Red Light Cameras- Guilty even when innocent
Cheapo Groovo
jason....@gmail.com
> This guy proved his case, yet the state of Georgia doesn't care.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmVSbfvaqVw
It might be time to stop driving
Marsha
> This guy proved his case, yet the state of Georgia doesn't care.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmVSbfvaqVw
If these are similar to cameras in Ohio, you don't get points on your
license and it doesn't get reported to your insurance company. I think
everyone is responsible for his/her car and who they allow to drive it.
IMO, he should be going after the shop for letting someone there drive
it like a maniac.
Marsha/Ohio
sarge137
> This guy proved his case, yet the state of Georgia doesn't care.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmVSbfvaqVw
There's gotta be more to story. The facts as presented seem pretty
compelling. But what I didn't see or hear:
Any comment or refusal to comment from the shop where the car was at
for repairs on the day of the violation.
Any comment or refusal to comment from an officer of the court with
jurisdiction over the ticket. The Police Chief isn't the person they
should have interviewed. He didn't issue the ticket, nor does he
adjudicate it.
Look at the tape again. They report that the guy's car was in the
shop "on the day of the violation" What they don't say is that it
was in the shop at the TIME of the violation. When and by whom was it
delivered to the shop? When and by whom was it picked up? Besides
the guy on the tape, who has keys and permission to use the car, and
where were they at the time of the violation?
I just can't believe that in any jurisdiction in this country that
this ticket wouldn't be dismissed if he could show reasonable proof
that the car was in the care, custody and exclusive control of the
repair shop at the time of this violation. And if he does have that
kind of proof, he'll have more lawyers than he can handle wanting to
defend the ticket, then sue the city of wrongful or malicious
prosecution.
Regards,
Sarge
SpammersDie
"sarge137" <rboot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f7bb9c8-645e-4ad4...@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Disclaimer: IANAL
Assuming it's like most camera ticket laws I've heard of, this is like a
parking ticket - no points, just a monetary fine. So unless the car was
stolen, the vehicle owner is liable for seeing that the fine gets paid.
Collecting reimbursement from the actual driver is the owner's job.
I have no problem with this reasoning at all in most cases - since most
cases involve the spouse and kids driving the car with the owner's consent.
If the owner has so little control over them that he can't get them to pay
him back for the fine, it is irresponsible for him to be letting them drive
the family car at all.
The repair shop scenario does suck, though. There's probably just no room in
the statute to make exceptions. Still, the guy should probably have paid the
fine and gone after the repair shop for reimbursement.
sarge137
> "sarge137" <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
We'd be on the same side of a debate on this issue. I also believe
that owner of a motor vehicle is responsible for what is done with it,
and if done by someone else they have a responsibility to give up the
actor or face the consequences as if they did it personally.
You are correct that these types of citations are infractions not
violations, and don't result in points on your driving record so long
they're paid. But, they do show up on your record, and will be
revealed to anyone who does full a records check (as opposed to a
points or violations check). So, just paying it and moving on is not
necessarily the best course of action if you're truly the victim of a
mistake, or some strange circumstance like they're trying to foist on
us here.
In my state you can get a photo violation for both running a stop
light and speeding. In both cases it's an infraction and if paid on
time doesn't result in points. If not, a summons is issued. If you
fail to respond to that, and arrest warrant is issued. In both cases,
if you weren't driving all you have to is go the clerk of the court in
the jurisdiction where the violation occurred and give up the person
who had your car. It then becomes their problem. In this case, all
the guy would have to do is show the car was in the shop at the time.
Now it's the shop owner's problem. He either pays it, and has it on
his record, or he gives up the employee who did it. If he doesn't
have enough control at his shop to tell that - too bad, so sad.
I checked the Georgia statute and it has pretty much the same
provisions for corrections of errors, and transfer of responsibility
as the law in my state. Not surprising, because most state traffic
laws are based on a federal uniform code. Generally a requirement to
keep federal highway funds flowing into the state.
I also learned that the Georgia law was only passed a few years ago,
and there's a huge uproar about the practice. Knowing the left
leaning liberal media as well as I do, and knowing their propensity to
spin a story, I don't assume they reported all the facts of this
case. Like a criminal defense attorney who doesn't want to know if
his client is really guilty, it's just too easy for a reporter not to
ask certain questions, or not look for certain people.
Since the reporter did such an incomplete one sided story I can't know
for sure, but my guess is:
The owner was really out of town when all this happened.
He had a friend or family member take the car to the shop and/or pick
it up when it was ready.
The car was turned in on the day of the violation AFTER the driver ran
the red; or it was picked up BEFORE it happened.
There's probably no time stamp on the work order so he figures he can
weasel his wife/son/daughter/girlfriend/buddy out of it by just
claiming he can't know who was in the car.
Since they're still holding him to the fine, the court clearly ain't
buying his story. I'm gonna bet the shop owner has already said he
didn't have the car at the time. Since the lefty reporter didn't do a
thorough job and interview the shop owner we'll never know. We're
supposed to drink the kool aid and believe this poor guy is simply a
victim of "big brother".
Like I said, there's way more to the story than you see on the video.
Regards,
Sarge
Cheapo Groovo
114219...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, rboot...@yahoo.com says...
> On Feb 21, 2:29 pm, "SpammersDie" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
> > "sarge137" <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:9f7bb9c8-645e-4ad4...@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 20, 11:49 am, Cheapo Groovo <c...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > This guy proved his case, yet the state of Georgia doesn't care.
> >
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmVSbfvaqVw
> > >There's gotta be more to story. The facts as presented seem pretty
> > >compelling. But what I didn't see or hear:
> >
> > >Any comment or refusal to comment from the shop where the car was at
> > >for repairs on the day of the violation.
> >
> > >Any comment or refusal to comment from an officer of the court with
> > >jurisdiction over the ticket. The Police Chief isn't the person they
> > >should have interviewed. He didn't issue the ticket, nor does he
> > >adjudicate it.
> >
> > >Look at the tape again. They report that the guy's car was in the
> > >shop "on the day of the violation" What they don't say is that it
> > >was in the shop at the TIME of the violation. When and by whom was it
> > >delivered to the shop? When and by whom was it picked up? Besides
> > >the guy on the tape, who has keys and permission to use the car, and
> > >where were they at the time of the violation?
> >
> > >I just can't believe that in any jurisdiction in this country that
> > >this ticket wouldn't be dismissed if he could show reasonable proof
is driving the car!
Why should this guy face the "hassle factor" of his own lawyer and a
civil lawsuit against the shop?
If you both think this is an isolated incident, you have been living in
the same cave as Bin Laden!
clams_casino
>>>
>>>>Any comment or refusal to comment from an officer of the court with
>>>>jurisdiction over the ticket. The Police Chief isn't the person they
>>>>should have interviewed. He didn't issue the ticket, nor does he
>>>>adjudicate it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Look at the tape again. They report that the guy's car was in the
>>>>shop "on the day of the violation" What they don't say is that it
>>>>was in the shop at the TIME of the violation. When and by whom was it
>>>>delivered to the shop? When and by whom was it picked up? Besides
>>>>the guy on the tape, who has keys and permission to use the car, and
>>>>where were they at the time of the violation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I just can't believe that in any jurisdiction in this country that
>>>>this ticket wouldn't be dismissed if he could show reasonable proof
>>>>
>>>>
>You two scare the hell out of me. The police should be finding out who
>is driving the car!
>
>Why should this guy face the "hassle factor" of his own lawyer and a
>civil lawsuit against the shop?
>
>If you both think this is an isolated incident, you have been living in
>the same cave as Bin Laden!
>
>
It's much like someone getting into an accident while driving your
car. Expect to be sued - regardless of who is driving.
sarge137
> You two scare the hell out of me. The police should be finding out who
> is driving the car!
Not hardly. This is a camera infraction - no personal injury - no
property damage. I don't know how things are where you live, but in
my city the police have far more important things to do. In fact,
they're not even part of the process. They don't install or maintain
the cameras, they don't issue the citations, and they don't collect
the fines. All of that is done by the city traffic and streets
bureau, and the municipal court. They police aren't involved until
the thing escalates to the point where a warrant is issued.
> Why should this guy face the "hassle factor" of his own lawyer and a
> civil lawsuit against the shop?
No lawyers need be involved. If he chooses the easy out, pay the fine
and sue the shop, he's well within small claims court limits. Lawyers
aren't even allowed in that room unless they're a party to a case. As
far as the "hassle factor" is concerned, all I can say is that life's
a hassle, get over it. It's his car and his problem. But it's not
complicated. Just go to whatever office in his town that handles this
and give the information and documents they need to show the shop had
the car at the time of the violation. It's not hard, and probably
takes less time than whining to a TV camera.
He's the one who said "it's the principal". I agree with him, and
would also fight this thing tooth and nail. But nobody's going to
just take his word for anything, nor should they. Forty years in this
business had taught me, among other things, that sometimes you're
right, but can't prove it; or proving it is more trouble than it's
worth.
> If you both think this is an isolated incident, you have been living in
> the same cave as Bin Laden!
Nope, not living in a cave. I know it's not isolated, or even rare,
but it's also not common. My friend at the municipal court clerk's
office tells me they're contacted two or three times a week by people
who say they weren't driving the car when the picture was taken. Only
about one in five of those actually show up to handle it that way.
What happened with the other four? Don't know, and don't care.
In your original post you say "The guy proved his case". Pretty
obvious that all he did was raise more questions that need to be
answered before anything is "proved". And the reporter was too
incompetent or dishonest to pursue them.
Regards,
Sarge
clams_casino
>On Feb 22, 11:34 am, Cheapo Groovo <c...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>You two scare the hell out of me. The police should be finding out who
>>is driving the car!
>>
>>
>
>Not hardly. This is a camera infraction - no personal injury - no
>property damage. I don't know how things are where you live, but in
>my city the police have far more important things to do. In fact,
>they're not even part of the process. They don't install or maintain
>the cameras, they don't issue the citations, and they don't collect
>the fines. All of that is done by the city traffic and streets
>bureau, and the municipal court. They police aren't involved until
>the thing escalates to the point where a warrant is issued.
>
>
>
In many cases, the cameras may not even be monitored in that state.
sarge137
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correct. In in my city, even though every primary intersection, and
many secondary ones have camera housings, fewer than half actually
have cameras in them at any given time. And even fewer are actually
turned on. The city moves them around all the time. You never know
which ones are active or empty.
They're mainly there as a deterrent. Reminds me of the time years ago
when we'd park a patrol car next the road with a mannequin dressed in
a police uniform. Amazing how the speed would drop along that stretch
and it didn't cost the tax payers any overtime. Of course for it to
work, every now and again the occupant of the car was real officer who
was there to write tickets. No way to tell until you were right on
top of it.
Regards,
Sarge
Don Klipstein
sarge137 wrote in part, snipped by me to edit for space:
I disagree with associating such misfortune with "left" political
orientation. For example, George Orwell's "1984" fits quite well with a
rightwing fascist state!
However, I do see that camera tickets have only monetary fines and no
points. This does motivate vehicle owners to not let irresponsible
drivers drive tgheir vehicles. In this case, where the violation
supposedly occurred when the car was in posession of a repair shop, I
would tell the shop owner why I am considering taking my business
elsewhere. If the fine is around $100, I would not lose half a day's
wages or billable time doing consulting work or use up vacation time
taking time off to go to small claims court over $100. I would merely
tell the shop owner why I am taking my business elsewhere, should this
story have have happened to me and be true. Since I like to buy older
used cars and have yet to own and drive anything less than 10 years old?
I think that a repair shop would value my business!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)