras are next. Lovely. Search around and look at what they did >in England about those. >Find a site with pics. You'll see. > >Misuse of our tax money in my opinion. Good luck California. Hold your speed down and you won't have to worry about it. >Hold your speed down and you won't have to worry about it. If only it were that simple. You should be advocating properly set speed limits. Then the cameras would be unecessary. Traffic would also flow smoother and you would have less accidents. Unfortunately non of those options puts more money in the pot for politicians to spend, so it won't happen unless you put pressure on the politicians. --------------- Alex > >Hold your speed down and you won't have to worry about it. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > --------------- > Alex Au contrere, Alex. Enforcement will never be unnecessary as long as drivers consider it their right to push the envelope and avoid the laws. In this state, we know what the speed limits are, and many of us feel it is our civic duty to abide by them. We know how much distance we are supposed to maintain from the vehicle in front of us. This is not about politicians and their propensity to take our money and pee it away. It is, to me, about driving responsibly and safely. And if the people can't or won't regulate themselves, then this type of enforcement will always be necessary. > > In article <5fuYf.64305$Jd.37631@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > HLS@nospam.nix [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > And if the people can't or won't regulate themselves, then this type > of enforcement will always be necessary. I beg to differ. I recently recounted an instance of political limit-setting in my province. By the highway design director's own admission, the highway in question was widened and upgraded to feel "natural" at about 62mph (100km/h). They could have built it for 50, since it was well-known even before the upgrade that the limit would be set at 50, but they were told to make it for 62. The limit was then set at 50mph, which it had been before the upgrade. The cops had/have a field day nabbing people going...the design speed of the highway! If the politicians and the cops refrained from such sneaky tricks, I'd be more willing to support your view. > If the politicians and the cops refrained from such sneaky tricks, I'd > be more willing to support your view. It would have been a sneaky trick if they hadn't posted speed limit signs. > > If the politicians and the cops refrained from such sneaky tricks, > > I'd be more willing to support your view. > > It would have been a sneaky trick if they hadn't posted speed limit > signs. You've not heard of "entrapment"? > > > If the politicians and the cops refrained from such sneaky tricks, > > > I'd be more willing to support your view. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You've not heard of "entrapment"? Of course I have. And am very much against it. But, Hugo, if the sign says 50, how many other ways can you take it?? > > > > If the politicians and the cops refrained from such sneaky > > > > tricks, I'd be more willing to support your view. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Of course I have. And am very much against it. But, Hugo, if the > sign says 50, how many other ways can you take it?? People are not saints. It is very easy to entice people into breaking a law if they perceive there to be no harm to themselves and others in the breach. This is /especially/ so if they also perceive that the law in question is unfair, or unreasonable. In order for respectable people to respect the law, the law itself must first be respectable. I've seen studies that indicate that up to 75% of the population exceeds the speed limit at one time or another. Do you think 75% of the population robs banks? It is even easier to cause people to inadvertently break the law by making the law un-intuitive, as many speed limits are. If you have to keep glancing at the gauge on your dashboard to make sure you're going slowly enough, then there is a disconnect between road design and posted speed limit. > You've not heard of "entrapment"? We have some pretty good highways here in Texas. Some are of quality equal to the autobahn in Germany, and we could easily sustain very high speed driving on these. BUT... the speed limit is unequivocally 65 mph night, 70 mph daytime, for passenger vehicles. It is clearly posted, and if you wish to exceed it, the only thing that will stop you is a Texas Highway Patrol unit. They will usually allow you a 5 mph error factor, but there is no law that says they must. Were you entrapped? Try that in court! We have a couple of shortcomings that the Germans more or less avoid on the autobahn: (1) Drivers Education classes are no longer a part of the high school curriculum (at least in the school districts I am familiar with). Formal drivers training is not required to take the tests and get your license. We have a lot of poor drivers on the road. (2) While we have a state safety inspection law, in fact, many of the cars are not of a level of maintenance to be driven at high speeds. Our requirements are fairly low as compared to EU standards. I'll admit, it is hard as heck to start an 800 mile trip across the state and hold to a 70 mph speed limit. >> In article <5fuYf.64305$Jd.37631@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >HLS@nospam.nix [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Enforcement will never be unnecessary as long as drivers consider it their >right to push the envelope and avoid the laws. Set the limits properly and at least 85% of the drivers on the road would not be 'pushing the enevelope' as you describe it. Then the cops could concentrate on getting the truly dangerous drivers off the road. >In this state, we know what the speed limits are, and many of us feel it >is our civic duty to abide by them. That so many in your state ignore the limtis on interstates points to improperly set limits. >We know how much distance we are >supposed to maintain from the vehicle in front of us. That has nothing to do with speed limits. >This is not about politicians and their propensity to take our money and >pee it away. Really? Where does the money go? Does it go into fixing unsafe roads? Does it go into better driving training? I would bet that the money does not go to either and just goes into the general fund for the politicians to spend on projects that they think will net them the most votes at the next election. >It is, to me, about driving responsibly and safely. Me too. But I also use my brain and don't blindly follow. >And if the people can't or won't regulate themselves, then this type of >enforcement will always be necessary. Most folks do the right thing. Unfortunately the right thing has been made illegal by ignorant folks setting the laws. --------------- Alex "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message news:e13bb7$nb5 > Set the limits properly and at least 85% of the drivers on the road would > not be 'pushing the enevelope' as you describe it. Then the cops could > concentrate on getting the truly dangerous drivers off the road. *********And who will decide where they are to be set, Alex?? > >In this state, we know what the speed limits are, and many of us feel it > >is our civic duty to abide by them. > > That so many in your state ignore the limtis on interstates points to > improperly set limits. ******No, I don't think it means this at all. > >We know how much distance we are > >supposed to maintain from the vehicle in front of us. > > That has nothing to do with speed limits. *******Actually, it has a lot to do with the speeds we drive. You worry about getting hit from behind at a crossing light? If that driver behind you is maintaining the distance set forth in the traffic codes, you have little to worry about. If you are tailgating, then -yes- you may get creamed. > Really? Where does the money go? Does it go into fixing unsafe roads? Does > it go into better driving training? I would bet that the money does not go to > either and just goes into the general fund for the politicians to spend on > projects that they think will net them the most votes at the next election. ********There will never be enough money that politicians cant spend it, waste it, or steal it. And I dont believe that enforcing traffic laws is about making more money. > Most folks do the right thing. Unfortunately the right thing has been made > illegal by ignorant folks setting the laws. ********* Some folks drive alertly, carefully, and considerately. Others dont, but believe they have the right to do what they wish. I still have faith that the laws are enacted to protect the people in general, not to provide a money trap. I heard one of the secretaries bitching not too long ago about getting a ticket on the outer loop in Houston. It is a toll road, and she thought she was paying to drive as fast as she wanted. It was someone else's fault they clocked her at over 90 mph. People like this really need to do a little stint in jail. > Hold your speed down and you won't have to worry about it. Ah, yes... The ever-popular "Since you say you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind if we search your <house/car/barn/person/whatever>" argument. As always, it's pure bullshit and government intrusion. Instead of hanging photo-radar rigs, the actual proper method would be to review and re-post the posted speed limits, which are, in more than 90% of cases, I'd estimate, deliberately set low enough to generate easy money for the local government, rather than having anything to do with "safety". Case in point: My route from town to home. Posted for 45. *OBVIOUSLY* designed and intended for 65 or higher, and *EASILY* drivable (by anyone competent to be behind the wheel of a vehicle) in any vehicle other than a semi at speeds above 70. Actual traffic speed the majority of the time: Roughly 60-70MPH. Wrecks on this stretch in the last 7 years: Two. #1 - A drunk who apparently fell asleep at the wheel, missed a turn, crossed the centerline, continued across the other lane, then launched himself down the embankment to the lake, and had to be fished out as a DOA - cause of death later found to be (surprise...) drowning, with a BAC at the autopsy almost twice the legal limit. (I chalk this one up as a "Darwin" - Too stupid to control your drinking? Or at least use a designated driver? Out of the gene-pool, dumbass!) #2 - A little old lady who hit a chain-binder, presumably dropped by one of the logging trucks that are seen from time to time, blowing two tires and piling her into the embankment. She walked away with scrapes and bruises. Speed of drunk: Unknown, but estimated at 50-60MPH from how long he was airborne before touching down after missing the (almost perfectly banked for 70MPH) turn. Speed of little old lady: Stated as "about 40", estimated from skid marks and vehicle damage to be closer to 45.  SignatureDon Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info > Ah, yes... The ever-popular "Since you say you've got nothing to hide, > you won't mind if we search your <house/car/barn/person/whatever>" > argument. > > As always, it's pure bullshit and government intrusion. Government, to some, is an intrusion. We were not discussing anyone searching our house, or person, or barn, or even car. We were talking about enforcement of posted speed limits and intersection laws. If you don't like it, complain vigorously to your council, representative, congressman, senator, or whomever. You either live by a system of laws or you try to survive a condition of anarchy. > > As always, it's pure bullshit and government intrusion. > > Government, to some, is an intrusion. Government is never an intrusion until they intrude on YOU. I had to laugh at a local situation recently. A woman on our street was complaining that some drivers were coming to a slow, rolling near-stop at a particular stop sign near us. She observed this as a pedestrian, not as a driver, and it really irked her. She felt strongly enough about this to start a petition for enhanced police enforcement at this intersection. The petition worked, and an officer was dispatched there to arrest offenders. Guess who got caught, the very next week? :) I can think of a very easy solution to the problem of getting tickets from radar triggered cameras - jus stay within the speed limit. You did little more than list the bill and encourage people to contact the AAA. Maybe you could take the time to tell us why you think that enforcing an agreed upon speed limit is wrong. > I can think of a very easy solution to the problem of getting tickets > from radar triggered cameras - jus stay within the speed limit. > You did little more than list the bill and encourage people to contact > the AAA. Maybe you could take the time to tell us why you think that > enforcing an agreed upon speed limit is wrong. If you cannot generate enough money using police enforcement with mobile and stationary radar too bad. Next, they will want to post traffic law cameras everywhere. Forget your turn signal, bulb out, touch the centerline, if they can get it on film you pay for it. Once the money starts rolling in there will be no end to it. Do you think that this is the start of "Perfect World"??? Considering the proven problems with red light cameras, yes proven, In Virginia they were removed from service, Local govt's are just not mature enough to operate them in my opinion... > If you cannot generate enough money using police enforcement with mobile > and stationary radar too bad. Next, they will want to post traffic law [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yes proven, In Virginia they were removed from service, Local govt's are > just not mature enough to operate them in my opinion... We have exactly the opposite in this little town. The police are invisible and asleep. You would have to drive over their feet to get a rise out of them. I was told that gasoline is too expensive so the city council does not encourage their use of police cars to patrol the neighborhoods. In one case, the police were called because a young person was making repeated drug sales out of his car while parked at a local gas station. The 'chief' responded that he was too busy to come and 'bust' the guy. While I don't want a gestapo state, I would like some the police to spend a little time protecting and serving the public.. Edward Strauss wrote: > > I can think of a very easy solution to the problem of getting tickets > > from radar triggered cameras - jus stay within the speed limit. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > if they can get it on film you pay for it. Once the money starts rolling > in there will be no end to it. Actually, if we obeyed the rules agreed to by the majority there would be no need for police enforcement now would there. But we will always have more than our share of idiots that feel they are in posession of superior driving skills that allow driving 75mph on a crowded freeway, driving after having a few beers, coasting through a stop sign, driving with safety equipment out of order, playing chase with his buddies in traffic, etc. Consequently we will always have a need for police enforcement of traffic rules. And if we can do it a bit more efficiently with cameras, lets go for it. Do you think that this is the start of > "Perfect World"??? It may not result in a perfect world, but if the cameras cause some otherwise irresponsible idiot to think twice and slow down to the speed limit then the rest of us will be the better for it. > Considering the proven problems with red light cameras, > yes proven, In Virginia they were removed from service, > Local govt's are > just not mature enough to operate them in my opinion... Since the governments in many areas are several hundred years old, what level of maturity were you looking for. > Edward Strauss wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > if they can get it on film you pay for it. Once the money starts rolling > > in there will be no end to it. > Actually, if we obeyed the rules agreed to by the majority there would > be no need for police enforcement now would there. But we will always [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > enforcement of traffic rules. And if we can do it a bit more > efficiently with cameras, lets go for it. > Do you think that this is the start of > > "Perfect World"??? > It may not result in a perfect world, but if the cameras cause some > otherwise irresponsible idiot to think twice and slow down to the speed > limit then the rest of us will be the better for it. > > Considering the proven problems with red light cameras, > > yes proven, In Virginia they were removed from service, > > Local govt's are > > just not mature enough to operate them in my opinion... > Since the governments in many areas are several hundred years old, what > level of maturity were you looking for. The maturity to operate the system for safety instead of profit. >I can think of a very easy solution to the problem of getting tickets >from radar triggered cameras - jus stay within the speed limit. If speed limits were properly set, that would be a non-issue. It would also mean the cameras would be unecessary. >You did little more than list the bill and encourage people to contact >the AAA. Maybe you could take the time to tell us why you think that >enforcing an agreed upon speed limit is wrong. Who agreed? The politicians looking to raise more money to spend on thier pet projects don't count. ------------- Alex "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message news:e13b0b$nb5 > Who agreed? The politicians looking to raise more money to spend on thier > pet projects don't count. > ------------- > Alex Who elected that politician, Alex?? Maybe he or she was not your choice, but the politicians are elected by the people. If you don't like it, complain to the politician. Vote differently next time. Run for office yourself. The law is the law. If you can't change it and won't obey it, then you have to pay the penalty. > >I can think of a very easy solution to the problem of getting tickets > >from radar triggered cameras - jus stay within the speed limit. > > If speed limits were properly set, that would be a non-issue. It would > also mean the cameras would be unecessary. Amen #1 > >You did little more than list the bill and encourage people to contact > >the AAA. Maybe you could take the time to tell us why you think that > >enforcing an agreed upon speed limit is wrong. > > Who agreed? The politicians looking to raise more money to spend on thier > pet projects don't count. Amen #2 SignatureDon Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info The hearing date is Tues. May 9. So please make those calls tommorrow. Ed. > California Senate Bill 1300 will allow automated SPEEDING ticket cameras > - also known as photo radar - to be mailed to you. It's in the state [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Ed. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.