Red Light Cameras

Saw this in another newsgroup. Thought it was interesting. Looks like it
may have some unintended consequences and I'm sure this stuff will be taken
off the market real soon, so you might want to get a can or two now if you
are so inclined.

http://www.phantomplate.com/

Of course remember anything used to obsure the plate here in Texas is a
crime. I'm sure officers will start looking for this stuff if it takes off
big.

 

Hey Elmer -

A while back on either a site, or a magazine, they tested
several license plate obscuring products. Some were clear, some dark,
some reflected light, etc.

Bottom line was that none of them lived up to the
manufacturers claim when the vehicles traveled under a surveillance
camera.



--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Elmer - I fully agree that many communities are geared more towards revenue
enhancement than to law enforcement - in Garland, they installed the
cameras at several intersections, and the cameras have paid for themselves
more then 5 times over (as of about 6 months ago).

Are you (or Steve R.) aware of anything that has changed in the state laws
that allow tickets to be issued without positive identification of the
DRIVER of the vehicle? and not just the owner of the vehicle? Richardson
tried lobbying the state to apss a law a couple of years back, but it was
dropped because the wording did not state that the driver had to be
identified... Richardson officials were upset with the dropping of the law
- but in this particular case, the legislature looked out for the vehicle
owners who may or may not be behind the wheel at the time of an alleged
offense..

To me it seems that the fix for the cameras is not to buy a product already
deemed illegal, since it obscures the plate... but to not run the red-light
to begin with... (shrug)

Rex S.

 

That sounds like a good plan.

...louie

 

Then why not just use the reflective spray to its greatest efficiency.

Spray it on the camera lense(s).


Gary

 

But the history of these is that the controlling contract starts
short-cycling the cameras to increase their share of the take. Shorter
green lights and a quick flash past yellow nearly straight to red to
catch more people in the middle of the intersection when they
otherwise wouldn't have been. It's been pretty well documented.

Photo radar is another similar situation. If I loan my car to my kid,
why should *I* get a ticket and points just because I paid for the tag?

In the UK vandalizing these cameras has become an interesting hobby
for some. There are even web sites up that show pictures with
locations of trashed installations. One favorite way for them to do it
up right is to set fire to a tire that they place around the base of
the mounting pole.

 

Sometimes, extreme offenses are cause for extreme defenses.

Besides, the cameras are our property, if they're purchased
with tax money.


Gary

 

I've heard of this stuff. Bottom line, when tested, it showed the
license plate more clearly with it than without.

I guess this would boil down to being like that CHiPS episode where
Ponch pulls over this dude in a Texas Caddy and the guy gets really
pissed off. He starts telling Ponch that he didn't get stopped for
speeding because of his "devices". Out of curiousity, Ponch asks what
the guy is talking about and his starts showing him all the foil in
the hubcaps, radar jamming devices and detection methods he uses.
Ponch then, after a few minutes of this guy showing off his toys,
tells the guy that he doesn't use radar and he used his speedometer to
get the guy speeding.

 

The unintended consequences I previously mentioned but did not elaborate are
that the flash back causes the image to be slightly distorted or completely
unreadable. The problem is that in a lot of cases computers are actually
reading the images, and if they read it wrong (distorted) you could get
stuck with the ticket even tho you or your vehicle were never there. Now
I'm sure you can fight it in court and win, but how many times are you
willing to go to court until the guy gets caught.

I believe Stephan R already showed that it would not be considered illegal
in this state yet. So people could buy the stuff legally and cause you lots
of headaches.

BTW I agree don't run red lights, stop signs, or yield signs. If it turns
yellow stop if you can, proceed if you have to, just don't meet me in the
middle.

 

The problem is, that the burden of proof becomes the responsibility of
the person that owns the vehicle. In this case, you are guilty until
proven innocent.

From what I read some time ago from folks, and various articles, it is
very difficult to get a ticket dismissed even if you can prove your
car was not in the state at the time. At the very least, it's a big
hassle.

For the record, with the exception of your car being stolen, you are
responsible for it. So, if you don't want to get tickets and crap
from someone else driving your car......don't let 'em drive it. ;-)

I also don't think that it should be considering a moving violation
against your insurance unless it can be proven that you were driving
the car.

--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Usually to get away with not identifying the driver the violation is equal
to the parking ticket. However it costs more and with a lot more teeth to
get their money. But if its allowed to become law this session they could
easily make a little change and the info is reported to the insurance
company. With the way the laws are usually written they won't stop an
insurance company from trying to get the info, its just that the info will
be left at the city and county level instead of state. At least it was last
session.

 

Not that they wouldn't try, but I don't think an insurance carrier
can consider a civil offense when rating a policy. These red light
camera offenses are forced as civil issues because they can't
meet the proof burden of a criminal offense.


Gary

 

Traffic enforcement is one of the tools that have been used for years to
enhance revenue in areas without much tax base.. The sad part of all this,
is that as drivers and citizens, we applaud and encourage the efforts to
furthur control and victimize us..

A couple of years ago, I got a letter in the mail.. It came from a city in
California that I'd never been to.. They claimed they were about to issue a
warrant and other drastic means to collect for a parking ticket.. When I
responded, I discovered the vehicle described was nothing similar to
anything I'd ever owned..

After a couple of months of communication with them, and getting nowhere, I
finally invited them to issue their warrant and I'd submit to arrest and
then file suit against their city.. I copied everyone whose name I could
find that served in official capacity of that city, including the chief of
police.. Shortly thereafter, I received a letter from the mayor and the
chief.. They informed me that a mistake had been made and it was all a huge
mistake..

I am no expert in these matters, but .. I think the ordinary person would
have mailed the check upon receiving the first threatening letter from
them.. If they mailed out 100,000 of these letters and received checks for
10% of them, that is one helluva chunk of money.. If I recall correctly, the
fine for the parking violation was $25.00..

This camera fiasco is nothing more than a revenue enhancement tool to be
used against the driving public.. As civic minded taxpayers, we should all
support this kind of law enforcement tool and support our officers.. NOT..

Most of us would rather not be upset.. Why bother.. it doesn't affect us ?
Until you get that letter, like I got.. Meantime .. we've allowed furthur
encroachment and sanctioned our government to take advantage of us, even
more.. Think about it..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

I disagree. I don't believe most folks would have done anything
different regarding your CA parking accusation. Folks can be
pretty hard nosed when it comes to false arraignment, even if it
is civil in nature.

Of course, because of your time availability, the diligence used
to resolve the matter might have been more extensive, but that
is what makes being retired really fun. Once some entity real-
izes that you can not be "timed out".

Actually, the phrase "dog with a new bone" comes to mind.<g>


Gary

 

Great condensation....


Gary

 

Bill -

I have issue with this from the perspective that I don't
believe traffic enforcement is purely a tool used by a municipality to
gain revenue. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory on this one.

Now, that isn't to say that they leverage traffic citations to
their advantage and I am quite confident that some of them do, even
though they are not supposed to.

So, I guess what I am saying is that we NEED traffic
enforcement and it's not all there just to generate money.

A lot of companies use these same techniques to generate revenue for
the company. Happens all the time. I'm glad that you didn't put up
with it and were able to get it dismissed.

I don't buy into that. But, I do advocate that these issues need to
be worked out BEFORE we, the citizens, should have to put up with
being wrongfully fined. If the system were in place, and was
infallible (yeah, right), is it WRONG to get a ticket for running a
red light?

Hear hear!


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

The Beemer and I think a lot alike on some things.. Of course, he isn't as
handsome and talented as me.. LOL..

Regards to you both...

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

What "conspiracy theory" ?? There's no theory or conspiracy even being
mentioned... LOL.. Grandview is a prime example of the revenue enhancement
enforcement.. East Tawakoni is another.. Florence, Texas is another.. Those
municipalities use traffic enforcement to enhance revenue because they have
minimal tax base.. Brownwood, Tx. is another .. however, they do have some
decent officers patrolling..

Yessir.. I never suggested elimination of traffic enforcement..
Conscientious officers don't hide behind construction sites, coffee shops
and convenience stores to serve and protect.. They don't disguise themselves
as construction workers and they will assist in traffic jams and accidents..

The fun part was when I played detective, found the registration to the
vehicle license plate number.. Even the registration did not match the
vehicle they claimed was mine.. When I confronted them with that information
and invited them to send the warrant on down to Texas, is when I started
getting reponse from them..

Nossir.. the worst offenses take place in known locations.. Rather than a
camera, an officer in that intersection would be more effective and the
accident rates would automatically be reduced.. Hmmm.. maybe if those lazy
cops would get their asses out in the open and out of that patrol car,
they'd be earning their money, the taxpayers are paying them..

 

Well, what you opened up with was more indicative of traffic citations
being used as a methodology to enhance revenue for a municipality as
opposed to being used to enforce traffic laws and keep the streets
safe.

Maybe I just read too much into it.

I am not sure I agree with that from the perspective that if you run
the light, and are caught, what does it matter how they catch you?
That's kind of like when a murderer gets off because they found the
murder weapon, but didn't go through the channels to find it. They
guy (girl) STILL did it, but now they get off because of the
methodology used to obtain the evidence?

You make a good point. How about getting the officers out of the
topless bars and onto the streets. Are we saying it's more important
to have a cop in a topless bar than it is out patrolling the streets?
Murdering and raping people is not as important as a guy that MIGHT
touch a breast in a T-Bar. Because that is the message we are giving
out.



--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

I don't really have a problem with that. It's kind of like the cops
that park the cars along the highways or in neighborhoods. You see
the car, you slow down. Or maybe, if you are a criminal, you leave
the area.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!