Red light camera solution?
Big Boy
I was doing a deja.com search and noticed that they have them in Arizona. I am
in Idaho where fortunately we don't have scum taking away even more of our
freedom.
HOWEVER...
I did live in Germany for 4 years. They had these damn "speeding cameras"
where if you were going more than 2 miles (!!!!) over the speed limit they
would flash you and send you a ticket.
Needless to say I was quite angry with this. A German friend of mine pulled me
aside and said that the way to fix this is to...
1 buy the cheapest, nastiest hair spray you can
2 take the plates off your car and clean them thouroughly
3 spray several coats of the hair spray on your plates, letting each coat dry
before applying a new one
4 put the plates back on your car and...
abracadabra... you are a ghost! :) A friend and I did this to our plates and
he had a Polaroid camera with a flash. We took the pictures and... it looks
like a ghost is over your plates. You cannot see the number at all.
Now, from what I have read most (if not all) of these red light and speeding
cameras use some type of flash system. As long as they use a flash this will
work. If you don't believe it, do it, then take out your digital camera or
Polaroid and take a picture of it with the flash on. WOO HOO!
Is anyone aware of places that DON'T use a flash to get your license plates?
If so a new method for these will have to be discovered.
There is such a thing as a STUPID QUESTION...
when it's been answered BEFORE...
http://www.fastseduction.com
http://www.pickupguide.com
http://www.doubleyourdating.com
-=\ BigBoY /=-
JB the 3rd
news:20021106022800...@mb-fw.aol.com...
: These systems intrigue (and disgust) me.
:
: I was doing a deja.com search and noticed
: that they have them in Arizona. I am
: in Idaho where fortunately we don't have
: scum taking away even more of our
: freedom.
Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the law"
that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security cameras in
your place of business to protect you and your property?
Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill anyone else
I haven't really violated the law"?
The real solution is very simple - obey the law. Then you can drive with a
clear conscience and not have to worry about getting your picture taken. You
can even save the cost of the hair spray...
---
jb3
Tom S.
"JB the 3rd" <j...@nowhereman.com> wrote in message
news:aqb8ed$7ah$0...@206.97.62.225...
JB3 is right. However, in Chandler where they have the cameras and in
Gilbert where they don't, the lights are synced such that, doing the speed
limit, they turn yellow when you're about 100 yards away.
If the purpose of the "law" was safety, rather than revenue, they would turn
GREEN when approaching at the speed limit. Red light cameras have little or
nothing to do with safety. As with most government operations, they are
there as cash cows.
phxbrd
"Big Boy" <bigbo...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
news:20021106022800...@mb-fw.aol.com...
>
> I was doing a deja.com search and noticed that they have them in Arizona.
I am
> in Idaho where fortunately we don't have scum taking away even more of our
> freedom.
>
> HOWEVER...
Do you suggest that the high number of fatal accidents caused by red light
runners is your mission to restore?
How would you benefit from that unless you just want more people to die?
Would you feel differently if your wife and child were the next to be
t-boned at 60 mph?
I support the positions of our founding fathers as every good Libertarian
proudly does, but I also know they knew nothing of red light runners in
those days
Observance of traffic laws is a common bond we must all live by as soon as
we use a public thoroughfare.
How about a better solution to red light runner deaths of innocent people?
If someone has to die, maybe better the runner. Embed pop-up steel barriers
across all lanes approaching a red light having had a lot of runners. One
or two such barriers per city ought to be enough.
When I market my new invention, I'll name the device "Instant
Accountability".
phxbrd
"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Htby9.5169$Ku.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
Sounds to me as though the most grievous thing those communities are guilty
of is zealous enforcement of municipal law. If you think the laws are
wrong, you should petition for their change. In the meantime, don't
criticize your civil servants for serving you to the best of their ability
within the law.
Lights and cameras are in operation 24/7 at a given point. They catch no
more than a team of perfect cops would catch during the same period. How
many perfect cops are there?
Like many of us, I've always thought of certain driving being a cat and
mouse game with Smokey, but I have to admit that makes less sense as we
become more crowded. I'd like to be able to run WFO on I-10 and I-17, but
it's time to rigidly enforce all traffic laws where lives are at risk in the
city.
Speed never killed anyone - it's the unplanned stop.
JB the 3rd
: JB3 is right. However, in Chandler where they have the cameras and in
: Gilbert where they don't, the lights are synced such that, doing the speed
: limit, they turn yellow when you're about 100 yards away.
Its a bitch isn't it? I live in Chandler also.
: If the purpose of the "law" was safety, rather than revenue, they would
turn
: GREEN when approaching at the speed limit. Red light cameras have little
or
: nothing to do with safety. As with most government operations, they are
: there as cash cows.
The actual effect is hard to gauge. If even a portion of people drive safer,
it is worthwhile. In the meantime, it does provide some revenue. It is, of
course, donated by those desiring to see if they can get away with running a
light or speeding well over the limit.
---
jb3
az-willie
==========
I believe that a LARGE portion of the revenue from the red light and /
or speeding cameras goes to the company that provides the equipment etc.
Seems I read somewhere that the cities actually wind up with very little
money. The companies take most of it.
But it is an accepted fact that the radar / camera enforcement does get
people to obey the regulations better.
And in Arizona that is direly needed.
Tom S.
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aqbh8j$8klpc$1...@ID-149074.news.dfncis.de...
Boy, talk about missing the point!!
>
> Lights and cameras are in operation 24/7 at a given point. They catch no
> more than a team of perfect cops would catch during the same period. How
> many perfect cops are there?
As above.
>
> Like many of us, I've always thought of certain driving being a cat and
> mouse game with Smokey, but I have to admit that makes less sense as we
> become more crowded. I'd like to be able to run WFO on I-10 and I-17, but
> it's time to rigidly enforce all traffic laws where lives are at risk in
the
> city.
It's not a game. It's malefeasance by whoever sets the signals. Setting up
numerous go/no-go situations is hardly conducive to their functions if
safety is their goal.
The question is, "Is it stupidity, or deliberation?".
Tom S.
>
> "Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Htby9.5169$Ku.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> : JB3 is right. However, in Chandler where they have the cameras and in
> : Gilbert where they don't, the lights are synced such that, doing the
speed
> : limit, they turn yellow when you're about 100 yards away.
>
> Its a bitch isn't it? I live in Chandler also.
>
> : If the purpose of the "law" was safety, rather than revenue, they would
> turn
> : GREEN when approaching at the speed limit. Red light cameras have little
> or
> : nothing to do with safety. As with most government operations, they are
> : there as cash cows.
>
> The actual effect is hard to gauge. If even a portion of people drive
safer,
> it is worthwhile.
There is that coersion effect, but most people don't run then anyway (duh).
Thing is, when they fiddle with the light sync, they put people in jeopardy
for no good reason. It isn't rocket science to set the lights to turn green
for approaching traffic. When it's the other way around, I can only think of
gross incompetence or deliberation for the reason.
> In the meantime, it does provide some revenue. It is, of
> course, donated by those desiring to see if they can get away with running
a
> light or speeding well over the limit.
As I said, do the limit in Gilbert/Chandler and they turn when you're
100-150 yards out. Think of how close that really is and what it encourages.
NO ONE races up to a RED light, but many will on a stale green or YELLOW,
especially one that's been shortened from 7 seconds to 4.5 seconds.
Note that I'm not arguing against the cameras, just the OTHER factors
surrounding them. The Washington Post had a series a few months back about
how municipalities that installed them ALSO started shorting the lights (no,
not the electrical connections).
Tom S.
"az-willie" <scl...@npole.com> wrote in message
news:HHcy9.135983$Ju.1...@news2.central.cox.net...
> JB the 3rd wrote:
> ==========
> I believe that a LARGE portion of the revenue from the red light and /
> or speeding cameras goes to the company that provides the equipment etc.
> Seems I read somewhere that the cities actually wind up with very little
> money. The companies take most of it.
>
> But it is an accepted fact that the radar / camera enforcement does get
> people to obey the regulations better.
>
> And in Arizona that is direly needed.
True enough, but I've never seen such idiotic light synchronization as here
in the Valley.
James Arveson
"Big Boy" <bigbo...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
news:20021106022800...@mb-fw.aol.com...
Your "solution" won't work, fortunately.
What you and your optics-deficient friend from Germany failed to realize is
that the light reflected from the plates won't bounce directly back to the
camera unless the camera (and flash) are mounted in direct line with the
surface of the plates. That would require the camera to be one foot above
the street level, instead of high up on a pole.
So when you do your experiment next time, try to do a better job of
simulating the exact conditions. woo hoo???
James
az-willie
>On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:43:36 -0700, "phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>That's all well and good when the YELLOW interval is appropriately
>set. It's been shown many times that extending the yellow from the
>bare minimum used at most of these red light camera locations will
>reduce the number of violations by a huge amount. In one of the Mesa
>locations (or maybe it was Chandler) they extended the yellow and the
>number of violations went so low that the company that runs the
>cameras started lossing money. So they let them move the camera to a
>different intersection where the yellow interval was too short so
>they could rack up a bunch more citations. The whole thing is nothing
>but a money making racket where the city and a private company split
>the take and the citizens get screwed as usual. It has ZERO to do
>with safety - if it did they would just add one second to the yellow
>interval at all the lights and be done with it.
>
>
==================
No matter how long they make the yellow light, people will try to fudge
it and wind up going through on red because they didn't start stopping
in time.
The best idea I've seen is that the last 3 - 5 seconds of a yellow light
it should go into a flashing mode. Thus people approaching the yellow
know it is too late to floor the gas to try to get through before it
goes red.
Larry Jandro
and said:
> The best idea I've seen is that the last 3 - 5 seconds of a
> yellow light it should go into a flashing mode. Thus people
> approaching the yellow know it is too late to floor the gas to
> try to get through before it goes red.
In reality, they would take that as a signal to floor it.
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
www.ljvideo.com
az-willie
>On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 05:14:32 GMT, az-willie <scl...@npole.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The best idea I've seen is that the last 3 - 5 seconds of a yellow light
>>it should go into a flashing mode. Thus people approaching the yellow
>>know it is too late to floor the gas to try to get through before it
>>goes red.
>>
>>
>
>Very true. Yet once again, the people who have the power to make this
>change refuse to do so in spite of the obvious logic to it. Many
>things that could be done at almost no cost to improve safety, and
>that would not intrude on citizens rights are constantly ignored. But
>when a chance to make money by issuing tickets is proposed they go
>for that.
>
=========================
First of all, once again, red light cameras are not an intrusion on
citizens rights. You have no right to run a red light. Radar speeding
cameras are not an intrusion on citizen rights. You have no right to speed.
Second, the cities make very little money, most of it goes to the
companies that operate the radar camera equipment.
Third, what difference does it make if you get caught by a cop on a
motorcycle or by radar?
If you're guilty, you're guilty. The cop is more likely to make a
mistake or pull you over because he's pissed off being out there in the
rain or because his ol' lady is giving him grief or something. The
camera doesn't give a damn about anything but did that bumper cross the
line when it shouldn't. You're perfectly free to challenge the cop on
the bike in court or the radar camera's adjustment if you choose to.
Believe me, you're more likely to beat the cop than the camera company
and that's what you don't like. With the officer it's a matter of
judgement, with the camera they have pictures and time marks.
However making the yellow lights flash would involve some expenditure,
possibly considerable. The electronic circuits would have to be modified
and possibly more wiring installed and new different bulbs ( maybe ).
And Arizona cities, run by Republicans for the most part, won't spend a
dime if they can possibly help it. They even turn of the left turn
signals during non-rush hours at most intersections in order to save
electricity!! There's another real smart move, They make cars sit and
idle trying to turn left and increase pollution and aggravation when
they could improve the situation by leaving the turn signals on but it
costs a few more pennies per day per signal so they won't do it.
>
>
Tom S.
> However making the yellow lights flash would involve some expenditure,
> possibly considerable.
Minimal.
>The electronic circuits would have to be modified
> and possibly more wiring installed and new different bulbs ( maybe ).
No.
>
> And Arizona cities, run by Republicans for the most part, won't spend a
> dime if they can possibly help it.
The only towns run by Republicans are Gilbert and Mesa.
>They even turn of the left turn
> signals during non-rush hours at most intersections in order to save
> electricity!!
Your source for this "fact"? (I'm betting it's your anus)
>There's another real smart move, They make cars sit and
> idle trying to turn left and increase pollution and aggravation when
> they could improve the situation by leaving the turn signals on but it
> costs a few more pennies per day per signal so they won't do it.
If the turn signal is off, they can still make the turn, but your generally
Democrat govt types can't get off their bureaucratic asses. Open mouth and
show what a dunce you are.
Little John
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
az-willie <scl...@npole.com> two-fingered to all:
|>CosmicDawg wrote:
|>
|>>On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 05:14:32 GMT, az-willie <scl...@npole.com> wrote:
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>>>The best idea I've seen is that the last 3 - 5 seconds of a yellow light
|>>>it should go into a flashing mode. Thus people approaching the yellow
|>>>know it is too late to floor the gas to try to get through before it
|>>>goes red.
|>>>
|>>>
|>>
|>>Very true. Yet once again, the people who have the power to make this
|>>change refuse to do so in spite of the obvious logic to it. Many
|>>things that could be done at almost no cost to improve safety, and
|>>that would not intrude on citizens rights are constantly ignored. But
|>>when a chance to make money by issuing tickets is proposed they go
|>>for that.
|>>
|>=========================
|>First of all, once again, red light cameras are not an intrusion on
|>citizens rights. You have no right to run a red light. Radar speeding
|>cameras are not an intrusion on citizen rights. You have no right to speed.
No, but you have the Constitutionally guaranteed Right to face your accusor.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained
by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.
How do you confront a machine on a pole miles away? How do you cross examine
that machine? How do you fight a photograph that shows nothing of the
circumstances?
About a year ago I happened upon one of my neighbors, brokend down in the
outside lane, engine running but car not moving. The tranny had dumped a couple
quarts of fluid since he'd left home, going to the mechanic. I ran up the road,
grabbed some fluid for him and came back. We put the fluid in, the car started
moving, but wouldn't get out of first, so I followed him to make sure he got
there. He was creeping along at 2-3 mph, and entered the intersection just
after the light went yellow, having already crossed the line of the crosswalk
before it went yellow. I stopped, but a car whizzed by and hit the intersection
as the light went red. We got his car to the shop and I gave him a ride back
home, since it was obviously going to be more than a quick fix.
A couple weeks later, he got his ticket in the mail. If I hadn't witnessed what
had happened, and been there to testify for him, he'd have been stuck with the
ticket. If it had been a real, live person, the ticket would not have been
issued to my neighbor in the first place.
|>Second, the cities make very little money, most of it goes to the
|>companies that operate the radar camera equipment.
Do the cities make money? Yes. Case closed.
|>Third, what difference does it make if you get caught by a cop on a
|>motorcycle or by radar?
See above.
|>If you're guilty, you're guilty.
And if you're not, you have to prove it.
|>The cop is more likely to make a
|>mistake or pull you over because he's pissed off being out there in the
|>rain or because his ol' lady is giving him grief or something. The
|>camera doesn't give a damn about anything but did that bumper cross the
|>line when it shouldn't.
Or, did a bumper cross the line when it shouldn't, whether it's your's or not.
|>You're perfectly free to challenge the cop on
|>the bike in court or the radar camera's adjustment if you choose to.
How do you cross examine a camera?
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!
az-willie
==============
Running red lights or speeding tickets are not criminal prosecutions.
They are civil actions. So the stuff you cite isn't relevant.
If you kill or injure someone due to speeding or running the red light,
then you probably will face criminal prosecution. But a simple ticket
doesn't cut it.
And you can face your accuser. You can challenge the calibration of the
radar, etc. etc. I'm sure it has been done and perhaps even successfully.
And in the instance you cite, your neighbor was in the intersection when
the light was red going his way. The fact he was moving slow and having
trouble doesn't negate the fact he was in the intersection in violation
of a red light. A sympathic judge may have let him off, but he was in
violation anyway. He just happened to be lucky enough to get out of it.
If the judge was in a bad mood he could just as well have found him
guilty because, technically, he was. And since he was going so slow, he
had plenty of time to stop and should never have crossed the line on the
yellow. He had plenty of time to see the yellow light and stop.
He's lucky I wasn't his judge.
Tom S.
> Little John wrote:
> ==============
> Running red lights or speeding tickets are not criminal prosecutions.
> They are civil actions. So the stuff you cite isn't relevant.
They are handled in lesser courts, but rules of criminal prosecution still
abide. (Felony, misdemeanor, traffic are three levels of offenses)
>
> If you kill or injure someone due to speeding or running the red light,
> then you probably will face criminal prosecution. But a simple ticket
> doesn't cut it.
>
> And you can face your accuser. You can challenge the calibration of the
> radar, etc. etc. I'm sure it has been done and perhaps even successfully.
> And in the instance you cite, your neighbor was in the intersection when
> the light was red going his way. The fact he was moving slow and having
> trouble doesn't negate the fact he was in the intersection in violation
> of a red light. A sympathic judge may have let him off, but he was in
> violation anyway.
Nope; if you break down IN the interesecion, the point is what condition was
the light WHEN YOU ENTERED.
> He just happened to be lucky enough to get out of it.
> If the judge was in a bad mood he could just as well have found him
> guilty because, technically, he was.
Technically, he wasn't, but a static camera can't make that determination.
> And since he was going so slow, he
> had plenty of time to stop and should never have crossed the line on the
> yellow. He had plenty of time to see the yellow light and stop.
>
> He's lucky I wasn't his judge.
Hmmm, Democrat, huh!
Little John
Even in a civil action, you are entitled to confront your accusers. You're
entitled to full discovery. Etc. Etc. It's all in the ARS, and quite easy to
find and read.
|>If you kill or injure someone due to speeding or running the red light,
|>then you probably will face criminal prosecution. But a simple ticket
|>doesn't cut it.
Is there a trial? If there's a trial, the rules apply.
|>And you can face your accuser. You can challenge the calibration of the
|>radar, etc. etc. I'm sure it has been done and perhaps even successfully.
Even you should be capable of realizing it's not the same. Your accuser can
give one perceived fact and nothing more. It's up to you to prove you innocence
as the presumption is that the machine is right, period. The presumption being
based on a few hundredths second in time worth of snapshot.
If the machines took video of the intersection for 5 seconds before to 5 seconds
after the light change, I'd be fine with the concept. Video allows for the full
circumstances to show, as well as a visual means of verifying the calibration of
the radar system via timing movement.
|>And in the instance you cite, your neighbor was in the intersection when
|>the light was red going his way. The fact he was moving slow and having
|>trouble doesn't negate the fact he was in the intersection in violation
|>of a red light. A sympathic judge may have let him off, but he was in
|>violation anyway. He just happened to be lucky enough to get out of it.
|>If the judge was in a bad mood he could just as well have found him
|>guilty because, technically, he was. And since he was going so slow, he
|>had plenty of time to stop and should never have crossed the line on the
|>yellow. He had plenty of time to see the yellow light and stop.
No, he'd already crossed the line entering the intersection before the light
changed to yellow. His car was going so slow that he was still in the
intersection when the light changed to red and the other car ran the light. The
intersection starts at the crosswalk line, the line he'd already crossed, as I
stated above, before the light went yellow. If he'd stopped, he would have also
been in violation of the law, blocking the crosswalk.
|>He's lucky I wasn't his judge.
Yeah. He's lucky he had a judge with a modicum of sense.
az-willie
>"az-willie" <scl...@npole.com> wrote in message
>news:KQSy9.157997$Ju.7...@news2.central.cox.net...
>
>
>>Little John wrote:
>>==============
>>Running red lights or speeding tickets are not criminal prosecutions.
>>They are civil actions. So the stuff you cite isn't relevant.
>>
>>
>
>They are handled in lesser courts, but rules of criminal prosecution still
>abide. (Felony, misdemeanor, traffic are three levels of offenses)
>
>
>
>>If you kill or injure someone due to speeding or running the red light,
>>then you probably will face criminal prosecution. But a simple ticket
>>doesn't cut it.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>And you can face your accuser. You can challenge the calibration of the
>>radar, etc. etc. I'm sure it has been done and perhaps even successfully.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>And in the instance you cite, your neighbor was in the intersection when
>>the light was red going his way. The fact he was moving slow and having
>>trouble doesn't negate the fact he was in the intersection in violation
>>of a red light. A sympathic judge may have let him off, but he was in
>>violation anyway.
>>
>>
>
>Nope; if you break down IN the interesecion, the point is what condition was
>the light WHEN YOU ENTERED.
>
=========
Ahhh but he DIDN'T break down IN the intersection. He broke down
earlier and they put more transmission fluid in and he was operating the
vehicle in an unsafe condition. That's an offense he didn't get charged
with. And the vehicle was in motion under his control. He was driving
slow trying to take it easy on the malfunctioning transmission but had
full control over the brakes. He had plenty of time to see that the
light was yellow and knew full well it would change to red and tried to
slide through without stopping because he was probably afraid if he got
stopped he might not be able to start moving again. He should have
called a tow truck instead of trying to operate the vehicle in an unsafe
condition.
He was guilty as charged. In fact, guiltier because of operating an
vehicle in an unsafe condition.
=========
>
>
>>He just happened to be lucky enough to get out of it.
>>If the judge was in a bad mood he could just as well have found him
>>guilty because, technically, he was.
>>
>>
>
>Technically, he wasn't, but a static camera can't make that determination.
>
>
==========
Yes was was indeed.
==========
az-willie
>No, he'd already crossed the line entering the intersection before the light
>changed to yellow. His car was going so slow that he was still in the
>intersection when the light changed to red and the other car ran the light. The
>intersection starts at the crosswalk line, the line he'd already crossed, as I
>stated above, before the light went yellow. If he'd stopped, he would have also
>been in violation of the law, blocking the crosswalk.
>
>
>
=======================
I was under the impression he crossed the line during the yellow. Must
have misread. Okay. He was still guilty of operating a vehicle in an
unsafe condition which he didn't get charged with and a motorcyle cop
could have charged him with.
Anyway you go he was guilty of something.
He should have had the vehicle towed.
Big Boy
>that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security cameras in
>your place of business to protect you and your property?
Oh here we go. Big boys don't cry!
Also, a security camera in MY place of business would be MY choice, seeing as
it is private property. The evil government has no right to put up cameras on
the streets and light systems that WE pay for. Driving is a RIGHT, NOT a
privilege!
>Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill anyone else
>I haven't really violated the law"?
It's only cheating if you get caught loser!
Big Boy
>citizens rights.
Yes they are, but you seem to be a democrat so you probably enjoy the idea of
the government telling you what to do.
Be a good slave, and don't use my hair spray idea, massa might not like it!
Big Boy
>proudly does,
>How about a better solution to red light runner deaths of innocent people?
>If someone has to die, maybe better the runner. Embed pop-up steel barriers
>across all lanes approaching a red light having had a lot of runners.
LOL If you're a libertarian, then I am the Wizard of Oz!
I share my knowledge to help people avoid illegal harassment and persecution
from our evil government.
You act like I encourage people to run red lights and injure/kill others, which
is not the case at all.
Get a life loser!
Tom S.
> Tom S. wrote:
> >
> >Nope; if you break down IN the interesecion, the point is what condition
was
> >the light WHEN YOU ENTERED.
> >
> =========
> Ahhh but he DIDN'T break down IN the intersection. He broke down
> earlier and they put more transmission fluid in and he was operating the
> vehicle in an unsafe condition.
You waan quote the AZ statuate on that?
>That's an offense he didn't get charged
> with. And the vehicle was in motion under his control. He was driving
> slow trying to take it easy on the malfunctioning transmission but had
> full control over the brakes. He had plenty of time to see that the
> light was yellow and knew full well it would change to red and tried to
> slide through without stopping because he was probably afraid if he got
> stopped he might not be able to start moving again. He should have
> called a tow truck instead of trying to operate the vehicle in an unsafe
> condition.
>
> He was guilty as charged. In fact, guiltier because of operating an
> vehicle in an unsafe condition.
A vehicle is _unsafe_ when it cannot be controlled. By your definition, any
large vehicle is _unsafe_.
> =========
>
> >
> >
> >>He just happened to be lucky enough to get out of it.
> >>If the judge was in a bad mood he could just as well have found him
> >>guilty because, technically, he was.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Technically, he wasn't, but a static camera can't make that determination.
> >
> >
> ==========
> Yes was was indeed.
> ==========
AZ statute?
>
> >
> >
> >> And since he was going so slow, he
> >>had plenty of time to stop and should never have crossed the line on the
> >>yellow. He had plenty of time to see the yellow light and stop.
> >>
> >>He's lucky I wasn't his judge.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hmmm, Democrat, huh!
Yeah, more examples of how they make up law as they go along.
JB the 3rd
: >Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the
law"
: >that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security cameras
in
: >your place of business to protect you and your property?
:
: Oh here we go. Big boys don't cry!
:
: Also, a security camera in MY place of business would be MY choice, seeing
as
: it is private property. The evil government has no right to put up
cameras on
: the streets and light systems that WE pay for. Driving is a RIGHT, NOT a
: privilege!
LOL. I assume you didn't bother to get a "drivers license" since you have to
pass a test to get one. I can hear your whine now: "How can the nasty gummit
force me to take a test when it is a RIGHT?"
As to who pays for it, the ones that pay are the ones stupid enough to get
tickets - like you.
: >Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill anyone
else
: >I haven't really violated the law"?
:
: It's only cheating if you get caught loser!
You are the loser - just wait till you get caught by one of those evil
cameras!
---
jb3
JB the 3rd
: I share my knowledge to help people avoid illegal harassment and
persecution
: from our evil government.
LOL again, Little Boy. It hasn't ever been proven to be illegal. (Some
installations have been shown to be inaccurate, but not illegal).
: You act like I encourage people to run red lights and injure/kill others,
which
: is not the case at all.
Sure sounds like it. At least the running the light part.
: Get a life loser!
Back at ya!
---
jb3
JB the 3rd
: >First of all, once again, red light cameras are not an intrusion on
: >citizens rights.
:
: Yes they are, but you seem to be a democrat so you probably enjoy the idea
of
: the government telling you what to do.
They don't tell you what to do - only what NOT to do, but I am sure the
point is wasted on you.
: Be a good slave, and don't use my hair spray idea, massa might not like
it!
? We are talking about red light cameras, not theft. Try to keep to the
subject.
---
jb3
Tom S.
As in the other post, I'd like to see you quote the statute.
(Willie stuck his foot in his mouth and is trying to cover his ass)
>
> Anyway you go he was guilty of something.
>
> He should have had the vehicle towed.
You should be in a mental ward.
Tom S.
"Big Boy" <bigbo...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
> >Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the law"
> >that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security cameras in
> >your place of business to protect you and your property?
>
> Oh here we go. Big boys don't cry!
>
> Also, a security camera in MY place of business would be MY choice, seeing
as
> it is private property. The evil government has no right to put up cameras
on
> the streets and light systems that WE pay for.
That's called PUBLIC areas, and those are the areas police are responsible
for.
> Driving is a RIGHT, NOT a
> privilege!
Dunce, moving about is a right, but not how you do it. Is flying an airplane,
even a Cessna 172 a right, or a priviledge?
>
> >Or are you one that figures "if I make it through and don't kill anyone
else
> >I haven't really violated the law"?
>
> It's only cheating if you get caught loser!
Speaking of losers, looked in a mirror lately? That last one is a classic
loser line.
Tom S.
"Big Boy" <bigbo...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
> >First of all, once again, red light cameras are not an intrusion on
> >citizens rights.
>
> Yes they are, but you seem to be a democrat so you probably enjoy the idea
of
> the government telling you what to do.
One idiot calling the other an idiot. Good one!
>
> Be a good slave, and don't use my hair spray idea, massa might not like it!
Idiot Democrats...idiot Republicans...it's a wonder we survived as long as we
did.
Tom S.
"Big Boy" <bigbo...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
Grow up, punk!!
Charlie Spitzer
>
> "Big Boy" <bigbo...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
> news:20021108171055...@mb-ml.aol.com...
> > >Freedom to speed and run red lights? What is there about "breaking the
law"
> > >that you don't understand? Are you against the idea of security cameras
in
> > >your place of business to protect you and your property?
> >
> > Oh here we go. Big boys don't cry!
> >
> > Also, a security camera in MY place of business would be MY choice,
seeing
> as
> > it is private property. The evil government has no right to put up
cameras
> on
> > the streets and light systems that WE pay for.
>
> That's called PUBLIC areas, and those are the areas police are responsible
> for.
>
> > Driving is a RIGHT, NOT a
> > privilege!
>
> Dunce, moving about is a right, but not how you do it. Is flying an
airplane,
> even a Cessna 172 a right, or a priviledge?
>
duh, read the azdot driver manual? it says right up front it's a privilege.
phxbrd
I suspect there's a logic behind that having to do with moving the most
needed traffic through the bottleneck areas. There such things as traffic
control engineers, you know.
phxbrd
> |>You're perfectly free to challenge the cop on
> |>the bike in court or the radar camera's adjustment if you choose to.
>
> How do you cross examine a camera?
You're just being silly. The camera is only an extension of police
witnessing and appropriate reactions. Putting a team of perfect cops on the
site 24/7 would produce the same results at a staggering cost. Your
statement verified that exceptions are allowed.
phxbrd
This is all bullshit. At least several pictures are taken, with time and
distance indicated on each frame. The computer then knows exact speeds
involved. You don't get ticketed for BEING in the intersection after red,
you get ticketed for ENTERING one second after red comes on.
>
>
phxbrd
The second car that evidently caused the photo was the only one due a
ticket. If the slow car was already in the intersection legally, he could
have not set off the camera. The slow car may have showed up in photos, but
if he didn't trigger the camera, he was breaking no law. This isn't exactly
brain surgery unless you have no idea how red light cameras work.
phxbrd
"Big Boy" <bigbo...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
> >I support the positions of our founding fathers as every good Libertarian
> >proudly does,
>
> >How about a better solution to red light runner deaths of innocent
people?
> >If someone has to die, maybe better the runner. Embed pop-up steel
barriers
> >across all lanes approaching a red light having had a lot of runners.
>
> LOL If you're a libertarian, then I am the Wizard of Oz!
>
> I share my knowledge to help people avoid illegal harassment and
persecution
> from our evil government.
Keep your day job.
>
> You act like I encourage people to run red lights and injure/kill others,
which
> is not the case at all.
That's right, I do. Yes, it is the case.
>
> Get a life loser!
Certainly not at your camera-free intersections, drooler....
Tom S.
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aqhmek$a9p9t$1...@ID-149074.news.dfncis.de...
Ummm...isn't that what I'd said?
Larry Jandro
tapped on a keyboard and said:
> Damn!! someone else who understands the concepts under which
> this country was founded. I have no doubt that the founding
> fathers would NEVER have accepted the notion that driving was a
> "privilege" to be doled out at the whim of the gvt. Can you
> imagine if someone had told them they needed to have a license
> to ride their horses?
When automobiles were first sold, no license of any kind was
required. When the masses started acquiring them, and they could go
faster than a few miles per hour, and pileups started happening at
intersections with people hurt and killed, the government did what
needed to be done.
"Horse of a different color," one might say...
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
www.ljvideo.com
Little John
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
az-willie <scl...@npole.com> two-fingered to all:
|>Little John wrote:
|>
|>>No, he'd already crossed the line entering the intersection before the light
|>>changed to yellow. His car was going so slow that he was still in the
|>>intersection when the light changed to red and the other car ran the light.
The
|>>intersection starts at the crosswalk line, the line he'd already crossed, as
I
|>>stated above, before the light went yellow. If he'd stopped, he would have
also
|>>been in violation of the law, blocking the crosswalk.
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>=======================
|>I was under the impression he crossed the line during the yellow. Must
|>have misread. Okay.
I read this after responding to the other one, so feel free to disregard several
parts of that other post. :-)
|>He was still guilty of operating a vehicle in an
|>unsafe condition which he didn't get charged with and a motorcyle cop
|>could have charged him with.
You still misread. I clearly stated that I followed him. I was acting as
following escort. He was legally operating the vehicle, and the motorcycle cop
would have just watched us go by.
|>Anyway you go he was guilty of something.
Nope.
|>He should have had the vehicle towed.
That would have created an even greater hazard to others.
Little John
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard, "phxbrd"
<phx...@earthlink.net> two-fingered to all:
No, a cop can think and consider circumstances. A camera cannot.
Little John
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard, "phxbrd"
<phx...@earthlink.net> two-fingered to all:
|>
Which just proves the point. He got the ticket when he shouldn't have.
Little John
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
|>Tom S. wrote:
|>
|>>"az-willie" <scl...@npole.com> wrote in message
|>>news:KQSy9.157997$Ju.7...@news2.central.cox.net...
|>>Nope; if you break down IN the interesecion, the point is what condition was
|>>the light WHEN YOU ENTERED.
|>>
|>=========
|>Ahhh but he DIDN'T break down IN the intersection. He broke down
|>earlier and they put more transmission fluid in and he was operating the
|>vehicle in an unsafe condition.
His vehicle was being operated legally, and with me acting as following escort.
The vehicle was not in an unsafe condition.
|>That's an offense he didn't get charged
|>with. And the vehicle was in motion under his control. He was driving
|>slow trying to take it easy on the malfunctioning transmission but had
No, he was driving slowly because that's all the vehicle would do. He broke
down less than a mile from the shop. Getting the vehicle moving and to the shop
was the most prudent thing to do at the time. If he'd been farther away, a tow
would have been the order of the day, but he wasn't.
|>full control over the brakes. He had plenty of time to see that the
|>light was yellow and knew full well it would change to red and tried to
|>slide through without stopping because he was probably afraid if he got
|>stopped he might not be able to start moving again.
You can't read for shit, can you? He had broken the plain of the intersection
before the light changed.
|>He should have
|>called a tow truck instead of trying to operate the vehicle in an unsafe
|>condition.
A tow truck would have taken considerable time to arrive on the scene, all while
the vehicle was disrupting traffic, presenting a safety hazard.
|>He was guilty as charged. In fact, guiltier because of operating an
|>vehicle in an unsafe condition.
He was not guilty as charged. You can't read the written word and comprehend
its meaning. Beyond that, you couldn't find a clue if it was labeled and
stapled to your forehead.
az-willie
==============
By your own admission the vehicle could not be operated at normal speeds
because it was broken down. That is, by definition, operating an unsafe
vehicle.
And you admit that if the vehicle was further from the shop it should
have been towed. News Flash. Distance from the shop has no bearing on
wether or not the proper proceedure is to tow it. If it was unsafe to
drive 10 miles it was unsafe to drive 1 mile.
You are going to continue to try to twist thing to make yourself correct
but it just isn't going to happen here. The car was broken and would not
operate properly so it was in an unsafe condition and should not have
been driven, no matter how far it was.
He saw the light was yellow and knew how slow he was going and if he was
operating the vehicle in a prudent manner he should have anticipated the
red light and not tried to get through on the yellow.
He had the ticket coming and more.
az-willie
===============
Since when does calling a tow truck constitute a hazard to anything but
the person's wallet? If he was in a traffic lane and broken down you
could have pushed him to the side. It's done every day.
But his vehicle was broken and could not operate in a normal manner and
that constitutes operating a vehicle in an unsafe condition. He had
another ticket coming.
Tom S.
> ===============
> Since when does calling a tow truck constitute a hazard to anything but
> the person's wallet?
Since tow truck take several minutes, up to a half hour to arrive, numbnuts.
> If he was in a traffic lane and broken down you
> could have pushed him to the side. It's done every day.
It's still a hazazrd when it's in the traffic lane.
>
> But his vehicle was broken and could not operate in a normal manner and
> that constitutes operating a vehicle in an unsafe condition. He had
> another ticket coming.
You're really desperate, aren't you? You're foot is in your mouth and you're
playing "pay no attention to that man behind the curtin".
If yours is an example of legal reasoning, no wonder our court systems are in
such a psychotic state.
Tom S.
"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
news:olkpsuc1j702qa4jd...@4ax.com...
Tom S.
> Little John wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 20:52:14 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once
> By your own admission the vehicle could not be operated at normal speeds
> because it was broken down. That is, by definition, operating an unsafe
> vehicle.
The only place "normal speed" gets taken into accout is on highways with
"Minimum Speed" limits. Even that isn't enforced where it definitely IS a
hazard. Try removing your head from your anal cavity.
>
> And you admit that if the vehicle was further from the shop it should
> have been towed. News Flash. Distance from the shop has no bearing on
> wether or not the proper proceedure is to tow it. If it was unsafe to
> drive 10 miles it was unsafe to drive 1 mile.
Leaving a stalled vehicle in a traffic lane to create a hazard is the issue.
It's called judgement--something you evidently lack entirely.
>
> You are going to continue to try to twist thing to make yourself correct
> but it just isn't going to happen here.
the onyl one twisting things is yourself to cover your blatent stupdity, lack
of reading comprehension skills, and police-state mentality.
>The car was broken and would not
> operate properly so it was in an unsafe condition and should not have
> been driven, no matter how far it was.
And tht is in the statue where. BTW, this is the fourth request for your
reading of the statue. Put up, or shut the fuck up.
>
> He saw the light was yellow and knew how slow he was going and if he was
> operating the vehicle in a prudent manner he should have anticipated the
> red light and not tried to get through on the yellow.
>
> He had the ticket coming and more.
>
You deserve a stump up your ass.
az-willie
>"az-willie" <scl...@npole.com> wrote in message
>news:3Y8z9.168852$Ju.1...@news2.central.cox.net...
>
>
>>===============
>>Since when does calling a tow truck constitute a hazard to anything but
>>the person's wallet?
>>
>>
>
>Since tow truck take several minutes, up to a half hour to arrive, numbnuts.
>
>
>
>>If he was in a traffic lane and broken down you
>>could have pushed him to the side. It's done every day.
>>
>>
>
>It's still a hazazrd when it's in the traffic lane.
>
>
=================
But he admits the vehicle was already broken down and then he came along
and talked to the person and then went and bought transmission fluid and
brought it back and put it in before they attempted to drive the car.
Leaving it obstructing traffic all that time, so they must not have been
too concerned about it being a hazard.
Plain and simple stupid. The car was broken and would not perform in a
normal manner. He was driving it anyway to avoid tow costs ( my
presumption ). He admits it would be unsafe to drive it further, but
thinks that it was okay to drive since it was 'only' a mile. Distance
has no bearing on whether or not it is safe to operate the vehicle.
The driver saw the yellow light, knew he was creeping along and should
have been prudent enough to not try to make it through on the yellow
since he was going so slow.
He had multiple tickets coming. Fortunately for him it wasn't a traffic
cop who caught him but only the stupid camera taking his pic in the
intersection during the red. The camera didn't know the car was being
driven in an unsafe condition.
He then got a sympathic judge so he got very very lucky.
End of story.
>
>
phxbrd
Then the error was in no way the fault of the camera. The jerk who misread
the pictures and didn't understand the system or the law was at fault -
human error once again blamed on the computer!
I vote for stop light cameras - but only if you don't like my pop-up barrier
idea....
phxbrd
Which is what makes them perfect for the job. They do nothing but record
truth, without bias or human error. Now get someone who knows the
applicable laws and how to read the photos and we'll have a perfect system.
Second to my pop-up barrier, of course....
Little John
No, it's not. On any given day you can find any number of vehicles travelling
at that rate of speed on the roadways. Normal speed on any roadway other than
those with posted minimum speeds (freeways, interstates, parkways, etc.) is
anything between movement and posted maximum.
|>And you admit that if the vehicle was further from the shop it should
|>have been towed. News Flash. Distance from the shop has no bearing on
|>wether or not the proper proceedure is to tow it. If it was unsafe to
|>drive 10 miles it was unsafe to drive 1 mile.
If it had been farther away, it might not have made it, which would have
necessitated a tow. The distance was within the abilities of the vehicle. I
could have towed it easily, but it made more since for me to act as following
escort. A tow truck could have been called, but it made more sense to get the
vehicle down the road and to the shop, minimizing the hazard it presented to
other vehicles and motorists.
|>You are going to continue to try to twist thing to make yourself correct
|>but it just isn't going to happen here. The car was broken and would not
|>operate properly so it was in an unsafe condition and should not have
|>been driven, no matter how far it was.
Cite. You said he was in violation of the law, and deserved a ticket for
driving an unsafe vehicle, prove it. Give me the code(s) he violated.
|>He saw the light was yellow and knew how slow he was going and if he was
|>operating the vehicle in a prudent manner he should have anticipated the
|>red light and not tried to get through on the yellow.
How did he see the light was yellow? I did, that's why I stopped. But, how is
he supposed to have seen it? You're just making shit up, hoping to get your
foot out of your mouth in as graceful a manner as possible.
|>He had the ticket coming and more.
No, he did not. If anyone's twisting facts, it's you, particularly since you
weren't there and don't seem to be able to read.
Little John
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
az-willie <scl...@npole.com> two-fingered to all:
|>Tom S. wrote:
|>
|>>"az-willie" <scl...@npole.com> wrote in message
|>>news:3Y8z9.168852$Ju.1...@news2.central.cox.net...
|>>
|>>
|>>>===============
|>>>Since when does calling a tow truck constitute a hazard to anything but
|>>>the person's wallet?
|>>>
|>>>
|>>
|>>Since tow truck take several minutes, up to a half hour to arrive, numbnuts.
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>>>If he was in a traffic lane and broken down you
|>>>could have pushed him to the side. It's done every day.
|>>>
|>>>
|>>
|>>It's still a hazazrd when it's in the traffic lane.
|>>
|>>
|>=================
|>But he admits the vehicle was already broken down and then he came along
|>and talked to the person and then went and bought transmission fluid and
|>brought it back and put it in before they attempted to drive the car.
The vehicle had been broken down for less than a minute when I came along. I
drove two blocks back up the street to a convenience store, got the fluid and
went back. Total time, less than 5 minutes before the vehicle was rolling
again.
|>Leaving it obstructing traffic all that time, so they must not have been
|>too concerned about it being a hazard.
Again you speak without knowledge. Our first concern was getting it out of the
way and moving again. It would have taken, at minimum, 6 times as long to get a
tow. It would have taken the same amount of time to get it hooked up to my car
to tow it, if not longer.
|>Plain and simple stupid. The car was broken and would not perform in a
|>normal manner. He was driving it anyway to avoid tow costs ( my
At least you admit it this time.
|>presumption ). He admits it would be unsafe to drive it further, but
No, I did not. Based on the amount of fluid put in, and the distance the trail
of fluid went behind the vehicle, we were reasonably certain it would make it
the rest of the way with the fluid we were putting in. Had it been a greater
distance, we'd have had to turn it around and go back up the road and park it at
the convenience store.
|>thinks that it was okay to drive since it was 'only' a mile. Distance
|>has no bearing on whether or not it is safe to operate the vehicle.
Yes, it does. It's safe for me to take my golf cart a mile down the road, but
it's not safe for me to take it eight miles down the road. Why? Because it is
reasonable to expect it to make a two mile round trip, but not a sixteen mile
round trip. The same principle applied to the car.
|>The driver saw the yellow light, knew he was creeping along and should
|>have been prudent enough to not try to make it through on the yellow
|>since he was going so slow.
Still haven't caught on yet, I see.
|>He had multiple tickets coming. Fortunately for him it wasn't a traffic
|>cop who caught him but only the stupid camera taking his pic in the
|>intersection during the red. The camera didn't know the car was being
|>driven in an unsafe condition.
A cop would have, at most, offered assistance. You simply have no clue what
you're talking about.
Little John
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard, "phxbrd"
<phx...@earthlink.net> two-fingered to all:
|>I vote for stop light cameras - but only if you don't like my pop-up barrier
|>idea....
video, not still shots.
Tom S.
>
> "Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
> news:olkpsuc1j702qa4jd...@4ax.com...
> the pictures and didn't understand the system or the law was at fault -
> human error once again blamed on the computer!
>
> I vote for stop light cameras - but only if you don't like my pop-up barrier
> idea....
>
I've seen too many intersections where only two or three people get through a
turn of the lights because they're daydreaming...
I want catapults to get some of the myopic turds going before the light turns
yellow.
Tom S.
>
> "Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
> news:0ikpsu0b5sfp6vhd3...@4ax.com...
> >
>
> Which is what makes them perfect for the job. They do nothing but record
> truth, without bias or human error.
_Truth_ is contextual.
> Now get someone who knows the
> applicable laws and how to read the photos and we'll have a perfect system.
A cop, maybe? One can't make much sense out of a static picture.
For example, several states have the same 999ABC number sequence that AZ
plates do, but several people had to take the time and expense to show the
court that the plate read was the right number, but the wrong state. Oh, yes,
the bureaucrats are supposed to make that distinction, but if they had IQ's
greater than 26, they wouldn't be working for the government.
> Second to my pop-up barrier, of course....
Actually, I like this idea. Beats paying $5 at a amusement park.
Larry Jandro
said:
> I've seen too many intersections where only two or three people
> get through a turn of the lights because they're daydreaming...
>
> I want catapults to get some of the myopic turds going before
> the light turns yellow.
That would be dangerous to the innocent traffic in front of them.
How about a trap door which quickly drops them into the bowels of the
Earth, then immediatly snaps shut..?
az-willie
========
You claim you were following him. He was driving the vehicle in front of
you. You saw the light was yellow. Yet you don't understand how he was
supposed to see the yellow light while he was driving in front of you?
Is he blind as well as driving a broken vehicle?
This has become to ridiculous to bother with any further.
Little John
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
az-willie <scl...@npole.com> two-fingered to all:
|>You claim you were following him. He was driving the vehicle in front of
|>you. You saw the light was yellow. Yet you don't understand how he was
|>supposed to see the yellow light while he was driving in front of you?
Yes, I was following, at about two car lengths back. I saw the light because I
wasn't under the damned thing when it changed. How can anyone be so incapable
of visualization? And, why would anyone, even you, want him to stop in the
intersection. He'd already entered it, but you think he should stop. What the
hell does it take to make you think?
Steve Irving
"Larry Jandro" <use...@REMOVETHISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92BF5D121C...@68.6.19.6...
> On 06 Nov 2002, az-willie <scl...@npole.com> tapped on a keyboard
> and said:
>
> > The best idea I've seen is that the last 3 - 5 seconds of a
> > yellow light it should go into a flashing mode. Thus people
> > approaching the yellow know it is too late to floor the gas to
> > try to get through before it goes red.
>
> In reality, they would take that as a signal to floor it.
The mindset should be:
Green means GO
Yellow means PREPARE to STOP
Red means STOP
Instead yellow has become known as Stomp the damn throttle to the floor so
I'm not inconvenienced by having to stop at a red light for a couple
minutes.
So....nowadays we have radar traps, red-light cameras and
photoradar.......because our society has become filled with assholes who
only think of themselves and how their need to get where they're going in
the least possible amount of time is oh so much more important than obeying
speed limits and other traffic controls which are intended to provide some
level of safety for the users of the highways.
Overheard one of my kids talking about her driving habits once, her
statement was "No cop, No stop.".....took her license and keys away for six
months.
We see the carnage on our streets every day. People exceeding the posted
limits, running red lights, driving impaired, etc. The result has been death
and destruction in our cities. The funniest thing to me is that the people
who complain most about traffic controls, red-light cameras, photoradar,
etc. are those with the least experience, and the lowest skill levels behind
the wheel (or handlebars), the joke is that they truly believe they are the
best drivers on wheels..........yeah right.
--
stevem...@nite.com
I've got my pants on the protect me from SPAM
Remove my pants to send me e-mail.
Steve Irving
"CosmicDawg" <CosmicDawgHEA...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:v5tmsukp3qpo1fg7t...@4ax.com...
> things that could be done at almost no cost to improve safety, and
> that would not intrude on citizens rights are constantly ignored. But
Since when did running a red light, or exceeding a posted speed limit become
a "right".......
Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege....granted by the state as long as
you follow the rules, you violate the rules, the privilege is removed.
Steve Irving
"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BKRy9.15634$Ku.16...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> "az-willie" <scl...@npole.com> wrote in message
> news:LsPy9.155109$Ju.1...@news2.central.cox.net...
> > However making the yellow lights flash would involve some expenditure,
> > possibly considerable.
>
> Minimal.
And your opinion is based on ????????? Your years of experience as a traffic
signals technician??????
What would the cost be to modify a single lighted intersection to accomplish
the solid yellow followed by a flashing yellow??
Please carry through by multiplying it by every lighted intersection in the
country......
And please detail how existing equipment would not require any physical
modification or replacement to accomplish this (mainly since you said it
wouldn't need to be done)......make and model info would help. I'll verify
any info you provide with the Supervisor of the Traffic Signals division of
the City I work for...........he's a friend of mine.
I remember something someone once said (Dirkson) "A billion here, a billion
there...sooner or later it adds up to real money."
Steve Irving
"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
news:32snsus8g4e6lkl4n...@4ax.com...
> |>First of all, once again, red light cameras are not an intrusion on
> |>citizens rights. You have no right to run a red light. Radar speeding
> |>cameras are not an intrusion on citizen rights. You have no right to
speed.
>
> No, but you have the Constitutionally guaranteed Right to face your
accusor.
>
> Amendment VI
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and
> public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the
crime
Unfortunately......running a redlight is not a criminal matter, it is a
civil violation of a traffic regulation. So, the "right to face your
accuser" doesn't really exist. Speeding isn't criminal either, unless you
reach a defined gap (usually 20 to 25 MPH over the posted limit).
Steve Irving
"az-willie" <scl...@npole.com> wrote in message
news:_V8z9.168814$Ju....@news2.central.cox.net...
> Little John wrote:
>
> You are going to continue to try to twist thing to make yourself correct
> but it just isn't going to happen here. The car was broken and would not
> operate properly so it was in an unsafe condition and should not have
> been driven, no matter how far it was.
I'm also interested in what happened to the large amount of transmission
fluid the guy had spilled on the roadway.....which would have created an
unsafe condition for other drivers, I don't remember reading that the guys
had cleaned it up.....
Also didn't read that the guys had placed proper warning devices in the
roadway while the car was broken down to warn other drivers, nor did I read
that they made any attempt to move the broken down vehicle out of a roadway.
Tom, you want cites from ARS, please post the parts which prove I'm
wrong......
And yes...I am a Democrat......so I'm not at all responsible for the tax
cuts which have nearly ruined our state, or the Alt Fuel vehicle debacle
(which the public only knows about half the story).....Thank God the folks
in this state have elected two of the top three posts Democrat.
I heard ONE true statement from Matt Salmon during his campaign....he said
"Tax cuts are good for business"....of course he said some other stuff too,
but that part was the truth.
Steve Irving
"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FU9z9.18662$Ku.22...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> >The car was broken and would not
> > operate properly so it was in an unsafe condition and should not have
> > been driven, no matter how far it was.
>
> And tht is in the statue where. BTW, this is the fourth request for your
> reading of the statue. Put up, or shut the fuck up.
===============================================================
28-961. Display of warning devices; disabled vehicle
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, if a motor truck,
passenger bus, truck tractor, trailer, semitrailer or pole trailer is
disabled on the traveled portion of a highway or the shoulder of a highway
outside of a city or town at a time when lighted lamps are required on
vehicles, the driver of the vehicle shall display the following warning
devices on the highway during the time the vehicle is disabled on the
highway:
28-644. Obedience to and required traffic control devices
A. Unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer and subject to
the exemptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this
chapter, the driver of a vehicle shall:
1. Obey the instructions of an official traffic control device applicable to
the driver that is placed in accordance with this chapter.
28-982. Vehicle and equipment inspection; notice of repair or adjustment
A. If at any time there is reasonable cause to believe that a vehicle is
unsafe or is not equipped as required by law or that a vehicle's equipment
is not in proper adjustment or repair, the superintendent of the highway
patrol, members of the highway patrol, other officers and employees of the
department of public safety as the director may designate and any peace
officer may require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit the vehicle
to an inspection and such test with reference to the inspection as may be
appropriate.
B. If the vehicle is in an unsafe condition or any required part or
equipment is not present or is not in proper repair and adjustment, the
officer shall give a written notice to the driver. The officer's department
shall retain the original of the notice. The notice shall state:
1. That the vehicle is required to be placed in safe condition and that the
vehicle's equipment is required to be properly repaired and adjusted.
2. The particulars with reference to the requirements provided in paragraph
1.
3. That a certificate of correction or adjustment of illegal or faulty
equipment shall be obtained within five days.
C. The director of the department of public safety shall prescribe the form
of the notice required by this section.
28-921. Applicability of equipment requirements
A. A person shall not:
1. Drive or move and the owner shall not knowingly cause or permit to be
driven or moved on a highway a vehicle or combination of vehicles that:
(a) Is in an unsafe condition that endangers a person.
(b) Does not contain those parts or is not at all times equipped with lamps
and other equipment in proper condition and adjustment as required in this
article.
(c) Is equipped in any manner in violation of this article.
===========================================================
Read it and weep............or maybe since the republicans have been running
the state (and educational system) for so long.......your reading skills may
not be up to the task. You've already proved that you're unable to search
the internet for what you want, since you demanded others do it for you.
Steve Irving
"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
news:kuhqsuou6fjqsq0av...@4ax.com...
> Cite. You said he was in violation of the law, and deserved a ticket for
> driving an unsafe vehicle, prove it. Give me the code(s) he violated.
I did.......don't know if he deserved a ticket for operating an unsafe
vehicle (shit you said it dumped it's trans fluid all over the road, did you
guys clean it up??)....but according to the statute I already quoted...he
should have been issued a warning and made to cease operation of the
vehicle.
Steve Irving
"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
news:b15osu0521vks3kfb...@4ax.com...
> Even in a civil action, you are entitled to confront your accusers.
You're
> entitled to full discovery. Etc. Etc. It's all in the ARS, and quite
easy to
> find and read.
;-) Have to do this, since you guys already tried it.......
Please cite.........does ARS really state that you have the right to
confront your accuser?? Love to see that.
I ran two searches of ARS Title 28 (Motor Vehicle Code) one of "Confront
Accuser" and the other "Confront Your Accuser", received no hits on either
search. Also ran a search on "discovery" and got two hits, one dealing with
Hearing Objections during Appeals, and the other with obtaining refunds.
Civil actions don't always require that you "face an accuser"........it's
very possible to go to a JP or small claims court with proper documentation
and obtain a judgment against someone, without them being present at all. An
order of protection is a civil proceeding which doesn't require that you
"face your accuser"....
Most traffic tickets are violations of civil law, not criminal......you
would therefore not ALWAYS be entitled to "face an accuser"......
Steve Irving
.
"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:HIXy9.15878$Ku.17...@news2.west.cox.net...
> As in the other post, I'd like to see you quote the statute.
>
> (Willie stuck his foot in his mouth and is trying to cover his ass)
I did........so get over being wrong.
Steve Irving
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aqhnah$a6sr1$1...@ID-149074.news.dfncis.de...
> The second car that evidently caused the photo was the only one due a
> ticket. If the slow car was already in the intersection legally, he could
> have not set off the camera. The slow car may have showed up in photos,
but
> if he didn't trigger the camera, he was breaking no law. This isn't
exactly
> brain surgery unless you have no idea how red light cameras work.
The term is "rocket surgery"........and clearly they have no idea what
they're talking about.
They got out of the ticket because they didn't run the red light, so the
"system" works.
But the should have been cited for spilling ATF all over the roadway (unless
they cleaned it up, and I didn't hear that).....and should have received a
warning and an order to cease operating an unsafe motor vehicle.
Since the car had already dumped it's oil......when they put in the new oil
did the leak stop, or did they continue leaking ATF all the way
home...creating a hazard in the roadway for other drivers??
--
stevem...@nite.com
I've got my pants on the protect me from SPAM
Remove my pants to send me e-mail.
Steve Irving
"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
news:olkpsuc1j702qa4jd...@4ax.com...
> Which just proves the point. He got the ticket when he shouldn't have.
No....he should have gotten a ticket. A ticket is an accusation, accusations
can be made based on evidence. People are often convicted on evidence alone,
without any eyewitness.
He was NOT convicted......because you were able to provide contrary
evidence.
Our system of law in this case worked fine.
I'm just glad I didn't ride (and/or crash) my motorcycle through the oil
slick you guys created and left in the roadway (didn't hear a mention of you
guys cleaning up the mess).
Steve Irving
"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
news:0ujqsu0v61olmkc55...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:06:52 -0700, in a fit of unbridled digital
verbosity, once
> again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"phxbrd"
> <phx...@earthlink.net> two-fingered to all:
>
> |>I vote for stop light cameras - but only if you don't like my pop-up
barrier
> |>idea....
>
> video, not still shots.
I like the popup barrier idea......if you don't stop, you crash. Guilt or
innocence would be very apparent.
Steve Irving
>
> |>Anyway you go he was guilty of something.
>
Wait a minute, you're a biker....so YOU would have been guilty of
something/anything.....and since he was a known associate......;-)
Steve Irving
"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s%cz9.18768$Ku.23...@news2.west.cox.net...
> the bureaucrats are supposed to make that distinction, but if they had
IQ's
> greater than 26, they wouldn't be working for the government.
Last time I tested, my IQ was 154.....I've been in government service for 28
years.......only 3 more to go and I will retire.
Thanks to people like you (who feel that government emplyees are stupid,
undeserving, and should be, or are on welfare) I've been underpaid
throughout my career (when compared to my peers in private industry). But
that's what I could expect from a republican, who would feel that only rich
businessmen deserve to make a decent living.
Steve Irving
"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3qfy9.5901$Ku.5...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> True enough, but I've never seen such idiotic light synchronization as
here
> in the Valley.
>
>
Probably because you don't know how they work......
In the city I work for.....
One mile intersections are timed at 40 MPH (the posted speed limit).....if
you drive between 37 and 43 you'll do fine. All the half mile and quarter
mile feeder streets are controlled by loops which detect cars (no reason to
trigger a light if no cars are present).
If you get stopped by a light at a feeder street, you will catch the next
one mile light red......and then you'll catch all the rest green.
If you choose to exceed the posted speed limit (by more than a couple miles
per hour) you will get stopped at every light in creation.......and be
pissed and angry at the government emplyees who design/install/maintain the
systems.
Steve Irving
"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9pfy9.5899$Ku.5...@news2.west.cox.net...
> There is that coersion effect, but most people don't run then anyway
(duh).
> Thing is, when they fiddle with the light sync, they put people in
jeopardy
> for no good reason. It isn't rocket science to set the lights to turn
green
> for approaching traffic. When it's the other way around, I can only think
of
> gross incompetence or deliberation for the reason.
Lights aren't there to turn green for approaching traffic, they are there to
regulate the speed of traffic and to break traffic for crossflow.
It isn't rocket science for drivers to drive safely and obey traffic signals
and other laws without bitcing and whining........must be a republican
thing......thinking they can do any damn thing they please, and are better
than everyone else.
Little John
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
Even in civil procedures you have specific rights. That's why if the cop
doesn't show up to testify against you in court on a traffic ticket, it's
dismissed.
Little John
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Steve Irving" <stevem...@nite.com> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>
Read the codes on commercial trucks and trailers, and weep? Why? We're
discussing a passenger car.
Absolutely none of this is relevant to this discussion.
Little John
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Steve Irving" <stevem...@nite.com> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>
|>"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
|>news:kuhqsuou6fjqsq0av...@4ax.com...
|>
|>> Cite. You said he was in violation of the law, and deserved a ticket for
|>> driving an unsafe vehicle, prove it. Give me the code(s) he violated.
|>
|>I did.......don't know if he deserved a ticket for operating an unsafe
|>vehicle (shit you said it dumped it's trans fluid all over the road, did you
|>guys clean it up??)....but according to the statute I already quoted...he
|>should have been issued a warning and made to cease operation of the
|>vehicle.
Nope. What you quoted covered commercial trucks and trailers. It had nothing
to do with passenger cars.
The trans fluid was dumped in a stream along a fairly long section of straight
roadway. No, we didn't clean it up. Doing so would have been an endangerment
of life and limb, as well as an additional impediment to traffic.
Little John
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Steve Irving" <stevem...@nite.com> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>
|>"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
|>news:b15osu0521vks3kfb...@4ax.com...
|>
|>> Even in a civil action, you are entitled to confront your accusers.
|>You're
|>> entitled to full discovery. Etc. Etc. It's all in the ARS, and quite
|>easy to
|>> find and read.
|>
|>;-) Have to do this, since you guys already tried it.......
|>
|>Please cite.........does ARS really state that you have the right to
|>confront your accuser?? Love to see that.
A.R.S. Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 43(f). Form and Admissibility of Evidence
In all trials the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court,
unless otherwise provided by these rules or the Arizona Rules of Evidence.
Rule 38(a). Right preserved
The right of trial by jury shall be preserved inviolate to the parties.
Rule 38(d). Waiver
The failure of a party to serve a demand as required by this Rule and to file it
as required by Rule 5(b) constitutes a waiver by the party of trial by jury. A
demand for trial by jury made as herein provided may not be withdrawn without
the consent of the parties.
Rule 39(k). Procedure applicable in trial by the court
The rules prescribed for trial of actions before a jury shall govern in trials
by the court so far as applicable.
And the capper to the argument...
AZ Rules of Evidence
Rule 501. General Rule
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States, the
Constitution of Arizona, or by applicable statute or rule, privilege shall be
governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted in light
of reason and experience, or as they have been held to apply in former
decisions.
Note the part about "Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the
United States,..."? You have the right to face your accuser.
BTW - How do you get oral testimony from a camera, since it's the only witness
against you?
|>I ran two searches of ARS Title 28 (Motor Vehicle Code) one of "Confront
|>Accuser" and the other "Confront Your Accuser", received no hits on either
|>search. Also ran a search on "discovery" and got two hits, one dealing with
|>Hearing Objections during Appeals, and the other with obtaining refunds.
|>
|>Civil actions don't always require that you "face an accuser"........it's
|>very possible to go to a JP or small claims court with proper documentation
|>and obtain a judgment against someone, without them being present at all. An
Only if they're been properly notified of the procedure and fail to appear, thus
waiving their right.
|>order of protection is a civil proceeding which doesn't require that you
|>"face your accuser"....
Any action that doesn't offer you the ability to face your accuser does offer
you the right to challenge, including an order of protection. Yes, it's in
there, but I'm not digging it up too.
|>Most traffic tickets are violations of civil law, not criminal......you
|>would therefore not ALWAYS be entitled to "face an accuser"......
If you plead not guilty, since that results in a trial, you are.
Little John
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Steve Irving" <stevem...@nite.com> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>
|>.
|>"Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message
|>news:HIXy9.15878$Ku.17...@news2.west.cox.net...
|>
|>> As in the other post, I'd like to see you quote the statute.
|>>
|>> (Willie stuck his foot in his mouth and is trying to cover his ass)
|>
|>I did........so get over being wrong.
Can't. You haven't quote anything applicable.
Little John
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Steve Irving" <stevem...@nite.com> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>
|>
|>"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
|>news:olkpsuc1j702qa4jd...@4ax.com...
|>
|>> Which just proves the point. He got the ticket when he shouldn't have.
|>
|>No....he should have gotten a ticket. A ticket is an accusation, accusations
|>can be made based on evidence. People are often convicted on evidence alone,
|>without any eyewitness.
|>He was NOT convicted......because you were able to provide contrary
|>evidence.
|>Our system of law in this case worked fine.
And had he not been fortunate enough to have me witness the series of events, he
would have been screwed by the camera. Regardless of how it's supposed to work,
a ticket is a presumption of guilt, at least in today's courts.
|>I'm just glad I didn't ride (and/or crash) my motorcycle through the oil
|>slick you guys created and left in the roadway (didn't hear a mention of you
|>guys cleaning up the mess).
Oh, now it's an oil slick. You keep growing this thing and the Exxon Valdez
would be hard pressed to match it.
You forget that I ride too. If I'd felt it to be a hazard, I'd have placed a
call on it. That amount of fluid, spilled over that length of roadway, works
out to less oil on the road than what the road crews put down when they're
working on a street. And, the nice, dry AZ asphalt did a great job of sucking
it up.
Now, would anybody else like to raise some other red herrings about this thing
that started as a debate of flippin' red light cams?
Little John
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Steve Irving" <stevem...@nite.com> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
|>news:agjpsusa9c5ppc8oo...@4ax.com...
|>>
|>> |>Anyway you go he was guilty of something.
|>>
|>> Nope.
|>
|>Wait a minute, you're a biker....so YOU would have been guilty of
|>something/anything.....and since he was a known associate......;-)
hahahaha Sure does seem like it at times, don't it?
phxbrd
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:06:52 -0700, in a fit of unbridled digital
verbosity, once
> again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
> <phx...@earthlink.net> two-fingered to all:
>
> |>I vote for stop light cameras - but only if you don't like my pop-up
barrier
> |>idea....
>
> video, not still shots.
No benefit.
bi...@pipping.com
<stevem...@nite.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Little John" <jam...@jammin1.SPAMSUX.com> wrote in message
>news:b15osu0521vks3kfb...@4ax.com...
>
>> Even in a civil action, you are entitled to confront your accusers.
>You're
>> entitled to full discovery. Etc. Etc. It's all in the ARS, and quite
>easy to
>> find and read.
>
>;-) Have to do this, since you guys already tried it.......
>
>Please cite.........does ARS really state that you have the right to
>confront your accuser?? Love to see that.
>
>I ran two searches of ARS Title 28 (Motor Vehicle Code) one of "Confront
>Accuser" and the other "Confront Your Accuser", received no hits on either
>search. Also ran a search on "discovery" and got two hits, one dealing with
>Hearing Objections during Appeals, and the other with obtaining refunds.
>
>Civil actions don't always require that you "face an accuser"........it's
>very possible to go to a JP or small claims court with proper documentation
>and obtain a judgment against someone, without them being present at all. An
>order of protection is a civil proceeding which doesn't require that you
>"face your accuser"....
You changed "right" to "requirement".
In a civil case, the plaintiff is the accuser, so the defendant can
only miss facing the accuser by not showing up.
As for the OOP, the initial order is temporary; the accused and
accuser will need to meet for the order to be extended.
--
Bill
Replace "g" with "a"
Experience is what you get when you expected something else.