Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Ed Pirrero on 25 Feb 2007 14:36 On Feb 25, 10:41 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:12:28 -0500, BTR1701 wrote: > > ...(there > > are a few situations where speeding is legally justified)... > > I wouldn't go as far as to say "legally justified". Here in WA state, you allowed to violate the speed limit while passing on a two-lane road. It's written into the vehicle code. > The real bottom line is that you control whether the state gets that > revenue from your wallet by doing something as simple as obeying the law. In some areas, the speed limit is set at the zeroeth percentile. IOW, NOBODY obeys it. This does not imply that everyone who drives that road is a scofflaw and should be punished. > I realize that traffic law concerns are small potatoes to you federal law > enforcement types, but if you're going to crusade perhaps you should at > least acknowledge that some of the blame for the state's apparent success > at revenue gathering by means of traffic cams lies squarely on the > shoulders of those who choose to violate perfectly valid statutory law. If by "traffic cams" you mean to include red-light cameras, then you are incorrect. There have been instances (quoted here in r.a.d.) where authorities changed the light timing to increase the number of citations issed. One might not consider that "perfectly valid" statutory law. "Barely legal" might be the term, and in the case where citizens have fought it, "not legal." Extrapolating this to speed cameras is not that much of a logical stretch. I liken some of these vehicular laws to the blue laws of yore. Where "sodomy" was a felony, and where "sodomy" was defined as something that a large fraction of the sexually active public engaged in at some point. "The law is the law" is tyranny. Laws are not immutable and infallable. When they become so, "the law is the law" becomes a valid response. E.P.
From: Steve Furbish on 25 Feb 2007 14:57 On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:36:11 -0800, Ed Pirrero wrote: > On Feb 25, 10:41 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:12:28 -0500, BTR1701 wrote: >> > ...(there >> > are a few situations where speeding is legally justified)... >> >> I wouldn't go as far as to say "legally justified". > > Here in WA state, you allowed to violate the speed limit while passing > on a two-lane road. > > It's written into the vehicle code. If it's allowed then it's not a violation and needs no legal justification. >> The real bottom line is that you control whether the state gets that >> revenue from your wallet by doing something as simple as obeying the law. > > In some areas, the speed limit is set at the zeroeth percentile. IOW, > NOBODY obeys it. > > This does not imply that everyone who drives that road is a scofflaw > and should be punished. Well, yes it does. If you are in a state with an absolute speed limit (that's the majority of states) then driving over the posted maximum speed limit makes you a scofflaw by definition. >> I realize that traffic law concerns are small potatoes to you federal law >> enforcement types, but if you're going to crusade perhaps you should at >> least acknowledge that some of the blame for the state's apparent success >> at revenue gathering by means of traffic cams lies squarely on the >> shoulders of those who choose to violate perfectly valid statutory law. > > If by "traffic cams" you mean to include red-light cameras, then you > are incorrect. Your contrary opinion is noted. > There have been instances (quoted here in r.a.d.) where authorities > changed the light timing to increase the number of citations issed. The good reputation of r.a.d. notwithstanding - that doesn't change the fact that what I claimed above is true. The violator still shoulders SOME of the blame when the state successfully gains revenue by means of collecting fines for their violations. > One might not consider that "perfectly valid" statutory law. "Barely > legal" might be the term, and in the case where citizens have fought > it, "not legal." Well, lets' just consider me skeptical. > Extrapolating this to speed cameras is not that much of a logical > stretch. Really? More r.a.d. quotes no doubt... > I liken some of these vehicular laws to the blue laws of yore. Where > "sodomy" was a felony, and where "sodomy" was defined as something > that a large fraction of the sexually active public engaged in at some > point. "The law is the law" is tyranny. Laws are not immutable and > infallable. When they become so, "the law is the law" becomes a valid > response. They may not be infallible but you choose to violate them at your own peril. Steve
From: Citizen Bob on 25 Feb 2007 15:54 On 25 Feb 2007 11:36:11 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist(a)gmail.com> wrote: >There have been instances (quoted here in r.a.d.) where authorities >changed the light timing to increase the number of citations issed. And people wonder why motorists despise cops. >"The law is the law" is tyranny. Laws are not immutable and >infallable. When they become so, "the law is the law" becomes a valid >response. -- "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson
From: Citizen Bob on 25 Feb 2007 15:58 On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:58:39 -0500, Steve Furbish <sfurbish(a)hotpop.com> wrote: >Always refreshing to see one of our federal LEO bros. give the benefit of >a doubt to the local cop. That's the problem. Regular cops won't clean out their ranks. They bond to one another in their anal retentive clan and let rogue cops operate in their midst. Is it any wonder why citizens despise cops in general. -- "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson
From: Citizen Bob on 25 Feb 2007 16:53
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:26:27 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote: >I've always wondered what would make a statutory law not perfectly >valid. Suppose a state passed a law that stated the absolute speed >limit on interstate and other divided highways may be no higher than 30 mph. Suppose that states passed laws that prohibited a certain class of citizen to sit in the back of a bus. >Suppose, after an enforcement sting, a number of motorists were caught >speeding. What defense could they use in court against this perfectly >valid statutory law? Your major premise is flawed from the outset when you automatically assume that any statute is "valid". The legitimacy of any man-made law is based on the consent of the governed. If a statute does not have the consent of the governed then it is not valid. Nullification of illegitimate laws is one of the duties of the jury under Common Law. Otherwise blacks would still be forced to sit in the back of buses. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice United States supreme Court, 1789 "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice,1796 "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1941 The Jury has 3 duties to preform: 1) Determine if the defendant did or did not violate the law as written, beyond a reasonable doubt. 2) Determine if the application of the law is, in the specific circumstances of this case, proper and just. 3) Determine if the statute involved is in compliance with all superior law. Judging the justice of the charge as well as the legitimacy of the statute is very much within the purview of the jury and it is for this reason that we have a jury system. If it were just a matter of deciding if the law were violated, then a judge would be all that would be necessary. -- "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson |