 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / March 2008Speed cameras coming to CA? Yes, if this bill passes!
California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if it passes will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets - to be mailed to you. The bill could also allow stop sign camera tickets. The first hearing on this bill will be this month (March), by the Senate Transportation Committee in Sacramento. To stop SB 1325, phone the state legislators (assembly and senate) representing the districts in which you live, work, or shop. Their numbers are in your phone book's government pages. Also, call the senators who are on the Transportation Committee. For info about SB 1325 and the Committee, go to this free-of-any charge page: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsjoin.htm#Action5 If you are an auto club member, call your club and ask them to oppose SB 1325. The auto club carries a LOT of clout in Sacramento, so if they strongly oppose the bill, it won't pass. Phone numbers for the club's main offices are available at the link, above. In other states, the auto clubs have been among the SUPPORTERS of speed cameras, so I suggest that you make it clear to your California club that your continued insurance business could depend upon their protecting you from speed cams. 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. > California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if it passes > will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets - [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Ed. Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras? > > California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if it passes > > will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets - [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras? Really. If you want to speed and not have to worry about red lights, take your car to a race track. -- Patrick On 3/5/2008 1:45 AM Graham Harrison spake thus: >> California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if it passes >> will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras? Yes; why do you *assume* that everyone's opposed to them? I'm not. You speed, you lose. > On 3/5/2008 1:45 AM Graham Harrison spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You speed, you lose. Err, no- if anyone driving your car speeds, you lose. Unless you can prove otherwise (and apparently, even that doesn't always work). I'm in favor of them myself, but the administration of them is prone to problems. 73, doug > > On 3/5/2008 1:45 AM Graham Harrison spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm in favor of them myself, but the administration of them is prone > to problems. If your friend, child, or whoever is speeding in your car, wouldn't you want to know about it? -- Patrick ["Followup-To:" header set to ba.transportation.] > Err, no- if anyone driving your car speeds, you lose. Unless you can > prove otherwise (and apparently, even that doesn't always work). The site the OP maintains (if you can call it that, as it's extremely difficult to find information) claims that, legally, you do not need to prove otherwise, the police need to prove to the judge that the picture taken is really of you. In practice, of course, a mean judge could take the word of the cop without even looking at the picture (and this presupposes that you have to go to court to make them prove you weren't driving, instead of your friend being handed a ticket personally and not getting you involved at all). I have to admit I'm a bit confused by all the rhetoric on his site. It's your car, so shouldn't you be responsible for all of the people you allow to drive it? Perhaps you might not deserve the points on your license, but you've probably earned the fine. I'm also confused as to how this will work with clients of City Car Share and their ilk. If a ticket is sent to CCS, they can't have points added to their license, eh? They can pass on the fine to you (I believe their policies state that they do this), but (if you believe the OP's site) they have no obligation to turn you in. Perhaps companies like this have an exemption where they are required to turn in its drivers? --keith  Signaturekkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information >On 3/5/2008 1:45 AM Graham Harrison spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >You speed, you lose. One very good reason to oppose them is because they may not always be accurate. Check out this radar speed sign in my neighborhood that was wigging out a while back: http://blip.tv/file/611844 If a malfunctioning speed camera nails you, good luck proving your innocence. Even if you don't speed, you still lose. On 3/8/2008 10:08 AM Scott in SoCal spake thus: >>On 3/5/2008 1:45 AM Graham Harrison spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If a malfunctioning speed camera nails you, good luck proving your > innocence. Even if you don't speed, you still lose. So what's the difference between that and the possibility that a radar gun wielded by a human might be similarly inaccurate? I'm sure the courts are aware of the technological limitations here. > On 3/8/2008 10:08 AM Scott in SoCal spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > radar gun wielded by a human might be similarly inaccurate? I'm sure > the courts are aware of the technological limitations here. OK, why don't you be the first to test out your theory. Don't forget to report back to us on the outcome of your court case. SignatureCliff David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> enscribed: > So what's the difference between that and the possibility that a radar > gun wielded by a human might be similarly inaccurate? I'm sure the > courts are aware of the technological limitations here. The difference is you can cross examine the human on how the radar was used, calibrated, tested, etc. And you can examine an expert on the hardware whether it was used correctly. You have the ability to try to refute the testimony against you. You don't have that ability to cross examine a camera. As far as I know no judge has permitted these as evidence if challenged because it would violate the sixth amendment. SignatureFeh. Mad as heck. On 3/9/2008 7:07 AM Disgruntled Customer spake thus: > David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> enscribed: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > these as evidence if challenged because it would violate the sixth > amendment. Well, in that case, we've got nothing to worry about, right? (Assuming that people challenge the citations, that is.) >On 3/8/2008 10:08 AM Scott in SoCal spake thus: >> If a malfunctioning speed camera nails you, good luck proving your >> innocence. Even if you don't speed, you still lose. > >So what's the difference between that and the possibility that a radar >gun wielded by a human might be similarly inaccurate? VOLUME. Automated speed cameras can pump out faulty tickets many orders of magnitude faster than human police officers. The court system is already bogged down with traffic cases; what do you suppose will happen when a massive tsunami of bogus tickets starts flooding in? "Graham Harrison" <edward.obvious.harrison1@btinternet.obvious.com> enscribed: > Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras? How do you exercise your Sixth Amendment right to be confronted by a witness against a camera? SignatureFeh. Mad as heck. In article <Ao6dnfAyjthQ9lPanZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@bt.com>, "Graham Harrison" <edward.obvious.harrison1@btinternet.obvious.com> wrote: > > California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if it passes > > will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets - [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras? I don't trust them to take an accurate speed reading. They may be getting mixed signals from multiple cars or multiple points on your car. I have often driven by those "Your speed is ..." signs and watched random numbers flicker from 13 to 62 for what should have been 35. What really pisses me off is the belief that all accidents are caused by speeding and a camera will fix it. I have to honk at lane drifters daily in San Mateo county. I've seen more gory accidents than I care to. Speed cameras wouldn't have noticed. Where are the police officers that should be taking drunk, senile, and texting drivers off the road? SignatureI don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service. ["Followup-To:" header set to ba.transportation.] > Where are the police officers > that should be taking drunk, senile, and texting drivers off the road? If they did *that*, I'd be the only car on the road! ;-) --keith Signaturekkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information >> California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if it passes >> will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets - [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras? There are really two issues. One is the concept of "speed cameras" and whether they are appropriate for a nation that allegedly values its freedom from onerous gvt jackboots. The other is whether the state should be required to have PROOF that you knew about the citation before convicting you. Since there is no cop who stops you to give you the ticket you may not even know you "got" one. As more and more citizens realize that getting these photo tickets in the mail means nothing since simply mailing it does not constitute "service" of the summons. So you can just sh.t can any of them and then the gvt has to have a process server properly serve you JUST AS WOULD BE REQUIRED for any other crime you are accused of. Now they are trying to get around these legal protections and just saying that if they mail it to you they don't need to do ANYTHING else and can convict you even though you may have never received the notice. > Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras? The probability of selective enforcement: <http://tinyurl.com/2ucgha> -- >California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if it passes >will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets - >to be mailed to you. The bill could also allow stop sign camera >tickets. Here is the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1325&sess=CUR&house=B &author=kuehl http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1301-1350/sb_1325_bill_20080220_ introduced.html It seems to be specific to allowing the City of Beverly Hills to use photo radar speed limit enforcement in a residence district with a speed limit <= 25mph or a school zone, through the end of 2013. No mention of stop sign photo enforcement is mentioned. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
|
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.