RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!!

RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 9:16:57 AM)
mstrsspassion, while i agree whole heartadely, we are talking about a situation where there is no officer involved. and in my state, u either pay the ticket, or they will take your liscence. regardless whether you were the driver or not :(

UtopianRanger -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 9:28:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen So is the OP whingeing about getting caught breaking the law, or about having to pay a fine for breaking the law? HAR HAR HAR!!!! I would expect nothing less from someone born of a society that has been fully indoctrinated to accept /embrace such an invasive disposition. Tell ya something brother….. I like the feeling of being out late at night in a seedy /dangerous part of San Francisco / Portland where an opportunity exists for some junky, bum-fuck heroin-user to think he can scare me into giving him my roll of Franklin’s because he has a knife or some other weapon. Nah bra….. I don’t need Rudy Giuliani or close circuit television to save the day…. I like my privacy and the potential danger that lurks on the streets late at night. I wanna live free without cameras...... - R

dragone -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 9:46:33 AM)
Hey Lady; no arguement from me; you are absolutely correct. Years ago, they did not call it a Fine, right off. They called it 'bail'. Now this is it: you are ticketed, and you see the judge, he sets the 'bail' at the rate imposed as 'fine', you go to the clerk, pay the 'bail', it is entered as 'Fine' paid, and off you go, to commit yet another violation. Now, paying the 'fine' you admit to guilt. Now, signing the ticket, you are assuring you will not flee prosecution of the violation, and since you signed the ticket, you admit guilt. Refusal to sign, you are ressisting arrest, then arrested for refusal to sign, your vehicle is towed and impounded; and you are booked for resisted arrest, spend time in lock-down, call your attorney if you have one, if not the court appoints one for you, you see the judge, and have a multitude of transgressions logged to you, you may be released, then you have to explain to your boss why you did not come to work, may be fired, meanwhile, the bills you accumulated while your stay at Hotel-State; are overdue, and lets not forget the towing and impound fees, no pay, no vehicle, storage fees accumulate. You appear in court, the officer is present, if you lose, which you are almost certain to lose, you pay the fine imposed, plus court costs and the officer's salary for that day, your attorney fees, and don't forget, traffic school costs. So, my advice to the OP would be, pay up, and shut up. Why burden us with his arrogance, evidently he doesn't think the laws apply to him. HOWEVER, the thread did provide some good conversation, good food for thought. Oh, one more thing: now there are 'Volunteer Police'...these guys, are usually retired citizens, two to a vehicle,on social security, they use their own vehicle, dress in the dayglow green, and black pants, carry no weapon, are equipped with radio dispatch. They have the right to ticket violators, just as any policeman has, what they do, is roam the parking lots, locate a violation, PHOTOGRAPH the vehicle , from all four sides, and thusly deposit the citation onto the windshield. This is legal, and enforceable.

stef -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 9:50:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uwinceismile i am a big believer in personal responsibility. i ran a traffic light late once, and i paid my fine. 2 other times, others in my one of my vehichles did the same. why should i be held responsible for thier act? if this is whineing, then so be it. Perhaps you should consider only lending your vehicles to people who share your views on personal responsibility. If you know that "Bob" was driving your car when it got tagged by a revenue camera, why not go to him and have him step up and deal with it? If he's not the kind of guy who will do that, why are you letting him borrow your car in the first place? ~stef

dragone -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 9:52:47 AM)
The registered owner of the vehicle is always responsible for that vehicle, and the use thereof, by any other party, authorized or not.

farglebargle -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 9:52:48 AM)
How do you know the picture offered by the Camera Company hasn't just been put together in Photoshop?

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 9:57:26 AM)
i just sit here ,and shake my head ruefully,,,,and dragone....thank u for your enlightened thoughts ..rofl

dragone -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 9:57:53 AM)
Very good question Fargle; the preferance is toward the use of digital; now, digital is so easily altered, it is questionable as to authenticity; Film, ...remember film, that old worthless useless thingie...film tends to be reliable surveillance, yeilds better images and deemed acceptible in court; whereas, digital can be challenged.

SubinMaine -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 9:59:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dragone The registered owner of the vehicle is always responsible for that vehicle, and the use thereof, by any other party, authorized or not. is that really true? (being 100% serious here) example: someone's car can get stolen (unauthorized use), be used to run down a group of people and the owner of the stolen car is the one going to jail for it?

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:01:46 AM)
subinmaine, please dont confuse him with logic :( lol

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:10:07 AM)
i guess after all these years. innoscent until proven guilty was just a joke. i thought the burden was on the state to prove my gulit, not just assume it by taking a pic of a vehichle, and sending a pic for payment??? what the hell was i thinking?

Alumbrado -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:13:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SubinMaine quote: ORIGINAL: dragone The registered owner of the vehicle is always responsible for that vehicle, and the use thereof, by any other party, authorized or not. is that really true? (being 100% serious here) example: someone's car can get stolen (unauthorized use), be used to run down a group of people and the owner of the stolen car is the one going to jail for it? Shades of gray... General rule of thumb is that just claiming that you weren't driving is not sufficient to get you off the hook with many judges. If the unauthorized user is your roomate or SO, and you claim that they didn't have permission, you could still be on the hook. If you left the car running and open, you could be on the hook. If there is a police report well before the incident, and the car was broken into and punched, you will probably not be liable

stef -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:30:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uwinceismile i guess after all these years. innoscent until proven guilty was just a joke. There's a joke here, but that's not it. The presumption of innocence only applies in criminal proceedings. Traffic fines are a civil matter. ~stef

Alumbrado -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:38:29 AM)
Not quite accurate... a court proceeding where a person's liberty or property are subject to forfeit, triggers Constitutional protections. There is some exception for lesser traffic offenses under a certain dollar amount, but move up to DUI or other more serious traffic offenses, and you will have all of your rights, just as a criminal defendant.

SubinMaine -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:38:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Shades of gray... General rule of thumb is that just claiming that you weren't driving is not sufficient to get you off the hook with many judges. If the unauthorized user is your roomate or SO, and you claim that they didn't have permission, you could still be on the hook. If you left the car running and open, you could be on the hook. If there is a police report well before the incident, and the car was broken into and punched, you will probably not be liable k...that makes more sense.

uwinceismile -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:39:10 AM)
well, u may be correct stef,but i still think its sux [&o]..... and please feel free to let me in on the joke

UtopianRanger -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:43:42 AM)
quote: I suppose you've read, as everyone has, and seen the film 1984, Geo. Orwell. In one film, with Richard Burton, our haggered hero John Hurt, is given a task to decipher a suspected subversive book. In the end, you find out, the inspector general wrote the book, not that he was a subversive, no, quite the contrary. Orwell used the old proven fascist mode of rule, create the chaos, then bring the solution to the chaos; there was a screen play years ago with Eddie Albert, basically a three actor play, mostly set in one room. Therein, Albert is confronted with this mirror, which actually is a surveillance monitor, and no where in the room was there any private unseen location, once Albert moves to a location outside of the view of the monitor, and is cautioned to return back to view. It's worth rethinking the 'predictions' of Orwell, more than just a writer, he was a prophet. Dear Wudy….. I hope you become our next President ; so on your first day you can sign an executive order making it mandatory for every city with a population over 50k to have a minimum of five-hundred high-resolution cameras placed through out the city to act as deterrent against that six-foot-six guy with a long beard and filthy-looking pajamas, who’s up holed-up in a cave with a laptop---purchased from Wal-Mart ---plotting another catastrophic terror attack on America because he /they don’t like our freedoms. Please Wudy…..you and that other bald-headed ghoul from Homeland Security are the only ones who can save us poor stupid prols….. please Wudy!! please Wudy…. help us!!! - R

stef -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:46:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Not quite accurate... a court proceeding where a person's liberty or property are subject to forfeit, triggers Constitutional protections. There is some exception for lesser traffic offenses under a certain dollar amount, but move up to DUI or other more serious traffic offenses, and you will have all of your rights, just as a criminal defendant. DUI and the like aren't traffic offenses, they're filed in criminal court where the constitutional protections kick in. In this case, they do not. ~stef

stef -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:53:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uwinceismile well, u may be correct stef,but i still think its sux [&o]..... Yes, it still sucks. So what about my previous post? Where is "Bob" and what's he going to do about this? ~stef

dragone -> RE: omg!!! TRAFIIC CAMERAS SUCK!!! (7/5/2007 10:59:13 AM)
No, no, no, that's not what I meant, in the senario you cite. If your car is stolen, etc, etc,; you discover it gone, immediately, upon discovery you report to the police, of course you are not going to be hauled away. If you don't know, it's gone, someone does, the nasty, you are the responsible party of the vehicle. The vehicle registration will show who is the owner, and the police will come to your house, no matter what time it is; and you will have to explain where you were, how, why, the whole thing, your story. Let us excerise reason here. Gee, I didn't mean to implie that you are the one to be locked away. No, you are the registered owner, responsible for the vehicle, always. Lend it to someone, as simely says he did, you pay the fine, if the other person dosn't show up. I had it happen to me. I was cited, from california, and extradition papers were being processed, and I was ordered to court. Now; here is the situation; someone stole my driver's license, rented a car, and committed a crime, the car was illegally parked, abandoned, and booted; then upon being towed and impounded, the owner's were notified, and the records showed I had rented the car, which I did not, I wasn't even in the state at the time, and the license theft was reported, hell this happened almost a year after the reported loss. What ever else this guy was doing, god, I shutter to imagine. When you rent a car, you become the responsible party, with the rental company for the use of that vehicle; same as if you own the vehicle. Please, please, use some common sense here. For the most part, the laws we live under are basically resonable, however, in this time of 'every one a terrorist', under suspect, best course of action is to be as clean as possible.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875