One thing i've learned about fark - no matter how asinine the actions of state or federal government, someone will be along shortly to defend said asinine actions.

Mind boggling but true fact of life here on the intertubes.

Yea, damn the government for stopping people from running red lights.

is this like using civil law to seize property, like if you're carrying "too much" cash but there's no evidence of criminal behavior?

I know of another way to get people to obey traffic laws.....It's called cops 'patrolling' roads to actually look for crime.

If we call pot something else, will it then be legal?

Antidamascus: Yea, damn the government for stopping people from running red lights.

if it's a crime to run a red light, then charge them with a crime. otherwise, fark off.

Weaver95: One thing i've learned about fark - no matter how asinine the actions of state or federal government, someone will be along shortly to defend said asinine actions.

1 for 1. Your crystal ball, can I subscribe to it?

Bucky Katt:

if it's a crime to run a red light, then charge them with a crime. otherwise, fark off.


I'm perfectly fine with charging them large sums of money :)

$100 is pretty steep for a red light.

/beginning to wonder if the government ever charges less than $100 for anything

$afety, $afety, $afety

We're all about your $afety.

Antidamascus: Yea, damn the government for stopping people from running red lights.

Oh you don't even need to run the red light. There have been a large number of well documented instances where these cameras made a mistake and either billed the wrong person or charged someone who didn't break the law.

Of course, the government assumes you are guilty until YOU prove otherwise....which means you have to either pony up the $200 fine OR go hire a lawyer and spend a year or two in court proving that the camera made a mistake. Tell me again - how is this even close to justice?

I support red light cameras. I don't want to get t-boned by some farker running a redlight. Plus I don't run red lights, so nothing to be afraid of.

Though it is bullshiat that the government won't admit it is for money. Yeah it is for safety...but it IS for money too. Just admit it.

andrew131: Weaver95: One thing i've learned about fark - no matter how asinine the actions of state or federal government, someone will be along shortly to defend said asinine actions.

1 for 1. Your crystal ball, can I subscribe to it?

you should see me at the race track....

This story just proves that the governments are greedy and aren't looking to protect the constituency.

FTFA: Rep. Ron Reagan and Sen. Mike Bennett, both Republicans from Bradenton, have been pushing colleagues to pass a law named after a Manatee County man killed in 2003 by a driver who ran a red light.

Running red lights is such a problem that they had to go back to 2003 to find a death to name their law after?

/I'm sure there are others but it doesn't look good

E Arkhe: $100 is pretty steep for a red light.

/beginning to wonder if the government ever charges less than $100 for anything

$391 ticket for getting caught on a Red Light Cam in CA.

And the state just repealed a prohibition against speed cams.

Let's see, raise property taxes, or start fining red light runners... punish everybody or only a few people breaking the law to increase revenue...

Which one is better, which one is better.....

/Okay, maybe there are other ways
//But I HATE red light runners
///I've nearly gotten hit several times where I live
//And it's not in Hillsborough
/End slashie running

E Arkhe: $100 is pretty steep for a red light.

/beginning to wonder if the government ever charges less than $100 for anything

What!!!! I coughed up $346 for a red light down here in the OC which I didn't even remember running, but which I didn't feel like fighting.

Whatever, but I'd gladly pay $100. That's getting away cheap.

patssle3: I support red light cameras. I don't want to get t-boned by some farker running a redlight. Plus I don't run red lights, so nothing to be afraid of.

How does a camera protect you from that truck that is going to t-bone you?

Weaver95: Antidamascus: Yea, damn the government for stopping people from running red lights.

Oh you don't even need to run the red light. There have been a large number of well documented instances where these cameras made a mistake and either billed the wrong person or charged someone who didn't break the law.

Of course, the government assumes you are guilty until YOU prove otherwise....which means you have to either pony up the $200 fine OR go hire a lawyer and spend a year or two in court proving that the camera made a mistake. Tell me again - how is this even close to justice?

"Large number" being what? Millions? Hundreds of thousands?

I must count myself and my family/friends lucky as none of us have ever been caught by the evil sinister red light camera.

Justice is watching everyone here whine and cry. I LOVE reading all these people yelling about getting caught.

patssle3: I support red light cameras. I don't want to get t-boned by some farker running a redlight. Plus I don't run red lights, so nothing to be afraid of.

Though it is bullshiat that the government won't admit it is for money. Yeah it is for safety...but it IS for money too. Just admit it.

Just wait till they changing the timing of the yellows to make more money and you get hit.

Prince_Nez: FTFA: Rep. Ron Reagan and Sen. Mike Bennett, both Republicans from Bradenton, have been pushing colleagues to pass a law named after a Manatee County man killed in 2003 by a driver who ran a red light.

Running red lights is such a problem that they had to go back to 2003 to find a death to name their law after?

/I'm sure there are others but it doesn't look good

It isn't that that's the last person killed by a red light runner, it just takes them that long to actually get anything pushed through to the point where it could become a law. :D

When red light cameras first came out i was pissed, but my job requires me to drive around most of the day in an heavily red light cammed and i haven't got a ticket yet. Follow the speed limit and pay attention you will have no problem stopping on time every time. So i would suggest stop breaking the law, asshole. Also, get over it, cities have found a new source of revenue and Americans in general don't give a shiat enough to do anything about it.

andrew131: patssle3: I support red light cameras. I don't want to get t-boned by some farker running a redlight. Plus I don't run red lights, so nothing to be afraid of.

How does a camera protect you from that truck that is going to t-bone you?

It automagically transforms into a large blaster pistol and shoots the tires out of any damn autobot that gets too close to your car.

MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE!

andrew131: patssle3: I support red light cameras. I don't want to get t-boned by some farker running a redlight. Plus I don't run red lights, so nothing to be afraid of.

How does a camera protect you from that truck that is going to t-bone you?

If you keep charging him 100-400 bucks every time he does it, maybe he'll stop. Or he'll go broke and have to sell his truck. Either way, I win.

Get Lost: I know of another way to get people to obey traffic laws.....It's called cops 'patrolling' roads to actually look for crime.

I'd rather have cops walking a beat than pulling people over for going 5 miles over the speed limit. If a machine can do the job better and free a human being to do other jobs, like catch dangerous criminals, I say let them.

Antidamascus: Weaver95: Antidamascus: Yea, damn the government for stopping people from running red lights.

Oh you don't even need to run the red light. There have been a large number of well documented instances where these cameras made a mistake and either billed the wrong person or charged someone who didn't break the law.

Of course, the government assumes you are guilty until YOU prove otherwise....which means you have to either pony up the $200 fine OR go hire a lawyer and spend a year or two in court proving that the camera made a mistake. Tell me again - how is this even close to justice?

"Large number" being what? Millions? Hundreds of thousands?

I must count myself and my family/friends lucky as none of us have ever been caught by the evil sinister red light camera.

Justice is watching everyone here whine and cry. I LOVE reading all these people yelling about getting caught.

Who cares? If they mess up once that is enough for me to say they should not be used.

Arthur Jumbles: Get Lost: I know of another way to get people to obey traffic laws.....It's called cops 'patrolling' roads to actually look for crime.

I'd rather have cops walking a beat than pulling people over for going 5 miles over the speed limit. If a machine can do the job better and free a human being to do other jobs, like catch dangerous criminals, I say let them.

You think that is what is going to happen?

/guess again

Uncle Karl: Arthur Jumbles: Get Lost: I know of another way to get people to obey traffic laws.....It's called cops 'patrolling' roads to actually look for crime.

I'd rather have cops walking a beat than pulling people over for going 5 miles over the speed limit. If a machine can do the job better and free a human being to do other jobs, like catch dangerous criminals, I say let them.

You think that is what is going to happen?

/guess again

Someone was sent to jail wrongly! Obviously the courts made a boo-boo. Remove the courts!

I don't care if 100 people get wrongly pulled over if it catches hundreds of thousands!

Antidamascus: "Large number" being what? Millions? Hundreds of thousands?

I'm of the opinion that if even ONE innocent person is convicted unfairly, then the system is broken...but i'm a radical.

Justice is watching everyone here whine and cry. I LOVE reading all these people yelling about getting caught.

Equality before the law is more important. Any legal system that makes money out of finding people guilty has an inherent bias against the interests of justice. If they don't convict you, they don't get paid....so you're kinda screwed.

I'll bet your one of those wackos who think the Patriot act was a good idea as well...

Ron Paul Revere: However, how is what you're arguing any different than when a cop gives you a ticket? In court, unless you have evidence the cop is completely wrong, the judge will always defer to the cop, as his word is higher than yours in their eyes.

Fine, but the cop isn't issuing the citation, a camera is and then a clerk writes it up.

Fluffy_the_cactus: Prince_Nez: FTFA: Rep. Ron Reagan and Sen. Mike Bennett, both Republicans from Bradenton, have been pushing colleagues to pass a law named after a Manatee County man killed in 2003 by a driver who ran a red light.

Running red lights is such a problem that they had to go back to 2003 to find a death to name their law after?

/I'm sure there are others but it doesn't look good

It isn't that that's the last person killed by a red light runner, it just takes them that long to actually get anything pushed through to the point where it could become a law. :D

How about.... instead of banning red-light cameras we legislate how long the yellow light should last?

patssle3: I support red light cameras. I don't want to get t-boned by some farker running a redlight. Plus I don't run red lights, so nothing to be afraid of.

I've seen more accidents in the past couple of years at one of the intersections with a red light camera than I did before they were installed.

They are all read end collisions.

I know why.

People slam on their brakes so unexpectedly. They could be 5 meters from the limit line traveling and traveling 40mph, but once that thing hits yellow, they panic and try to stop.

Antidamascus: I don't care if 100 people get wrongly pulled over if it catches hundreds of thousands!

Our founding fathers disagree.

Fluffy_the_cactus: It isn't that that's the last person killed by a red light runner, it just takes them that long to actually get anything pushed through to the point where it could become a law. :D

LOL Yeah you're right.

skinink: It's not that I'm against the government from making people obey the law (why should you be speeding or running red lights?), but the fact that they sneakily change it to a civil infraction, then charge you $125 for it is slimy.

And THEN tell you that you can't even fight in court, because it was merely a civil infraction, not an actual moving violation.

E Arkhe: $100 is pretty steep for a red light.

/beginning to wonder if the government ever charges less than $100 for anything

I just paid $107 for an expired registration.

"We've had about 3,000 people take a $100 violation,"

This from a town with 4 stoplights. yeah, it's all about the safty.

Antidamascus: If you keep charging him 100-400 bucks every time he does it, maybe he'll stop. Or he'll go broke and have to sell his truck. Either way, I win.

It's like sex, you can still get pregnant on your first time. If a redlight runner doesn't care about running the light and possibly killing someone what makes you think they care about $100?

If this was truly about safety then I'd say OK. However, in case after case across the country as the rate of tickets fall off they start adjusting the light timing to keep the revenue level constant. The yellows get shorter and shorter until impossible to not get a ticket if entering on yellow. It is a pure money grab.

patssle3: I support red light cameras. I don't want to get t-boned by some farker running a redlight. Plus I don't run red lights, so nothing to be afraid of.

This.

Arthur Jumbles: Fluffy_the_cactus: Prince_Nez: FTFA: Rep. Ron Reagan and Sen. Mike Bennett, both Republicans from Bradenton, have been pushing colleagues to pass a law named after a Manatee County man killed in 2003 by a driver who ran a red light.

Running red lights is such a problem that they had to go back to 2003 to find a death to name their law after?

/I'm sure there are others but it doesn't look good

It isn't that that's the last person killed by a red light runner, it just takes them that long to actually get anything pushed through to the point where it could become a law. :D

How about.... instead of banning red-light cameras we legislate how long the yellow light should last?

I'd be in favor of this... hell, piggyback it onto the red light law.... then it's a win-win. The state gets their money, the yellow lights last longer, so there are fewer wrecks. Win-win for everyone, and people who are still shiatheads and break the law will still be punished.

Question (and semi-threadjack): Is there an arguable amount of leeway for speeding violations? I mean, can you get pulled over for doing 38 in a 35, or conversely 32 in a 35?

derek20cali: patssle3: I support red light cameras. I don't want to get t-boned by some farker running a redlight. Plus I don't run red lights, so nothing to be afraid of.

This.

No, fark THIS.


Because:
SimonSaid: in case after case across the country as the rate of tickets fall off they start adjusting the light timing to keep the revenue level constant. The yellows get shorter and shorter until impossible to not get a ticket if entering on yellow. It is a pure money grab.

That.

Antidamascus: Uncle Karl: Arthur Jumbles: Get Lost: I know of another way to get people to obey traffic laws.....It's called cops 'patrolling' roads to actually look for crime.

I'd rather have cops walking a beat than pulling people over for going 5 miles over the speed limit. If a machine can do the job better and free a human being to do other jobs, like catch dangerous criminals, I say let them.

You think that is what is going to happen?

/guess again

Someone was sent to jail wrongly! Obviously the courts made a boo-boo. Remove the courts!

I don't care if 100 people get wrongly pulled over if it catches hundreds of thousands!

Apparently you have never heard, "rather let a 100 guilty men go free then imprison one innocent."

ultraholland: Question (and semi-threadjack): Is there an arguable amount of leeway for speeding violations? I mean, can you get pulled over for doing 38 in a 35, or conversely 32 in a 35?

If the law is 35 and you're doing 36, you're breaking the law. If you argue to the judge that you were only breaking the law "a little" he'll laugh you out of the court room.

All in favor of red-light cameras. Unfortunately that does nothing for the a-holes who come to a one-way intersection and all they do is look were traffic is coming from and never look for pedestrians that are crossing the street or even do California rolls with out even looking where they are going. I have had to hit the hoods of cars crossing in the cross walk because they don't even look infront of them before they hit the gas. I say you get two or more traffic violations in a year you should lose your license for a year. We don't need tougher fines, we need to start taking licenses away from repeat offenders, people who do not respect the right to drive.

andrew131: Antidamascus: I don't care if 100 people get wrongly pulled over if it catches hundreds of thousands!

Our founding fathers disagree.

What, are you like the Miss Clio of Historical American Figures? The Psychic Network to our Founding Fathers?

slobarnuts: patssle3: I support red light cameras. I don't want to get t-boned by some farker running a redlight. Plus I don't run red lights, so nothing to be afraid of.

I've seen more accidents in the past couple of years at one of the intersections with a red light camera than I did before they were installed.

They are all read end collisions.

I know why.

People slam on their brakes so unexpectedly. They could be 5 meters from the limit line traveling and traveling 40mph, but once that thing hits yellow, they panic and try to stop.

Here in Houston, rear end collisions have gone up...BUT t-bones have gone down more. I don't know the numbers...but t-bones have gone down more than rear ends have gone up. In the end..its worth it. Plus I would rather be rear ended than t-boned.