I'm reminded on a daily basis why I'm glad I don't live in Seattle.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_xgr_speeding_cameras.html

How do the cameras know who's driving the vehicle?

What if someone loans their car to someone else for the day?

It's probably like the red light cameras. I read that you can sign a document attesting that you weren't the driver.

Huh.

You'd obviously perjur yourself if you lied and signed the form, but who is gonna check to see that those who do the sign the form really did not drive the vehicle?

Seems to me *everyone* should just sign the form.

"Nope. Wasn't me. Must have been the ghost of my dead grandmother. Gimme that form to sign...."

Now, if the camera takes a peekture of your face, that's a different story. Although, I bet a lot of driver start wearing low-brimmed hats!

Sure hope it's shot down. Seems pretty retarded to me.

Ski mask

Im really beginning to hate this state.

I think that legally these cameras have some real problems. First of all, who are they going to send the ticket to if there are two names on the registration? My name comes before my wife's so I guess I can get a ticket, but she can't?

Second, because you are considered guilty if you don't sign the affidavit, shouldn't they have to guarantee delivery? I question the fact that they can send the ticket and assume you got it, to the point of putting it on your credit, but you have to prove that you sent them a response. I had this happen with a parking ticket. I sent in a response asking for a court date, they sent it to collections, claiming I didn't respond. Any form of legal notice should have to have proof of notification.

Third, what happens when an officer going home in a company car gets one of these tickets. I asked the lakewood department this about the school zone tickets and was told they get a chance to explain and if they can't they get a letter of repremand. Great. We get a ticket for several hundred and they get told not to do it. Sounds like it is all about protection to me. I think that a case be made under the RICO act on this one. Sure it is minor, but what gives the department the right to not hold themselves accountable to the law when a clear violation is present? When it is a policy, I think they are really putting themselves at risk. Sure it is only a ticket, but what if they expanded this to shoplifting, prostitution, spousal abuse, drunk driving, or other offenses and put it into written policy

I truely hate this type of law. If you are willing to perjure yourself, you go home scott-free with no chance of reprecussions. If you are actually honest, then you get screwed. Sounds like just the type of message the government should be sending out.

If you're a Republican who thinks the Homeland Security Act is just fine and dandy, then quit your bitchin'...if you don't speed, you can't get caught by the camera, so the camera must magically be legal.

Fish on...

Todd

My wife got a camera-generated ticket in the mail because her name was on the registration...... daughter was driving......ticket dropped without having to go to court. Answer your questions?

Todd, which party promotes the Big-Brother-Will-Take-Care-of-You aspect more? Actually this question is probably left to a new topic. Go ahead, Todd, put 'er up.

I don't see this plan as being any different than the red light cameras. Unlike the dead proposal for DUI checkpoints, I don't see how speeding cameras violate any civil rights - no unreasonable search and seizure or stopping without probably cause. I don't have any expectation that I can exceed the speed limit without some risk of being stopped and ticketed. I'm not seeing any stretch of the concept to photographed speeding and ticketed. Is there a freedom or civil right that this concept violates?

As far as not being the one driving my car, if my car is photographed speeding, I sure as heck better know who was driving if it wasn't me.

No more so than cameras every where filming every thing. Or bodily fluid testing. Or being required to carry and produce I.D. when asked. Just more of big brother protecting us from ourselves and making a buck out of it to boot. Some day when we all have a chip implant they'll be able to set up jay walking cameras too. Gotcha chip number 2347642132345.

Stlhead,

Your examples differ fundamentally because they violate civil liberties with invasion of privacy, unreasonable search without probably cause. I would be hard pressed to say that the 9th Amendment (since the 4th doesn't either) prohibits my being caught running red lights or speeding by use of technology instead of police manpower.

Aunty,

Yeah, potentially a slippery slope. Consider for a moment, the constructioin site is private property, so a camera can only be installed by a private party, like me, to keep an eye on my contractor. River cameras might be a darn good idea if they weren't impractical. It remains my expectation for some privacy in a restroom.

I was looking for some fundamental element of violation of a civil liberty. Cameras are an extension of the long arm of the law, sort of like speed guns used by police, much more efficient than following and pacing each speeder on the road. If I had an expectation that I should be able to run red lights and speed on the highway without risk, then I'd see the logical reason to oppose these. I gotta' believe the reason for using these mechanisms is because they're more cost effective than hiring more police, which we already know the public is loathe to pay for more of. If this doesn't violate civil rights, then how is this a bad thing, other than the slippery slope argument?

Sg

It's a bad thing because we would actually get caught speeding now


Or at least that is really the only argument some have made.

I've heard that they have used video cameras to film poachers in Oregon.

Please remember, Greg Nickels and the city council want these for your safety!
They have your best interest at heart to protect you from yourself.

Over one million dollars in fine revenue has already been generated by the four red light cameras installed in Seattle. That type of revenue stream has no influence on the speed camera decision

Smile when they take your picture.

"Stlhead,

Your examples differ fundamentally because they violate civil liberties with invasion of privacy, unreasonable search without probably cause. I would be hard pressed to say that the 9th Amendment (since the 4th doesn't either) prohibits my being caught running red lights or speeding by use of technology instead of police manpower"

Salmo, if they are violations of civil liberties why are they done today? One brick at a time and we sheep will gradually give it all away. Is catching dangerous speeders a bad thing? No. But if they set it to 5 mph over are you catching dangerous speeders or just trying to generate revenue? I think the latter is behind this.

Salmo,
I don't tthink they are unconstitutional on the face of the law, but the implementation is.
1st Until I am convinced that an outside company is sending these tickets to everyone, regardless of whether they are the mayor, in a firetruck, policecar, or ambulance, then I will be wary. If it is easy for me to deal with a ticket that was not mine, then it should be easy enough for an officer to explain whether he was on duty or going to a call.
2nd. By not sending the tickets certified mail, there is no way to proove delivery to the person accused of driving. What happens if a husband seperates from this wife, but her car is still registrated in both names. His is first, so he gets all the tickets,in his name, mailed to his past residence, which she promptly throws away. By the time he figures out what has happened, his license is suspended, the fines in collection, and he has to fight to clear them. Even if he was the driver, it seems questionable to hold someone liable when there is no proof of delivery. There are standard requirements for legal notification, which I do not think the state follows in these cases. So I guess the question is, is this a bill or an legal infraction. I think that their actions indicate they legally feel it is a bill.
3rd. Because the ticket is mailed a period of time after the infraction, it puts a burden on a party to remember if he was going 5 miles an hour down a hill 20 or more days after the fact. Can anyone here swear to the fact they didn't speed a little sometime 3 weeks ago? Any miscalculation will go effectively unchecked. I saw a flash from one of the red light cameras on a car that was turning right on a red light.
4. What about company vehicles?
If this really gets going, I might just register my car in my wife's name only and her car in my name only. Problem solved.

Did you guys see on the news last night some soldier in Irag is getting tickets here in the US. Someone is driving his car and he is out of the country, too funny.

Dave D,
I saw a story a few weeks ago similar to the one you mentioned. They interviewed a soldiers dad. His son is stationed in Iraq and his car is in storage, yet he received three red light tickets. The soldiers car was black, yet the car in the red light photoswas silver.
When the officers were reviewing the photos of the license numbers, they kept reading a "D" as a "O". Thus the wrong person got three tickets.
The reporter tracked down the owner of the silver car and he admitted it was his vehicle running the lights in the photos.
You would think they would look up the registration to match the car type and color before issuing a citation to the wrong person.

My company just received a citation from Lynnwood for one of our service vehicles. The ticket and remit payment address is from a company in Arizona.