Reply With Quote
I'd send a letter back asking what the offense is. Be polite, and describe the situation in clear terms. Ask for a clarification on why you received the ticket.
I came home today and got an early birthday present in the mail.
It turned out to be one of those mail in tickets of a pic of your car's license plate. It turns out they gave me a ticket for taking a right on red which is actually legal.
What kind of indecency is it to have cameras that take pictures of that ?
That is just wrong and totally invades our privacy. If a cop doesn't pull you
over you shouldn't be ed over like that, especially when what I did was
completely legal.
I am 18 and have a part time job. The scissored down paycheck I already receive due to the ing taxes they slap on us is going to be completely gone.
What right do they have to do this to us?
I'd send a letter back asking what the offense is. Be polite, and describe the situation in clear terms. Ask for a clarification on why you received the ticket.
That sucks Sook. I agree 100%. This remote surveillance BS is one of slippery slope. Traffic tickets are just the beginning.
If they have the camera set up right, it will only take the picture if you don't come to a complete stop first.
Lets see... In my experience, only about 1 out of 10 people come to a complete stop when the traffic is clear at a stop sign or red light. Most just slow down and go.
Did you come to a complete stop? If not, it was illegal!
Think of the poster. This happened to a guy we kinda know online. Are you all about the cold legalities?
sook should start with a polite letter (H/T, LNGR) that does not admit fault and requests a description of the offense. In some areas these systems are only being tested, and there may not be any offense to contest. If there is, he can fight it if he wants. I probably would.
i didnt think camera enforced tickets were real citations, they were more like parking tickets and just go against your credit, not driving record. If so them dont pay
I'm not criticizing him, but the law is black and white. The law says you must come to a complete stop first at a red light or stop sign. I personally would like to rewrite the law and change most stop signs with yield signs, and treat red lights as a yield sign, but it does means stop. Not yield.Think of the poster. This happened to a guy we kinda know online. Are you all about the cold legalities?
sook should start with a polite letter (H/T, LNGR) that does not admit fault and requests a description of the offense. In some areas these systems are only being tested, and there may not be any offense to contest. If there is, he can fight it if he wants. I probably would.
The question remains. Was it a complete stop, or was the camera set up wrong.
Sook...
Before your court date, get the calibration information of the camera. Also, I don't know how it works, but the accused has the right to face their accuser. This does make photo enforcement difficult when done right. Others may have ideas about this.
It doesn't matter if Sook came to a complete stop, what was illegal was the right turn at a red, not the possible coasting through it.
What's at issue WC, isn't the legal conduct of America's citizenry and/or Sook, it's the electronic surveillance of said conduct.
There are lawyers that specialize in this sort of thing. If there is a citation based on electronically recorded information, questions about maintenance would seem to be germane.
This isn't a bad recommendation at all, WC.
Sure. The extent to which people don't even care about this anymore appalls me.
WC, apparently, not so much.
In my experience, parking tickets are citations too.
I understand what you are saying and want to agree, but we shouldn't ignore the parts of law we don't like and expect no repercussions. Are we a nation of laws, or anarchy?
When's the last time you got high WC?
I agree that we're a nation of laws. I agree that people should accept responsibility for their illegal behavior if they're caught. I don't agree that we should be using computers and cameras to catch people... Unless there's a living person on the other end of them.
It doesn't bother me to monitor public places. Why should it bother anyone? If you are doing something not to be seen, do it in the privacy or your home.
April.
With every city in America facing budget crunches you can bet that ticket collections are going to be taken more seriously.
Ay, carnal!
It's because they're not you!
The way I see it, a camera should be no different than a stranger walking down the street. If you do something wring, you could get reported.Ay, carnal!
It's because they're not you!
Ok no it wasn't a "Complete" stop but it was pretty darn close, a bit of a roll but this is ing unfair!
I'm not paying a $150 ticket, thats like 17 hours of work I'm using to ing pay for college not throw out the door because a ing camera took a picture.
I will call them and try to remain as polite as possible...but tihs isn't right!
40 years from now people will get public indecency tickets because they took a piss on the side of the road a camera happened to catch.
6th amendment gives you the right to face your accuser. However, I have heard an urban legal legend that this exact issue has been raised with the camera tickets and was unsuccessful. I would go and see a traffic lawyer, they might be able to give you some sound advice for $150-200.
This happens more often then you would think in parking garages.
I guess WC would like it in Britain. They have cameras EVERYWHERE.
They have cameras hidden in "decoy" trashcans in alleys to see who is putting their trash out on the wrong days.
the average person in London is filmed 300 times a day.
They need to upgrade to video. A still photo is insulting.
That's where they get you. If you have to get a lawyer, it becomes more expensive to fight it.
Losers pay anyone?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
