Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Steve Furbish on 26 Feb 2007 11:56 On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:53:56 +0000, Citizen Bob wrote: > 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. Unfortunately for your argument Bob, some jurisdictions make it next to impossible to get more than a bench trial for traffic infractions. They make traffic violations something less than criminal and remove your right to a guaranteed trial by jury. Steve
From: Brent P on 26 Feb 2007 12:01 In article <pan.2007.02.26.16.56.31.619081(a)hotpop.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > Unfortunately for your argument Bob, some jurisdictions make it next to > impossible to get more than a bench trial for traffic infractions. They > make traffic violations something less than criminal and remove your right > to a guaranteed trial by jury. Amendement VII is dead. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,most of 2, and some of 1 have been rendered moot.
From: Steve Furbish on 26 Feb 2007 12:26 On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:14:52 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote: > Obviously you are not familiar with the section of NY Ave under > discussion here. We're talking about the little bit between Bladensburg > Road and the split, which looks for all the world like a freeway (and > indeed splits off into US-50 which *is* an interstate highway, albeit > unsigned, and the B-W Parkway) yet last time I was through there it was > signed at 35 MPH. Thus I really question whether that speed limit is > "perfectly valid statutory law." You are correct - I am not familiar with this particular road. As you describe it, however, it sounds like an urban arterial road. Such roads are commonly limited at 35 to 45 mph. > And yes, the effect of people suddenly slamming on their brakes to cut > their speed from 55-60 (normal travel speed for that road) to 35 is > common. I've seen it myself. The camera is not easily visible, and the > only warning is a small rectangular sign. Major highway speeds often give way to lesser speeds where different road types converge. Sounds to me more like a signage problem than an enforcement problem? Steve
From: Ed Pirrero on 26 Feb 2007 12:26 On Feb 25, 11:57 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > 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. That statement is in direct contradiction to the statement to which I am replying. > >> 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. No, it implies that the speed limit is improperly set. > >> 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. It's not my opinion, it's proven case law. San Diego had to pay folks back due to improper light timing. > > 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. It's not r.a.d. that's being quoted, but outside reportage of events. It is possible to set yellow light timing to make it IMPOSSIBLE to avoid getting a red light camera ticket while travelling the speed limit. > he violator still shoulders SOME > of the blame when the state successfully gains revenue by means of > collecting fines for their violations. In the case outlined above, you are incorrect. > > 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. You can be skeptical all you like, that doesn't change any facts. Educate yourself, if you are interested. > > Extrapolating this to speed cameras is not that much of a logical > > stretch. > > Really? More r.a.d. quotes no doubt... It's a logic argument. > > 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. That's right - sit in the back of the bus, or be arrested. E.P.
From: Steve Furbish on 26 Feb 2007 12:47
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:35:10 -0500, BTR1701 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? I don't vouch for every cop, but I don't condemn with an offhand "probably something the cop made up on the spot to justify his stop" either. My experience has shown that cops - both my uniformed and your plain clothes brethren- tend to be some of the more aggressive drivers likely to be encountered. They're always in a hurry to get somewhere and always quite sure that theirs is the only legitimate reason for ignoring traffic laws. Having never been stopped in the any jurisdiction for the entire 28 years (as of march 12th) I've been doing the job I've never personally experienced the situation that you described, but I do not doubt that it happens and I'm not claiming that I haven't broken a few traffic laws over that period. That being said, I believe that most, if not all, people stopped for a traffic violation have committed a violation. What they hear see or do in their interactions with the cop that stops them is a side issue and the conclusions that they draw from the encounter are always a bit subjective. There are enough traffic violations and other police activities out there to busy ourselves with without wrongly accusing Mr. Bolton or a carload of federal agents. After all, you didn't say that you didn't commit a traffic violation - only that the officer backpedaled on a line of nonsense when you tinned him. Steve |