Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Robert Bolton on 25 Feb 2007 18:58 "BTR1701" <btr1702(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:btr1702-18AD9C.17351025022007(a)news.giganews.com... > In article <pan.2007.02.25.18.58.37.365667(a)hotpop.com>, > Steve Furbish <sfurbish(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:37:07 -0500, BTR1701 wrote: >> >> > In article <12tu29fgut51q4d(a)corp.supernews.com>, >> > "Robert Bolton" <robertboltondrop(a)gci.net> wrote: >> >> I was given a ticket for running a red light by a Valencia >> >> California >> >> policeman. I did stop, but the guy said the law requires that you >> >> not >> >> move for 3 seconds. >> > >> > I've never heard of such a thing. A complete stop is all that is >> > required. Probably something the cop made up on the spot to justify >> > his >> > stop. >> >> Always refreshing to see one of our federal LEO bros. give the benefit >> of >> a doubt to the local cop. Having been a police supervisor for nearly 21 >> years I have indeed heard of such a thing. No reflection on Mr. Bolton, >> I >> suspect he may be trying to be entirely honest about this, but I have >> seen >> ticket respondents make similar claims about things allegedly told them >> by >> police officers at traffic stops. Sometimes the cop said exactly what's >> been claimed and other times there is lots gets lost in the retelling. >> Cruiser cameras and those small personal digital voice recorders (legal >> in >> my state) that record with single party consent have shown me that >> often >> times the conversations are more a misunderstanding than "something the >> cop made up on the spot to justify his stop". For example - a cop >> stopping >> an alleged violator issues a citation for failure to stop at a stop >> sign. >> The violator protests that they did slow down and look for traffic >> (oddly, >> out here it's often called a California stop) and only rolled through >> at >> the slowest possible speed. The cop offers a suggestion that to avoid >> future citations the violator might try remaining stopped for a full 3 >> seconds before proceeding from a stop sign. In the mind of the violator >> this somehow translates to "the law requires you not to move for 3 >> seconds". Not exactly as sinister as your presumption, but just as >> likely >> to have happened (and I've personally handled complaints against >> officers >> where it has happened that way). > > Well, as long as we're telling personal stories and using them as proof > of generalities, would you give the same weight and credence to > incidents experienced by myself and other plainclothes officers (local, > state and federal) where we've been stopped and fed a line of nonsense > (like the mythic 3-second rule) only to have the officer backpedal like > crazy once he realizes driver has a badge, too? Interesting. If I was going to guess, I'd say most of the time the driver isn't listening well because either they're not used to being stopped by a policeman or are juts not wanting to admit they were at fault. In my particular case I really don't believe I misunderstood him, but you never know. The idea that he was making it up hadn't really occurred to me. Like most people, I assume a judge would believe a policeman over me, so why would he feel the need to make stuff up? I could see a false reason for a stop happening with a suspicious car (3am potential drunk), but not mid-day in suburbia with school just getting out. Maybe his goal was to write some tickets and the pickens were slim? Anyway, I didn't mean to throw folks off-topic with my editorial comment. Sorry. Robert
From: P.Roehling on 25 Feb 2007 19:04 "BTR1701" <btr1702(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote > Well, as long as we're telling personal stories and using them as proof > of generalities, would you give the same weight and credence to > incidents experienced by myself and other plainclothes officers (local, > state and federal) where we've been stopped and fed a line of nonsense > (like the mythic 3-second rule) only to have the officer backpedal like > crazy once he realizes driver has a badge, too? Thank you. One of the main reasons most people resent cops so much is that most folks are well aware of the fact that cops operate under an entirely different set of rules than we civilians do, and that very few officers of any sort will ever admit to that fact. If the good cops out there -and they're probably a vast majority- would stop covering up for the bad apples, the general public would respect cops a lot more than they do now. Anybody who's once been screwed by a cop -and who had no recourse to the law because the offender *was* a cop- tends to put all officers into the same category -pond scum- forever afterwards.
From: BTR1701 on 25 Feb 2007 21:18 In article <DNoEh.3596$ya1.3346(a)news02.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <7anEh.3590$ya1.1823(a)news02.roc.ny>, > > Arif Khokar <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote: > >> Steve Furbish wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >> I've always wondered what would make a statutory law not perfectly > >> valid. > > > Well, it's not valid if it violates the Constitution. > > I'm well aware of that, but there's nothing that makes a 30 mph speed > limit cap law unconstitutional. But that's not what you asked. You merely wondered what would make a statutory law not perfectly valid. I gave you one example. > Again, is there any recourse in court > against this law? Yep. Vote the bastards out and replace them with people who will change the law to something more reasonable.
From: Steve Furbish on 26 Feb 2007 11:28 On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:26:27 +0000, Arif Khokar wrote: > I've always wondered what would make a statutory law not perfectly > valid. It would have to violate either the federal or a state constitution I think. > 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. That would be counter-productive to a state's economy overall and the fact that this does not generally happen is evidence against the claims that the state goes to any lengths to collect revenues from traffic fines. > 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? They would probably be hard-pressed to find a defense that worked, however, enacting such a law should be political suicide for the legislators who pass it. If you don't like the current traffic laws in your state then call your local representative and complain. When you complain to the cop about the current state of the law you're bitching at someone who doesn't have the authority to change it. Steve
From: Steve Furbish on 26 Feb 2007 11:51
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:03:00 +0000, Arif Khokar wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: >> In article <DNoEh.3596$ya1.3346(a)news02.roc.ny>, >> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote: > >>> Again, is there any recourse in court against this law? > >> Yep. Vote the bastards out and replace them with people who will change >> the law to something more reasonable. > > First, that's taking action through the legislative branch, not the > judicial branch. It should be fairly obvious to you by now that your chances of getting consistent satisfaction through the judiciary are slim. Sure judicial activism exists, but not on this issue as a rule. > Second, there aren't any politicians on the state > level who run on a platform to change speed limits. If you have the backing of like-minded people then how about a ballot initiative? Don't they have referendums where you're from? > Therefore, there's really no way to vote based on that issue and it's very > likely that candidates from both major parties oppose such a change which removes > "voting the law away" as an option. The problem really is that a clear majority hasn't made this an issue. It might be your pet peeve, but for most people it's a mere annoyance. > Third, unless one has enough capital and backing, there's really no way > to even get elected to office to make the change yourself, and even if you > are elected, the committee charged with debating your bill may not even allow > the entire legislature to vote on it. In other words, there is no recourse. Your fighting a couple of different interests Arif. One is indeed probably the state general fund (if that's where traffic fines go in your state) or wherever else the fine revenues go, but you also have the insurance lobby. A vast amount of the traffic enforcement that cops engage in is based on law lobbied for by insurance underwriters. The rules of the road that you eventually must follow are influenced by a conglomeration of financial, safety, and political considerations. The problem for you is that the enemy you want to engage isn't necessarily the obvious choice. Steve |