Photo-ticket for not coming to full stop
in [Drive]
|
From: Matthew Russotto on 13 Apr 2010 22:11 In article <a03574f0-a354-4875-809d-86e5977368d1(a)i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Charles Packer <mailbox(a)cpacker.org> wrote: >On Apr 10, 6:08 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> turned legally. Once photographed a vehicle owner is at the mercy of the >> operator, if there is one to actually review it properly. > >Exactly. Fairness is much more an issue with the >right-turn violation than it is with simple red light >running. In the latter, the camera doesn't lie: the >first picture shows your vehicle entering the intersection >when the traffic signal is already red. No point in fighting >that. Except that it's not illegal to be in the intersection with the signal is red. You need at least two pictures for convincing evidence; one with the light red and your car outside the intersection, and one with the light red and your car in the intersection. >With a right-turn violation, the pictures are ambiguous. >In my wife's citation the first of three pictures shows >her brake lights on, and she's behind the white line >at the intersection. There's no indication of what her >minimum speed was. The clock values of each image are >shown, but that's not enough to reveal what actually >happened. Did she slow down to 5 mph...or 0.01 mph? Plug in >an appropriate value for subsequent acceleration, and >you can explain her position two seconds later in the >final image under either scenario. Three pictures, and she could have been stopped in any or all of them, or at any time between them? Why don't they just mail out fines at random, it would be just as fair. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Brent on 13 Apr 2010 22:26 On 2010-04-14, Matthew Russotto <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote: > Three pictures, and she could have been stopped in any or all of them, > or at any time between them? Why don't they just mail out fines at > random, it would be just as fair. Which is why I don't turn right on red at RLC intersections. I don't care how long or loudly the people behind me honk or yell, I won't enter the intersection until the light turns green. Any right on red, legal or not can have a photo case built that it was a violation. Even if I have my own video running I won't turn right on red because it's very likely they'll claim the video is from a different day even if the same other vehicles are visible in it. It would take decades of waiting for the green to turn right to equal the time of fighting one RLC ticket.
From: Charles Packer on 14 Apr 2010 08:18 On Apr 13, 9:38 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > It seems a human tendency to "cheat", for lack of a better term. > Attention and discipline applied to adhering to traffic code is > perhaps the greatest difference between motorists and drivers. By dismissing the behavior in question as cheating you are at the extreme end of the spectrum of whether to accept any deviation from the letter of the law. Anybody who can look out the window of his house at a four-way stop intersection knows that a vehicle alone at such an intersection usually doesn't come to a complete stop, and this includes police cars as well as city buses and vans for the handicapped. True justice is meted out when judges take into account the facts of life. E.g., has anybody here been required to pay a fine for going less than 11 mph over the speed limit? -- Charles Packer http://cpacker.org/whatnews mailboxATcpacker.org
From: Brent on 14 Apr 2010 08:40 On 2010-04-14, Charles Packer <mailbox(a)cpacker.org> wrote: > On Apr 13, 9:38 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >> It seems a human tendency to "cheat", for lack of a better term. >> Attention and discipline applied to adhering to traffic code is >> perhaps the greatest difference between motorists and drivers. > > By dismissing the behavior in question as cheating > you are at the extreme end of the spectrum of whether to > accept any deviation from the letter of the law. > > Anybody who can look out the window of his house at > a four-way stop intersection knows that a vehicle alone > at such an intersection usually doesn't come to a complete > stop, and this includes police cars as well as city buses > and vans for the handicapped. > > True justice is meted out when judges take into account > the facts of life. E.g., has anybody here been required to > pay a fine for going less than 11 mph over the speed limit? Gpstroll apparently believes that we should all obey our rulers and that our rulers are infallible and their laws and implentations there of are for our own good. He's wrong on all counts. Our rulers' laws are generally for what is best for them or at best the result of a bunch of ignorant people who can't be bothered to learn about a topic before passing laws and putting up signs regarding it. Our rulers do things like use stop signs for speed control. Use stop signs where yield signs should be. Use yield signs for all the directions. Our rulers decide that revenue is needed and hire a private company to put in RLCs while cherry picking lights with short yellow signals, underlying engineering problems, T intersections with lots of right turns into the stem of the T, or just shortening the yellows. The fact that the government's own employees are the most frequent violators of these laws is also lost on gpstroll. It is quite apparent what gpstroll believes in is the rule of men not the rule of law. What should be a violation is not the lack of a complete stop for right on red but the failure to accelerate such that the movement does not interfere with traffic that has the green light.
From: gpsman on 14 Apr 2010 11:20
On Apr 14, 8:18 am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> wrote: > On Apr 13, 9:38 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > It seems a human tendency to "cheat", for lack of a better term. > > Attention and discipline applied to adhering to traffic code is > > perhaps the greatest difference between motorists and drivers. > > By dismissing the behavior in question as cheating > you are at the extreme end of the spectrum of whether to > accept any deviation from the letter of the law. I think your extrapolation tends toward the extreme. If it wasn't cheating, with intent to cheat, what is blowing through a stop light with a velocity of 11 mph at the point where the letter of the law requires a velocity of 0? > Anybody who can look out the window of his house at > a four-way stop intersection knows that a vehicle alone > at such an intersection usually doesn't come to a complete > stop, and this includes police cars as well as city buses > and vans for the handicapped. Anyone who isn't blind could see that, but "everybody does it" is nothing more than argumentum ad populum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum > True justice is meted out when judges take into account > the facts of life. E.g., has anybody here been required to > pay a fine for going less than 11 mph over the speed limit? You don't want to include the phrase "has anyone here" in this den of liars and idiots, but your move of the goalpost from "through a stop light" to "over the SL" is... dare I say... intentional cheating? And even that lacks definition; 11 mph over the SL in a 20 zone, or a 60...? If you intend to contest the ticket I have to suggest you retain counsel. Courts tend to be generally disinterested in emotional argument and judges are often free to impose greater penalties when they find defenses presented to them offenses of sensibility. Don't take my word for anything, post in the group misc.legal moderated. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.moderated/topics?lnk=srg&hl=en ----- - gpsman |