jeffmacewen wrote:I can't believe some of the language and hyperbole in this thread. Don't speed and you won't get in trouble, cameras or no. No one wants to be held accountable for anything they do in this country any longer!!
chumley wrote:Jim_H wrote:Breaking the law is usually wrong
You've got a future in politics!
jeffmacewen wrote:I would join your argument were it not for the fact that you did have recourse available to you and the public interest far outweighs a few minor personal inconveniences...
azbackpackr wrote:jeffmacewen wrote:I would join your argument were it not for the fact that you did have recourse available to you and the public interest far outweighs a few minor personal inconveniences...
Public interest is in having fewer accidents. If the cameras cause MORE accidents, then they are not in the public interest.
I got a ticket in the mail one time. It clearly showed my son driving the car. I had to jump thru hoops to fix that. But my son kept telling me to ignore it. He was making a left turn in Mesa, and the light had turned red. This was about 5 years ago.
chumley wrote:Tempe suspended it's contract with Redflex last summer after Redflex sued the city for $1.3 million in fees it said it didn't get paid (based on fees collected for people going to traffic school rather than paying the fine).
Anyway, in Tempe, the red light cameras are still there (though not clicking pictures) a year later. The city has taken down the "photo enforcement zone" signs, but the cameras remain.
I don't know if it's on purpose or not. The cameras belong to Redflex, so you'd think that they would come and get them if they aren't under contract anymore. But the cynic in me thinks that they are still there on purpose. People see them, and react..........
The camera closest to my house has also gotten the attention of vandals, but that's another story...
big_load wrote:NJ recently had an odd turn of events. The courts have suspended collection of fine for two-thirds of the deployed red light cameras. The contention is that the duration of yellow lights for those locations has not been proven to satisfy the minimum criteria spelled out in the law that authorized the red light cameras. Who would have guessed it?
(FWIW, they're still taking pictures. If the yellows are found to be long enough, you're still busted).
EDIT: I should give the NJ legislature for including some common-sense checks on the motivation to trade safety for revenue. Credit also to the court for enforcing them.
Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
|Q: Wanna browse with less Ads?
A: Simply login
37,000 members since 1996...