I got nailed

[blinkwatt]

I thought it was a law in California if there are cameras watching you then there has a be a sign posted. Perhaps your neck of the woods is different.

[MNBoxster]

Hi,

Unfortunately, get used to it. The technology is now so easy and cheap - No Salaries, Benefits, Paid Holidays, Retirement or Healthcare Plans for Traffic Enforcement Personnel - that cash-strapped municipalities are going to soon have one at every Stop Sign and along the roads, it's just too tempting a Revenue Source to resist for the Politicians who won't have to raise Taxes and risk the wrath of their constituents.

People who drive for a Living and Auto Enthusiasts will scream, but unfortunately, we're in the minority and most Citizens will see it as a good thing despite the loss of Liberty and the adoption of prior restraint, especially once the Politicos are through Sugar-Coating it for them. Sorry you got pinched...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Wintermute]

Grrr...I hate those things! I haven't been caught on the 101 yet, but then again I'm not up in Phoenix that often. They're actually putting some up on highway 69 coming into Prescott. Guess I'll be taking the scenic route to see my folks (i.e. I get to drive a much prettier and windy mountain road, rather than a cop and speed-trap infested highway)

[CA_Boxster]

The roads around there are actually notorious for cameras. I've read articles lately about how they've partnered with the company that makes the cameras. The company suppplies and maintains the equioment. They even process the records. In exchange they get a cut of the revenue, and so does the city.

I was watching a Top Gear once and they were trying to beat the cameras. They were able to do it, but they had to go like 150, the camera didnt even go off they went so fast. So the moral is there is no middle ground, either commit or go granny slow.

[Kaizen]

I'm assuming they traced you through your plates.

Do any of those sprays or plastic covers for the license plates work? That might be an option.

Are they legal in AZ?

Kai

[Brucelee]

"they get a cut of the revenue, and so does the city."

I believe the courts recently struck down this provision in the contract and so, the company cannot get paid on a percent of proceeds basis.

But, hey, lets face it, this battle was lost years ago. It has nothing to do with freedom, as it is not a right to drive in the US. It simply is a matter of which technology is available.

People ********************ed when radar first came on the scene.

Nor, is the law set in stone that a live person be the one to write you up.

Sorry, this boat has left the dock.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

"they get a cut of the revenue, and so does the city."

...Nor, is the law set in stone that a live person be the one to write you up.

Sorry, this boat has left the dock...

Hi,

You can't buck City Hall, but, the loss of freedom I was referring to was the right to face one's accuser and question them. With a Radar, a Person is operating this and you can question their competancy or the state of the equipment. The Laws which were sucessfully challenged on these issues are another example of Judges making Law (not their Function) rather than enforcing existing Law, but that's another thread on another Forum.

Here in MN, you can subpeona all the maintenance records on the Radar Unit and ask, at the scene, for a calibration readout of the equipment. The Officer presses a button on the Radar and the readout must return to 0MPH, any other number and the unit is off.

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[1JB]

Was it just a fine or do you get a citation and points on your driver's license as well? I think you just get a fine in most places since they can't identify with certainty who was driving the car? The fine is bad enough but points are really bad.

[Brucelee]

But, hey the guy admitted he was speeding and the technology actually functioned correctly.

I guess I am not really seeing the distinction here. If I am really breaking the law, how much credence do you put in my complaint about HOW I got caught?

Perhaps we should just admit we don't like it when we get caught?

[RandallNeighbour]

Rail, it's time to apply the license plate spray when you next travel through that part of the country.

I'd fight it though, or get a ticket-fixing lawyer who lives in that area to get it dismissed for you.

[denverpete]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

But, hey the guy admitted he was speeding and the technology actually functioned correctly.

I guess I am not really seeing the distinction here. If I am really breaking the law, how much credence do you put in my complaint about HOW I got caught?

Perhaps we should just admit we don't like it when we get caught?

For me it's less that I got caught and more that photo radar is so obviously a mechanism for revenue enhancement.

BTW, I put a lot of credence into HOW. You could say it's one of the foundations of our country.....

[xtopher]

Scottsdale may have to remove the photo speed cameras. They were deemed illegal by the state since they were erected on a state funded and ran highway by the city of Scottsdale without permission. Scotsdale is fighting this ruling.

There are signs at the city limits and those who drive it on a regular basis know where the cameras are and just speed up and slow down accordingly. Scottsdsdale has said they are set fot 10 over the 65 limit.

There is a gentleman going to court sometime soon to fight his 147 mph ticket he received in his rental Hyundai Sonata. His lawyer claims the car cant even go that fast and the system must be faulty.

Chris

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

But, hey the guy admitted he was speeding and the technology actually functioned correctly.

I guess I am not really seeing the distinction here. If I am really breaking the law, how much credence do you put in my complaint about HOW I got caught?

Perhaps we should just admit we don't like it when we get caught?

Bruce,

I hear what you're saying, but the erosion of Personal Privacy and Liberties is very subtle and ALWAYS in the name of a Good Cause, even in Nazi Germany the proposed segregation of the Jews and loss of rights to unwarranted searches and such were for the Good of the State.

The Good of the State must be considered, but Politicians always use these causes to further control over the Population. The Homeland Security Act, for example, may seem necessary right now, I do not dispute this. But, if so, why not place a Sundown Clause on it's use so it may be removed once the threat is passed? Keep reassessing the situation and renew as the People deem necessary.

But, as the Act is defined right now, you can be held incomunicado for a great length of time without being charged or given access to cousel just because some buraucrat deems you a threat. Your home can be searched without acquiring or presenting you with a warrant - this is all very bad. No one cares until it happens to them or someone they know.

I read a shocking Harvard Study which stated that the average American now spends over 6 Hrs. cumulatively each day on a Security Camera. Whether shopping in the Mall, going to the ATM, the Supermarket, the workplace, or just driving past Traffic Control Cameras on the Freeway. That's too much! My house is in the frame of the security cameras of a Federal Facility - Lock & Dam #1 on the Mississippi River. I have seen the tapes and there's my house in the background 24/7 for anyone to see and possibly use against me.

In many cases, such evidence is Public Information (as are Traffic Citations) subject to supeona or the Freedom of Information Act, or access hasn't been tested in the courts or defined. Suppose a Divorce Lawyer were to supeona tapes showing you and your Mistress in the Mall at a restaurant or your Boss uses tapes of you joyriding on a day you called in sick to terminate you? Or, your Insurance Co. uses them to hike your rates? The potential for misuse or greater incursion into one's liberties is just too great...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99