Speed cameras coming to CA? Yes, if this bill passes!
Ed
will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets -
to be mailed to you. The bill could also allow stop sign camera
tickets.
The first hearing on this bill will be this month (March), by
the Senate Transportation Committee in Sacramento.
To stop SB 1325, phone the state legislators (assembly and senate)
representing the districts in which you live, work, or shop. Their
numbers are in your phone book's government pages. Also, call the
senators who are on the Transportation Committee. For info about
SB 1325 and the Committee, go to this free-of-any charge page:
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsjoin.htm#Action5
If you are an auto club member, call your club and ask them to oppose
SB 1325. The auto club carries a LOT of clout in Sacramento, so if
they strongly oppose the bill, it won't pass. Phone numbers for the
club's main offices are available at the link, above. In other
states, the auto clubs have been among the SUPPORTERS of speed
cameras, so I suggest that you make it clear to your California club
that your continued insurance business could depend upon their
protecting you from speed cams.
Speak NOW or forever hold your peace. Now is the time to let your
elected representatives, and your auto club, know what you think.
Ed.
Graham Harrison
"Ed" <edi...@highwayrobbery.net> wrote in message
news:b5912483-1fb1-43bd...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras?
kkt
Really. If you want to speed and not have to worry about red lights,
take your car to a race track.
-- Patrick
David Nebenzahl
> "Ed" <edi...@highwayrobbery.net> wrote in message
> news:b5912483-1fb1-43bd...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if it passes
>> will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets -
>> to be mailed to you. The bill could also allow stop sign camera
>> tickets.
>>
>> The first hearing on this bill will be this month (March), by
>> the Senate Transportation Committee in Sacramento.
>
> Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras?
Yes; why do you *assume* that everyone's opposed to them? I'm not.
You speed, you lose.
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
Err, no- if anyone driving your car speeds, you lose. Unless you can
prove otherwise (and apparently, even that doesn't always work).
I'm in favor of them myself, but the administration of them is prone
to problems.
73, doug
kkt
If your friend, child, or whoever is speeding in your car, wouldn't
you want to know about it?
-- Patrick
Keith Keller
On 2008-03-05, Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 <fa...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> Err, no- if anyone driving your car speeds, you lose. Unless you can
> prove otherwise (and apparently, even that doesn't always work).
The site the OP maintains (if you can call it that, as it's extremely
difficult to find information) claims that, legally, you do not need to
prove otherwise, the police need to prove to the judge that the picture
taken is really of you. In practice, of course, a mean judge could take
the word of the cop without even looking at the picture (and this
presupposes that you have to go to court to make them prove you weren't
driving, instead of your friend being handed a ticket personally and not
getting you involved at all).
I have to admit I'm a bit confused by all the rhetoric on his site.
It's your car, so shouldn't you be responsible for all of the people you
allow to drive it? Perhaps you might not deserve the points on your
license, but you've probably earned the fine.
I'm also confused as to how this will work with clients of City Car
Share and their ilk. If a ticket is sent to CCS, they can't have points
added to their license, eh? They can pass on the fine to you (I believe
their policies state that they do this), but (if you believe the OP's
site) they have no obligation to turn you in. Perhaps companies like
this have an exemption where they are required to turn in its drivers?
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Timothy J. Lee
Ed <edi...@highwayrobbery.net> wrote:
>California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if it passes
>will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets -
>to be mailed to you. The bill could also allow stop sign camera
>tickets.
Here is the bill:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1325&sess=CUR&house=B&author=kuehl
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1301-1350/sb_1325_bill_20080220_introduced.html
It seems to be specific to allowing the City of Beverly Hills to use
photo radar speed limit enforcement in a residence district with a
speed limit <= 25mph or a school zone, through the end of 2013. No
mention of stop sign photo enforcement is mentioned.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Disgruntled Customer
> Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras?
How do you exercise your Sixth Amendment right to be confronted by a witness against a camera?
--
Feh. Mad as heck.
Kevin McMurtrie
"Graham Harrison" <edward.obvio...@btinternet.obvious.com>
wrote:
I don't trust them to take an accurate speed reading. They may be
getting mixed signals from multiple cars or multiple points on your car.
I have often driven by those "Your speed is ..." signs and watched
random numbers flicker from 13 to 62 for what should have been 35.
What really pisses me off is the belief that all accidents are caused by
speeding and a camera will fix it. I have to honk at lane drifters
daily in San Mateo county. I've seen more gory accidents than I care
to. Speed cameras wouldn't have noticed. Where are the police officers
that should be taking drunk, senile, and texting drivers off the road?
--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.
Keith Keller
On 2008-03-06, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> Where are the police officers
> that should be taking drunk, senile, and texting drivers off the road?
If they did *that*, I'd be the only car on the road! ;-)
David Nebenzahl
> One very good reason to oppose them is because they may not always be
> accurate. Check out this radar speed sign in my neighborhood that was
> wigging out a while back:
>
> http://blip.tv/file/611844
>
> If a malfunctioning speed camera nails you, good luck proving your
> innocence. Even if you don't speed, you still lose.
So what's the difference between that and the possibility that a radar
gun wielded by a human might be similarly inaccurate? I'm sure the
courts are aware of the technological limitations here.
CJ
> On 3/8/2008 10:08 AM Scott in SoCal spake thus:
>
> > On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:52:08 -0800, David Nebenzahl
> ><nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/5/2008 1:45 AM Graham Harrison spake thus:
> > >
> >>>"Ed" <edi...@highwayrobbery.net> wrote in message
> news:b5912483-1fb1-43bd...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com
> ...
> > > > > California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if
> > > > > it passes will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as
> > > > > photo radar tickets - to be mailed to you. The bill could
> > > > > also allow stop sign camera tickets.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first hearing on this bill will be this month (March), by
> > > > > the Senate Transportation Committee in Sacramento.
> > > >
> > > > Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras?
> > >
> > > Yes; why do you assume that everyone's opposed to them? I'm not.
> > >
> > > You speed, you lose.
> >
> > One very good reason to oppose them is because they may not always
> > be accurate. Check out this radar speed sign in my neighborhood
> > that was wigging out a while back:
> >
> > http://blip.tv/file/611844
> >
> > If a malfunctioning speed camera nails you, good luck proving your
> > innocence. Even if you don't speed, you still lose.
>
> So what's the difference between that and the possibility that a
> radar gun wielded by a human might be similarly inaccurate? I'm sure
> the courts are aware of the technological limitations here.
OK, why don't you be the first to test out your theory. Don't forget to
report back to us on the outcome of your court case.
--
Cliff
Disgruntled Customer
> So what's the difference between that and the possibility that a radar
> gun wielded by a human might be similarly inaccurate? I'm sure the
> courts are aware of the technological limitations here.
The difference is you can cross examine the human on how the radar was used, calibrated, tested, etc. And you can examine an expert on the hardware whether it was used correctly. You have the ability to try to refute the testimony against you. You don't have that ability to cross examine a camera. As far as I know no judge has permitted these as evidence if challenged because it would violate the sixth amendment.
David Nebenzahl
Well, in that case, we've got nothing to worry about, right? (Assuming
that people challenge the citations, that is.)
Justin Case
wrote in news:Ao6dnfAyjthQ9lPa...@bt.com:
> Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras?
>
The probability of selective enforcement:
--