Scoop 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteIn this area, a red light camera ticket is treated the same way a parking ticket. The owner of a car that runs a red light is not charged with a moving violation and no points are put on his driving record.
That approach addresses some of my concern. Not entirely so, but it's a compromise.
I can live with it. Red Light running has become so prevalent that something had to be done. It's still so dangerous that I don't dare enter an intersection on a green light without making sure the way is clear. I wish they would increase the fines for subsequent violation that it becomes very expensive if caught
-
Andy9o8 2
QuoteTo me, the owner of the vehicle needs to know, who is (was) driving their vehicle. A camera(s) that get the vehicle coming and going could possibly get a photo of the driver as well as the plate. All in all, I believe, the responsibility belongs with the owner of the vehicle.
You're confusing civil responsibility with criminal responsibility. "Negligent entrustment of a vehicle" is strictly a civil tort; it is not a criminal or quasi-criminal offense. A vehicular moving violation is a quasi-criminal offense.
AS I said, I'm ok with prosecuting a moving violation based on a photo as long as the photo proves who the driver was. But not if it simply shows who the vehicle's owner was, and nothing more.
I say again: a vehicular moving violation is - by definition - an act committed by the driver of the vehicle, not by the owner. In the US, the initial burden of proof of a criminal or quasi-criminal offense must always be on the prosecution. Always. Anything that compromises that principle in application is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
dorbie 0
QuoteQuoteDoes the law allow you to write down the tag number and just mail them a ticket?
I really wish the govt. would pass a law that makes the fine for running red light very high. Heck, in my area it's a larger fine for violating HOV restrictions than running a red light.
-
______________________________________
The city I recently moved from, wanted to put cameras at intersections where folks were running red-lights and stop-signs all too often. The purpose: to get tag numbers and send the owner of the vehicle a ticket. Those folks, went nuts! Letters were written to the editor of the local newspaper stating their civil rights would be violated and the like. Personally, I think, it's a great idea! It answers the question: 'Where's a cop, when you need one?'
Chuck
A fine idea (which they do use in some cities), but my concern is this: the offender in a moving violation is the driver, not the owner. If the camera system photos both the license plate AND the driver's face, that's fine with me. But if the camera only identifies the car and plate, and not the actual driver, then - in my ever-so-humble (as always) opinon - a presumption that the owner is also the driver is improper.
It is common policy in the USA to reduce the amber light transition times on intersections with these cameras. This causes rear ends and fatalities all to rake in a few extra bucks. I think it's OK to catch red light runners, but not to create them by gaming the light timing for maximum revenue. It's absolutely obscene that towns and cities get away with this.
QuoteYou're confusing civil responsibility with criminal responsibility. "Negligent entrustment of a vehicle" is strictly a civil tort; it is not a criminal or quasi-criminal offense.
That varies from state to state. In TX there are offenses that arise from allowing unlicensed drivers or dangerous drivers to drive your vehicle. It is possible to articulate how someone running a red light is a dangerous driver.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteYou're confusing civil responsibility with criminal responsibility. "Negligent entrustment of a vehicle" is strictly a civil tort; it is not a criminal or quasi-criminal offense.
That varies from state to state. In TX there are offenses that arise from allowing unlicensed drivers or dangerous drivers to drive your vehicle. It is possible to articulate how someone running a red light is a dangerous driver.
Fair enough, so I'll refine my point in light of that.
Those TX offenses you mention all stem from the owner's act of allowing the "prohibited" person from driving your car in the first place. OK, fine - if he shouldn't be driving your car in the first place, and you let him get in your car and drive off, that's on you.
But a red light violation is generally unrelated to whether the person should be driving the car in the first place, and thus it's unfair for a "mere owner" (i.e., and not exclusively the driver) to be responsible for that violation.
Re: "dangerous driver": if the person is dangerous from the get-go - say they're not licensed, or they're drunk, etc. - then anything that results from their driving (for example, their running a red) is the result of that initial dangerousness. But if I let my sober, licensed neighbor borrow my car for the day while his car's in the shop, and he winds up (dangerously!) running a red light during his commute, there's no way I, as a mere owner of the car, should be legally liable for that moving violation. Civilly liable to someone who gets hurt for "negligent entrustment"? - maybe, maybe not (I'd say probably not). But should I personally bear or share jeopardy of being convicted and penalized by the State for the actual red-light moving violation? No way.
Pulse 0
A license makes you safe?
"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."
Ahem. Since they spend so much time driving and they are the law shouldn't they be held to higher standards and be setting an example. I drive a fuckin lot too and I don't forget. My roomate is a truck driver ( a few 100k miles a yr). If he forgot he would lose his job. What's wrong w/ this pictureQuoteQuoteBut it seems I constantly see police cars, traveling at normal traffic speeds, seemingly not on any particular emergency, making turns without using their turn signals – you know, pretty much the same way cabbies and pickup truck drivers do all the time.
Maybe it is just like experienced jumpers do not always get gear checks? They spend so much time driving that they most likely let things slip.
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteA license makes you safe?
Glad I took the time and effort...
DaVinci 0
QuoteSince they spend so much time driving and they are the law shouldn't they be held to higher standards and be setting an example.
sure, but so should guys with 1,000's of jumps always get gear checks. That does not happen either. It is human nature.
QuoteI drive a fuckin lot too and I don't forget. My roomate is a truck driver ( a few 100k miles a yr). If he forgot he would lose his job.
I doubt he would lose his job. I work with professional drivers and have gone on check rides with them. They don't follow all the rules ALL the time. In fact, I bet very few do.
skycop 0
It's policy for our officers to wear seat belts. I tell my officers they are much more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by any other means. I take mine off on the way to any dangerous calls, in case I have to exit quickly. I can pop my seatbelt off in less than a second, if I have to exit my vehicle quickly without notice. I practice doing that often, so it just becomes second nature.
Lucky is one of those guys who doesn't like cops. I live by the 60-40 rule:
Roughly 20% of the population really doesn't like cops, I just have to deal with them and move on.
Another 20% will back up cops pretty much on anything, I like them
It's the 60% in the middle I truly try to please, they are normally pretty reasonable people and will listen to reason and make sound decisions. They also make up the majority of a potential jury pool.
"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"
Lucky is one of those guys who doesn't like cops. I live by the 60-40 rule:
Roughly 20% of the population really doesn't like cops, I just have to deal with them and move on.
Another 20% will back up cops pretty much on anything, I like them
It's the 60% in the middle I truly try to please, they are normally pretty reasonable people and will listen to reason and make sound decisions. They also make up the majority of a potential jury pool.
"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"
Its because people used to deny who was driving and get away with it, well, those tossers are shit out of luck now unfortunately as 9 times out of 10 the owner will cough up rather than take the points themselves.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites