Red Light Photo Enforcement

[dbx]

The ownership society is also an accountability society. Personal responsibility...

I suggest that the family members have the cars they drive registered in their own names. Yes, it forfeits the multiple-vehicle discount on insurance, but it also teaches personal responsibility.

I didn't own a car until I was 20. Every time insurance renewal comes up, I have to throw away several pieces of "AA1 preselected" junk mail from different insurance companies.

[Minotaur]

Keep in mind that GA is very rural in nature, even in "city" locales. Not at all like NJ. Yeah, ATL itself is, but still....then it's a judgment call. I'll turn right n red in any case if the chance presents itself. It's simply an awareness level thing.

Let's call it what it is... a cash cow. You should see the shenanigans EZ-Pass tries to get away with. It's the discretion of the person reviewing the tapes to decide to prosecute or not. Someone probably decided that this was the day to be a schmuck, not realizing that if it was me who got the tickets, it would only serve to re-enforce my position that Sherman was right for burning Georgia to the ground. I said that to someone once... a typical antebellum Georgia Peach of a woman. She didn't like me after that.

[partsRheavy]

I respect _true conservatives_ who support fiscal conservatism and civil liberties...similar to Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

However, I remind you that "tough on crime" was THE key Republican plank in 1988 against Michael Dukakis. Also, Ronald Reagan, not the Democrats, was responsible for the major expansion of law enforcement powers in the 1980s. This includes the War on Drugs (started by Nixon but expanded by Reagan) as well as the groundwork for the expansion of surveillance that has occurred at the behest of the Bush Administration.

Certain Democrats have "gone along," largely because they are afraid of being labeled as "soft on crime" which was THE winning Republican strategy in the 1988 election.

Many of your assumptions were wrong. You've confused things like the Patriot Act as being an extension of the current administration. You couldn't be more misguided in that connection. Here's a current (like, today) article to show you that a very prominent republican has to say:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=23264

I'll let you chew on that a minute . But for the record, as well a shock value, yes...I'm a conservative....and I also dislike cops in general. Like, as a whole. Go figure



Someone has to do it!



Keep in mind that GA is very rural in nature, even in "city" locales. Not at all like NJ. Yeah, ATL itself is, but still....then it's a judgment call. I'll turn right n red in any case if the chance presents itself. It's simply an awareness level thing.

[EMISGOD]

Kind of a side track...it's a stretch to call even those dumb**** Republicans as responsible for Photocop. Whoever came up with that idea to screw the cities and then fed on the greed of the various governing bodies of those ****loads of cities who bought into it hook, line and sinker, due process be damned, are the ones to blame...

[partsRheavy]

Who the heck do you think has been in charge when this stuff has been happening, especially 2000-2006?

Kind of a side track...it's a stretch to call even those dumb**** Republicans as responsible for Photocop. Whoever came up with that idea to screw the cities and then fed on the greed of the various governing bodies of those ****loads of cities who bought into it hook, line and sinker, due process be damned, are the ones to blame...

[EMISGOD]

Who the heck do you think has been in charge when this stuff has been happening, especially 2000-2006?

In the cities with Photocop, there has been both parties who signed off on it. Greed knows no party lines.

[dbx]

Let's call it what it is... a cash cow.

Exactly. And nothing more.

I respect _true conservatives_ who support fiscal conservatism and civil liberties...similar to Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

However, I remind you that "tough on crime" was THE key Republican plank in 1988 against Michael Dukakis. Also, Ronald Reagan, not the Democrats, was responsible for the major expansion of law enforcement powers in the 1980s. This includes the War on Drugs (started by Nixon but expanded by Reagan) as well as the groundwork for the expansion of surveillance that has occurred at the behest of the Bush Administration.

Certain Democrats have "gone along," largely because they are afraid of being labeled as "soft on crime" which was THE winning Republican strategy in the 1988 election.

We're not supposed to discuss politics in this forum, so I won't tell you to that Ron Paul is lunatic of biblical proportions, and that bringing up the 88' election platform of the Rep party is kinda getting just a tad off base here. But I will tell you that I'm a fiscal conservative every step of the way, just not as conservative on some social issues that have no place being determined by the Fed govt to begin with. But enough of that......

Kind of a side track...it's a stretch to call even those dumb**** Republicans as responsible for Photocop. Whoever came up with that idea to screw the cities and then fed on the greed of the various governing bodies of those ****loads of cities who bought into it hook, line and sinker, due process be damned, are the ones to blame...

Yes. Political affiliation has nothing to do with any of this.

In the cities with Photocop, there has been both parties who signed off on it. Greed knows no party lines.

Yes.

[partsRheavy]

My post about teaching personal responsibility to family members who are old enough to drive stands for itself.

[EMISGOD]

My post about teaching personal responsibility to family members who are old enough to drive stands for itself.

If there is no police officer to witness it/ticket it, there can be no moving violation.

Unless you are suggesting that everyone just automatically mail in payments to the state by way of turning themselves in for driving half-drunk or speeding or not using turn signals or parking too far from a curb or not using seat belts?

[partsRheavy]

Political affiliation has nothing to do with any of this.

Yes, it does. Don't you watch campaign ads? Who gets consistently labeled as "soft on crime?" Democrats. The talk show jocks on Atlanta 750 WSB (like Rush Limbaugh) are particularly adept at this, in case you haven't noticed.

Which party has been _consistently_ behind the expansion of law enforcement power on the platform of "TOUGH ON CRIME"? Republicans.

Yes, to avoid being labeled as "soft on crime," some Democrats get involved in stuff like Photocop, but NOT as consistently and emphatically as Republicans.

I know I've violated forum rules here, so this is my last post on what is, nevertheless, an important topic. The bottom line is that when those who support candidates that favor draconian law enforcement tactics get a ticket themselves, they need to reconsider the policies they have voted for.

[dbx]

Yes, it does. Who gets labeled as "soft on crime?" Democrats.

Which party has been _consistently_ behind the expansion of law enforcement power on the plat form of "TOUGH ON CRIME"? Republicans.

Yes, to avoid being labeled as "soft on crime," some Democrats get involved in stuff like Photocop, but NOT as consistently and emphatically as Republicans.

I know I've violated forum rules here, so this is my last post on what is, nevertheless, an important topic.

Let's just say that I agree with your first and second paragraphs and that I can even see what kind of logic you used to arrive at the third paragraph, but that we obviously do not think alike . It's been fun, but we'll leave it here.

Gbg, how was that?

[partsRheavy]

Absolutely not. (Like everyone else, I've violated traffic laws...I just don't get caught that much...)

This was sort of a hypothetical post, since I don't have sons or daughters.

If I had family members who were of driving age, I would have them register the vehicle they drive in their own name. Then, if the 17-year old gets caught driving 45 mph in a 25 mph zone, he's the one who gets the ticket, not me. If he doesn't get caught, then it would be his little secret LOL. ;-)

As a parent, I might contribute toward the cost of their insurance and possibly toward the cost of vehicle repairs, but the major responsibility for driving would be theirs. That's why the car and insurance would be in the family member's name. Of course I would take care of mom's car, and I would expect my husband to be responsible for his vehicle.

I guess I just grew up in a strict family. My folks weren't willing to buy a car for me or pay for the insurance. My leg press numbers benefited as a result, because I rode a bicycle/walked from 16-20.

If there is no police officer to witness it/ticket it, there can be no moving violation.

Unless you are suggesting that everyone just automatically mail in payments to the state by way of turning themselves in for driving half-drunk or speeding or not using turn signals or parking too far from a curb or not using seat belts?

[partsRheavy]

Glad we talked it over. Be safe in that Atlanta traffic!

Let's just say that I agree with your first and second paragraphs and that I can even see what kind of logic you used to arrive at the third paragraph, but that we obviously do not think alike . It's been fun, but we'll leave it here.

Gbg, how was that?

[ALBPM]

Well, photo tickets suck.....

I did learn about a little trick from a friend at work to keep tickets from showing up on your Motor vehicle department record and thereby causing your insurance rates to increase.

When you pay by mail, overpay by a couple bucks so instead of sending the $100.00 for example send a check for $102.00. The city or county must first settle the financial transaction before your DMV record is updated and points added for the violation. So, in order to finalize the transaction they send you a check for the $2.00 over payment. Don't ever cash that check...Throw it away. They can't do anything to you because you have paid the original fine and most large cities are too backed up to ever follow through and settle the transaction. My friend has gotten 5 tickets over the past few years and none showed up on his DMV record.....LOL!!!

[EMISGOD]

Gbg, how was that?

It was ass.

MEGA-FAIL!

[bodyhard]

So I get a letter the other day that says I ran a red light. Kind of.

And enclosed...there they were... 3 pics of the vehicle turning right at a red light with a "no right on red" sign at the corner, in a town about 40 miles from me. Except, it was my wife's vehicle....that's registered in my name, as are all 5 cars.

This isn't another thread to discuss how these photo deals at lights are bull**** (which I think they are once you delve into it). No, here's my issue; We can't just tell them it wasn't me driving. Can't fax anything (affidavit etc...) either. No, it's clearly stated on "The forms" that I have to request a hearing and then we both have to show up for it. Bull****. And you know it's on the freakin' form because this **** probably happens thousands of times each day across the country in paces that employ these f'cking cameras. It's just extremely inconvenient, and just another thing that separates it from a regular traffic ticket that is done in person. Oh, and for the hell of it, I've tried calling the "customer service" number (LOFL) on the form, to which I've gotten a "All circuits are busy" message for 2 days now.

Needless to say, I plan on transferring titles from myself to my wife and kids to avoid any future such incidents. Anybody ever had this happen and is there any way you know of to get around showing up in person for a hearing? And yes, I know I won't receive any points against me for it, but that's not the f'cking point

Note: I have to admit that it was kinda cool to go on-line and actually watch the moving video of her running/turning on red . She blamed the sign as being too small, but the video clearly shows the light turn red and her not even stopping as she goes ahead to turn right. But of course, why do you think they have the camera set up in this particular intersection and aimed right at that very turning lane? They probably bust dozens of folks every day for even coming to a stop and then turning right. In other words, one of those "Why the f'ck would they decide you can't turn right at this particular light?" because it is probably arbitrary as it gets.....all in the name of making money for the city.

Rant over

Funny I used to work for Redlight. Work there for 3 months learned a lot on how they catch you

Sucks though man, you should have send them a picture of your money to pay it

[OutOfStep]

Sucks though man, you should have send them a picture of your money to pay it

LMAO!

[gbg]

Let's just say that I agree with your first and second paragraphs and that I can even see what kind of logic you used to arrive at the third paragraph, but that we obviously do not think alike . It's been fun, but we'll leave it here.

Gbg, how was that?

[dbx]

When you pay by mail, overpay by a couple bucks.....

Interesting.

It was ass.

MEGA-FAIL!

And that's why I didn't ask you

Sucks though man, you should have send them a picture of your money to pay it

Yeah, someone else suggested that. It sounds like a good idea

PM sent

[MtnBikeMike]

Damn I missed out on another good thread.

But I will tell you that I'm a fiscal conservative every step of the way, just not as conservative on some social issues that have no place being determined by the Fed govt to begin with.

I don't understand why people have a hard time grasping this.

[FlyingDan]

just get one of these

http://www.break.com/usercontent/200...er-204368.html

[Minotaur]

you should have send them a picture of your money to pay it

Someone did that. The person got a photo back in the mail of handcuffs.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp

[_VL]

Yikes. I just checked back in here and, avoiding all of the political debate and questionable topics in here, here are my thoughts about several issues in here...

First, that a moving violation/ticket should only be able to be assigned to the driver who committed it and that the infraction should be witnessed by an actual officer as opposed to ONLY a machine. In other words, by a police officer, or an officer with radar, etc., but not just a traffic camera. (Which I believe is the crux of DBX's argument.) :

YES. I agree. This is probably also why the courts are so tied up with these tickets because in our "it's never my fault" society people are coached on ways to call machines into question vs. the testimony of an officer; thus leaving folks like DBX, who mostly just wants to clarify to the court who was driving at the time, stuck waiting in court all day.

Before people blast my tush about that they need to show up in court even if they are guilty because of the financial concerns re: license points, impact on insurance rates, etc., yes I do understand that and take no issue with that as that would bring up a different topic of insurance reform... my gripe is simply about people who habitually get tickets and just want to completely ignore what they keep doing in getting the tickets in the first place.

....
Btw, in NJ it doesn't matter who is driving. The person whom the vehicle is registered to bears the responsibility.

Just speaking out of my pea brain, but I am not sure that this is true. I believe a moving violation in any state is supposed to follow the driver. This is quite different than if the car "hurts" another person or property, then I believe that yes, you are correct that financial liability falls on the vehicle's owner.

The ownership society is also an accountability society. Personal responsibility...

I suggest that the family members have the cars they drive registered in their own names...

Wait a minute! In addressing this, and some of your other comments, there is nothing wrong, irresponsible, dishonest, or improper if YOU own several vehicles and your children live with you about having the cars titled/registered in your name as YOU paid for/own the vehicles. Many parents do this because it keeps them in control of who can drive the car and when. The children are then listed as drivers in the household on the same policy.

The reason I suggested that DBX (Kevin) talk to his insurance agent is because I believe that if registration/title of the vehicle is transferred to another person (your kid), then he/she will then be forced to have his/her own policy because of the insurance company's reasoning of $$$ liability only (i.e. because the owner of the car is the person who could get sued). Edit: See the bottom paragraph about insurance companies.

When your kids are on your policy it is often an honest way of getting a better insurance cost, coverage, or discount PER vehicle. However, if they stink as a driver (i.e. accidents or tickets), you can also get hosed on renewal increases in your premium and you are also the one who gets sued if they are in an accident. There are other things to consider too, so an insurance agent and attorney can help you run through the different scenarios of what's the proper approach (drivers on your policy or their own policies) for you.

Insurance companies aren't stupid. (The following is NOT directed at Kevin but in answer to some other folks in discussing this thread)...

If there is a licensed driver at your address (ex. a kid) then I believe it, and MVRs, usually get picked up when they run the renewal (or before... for example, if there are multiple cars they know to look for multiple drivers, or when a kid first gets his license, etc. ) and odds are that if you don't have a conversation with your agent in honestly sticking up for yourself about who is really driving which car and how much, or if the kid is usually away at college, etc. , then you're probably the one who is ironically getting screwed because I believe that if you don't give them a driver percentage breakdown the insurance company has the right to assign rates of the highest risk drivers (your kids) to the highest cost vehicles. To repeat, insurance companies aren't stupid and odds are that if you think you're screwing them that you're actually the one getting screwed... and, no, I am not an insurance agent or an attorney.

[DanVanVliet]

Yikes. I just checked back in here and, avoiding all of the political debate and questionable topics in here, here are my thoughts about several issues in here...

First, that a moving violation/ticket should only be able to be assigned to the driver who committed it and that the infraction should be witnessed by an actual officer as opposed to ONLY a machine. In other words, by a police officer, or an officer with radar, etc., but not just a traffic camera. (Which I believe is the crux of DBX's argument.) :

YES. I agree. This is probably also why the courts are so tied up with these tickets because in our "it's never my fault" society people are coached on ways to call machines into question vs. the testimony of an officer; thus leaving folks like DBX, who mostly just wants to clarify to the court who was driving at the time, stuck waiting in court all day.

Before people blast my tush about that they need to show up in court even if they are guilty because of the financial concerns re: license points, impact on insurance rates, etc., yes I do understand that and take no issue with that as that would bring up a different topic of insurance reform... my gripe is simply about people who habitually get tickets and just want to completely ignore what they keep doing in getting the tickets in the first place.




Just speaking out of my pea brain, but I am not sure that this is true. I believe a moving violation in any state is supposed to follow the driver. This is quite different than if the car "hurts" another person or property, then I believe that yes, you are correct that financial liability falls on the vehicle's owner.




Wait a minute! There is nothing wrong, irresponsible, dishonest, or improper if YOU own several vehicles and your children live with you about having the cars titled/registered in your name as YOU paid for/own the vehicles. Many parents do this because it keeps them in control of who can drive the car and when. The children are then simply listed as drivers in the household on the same policy.

The reason I suggested that DBX (Kevin) talk to his insurance agent is because I believe that if ownership of the vehicle is transferred to another person (your kid), then he/she will then be forced to have his/her own policy because of the insurance company's reasoning of liability (i.e. because the owner of the car is really the person who would get sued). Edit: See the bottom paragraph about insurance companies.

When your kids are on your policy it is an honest way of getting a better insurance cost, coverage, or discount PER vehicle. However, if they stink as a driver (i.e. accidents or tickets), you can also get hosed on renewal increases in your premium and YOU are also the one who gets sued if they are in an accident. There are other things to consider too, so an insurance agent and attorney can help you run through the different scenarios of what's the proper approach for you.

Insurance companies aren't stupid. (The following is NOT directed at Kevin but in answer to some other folks in discussing this thread)...

If there is a licensed driver at your address (ex. a kid) then I believe it, and MVRs, usually get picked up when they run the renewal (or before... for example, if there are multiple cars they know to look for multiple drivers, or when a kid first gets his license, etc. ) and odds are that if you don't have a conversation with your agent in honestly sticking up for yourself about who is really driving which car and how much, or if the kid is usually away at college, etc. , then you're probably the one who is ironically getting screwed because I believe that if you don?t give them a driver percentage breakdown the insurance company has the right to assign rates of the highest risk drivers (your kids) to the highest cost vehicles. To repeat, insurance companies aren't stupid and odds are that if you think you're screwing them that you're actually the one getting screwed... and, no, I am not an insurance agent or an attorney.

Again with the book Morning

[dbx]

I don't understand why people have a hard time grasping this.

Because the media has successfully burned into people's minds that Republican = dark suit, evil men, stuffed shirt, all business/no play, penny pinching Ebeneezer Scrooge types.

The real irony is that it is the opposite side who largely control media, university programs, and freedom of speech in general. Did the current admin. ever kick a WH correspondent out because they asked impolite, rude, inflammatory questions at press conferences? The incoming team practically shut down a S. FL TV station after a reporter dared to ask their VP candidate a real question. And the promise of "transparency" has already become comical. Stay tuned for a real display of control..........

[DanVanVliet]

We have to much goverment control now. and everyday we lose more and more freedom. the camaras are a good example of this its an easy way to get more of our money. Just like the gas prices the country needed to be bailed out money wise for the war spending now that they have taken us for a few trillion extra tax dollars they lowered the price. Remember in the eightys we were told there was no more oil. the prices shot up. I was in alaska working in the oil feilds. Arco's oil feilds were doing 20 percent of what they could.

[dbx]

We have to much goverment control now. and everyday we lose more and more freedom. the camaras are a good example of this its an easy way to get more of our money. Just like the gas prices the country needed to be bailed out money wise for the war spending now that they have taken us for a few trillion extra tax dollars they lowered the price. Remember in the eightys we were told there was no more oil. the prices shot up. I was in alaska working in the oil feilds. Arco's oil feilds were doing 20 percent of what they could.

I'm sorry Dan, but your tie-in of gas prices being part of a govt plot to recoup money is absolutely and positively absurd. Well, unless of course, that we got a few dozen other countries to agree to take it in the ass in the way of sky-high oil prices so we could help recoup money for a war that they were all against. Yes, I'm sure that must have been it. Damn those conniving Washington politicians!!

[MtnBikeMike]

Because the media has successfully burned into people's minds that Republican = dark suit, evil men, stuffed shirt, all business/no play, penny pinching Ebeneezer Scrooge types.

The real irony is that it is the opposite side who largely control media, university programs, and freedom of speech in general. Did the current admin. ever kick a WH correspondent out because they asked impolite, rude, inflammatory questions at press conferences? The incoming team practically shut down a S. FL TV station after a reporter dared to ask their VP candidate a real question. And the promise of "transparency" has already become comical. Stay tuned for a real display of control..........

Maybe I didn't miss out.....LOL.....It's gonna be an interesting 4 years with any luck the big media will implode.

From Blakes journal on 11/05/2008

Well I feel sorry for America, they are about to find out what Chicago style politics are all about, they have no idea what they are in for. Taxes, crime, corruption, and the decimation of manufacturing, elimination of civil liberties, routine torture and brutality by the police force, issuing of traffic tickets to people who have never been there, spiking energy prices, in creased bureaucracy in the school system etc. More people are killed in Chicago every year than soldiers in all our combat theaters combined. Think about that for a second.

News flash Ron Emanual, the Chicago politician who stood at a dinner party after one of his elections and stabbed a steak knife into the table over and over again while yelling "dead" after saying the names of those in his district who had not provided what he thought was full support for his campaign, has been selected as Barry's chief of staff. This should actually start to get fun

[DanVanVliet]

I'm sorry Dan, but your tie-in of gas prices being part of a govt plot to recoup money is absolutely and positively absurd. Well, unless of course, that we got a few dozen other countries to agree to take it in the ass in the way of sky-high oil prices so we could help recoup money for a war that they were all against. Yes, I'm sure that must have been it. Damn those conniving Washington politicians!!

I think we do control the oil prices and the tax on gas is high so it does help our goverment alot. Do you remember the eightys? There was no shortage.

[dbx]

From Blakes journal on 11/05/2008

More people are killed in Chicago every year than soldiers in all our combat theaters combined.

Agree with most everything except this. But it so very true that conservatives have been successfully painted as the boogieman, and that liberals are the free thinkers and kind, gentle souls among us. After all, we all know it's the conservatives who are the most barbaric when attending protests, speeches given by opposing camps, election headquarters, etc.. Um...yes.

It's actually frightening to me that not many see through it.