Friday the 13th encounter with Big Brother
Ohioguy
neighboring city. It was informing me that I owed them $85 for driving
too fast - ~66 in a 50 mph zone, calculated by traffic light cameras.
This is on a limited access "connector", which still has about 10
intersections as it curves around the west portion of the major metro
area. The camera was just barely able to make out the license plate
numbers, evidently.
Funny thing is, I don't drive that vehicle. My wife does. The
letter said that I'm responsible unless I can get another person to sign
a letter saying they are responsible. Obviously, my wife was the one
driving, on her way to work. She was probably a little bit late, and
driving a bit fast to make up time.
However, it brings up an interesting question. There is no cop on
location to verify the driver, or even to verify that a human was
driving. In fact, it could have been my license plates transferred to a
similar looking vehicle, if someone wanted to automatically generate a
ticket for me. And even if a relative or 'friend' borrowed my car, if
they don't own up to it or accept responsibility, I'm then automatically
responsible even if I can prove I was elsewhere, and couldn't have been
driving the car?
That seems pretty bogus to me. I didn't like it when they started
doing this with red light cameras, because I've always believed if you
stop in the middle of the night, there is no traffic or whatever, you
should just look both ways and then go, because it is pointless to just
sit there, wasting gas for an extended period, just like it is at a stop
sign. Not any more. And now they are estimating your speed, which
means they are keeping track of you in the system from place to place.
I am curious about what would happen if I took 2 cars of the same
make , model & year, and put the same plates (I have spares) on the back
of both of them. Then, if I coordinated over a telephone with my wife
or somebody, I could drive through one light, and then through a
different light & traffic cam a couple of seconds later. It would look
like I was going something like 800 miles per hour, and I wonder if they
would issue a ticket for that? Probably.
My point is that I feel that a human should be present to issue any
tickets. Once before, I went through a red light in an ice storm when
taking a girl home after a party in college. I looked both ways, saw no
oncoming traffic, and decided it would be more dangerous to brake and
change speed than to run the light, which had changed faster than I
expected. Of course, there was a cop there, and he pulled me over.
Once I explained my reasoning, however, he agreed and simply let me off
with a warning. Try that with a traffic camera, when its sole purpose
is to generate extra tax revenue.
The Henchman
Try that with a traffic camera, when its sole purpose
> is to generate extra tax revenue.
I agree pretty much with everything you say except this last statement
about the automatic extra tax revenue generation.
sometimes traffic cameras are put into place at busy intersections because
children and the elderly are killed by reckless driving. Some streets have
higher numbers of school aged pedestrians or homes for the aged and traffic
needs to be slowed to posted limits for good reason. There are benefits to
having cameras introduced to some areas.
Make sure the street your wife was speeding on does not have schools, or
public transit or busy pedestrian crossings before arguing in front of a
judge. I know it's really easy to blame tax authorities but that isn't
always the case.
Bob F
> In the mail today I got a notice from the police department of a
> neighboring city. It was informing me that I owed them $85 for
> driving too fast - ~66 in a 50 mph zone, calculated by traffic light
> cameras. This is on a limited access "connector", which still has
> about 10 intersections as it curves around the west portion of the
> major metro area. The camera was just barely able to make out the
> license plate numbers, evidently.
>
> Funny thing is, I don't drive that vehicle. My wife does. The
> letter said that I'm responsible unless I can get another person to
> sign a letter saying they are responsible. Obviously, my wife was
> the one driving, on her way to work. She was probably a little bit
> late, and driving a bit fast to make up time.
>
>
> My point is that I feel that a human should be present to issue any
> tickets. Once before, I went through a red light in an ice storm when
> taking a girl home after a party in college. I looked both ways, saw
> no oncoming traffic, and decided it would be more dangerous to brake
> and change speed than to run the light, which had changed faster than
> I expected. Of course, there was a cop there, and he pulled me over.
> Once I explained my reasoning, however, he agreed and simply let me
> off with a warning. Try that with a traffic camera, when its sole
> purpose is to generate extra tax revenue.
Go to court and tell it to the judge.
Your attitude about traffic laws seems to be that they should only apply to you
if you agree with them under the circumstances. I'm glad most drivers don't have
that attitude. A lot more people would die. If you disagree with the laws, I
believe your have the right to surrender your licence and cease driving, so you
won't be bothered anymore.
tmclone
> In the mail today I got a notice from the police department of a
> neighboring city. It was informing me that I owed them $85 for driving
> too fast - ~66 in a 50 mph zone, calculated by traffic light cameras.
> This is on a limited access "connector", which still has about 10
> intersections as it curves around the west portion of the major metro
> area. The camera was just barely able to make out the license plate
> numbers, evidently.
>
> Funny thing is, I don't drive that vehicle. My wife does.
> That seems pretty bogus to me.
Suck it up and pay it, you tax evading weasel. You and your spawn are
a blight on the world Please just die. NOW!
Don Klipstein
> In the mail today I got a notice from the police department of a
>neighboring city. It was informing me that I owed them $85 for driving
>too fast - ~66 in a 50 mph zone, calculated by traffic light cameras.
>
> Funny thing is, I don't drive that vehicle. My wife does.
My experience is that camera enforcement laws are written to penalize
owners of vehicles driven illegally. The logic behind such laws is that
vehicle owners need to avoid allowing their vehicles to be driven by those
that the owners do not trust to drive such vehicles in ways that avoid
such tickets (as in driving in a safe and legal manner).
One more thing in my local experience with newspaper reporting of camera
ticketing (in my area that is for running red lights): Camera tickets do
not impose points onto one's license, because the camera does not show who
was the driver that committed the moving violation.
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
I used to favor red light cameras in an area that I still think badly
needs them (Philadelphia).
However, I saw what hapened within months after Philly's intersection of
58th and Walnut (school there) got red light camera enforcement: The
yellow light duration was shortened at least half a second from that
area's usual 3 seconds to no more than 2.5 seconds.
Whoever was responsible (or more like irresponsible) for that is giving
camera enforcement a bad name, and detracting from support for such things
where they are badly needed. (Such as where cops stopping unlawful drivers
cause traffic tie-ups in the process.)
The irresponsible persons shortening yellow light durations at
intersections with red light cameras need severe punishment, such as maybe
public gonad removal surgery in a painful manner. OK, I would settle for
public shaving of all hair on every square inch of their bodies, or else
showing how every square inch of their bodies was already hairless. And
publish their vehicles' make/model/year/tag#, so that they are forced to
drive 35 rather than 45 in roads posted 35 but suitable for 50 and driven
at 40-45 by many cops when they are off-duty and out of uniform and in
their personal cars.
pug
<tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>Suck it up and pay it, you tax evading weasel. You and your spawn are
>a blight on the world Please just die. NOW!
There she/he/it is again. Too exciting for words. Now I know why I
have been away for years.
[back to bed]
Rod Speed
Its just not practical.
> Once before, I went through a red light in an ice storm when
> taking a girl home after a party in college. I looked both ways, saw
> no oncoming traffic, and decided it would be more dangerous to brake
> and change speed than to run the light, which had changed faster than
> I expected. Of course, there was a cop there, and he pulled me over.
> Once I explained my reasoning, however, he agreed and simply let me
> off with a warning. Try that with a traffic camera, when its sole
> purpose is to generate extra tax revenue.
Life wasnt meant to be perfect.
The Henchman
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrni7h28...@manx.misty.com...
What about Auto Insurance "points" Insurance companies keep track of
tickets. The insurance premiums on the on the vehicle could still be
affected even if your license record is not.
This happened to me once. I've had one single ticket my whole driving life
of 16 years. I was caught speeding 34 km/hr over the posted limit of 80
km/hr The officer accepted my reason for speeding and reduced the fine to
the lowest legal limit and the demerit points to the lowest possible
deduction, so long as I mailed in my payment (to the courthouse) and didn't
argue in front of a judge.
My insurance company the following year denied renewing my coverage with the
current privileges and asked me to take a no frills bare bones policy
because of my single ticket that despite my lower fine still shows 34 km/hr
over the limit. I switched to another company that was happy I only had one
ticket instead.
Camera tickets may not take points off your license, but insurance companies
operate independently and if they get a whiff of reckless driving, then
rates go up or even denied on renewal maybe.
Clincher
"Ohioguy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:wfVdo.32136$6o7....@newsfe21.iad...
> In the mail today I got a notice from the police department of a
> neighboring city. It was informing me that I owed them $85 for driving
> too fast - ~66 in a 50 mph zone, calculated by traffic light cameras.
> Funny thing is, I don't drive that vehicle. My wife does. The letter
> said that I'm responsible unless I can get another person to sign a letter
> saying they are responsible. Obviously, my wife was the one driving, on
> her way to work. She was probably a little bit late, and driving a bit
> fast to make up time.
>
> However, it brings up an interesting question. There is no cop on
> location to verify the driver, or even to verify that a human was driving.
> In fact, it could have been my license plates transferred to a similar
> looking vehicle, if someone wanted to automatically generate a ticket for
> me. And even if a relative or 'friend' borrowed my car, if they don't own
> up to it or accept responsibility, I'm then automatically responsible even
> if I can prove I was elsewhere, and couldn't have been driving the car?
In most states, the penalty for a camera ticket is purely monetary. No
points on your license.
So you as the registered owner is responsible for seeing that the fine gets
paid but nothing says you can't be made whole by the actual driver.
As the registered owner, you have complete control over who borrows your car
and under what terms (except in the case of theft, but then you'd have a
police report and an actual defense.)
If you cannot trust them to obey traffic laws or at least own up when
caught, it's irresponsible for you to be handing them control of a vehicle
in the first place. But if you must, you have other options:
- Before you hand over the keys, require them to sign a written agreement
(with checkout and checkin times) that they will reimburse you for all
camera and parking tickets issued against the vehicle within that time
period.
- For extra safety, don't hand over the keys unless they maintain a security
deposit with you for the purpose of paying such fines.
It's your car - nobody can force you to let someone else drive it. If you
don't want to get dinged for their speeding violations, you have options to
protect yourself.
In practice, of course, the most cases are like yours - the other driver is
a spouse or other household member - and unless you segregate your finances,
it's moot who pays the fine - either way, it comes out of the family budget.
> I am curious about what would happen if I took 2 cars of the same make ,
> model & year, and put the same plates (I have spares) on the back of both
> of them. Then, if I coordinated over a telephone with my wife or
> somebody, I could drive through one light, and then through a different
> light & traffic cam a couple of seconds later. It would look like I was
> going something like 800 miles per hour, and I wonder if they would issue
> a ticket for that? Probably.
Since you'd be admitting guilt of driving at least one car without valid
plates, I doubt they're worried about anyone attempting such a defense.
Al
Yea, I hate the idea of getting stuck with a ticket when no
complaining witness/officer is present. Camera's don't take excuses
and may be subject to error. You could get an attorney and spend a
bundle to no purpose. There is a newer, I believe federal, law that
says every road needs to be surveyed to be sure speed limits are not
being held too low. If they did not do the survey on that road, the
tickets can be voided. Research that aspect.
Above not withstanding, your views on how the law should operate are
extremely arrogant. What allows you to go through red lights at night
based on your observation other than the fact you believe you can get
away with it? I'm required to stop whether traffic is present or not.
And assuming your wife was driving 66 in a 50 zone is very
irresponsible of her too. OH, she was late for work. That's the number
one excuse on the street. What if she ran into a car full of people
and killed someone? I guess she has the same attitude about laws as
you do. I would further add that she might have been on the cell phone
at the time as well or applying make-up. Why not use this little
setback as a heads-up to becoming responsible parents?
Cindy Hamilton
It's possible to calculate the speed of a vehicle by comparing two
consecutive pictures snapped by a single camera. Unless your
ticket said explicitly that they were using multiple cameras, it's
technologically easier to do it with a single camera. I wouldn't
assume that they're keeping track of you.
Cindy Hamilton
Charmin
> "Ohioguy" <n...@none.net> wrote in message
I have a friend in Phoenix whose son tried to wear a disguise for the
camera and got into big trouble for it. Did it twice in three minutes.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0414nearrest0414.html
VFW
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:
BTW most red light camera tickets are for "Right turn on Red" turns made
illegally, i.e. not stopping before turning right.
I believe you should protest all tickets. Sometimes a ticket written by
an Officer can be voided if the officer does not attend the court
proceedings.
--
Money! What a concept.
Charmin
> In article <i59h5p$ku...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Thanks for your post and showing that you did not read or understand
the nature of the thread.
Don Klipstein
>BTW most red light camera tickets are for "Right turn on Red" turns made
>illegally, i.e. not stopping before turning right.
>I believe you should protest all tickets. Sometimes a ticket written by
>an Officer can be voided if the officer does not attend the court
>proceedings.
I know someone who got a ticket for running a stop sign. The officer
wrote on the ticket, "defendant stopped and continued driving".
I have also heard of harder-to-fight tickets. Someone else I know
got a ticket for "failure to obey official traffic control devices" or
the like. If the USA state was PA, the vehicle code item violated would
have been 3111, though the state was one of the other 49. This is a
most-minimal moving violation or close to that, minimum or near-minimum
fine and no points.
Drawn on the ticket were pictures of a "Speed Limit 35" sign and a
speedometer reading 55.
In Philadelphia, there is legal allowance for the police department to
send a representative other than the officer who wrote the ticket. That
sounds hard to beat unless apealing at risk of great expense to the formal
common pleas court (where there are rules against hearsay evidence, which
the ticketing officer can get around by formally showing up as a witness),
or showing evidence that the ticket was unjustly or improperly issued.
Oh, in common pleas or higher courts, one who is one's own attorney
usually has a fool for a client.
Ohioguy
>apply to you if you agree with them under the circumstances.
Actually, I just want a person to be writing the ticket, so that:
a) there is not a two week delay before I even find out about it
(hence the chance for a LOAD more tickets before I or my
wife change behavior)
b) if a person is there, they can verify who is driving my car,
and not just assume it is me (could be my cousin or friend,
and evidently if they won't assume responsibility for speeding,
I have to pay for them breaking the law with the cameras)
Ohioguy
> and killed someone?
Unlikely - the road in question is actually a 4 lane limited access
"connector", or outerbelt, for the metro area. It is fairly new, and
the long term goal is probably to eventually get rid of most of the
intersections, but for the short term I think to cut down costs
(building overpasses/underpasses), they have an intersection about every
mile or so. That is probably the only reason why the speed limit is set
to 50 instead of 65.
she might have been on the cell phone
> at the time
Nope, no cell phone.
Ohioguy
> consecutive pictures snapped by a single camera. Unless your
> ticket said explicitly that they were using multiple cameras, it's
> technologically easier to do it with a single camera. I wouldn't
> assume that they're keeping track of you.
Cindy, the ticket actually had the times the photo was taken at two
different intersections, and it seemed pretty obvious they were
comparing the time each was taken, and then using the known distance
between the two points to calculate speed.
Clincher
"Ohioguy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:w%rfo.106767$4B7....@newsfe16.iad...
> >Your attitude about traffic laws seems to be that they should only apply
> >to you if you agree with them under the circumstances.
>
> Actually, I just want a person to be writing the ticket, so that:
>
> a) there is not a two week delay before I even find out about it
> (hence the chance for a LOAD more tickets before I or my
> wife change behavior)
Agreed - I think that's what spooks a lot of people about this - the stealth
ticket.
With any luck, the postal service will be dead and buried in another ten
years (actually, it's already dead - the carcass just hasn't gotten the
message to fall) and some sort of online-based notification will be place.
> b) if a person is there, they can verify who is driving my car,
> and not just assume it is me (could be my cousin or friend,
> and evidently if they won't assume responsibility for speeding,
Then you've just found they're not much of a friend.
Take the keys back. Problem solved.
Bill Bannion
says...
>
>
> With any luck, the postal service will be dead and buried in another ten
> years (actually, it's already dead - the carcass just hasn't gotten the
> message to fall) and some sort of online-based notification will be place.
>
Right. Government will require you have a computer and pay Comcast for
internet access. Make it a requirement for a drivers license.
What the hell are you talking about?
h
"Bill Bannion" <b...@bb.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.26e81fd66...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> With any luck, the postal service will be dead and buried in another ten
>> years (actually, it's already dead - the carcass just hasn't gotten the
>> message to fall) and some sort of online-based notification will be
>> place.
>>
>
> Right. Government will require you have a computer and pay Comcast for
> internet access. Make it a requirement for a drivers license.
> What the hell are you talking about?
>
Beats me. I use the USPS for all of my business shipping. It's faster,
cheaper, and easier to use than FedEx or UPS. You buy/print the postage
online, schedule carrier pickup online, and put the boxes on the porch.
And...they actually get picked up and delivered to the correct place, which
is more than I can say for FedEx and UPS.
Bob F
I'm impressed. They are very creative at catching scofflaws. Good for them.
Such "problems" are easily avoided by obeying the laws, to everyones benefit.
MAS
So have you confronted your wife yet? Seriously, you should stop
looking for excuses and just follow the rules. It's really very simple.
Marsha
h
"MAS" <m...@bbbb.net> wrote in message news:i5mo06$1hc$1...@news.datemas.de...
> So have you confronted your wife yet? Seriously, you should stop looking
> for excuses and just follow the rules. It's really very simple.
>
himself to avoid passing along his genes. He is the poster child for why
human intelligence is self-limiting: ONLY STUPID PEOPLE BREED!
Ohioguy
You're missing the point. In this country we have a long tradition
of civil disobedience. You can not wear your seat belt if you want to
take the chance with your safety, and if you value your personal comfort
more than possible safety.
However, the government is becoming a "nanny state", and passing
loads and loads of new laws. They are also regularly putting up new
speed limit signs that are lower than they used to be - 35 here where it
used to be 55. This is despite the fact that it wastes gas, and makes
people take a lot longer getting home.
Anyway, if the government passes loads and loads of laws to the point
where just about everything is regulated, then installs cameras
everywhere, this means that there is a pretty good chance they will get
you on a regular basis disobeying some law on the books. It also will
eventually restrict personal freedom in public to the point where
everybody is essentially a robot.
Rod Speed
>> Such "problems" are easily avoided by obeying the laws, to everyones benefit.
> You're missing the point.
Nope, you are.
> In this country we have a long tradition of civil disobedience.
And criminal activity in spades.
> You can not wear your seat belt if you want to take the chance with your safety, and if you value your personal
> comfort more than possible safety.
But you dont get to use something as harmless as cannabis.
> However, the government is becoming a "nanny state", and passing
> loads and loads of new laws. They are also regularly putting up new
> speed limit signs that are lower than they used to be - 35 here where
> it used to be 55. This is despite the fact that it wastes gas,
It doesnt actually. You use less gas at the lower speed.
> and makes people take a lot longer getting home.
> Anyway, if the government passes loads and loads of laws to the
> point where just about everything is regulated, then installs cameras
> everywhere, this means that there is a pretty good chance they will
> get you on a regular basis disobeying some law on the books.
Mindlessly silly.
> It also will eventually restrict personal freedom in public to the point where everybody is essentially a robot.
Even sillier.
Clincher
"Ohioguy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:tJTfo.38778$yr6....@newsfe05.iad...
>> Such "problems" are easily avoided by obeying the laws, to everyones
>> benefit.
>
> You're missing the point. In this country we have a long tradition of
> civil disobedience.
Because you didn't make the point. Your complaint was not about the fairness
of speeding laws but about the manner in which it was enforced in your case.
Civil disobedience is about protesting the existence of an unfair law.
> You can not wear your seat belt if you want to take the chance with your
> safety, and if you value your personal comfort more than possible safety.
If seatbelt laws didn't exist, your insurance company would require them
anyway.
Add the fact that being belted in gives you a better chance of maintaining
control of the car in an emergency, and thus avoiding an accident that
closes the lane and inconveniences other motorists while the medics scrape
you off the pavement.
I do not think seatbelt laws qualify as a "nanny law." If you wish to forgo
them for personal comfort, do it on your own private non-taxpayer-funded
race track where you won't affect drivers.
MAS
You don't break laws just because you don't like them. You work to
change them. I hate to see parents passing this kind of attitude on to
their children.
Lou
benefit.
>
> You're missing the point. In this country we have a long tradition
> of civil disobedience. You can not wear your seat belt if you want to
> take the chance with your safety, and if you value your personal comfort
> more than possible safety.
I'd have no problem with that IF those who didn't wear a seatbelt paid for
their own medical care when/if they had a bad day behind the wheel. But
they don't - if they have insurance, it ups everyone's premiums, and if they
don't have insurance, it ups everyone's taxes.
> However, the government is becoming a "nanny state", and passing
> loads and loads of new laws. They are also regularly putting up new
> speed limit signs that are lower than they used to be - 35 here where it
> used to be 55. This is despite the fact that it wastes gas, and makes
> people take a lot longer getting home.
I've seen signs replaced with lower limits, though not to the degree you
cite. Usually the case is that the area has become more built up over the
years, and I think the new, lower limit is probably justified. Lower speeds
tend to be more economical in terms of gas, and in mixed residential/rural
areas, tend to mean less time spent idling at the occasional traffic light.
In my area, for instance, there's a stretch of road posted at 50. I tend to
drive it at 40 - 45, and some drivers go roaring past me. A couple or three
miles further along, I pull up behind them at the next traffic light. They
haven't saved any gas, and they haven't saved any time.
> Anyway, if the government passes loads and loads of laws to the point
> where just about everything is regulated, then installs cameras
> everywhere, this means that there is a pretty good chance they will get
> you on a regular basis disobeying some law on the books. It also will
> eventually restrict personal freedom in public to the point where
> everybody is essentially a robot.
While that may be true in principle, the immediate fact of the matter is
that your car was photographed exceeding the speed limit. Your personal
freedom does not extend to upping my insurance rates or taxes, endangering
my safety, or slowing me down because of an accident that ends up tying up
traffic.
h
"Clincher" <x@x.x> wrote in message
Flyoverstateboy is douchebag tax-evading troll. IGNORE it.
h
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
> Anyway, if the government passes loads and loads of laws to the point
> where just about everything is regulated, then installs cameras
> everywhere, this means that there is a pretty good chance they will get
> you on a regular basis disobeying some law on the books. It also will
> eventually restrict personal freedom in public to the point where
> everybody is essentially a robot.
I could emphasize with you on that, but I take a slightly different view. Those
cameras catch EVERYONE that violates whatever particular law you are talking
about. Seems impossibly long odds to me that they never catch some assemblyman,
city councilor, mayor or even the occasional cop car that isn't on an emergency
call. All it would take is some concerned citizen to "subpoena" all photos and
see if the system is letting certain individuals slide on these violations.
Catch a few of them and make it public and I bet the number of cameras gets
changed rather quickly.
It may be hard to remember this, but the law works both ways. And yes I realize
that giving a ticket to a cop is not likely to endear you to the cop or the
police/sheriff dept, but such is life.
Rod Speed
Plenty do, thats what civil disobedience means.
> You work to change them.
Not even possible with traffic light laws.
> I hate to see parents passing this kind of attitude on to their children.
Your problem.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ohioguy wrote
>>> My point is that I feel that a human should be present to issue any tickets.
>> Its just not practical.
> Anything can be forced on us if the only test is "practical".
No one said anything about that being the only test.
And you are just plain wrong with that assertion anyway.
> A flat out one man police state is "practical".
Wrong.
> We need the concept of "justice".
Irrelevant to that stupid line he ran.
Sofa Slug
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:23:31 -0400, Ohioguy <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
>>> Such "problems" are easily avoided by obeying the laws, to everyones benefit.
>> You're missing the point. In this country we have a long tradition
>> of civil disobedience. You can not wear your seat belt if you want to
>> take the chance with your safety, and if you value your personal comfort
>> more than possible safety.
>
> consequences. Protesters sit in an intersection, they expect to be
> arrested. Buck up, be a man, accept the consequence of your
> disobedience.
>
>> However, the government is becoming a "nanny state", and passing
>> loads and loads of new laws. They are also regularly putting up new
>> speed limit signs that are lower than they used to be - 35 here where it
>> used to be 55. This is despite the fact that it wastes gas, and makes
>> people take a lot longer getting home.
>
> and you shouldn't have to obey the same laws the rest of us are
> inflicted with.
>
>> Anyway, if the government passes loads and loads of laws to the point
>> where just about everything is regulated, then installs cameras
>> everywhere, this means that there is a pretty good chance they will get
>> you on a regular basis disobeying some law on the books. It also will
>> eventually restrict personal freedom in public to the point where
>> everybody is essentially a robot.
>
> keeping them but the state dumped them.
>
> They are cash cows. Be prepared for higher taxes to cover the lost
> revenue if you do dump them.
While I agree with others here that the OP should accept responsibility
for his own actions, apparently these cameras are a legitimate source of
controversy...
"Do Red Light Cameras Reduce Accidents?
Critics Insist They May Do The Opposite":
http://autos.aol.com/article/red-light-camera-accidents/
Clincher
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:gno28696q7tbua0lu...@4ax.com...
> The state of Aridzona just got rid of it's cameras. The towns are
> keeping them but the state dumped them.
>
> They are cash cows. Be prepared for higher taxes to cover the lost
> revenue if you do dump them.
Point. It may be cynical to hide behind "traffic safety" when the real goal
is revenue, but on the other hand...
States and municipalities are going broke. And if it comes down to a choice
of taxing traffic violators or taxing income or sales, I say tax the
violators.
George
Clincher
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:i5ti26$7op$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Apparently not for the bums in charge. We'll explain it to them in November.
Don Klipstein
I say tax those who make life less safe and less comfortable for others.
However, I don't believe that red light cameras need the yellow lights to
be shortened from 3 to 2.5 seconds to balance budgets on the backs of those
who act out beliefs that "nice guys finish last".
And yes, as I have said recently, the intersection that I am most
familiar with getting a red light camera had its yellow light shortened
from the "usual and prevailing" (my words) 3 seconds to at most 2.5
seconds no later than a few months afterwards. That is 58th & Walnut in
Philadelphia.
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Although I see excessive attitude that spending less is indeed not an
option, and I see Pennsylvania legislators and Philadelphia City Council
members increasing their staffs through times when private sector does
more with fewer employees, I see a structural hyperinflationary presence
in governents and major-metropolitan-area intergovernmental agencies:
Their employees have health insurance premiums paid heavily by those
employees' employers, often for full family coverage.
Health insurance premiums have been inflating at an annual rate of
around 10% for the past 25-plus years.
======================================
The Consumer Price Index tracks inflation, as measured by a specific
"basket of goods" paid "out-of-pocket" that gets reorganized maybe every
15 years or so.
Since health insurance premiums and school tuitions have significant
portions not paid "out of pocket" on nationwide basis, the CPI reports
an inflation rate that does not fully consider those costs (which have
been inflating at a higher rate).
Furthermore, CPI is an inflation index, as opposed to a "cost-of-living"
one that considers that the list of necessities is increasing.
The Real Bev
> "Winston_Smith"<not_...@bogus.net> wrote i:
>> The state of Aridzona just got rid of it's cameras. The towns are
>> keeping them but the state dumped them.
>>
>> They are cash cows. Be prepared for higher taxes to cover the lost
>> revenue if you do dump them.
>
> Point. It may be cynical to hide behind "traffic safety" when the real goal
> is revenue, but on the other hand...
>
> States and municipalities are going broke. And if it comes down to a choice
> of taxing traffic violators or taxing income or sales, I say tax the
> violators.
You missed the "stop spending money" choice. They are going broke
largely because they caved in to whatever demands the unions made,
assuming that the taxpayers will pay for it. After all, all they have
to do is threaten to close libraries and lay off police/firepersons and
we'll vote in whatever bond they're pushing.
No. What actually happens when a city goes bankrupt? Restructuring,
maybe? No more $125K after 20 years retirement plans? Fire ten $150K+
administrators? Kick out the unions? All they can do is strike, and
the whole point of a union is to keep 'management' from firing the
members. Perhaps a strike is a GOOD thing. It's not like the unionized
city employees actually know how to do anything except feather the nests
of themselves and their cronies.
--
Cheers, Bev
----------------------------------------------------------
"When I was in college, the only job I could get was
shitting on people's lawns. Sure, the owners complained,
but it was honest work and it kept me off welfare..."
-- M. Tabnik in mcfl (paraphrased)
h
"The Real Bev" <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i61fco$amo$1...@news.eternal-
> No. What actually happens when a city goes bankrupt? Restructuring,
> maybe?
Yup. I don't know what planet most of you came from, but if you can't live,
quite comfortably, on MUCH less than $50K a year, then you have serious
issues. I live just fine on less than $12K. And I own my own home, and it's
paid off. Yes, after property, school, and income taxes I only have about
$7K, but that's more than I need. Get over yourselves and your ridiculous
"needs".
Bob F
You have a HUGE advantage. A paid off house. Yes, people can live cheaper than
they do (as do I), but no one with a mortgage in any big city can live that
cheap. Most people cannot pay off their mortgage without many years of paying
it.
Paying off the mortgage makes a huge difference in cash flow. It's good for the
psychie, that's for sure.