. . . and an officer being present to witness a crime? It seems California is onto something;
The appellate decision, moreover, provides legal weight for a class-action lawsuit that’s been filed against Redflex and the city of Victorville, alleging that red light cameras violate the long-standing rule that an officer must witness a traffic infraction to issue a ticket.
Duh. Duh. And Duh.
Cause we should do it the way they do in California? Heres one from Iowa where the Court found in favor of Redflex.
http://www.redflex.com/html/usa/news/iowa-state-court-ruling-allows-photo-enforcement-continue-iowa-cities
Am I for it? Yes. We dont have enough cops in this town and if jackwads running the reds at every other intersection constantly are mailed tickets…I’m all for it. Personally I don’t run the red so I’m not too worried about them.
Well aren’t you a upstanding citizen of our society. It has nothing to do with running or not, it has to do with constitutional rights. When are you people gonna get it?
Personally, I don’t run red lights either Lemming. Am I for RLC’s? No way in hell. RLC’s are revenue generators. Nothing more. Nothing less. Our own RLC was used for $$$$. Safety in fact was lessened when yellow times were manipulated to make even more $$$$.
Lemming, your article is nearly four years old. Get with it.
http://www.kmtv.com/news/local/138818024.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lemming
Red light systems continue to be overturned because they violate due process. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, in most implementations and jurisdictions you have to prove you weren’t the one driving. The burden should be on the state, not the accused. With no human officer pulling you over, no one can attest who was driving. You can’t ticket cars, you have to ticket people. In addition to that, in the South Dakota case the city violated state law in implementing a civil fine for something that is a criminal behavior anywhere else (uniformity statute). I want to be safe and get steamed at all of the red light running, but I won’t throw out due process in the name of safety (I’m not convinced by the way these increase safety). I think in most cases if you’d just increase the yellow light time by a second in most cases you wouldn’t have red light running. Poly is right, the chief motivation must be they are revenue generators. If governments really cared about safety, they’d just increase the yellow light time.
As an aside, this principle of refusing to throw out due process for safety is the reason why I disagree with most of my family and friends on most of the airport security. They want to be safe and say they ‘have nothing to hide’ so they are for all of the new screening procedures put in since 9-11 (patdowns, full body scans, etc). I for one don’t believe we are any safer and its mostly for show and mostly feel good garbage. I’m not saying I’m for no security screening, but invasive searches of 6 year old’s and full body patdowns with no probable cause whatsoever. I’m just bothered that if you want to travel you implicitly must give up virtually all of your constitutional rights apparently. Most may disagree with me on this, not sure, but if so I’m OK with that.
If governments really cared about safety, they’d just increase the yellow light time…..
Yellow times are set at a point drivers in many instances run yellows and reds because driving 40 in a 30, or 45 in a 35 is an acceptable speed in this town. Just not enough time for our nascar wannabes to react to shortened yellows.
…As an aside, this principle of refusing to throw out due process for safety is the reason why I disagree with most of my family and friends on most of the airport security…
Again…another safety issue that is shortly going to be all about $$$$$. Soon there will be an express line that bypasses the pat downs. All you need is $$$$ and TSA will screen you one time only on application and from that point on you buzz around TSA. Money talks. The rest of it walks…and waits…and gets patted down.