[Jim_H]

I'm curious...If we plastered all of these places with enough motorcycle cops to nail everyone breaking the law in the same way these cameras do would everyone still complain??

I love the idiot lady at my local farmer's market with her "Red light cameras are unconstitutional" t-shirt. Please, someone, tell me where in the constitution it says that the government cannot enforce the law?

I never had a problem with the cameras until I got a ticket I didn't deserve, then I turned against them. If a cop had been there he would have pulled over the guy who was passing me and the line of cars I was traveling the speed limit within, not me. Redflex isn't a state organization, they have profit as their number 1 goal, so all of their public BS about Arizona putting safety to the side in the face of political opinion is just propaganda. I have heard similar stories about people getting tickets from these red light cameras for vehicles that were in garages, or no longer in their ownership. So, while the idea is sound the practice of these cameras is far from legal. Unconstitutional, probably not, but how are they arguing it? I am no fan of police, police states, and excessive big brother activities that seem to have become popular in this "conservative, get government out of our lives state", but I would rather see more motorcycle cops that do nothing but enforce traffic laws like the red light cameras and speeding cameras. At least if there is a real emergency, the cop can respond almost immediately to it. What the hell will a camera do if a person gets hit in a cross walk, or a truck over turns? Not a dam thing, thats what!

There was some idiot on TV in the Valley last night giving his commentary on the cameras. His argument was if you aren't breaking the law you have nothing to fear. What a dumb pumpkin! That useless argument is as tired as my state issue ID papers. How about a more realistic argument: If a private company is charged with law enforcement and allowed to keep half of the fine amount as profit, then everyone has everything to fear since the burden of dealing with bogus tickets can be more significant than paying them, and that creates a climate which encourages fraud.

[jeffmacewen]

Family trusts, corporations, etc. are the best "defense". A ticket will be sent to whoever is listed as a contact for the organization that registers the vehicle, with the request that the driver be identified. But there is no legal obligation to do so.

Second best is a post office box for an address. A process server can't serve a PO Box.

Why not just stop speeding and running red lights instead of going to these extreme lengths to avoid responsibility?!!

[SuperstitionGuy]

My wife was in the intersection, stopped and preparing to turn left when the traffic was clear. Another driver exceeding the speed limit was going past her on the right when the red light camera activitated.

Guess who was sent the ticket. Yes, my wife, who's car was standing dead still!
So much for red light and speeding cameras....

[Jim_H]

My wife was in the intersection, stopped and preparing to turn left when the traffic was clear. Another driver exceeding the speed limit was going past her on the right when the red light camera activitated.

Guess who was sent the ticket. Yes, my wife, who's car was standing dead still!
So much for red light and speeding cameras....

Thats what I'm talking about.

[azbackpackr]

I think the point is, that a lot of people got tickets when either they were not even in the car, or the car passing them should have gotten the ticket, or they didn't even own the car anymore but it was not yet recorded, etc. etc. etc.

Or, like the woman who lost her driver's license without knowing it, because she was in a foreign country when a license plate was misidentified as hers, when it actually wasn't hers. Even though part of the problem was eventually ironed out after she returned to the States, she still has that revoked license on her record, and it affects her insurance rates--she was not able to get that part fixed. There is just too much that can go wrong with the system, I think. That woman didn't even know her driver's license had been revoked or that she was supposed to go to court, or that there was a warrant out for her arrest, since she was out of the country when the "violation" occurred, and was gone for many months.

The whole thing is stupid. I agree, it is better to obey the traffic laws, and I think there should be cops to enforce them, too. If you drive in a foreign country where there is poor enforcement you will realize just how incredibly scary it can get.

[jeffmacewen]

One day on the streets in Korea or Baghdad will scare anyone straight!!

[jeffmacewen]

Please, someone, tell me where in the constitution it says that the government cannot enforce the law?

Joe!! Help!! I think the governor killed jeff and hacked his account!

I can't stand that woman or what she represents, BTW...

[chumley]

Why not just stop speeding and running red lights instead of going to these extreme lengths to avoid responsibility?!!

I agree wholeheartedly. Its not about "getting out of a ticket".

But its not always that clear. See the reply above your comment. Or Elizabeth getting a ticket when her son was driving. She didn't have to turn him in. (But moms are good like that... )

The point is that the burden of proof is now on the driver. And that's not how the legal system in this country was set up to work. Why should Elizabeth have to spend a single second of her time proving that she wasn't the driver of the car? Isn't it the burden of the state to prove that she WAS the driver?

I'll answer that for you: YES it is.

Its the same reason why people are upset about the immigration law. It places an undue burden on the accused to prove innocence rather than the other way around.

[jeffmacewen]

If you loan someone a gun and he or she shoots and kills someone else with it are you not culpable? How is this different? If someone driving your vehicle breaks the law then I think it's between you and that person to work it out. Just my $0.02...

[azbackpackr]

Oh, ethics schmethics. If I loan somebody a gun and they kill someone with it I don't really think I am culpable. Guns are very easily obtainable. They could just as easily have gotten one from someone else.

I introduced two teenaged kids who later got married, had some problems, and the husband killed himself over it. (Yes, this really happened.) Is it my fault? No, but I sure felt horrible about it.

I'm tired of this. Let's talk about hiking now.

[te-wa]

No no no, they don't care about your face, it is only the license plate they care about. My son was driving my minivan, ran a red light in Mesa, guess who got the ticket. I fought it and made sure he paid and not me.

i think these are apple and orange contrasts.. i was speeding, not running red lights.. and, there is a truth to this message:
they did indeed get a photo of his face.. they did not get a photo of anyone's face when they flashed me.. and that's how you avoid a ticket. I also know several others that just use a magazine, kept on or near the dashboard.

im not advocating that anyone should unsafely speed. but if i was, who cares?

[chumley]

If you loan someone a gun and he or she shoots and kills someone else with it are you not culpable? How is this different? If someone driving your vehicle breaks the law then I think it's between you and that person to work it out. Just my $0.02...

Because loaning somebody your car does not qualify as negligence (or gross negligence). I agree with Elizabeth. So does the law.

[jeffmacewen]

If you loan someone a gun and he or she shoots and kills someone else with it are you not culpable? How is this different? If someone driving your vehicle breaks the law then I think it's between you and that person to work it out. Just my $0.02...

Because loaning somebody your car does not qualify as negligence (or gross negligence). I agree with Elizabeth. So does the law.

You're still responsible for what the person does with your car. Loaning a family member a gun to hunt, for example, is absolutely not gross negligence, either. I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory or pugnacious about this folks! I really want someone to explain to me why they care at all if there are cameras enforcing the law instead of cops.

[big_load]

I really want someone to explain to me why they care at all if there are cameras enforcing the law instead of cops.

I thought I addressed that pretty explicitly, but I'll repeat in case you missed it:

It's scary when someone has a profit motive for claiming that you violated the law. Law enforcement power should be strictly vested in the government that is accountable to the voters and not delegated to private individuals, especially if they may not be subject to the restrictions or avenues of redress as the government.

[jeffmacewen]

I really want someone to explain to me why they care at all if there are cameras enforcing the law instead of cops.

I thought I addressed that pretty explicitly, but I'll repeat in case you missed it:

It's scary when someone has a profit motive for claiming that you violated the law. Law enforcement power should be strictly vested in the government that is accountable to the voters and not delegated to private individuals, especially if they may not be subject to the restrictions or avenues of redress as the government.

Okay; what about things like forensics and data processing that are frequently outsourced to civilian contractors by both local and federal authorities? For that matter, what about private prisons? If you are truly worried about a private entity abusing the rights of citizens for profit, surely prisoners are the perfect population to defend. They are already at the will of the private corporation which has a huge stake in claiming they behaved poorly to keep them in there and continue to profit from their presence. In fact, there's a judge and company out east that are all under indictment for just this very thing...

EDIT: I want to make it clear that I am NOT trying to start an argument!! This happens to be the most civilized conversation I've ever had with anyone about this topic, so far, and I would really like to keep it going. I'm fascinated by what it is about our society that makes this such a contentious topic...

[big_load]

Forensics and data processing come in to play only after a gating decision by a proper law enforcement official. They can't decide who to round up and bill for tests.

I don't like outsourcing prisons either, for reasons including those you mentioned. I'm not too optimistic what rates of recidivism are actually achievable, but I don't see any incentive in privatized prisons to work towards reducing it.

[azbackpackr]

I ran a red light in front of the dogcatcher this morning.

[big_load]

By the way, I think the mobile camera system is fairly benign due to the warning signs that precede a location. Barring malfunctions, you do have to be something of a willful violator to get caught. I got flashed once when someone was passing me as I approached a camera, but I've never received a photo ticket. I have some practical concerns about red light cameras, because they seem to turn people stupid. Cops in wait have that effect, too, but they're not everywhere and people seem to trust their discretion more. In any case, I stick close to the limit in AZ. I drive faster in NJ because not conforming to local convention also causes other people to do stupid things.

[Sredfield]

It's scary when someone has a profit motive for claiming that you violated the law. Law enforcement power should be strictly vested in the government that is accountable to the voters and not delegated to private individuals, especially if they may not be subject to the restrictions or avenues of redress as the government.

I never thought of the cameras this way, but I see the point.

I did have similar concerns over those phone calls from "the sheriff's association" raising money for some charity. I learned those probably aren't deputies on the phone, it's some for-profit outfit, and (now my point) there is something scary about an armed force raising money, even if they contract it out to some scam outfit.

[big_load]

I did have similar concerns over those phone calls from "the sheriff's association" raising money for some charity. I learned those probably aren't deputies on the phone, it's some for-profit outfit, and (now my point) there is something scary about an armed force raising money, even if they contract it out to some scam outfit.

That practice is very popular in NJ, but it got way out of hand. Now some police departments have disavowed the fundraisers they hired, or in some cases, were just using the PD's names without authorization.