California cities have red light camera ticket quota

[buckthesystem]

You always complain about this kind of stuff BTS but as I've said before, until you put on a uniform yourself and put yourselves in their shoes, you need to tone it down! Is your goal to live in anarchy?

Isn't there a rule about no personal insults? You can't have a rational discussion about something when you're view is coloured by emotion and nothing else.

[Guest LadyC]

i didn't see her insult you. i saw her ask you a question and suggest you tone it down.

[healingoil]

Thanks, LadyC.

Isn't there a rule about no personal insults?

Where did I insult you? I asked you a question and I think it is a fair one considering the constant nagging you do when it comes to anything government/law enforcement. If you don't want to answer it, just say so.

You can't have a rational discussion about something when you're view is coloured by emotion and nothing else.

Ummm, I'm just calling you out because you seem to have no problems bashing a profession that you've never had to work yourself. I happen to be married to one and I do know about all of the hardships they have to deal with, so yeah, it irks me when people sit so comfortably on the sidelines and do nothing but complain when it's those men and women that are keeping your streets safe.

[JustinM]

I was extorted for $120.00 for running through a stop sign that I stopped at. The way the intersection was set up, is that if I were heading northbound, the western end of the intersection had a major blindspot (a hill), that blocked my vehicle and the white line that I am supposed to stop at, from the view of the state trooper. It was his word against mine and, when I pleaded not guilty, I had a trial with 4 other people that got the same citation for the same offense at the same intersection from the same state trooper. Their tickets were thrown out, mine was not, because I was stopped at night time, and the state trooper claimed that he could see my headlights and they didn't stop. But, there was a vehicle in front of me and behind me, so, I believe it had more to do with my age than anything. I was 19 at the time. Well, I filed a formal complaint against the state trooper and he wasn't allowed to monitor traffic from that intersection anymore, it was clear that he was corrupt and extorting, innocent law abiding citizens.

So, I guess my point is, sometimes you can't even trust the law enforcement to do the right thing, so why would we give them that much authority and not have checks and balances to prevent corruption?

[buckthesystem]

Thanks, LadyC.

Isn't there a rule about no personal insults?

Where did I insult you? I asked you a question and I think it is a fair one considering the constant nagging you do when it comes to anything government/law enforcement. If you don't want to answer it, just say so.

You can't have a rational discussion about something when you're view is coloured by emotion and nothing else.

Ummm, I'm just calling you out because you seem to have no problems bashing a profession that you've never had to work yourself. I happen to be married to one and I do know about all of the hardships they have to deal with, so yeah, it irks me when people sit so comfortably on the sidelines and do nothing but complain when it's those men and women that are keeping your streets safe.

You mean this question: " Is your goal to live in anarchy?" I didn't take that as a real question, because it is such a weird thing to say. I thought you were just being facetious, as nobody could actually be asking someone if they were an anarchist if they KNEW they weren't.

I have said many, many times on these boards that I do NOT want an anarchial society. I cannot abide big government, government that exists only to increase its bloated bureaucracy, and is forever seeking new ways of taking money from people so that it can feed its many parasites that are disguised as "government employees". Now don't misinterpret, I meant only that government needs about 30% of the workers that it has. And it tends to be top heavy, everybody wants to call themselves a "manager" or something similar and I believe that government needs a higher percentage of "hands-on" workers.

I read somewhere that in America (probably like the rest of the world) about 40% of the working population work for the government in one way or another.

I also have a real obsession with HONESTY and DISHONESTY. And this is all about STEALING from the motorist. They are extorting money from motorists when they have no evidence of wrong doing and hoping that he will not notice and just pay up - well even you must see how dishonest that is.

The libertarian in me tells me that it is dishonest to "fine" (or penalise in any way) a VICTIMLESS CRIME anyway, and that is just what this is. That is what most motoring offences are really. It is a whole other story when someone hits another car or a pedestrian with their car, or causes a traffic accident to happen, but disobeying an arbitrary rule - such as a speed limit or not wearing a seatbelt - hurts no one, it is just designed to "line the coffers" of government.

And if you are going to say "oh, but POTENTIALLY it may hurt someone", well the answer to that is: That's just what it is - potential, nothing more!

[healingoil]

I was extorted for $120.00 for running through a stop sign that I stopped at. The way the intersection was set up, is that if I were heading northbound, the western end of the intersection had a major blindspot (a hill), that blocked my vehicle and the white line that I am supposed to stop at, from the view of the state trooper. It was his word against mine and, when I pleaded not guilty, I had a trial with 4 other people that got the same citation for the same offense at the same intersection from the same state trooper. Their tickets were thrown out, mine was not, because I was stopped at night time, and the state trooper claimed that he could see my headlights and they didn't stop. But, there was a vehicle in front of me and behind me, so, I believe it had more to do with my age than anything. I was 19 at the time. Well, I filed a formal complaint against the state trooper and he wasn't allowed to monitor traffic from that intersection anymore, it was clear that he was corrupt and extorting, innocent law abiding citizens.

So, I guess my point is, sometimes you can't even trust the law enforcement to do the right thing, so why would we give them that much authority and not have checks and balances to prevent corruption?

It is unfortunate, but as with any job there are usually always going to be a few bad apples. My point to BTS is, that doesn't mean you take the approach of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Out here in California an officer can spend his whole shift dealing with one violation after another. In fact, CHP will deal with two pullovers at once if they have to. So, when it comes time to fight a ticket, it is nothing personal but what he saw and then dealt with it in a way that seemed right at the time. I NEVER hear anything about quota and in fact to them, that has become "the joke". Believe it or not, it is enough for them to get reckless drivers to think twice. Because of that, they welcome these cameras because in that sense you are right Justin, it takes a bit of a hand from big brotherin this day and age, unfortunately.

Thanks, LadyC.

Isn't there a rule about no personal insults?

Where did I insult you? I asked you a question and I think it is a fair one considering the constant nagging you do when it comes to anything government/law enforcement. If you don't want to answer it, just say so.

You can't have a rational discussion about something when you're view is coloured by emotion and nothing else.

Ummm, I'm just calling you out because you seem to have no problems bashing a profession that you've never had to work yourself. I happen to be married to one and I do know about all of the hardships they have to deal with, so yeah, it irks me when people sit so comfortably on the sidelines and do nothing but complain when it's those men and women that are keeping your streets safe.

You mean this question: " Is your goal to live in anarchy?" I didn't take that as a real question, because it is such a weird thing to say. I thought you were just being facetious, as nobody could actually be asking someone if they were an anarchist if they KNEW they weren't.

I have said many, many times on these boards that I do NOT want an anarchial society. I cannot abide big government, government that exists only to increase its bloated bureaucracy, and is forever seeking new ways of taking money from people so that it can feed its many parasites that are disguised as "government employees". Now don't misinterpret, I meant only that government needs about 30% of the workers that it has. And it tends to be top heavy, everybody wants to call themselves a "manager" or something similar and I believe that government needs a higher percentage of "hands-on" workers.

I read somewhere that in America (probably like the rest of the world) about 40% of the working population work for the government in one way or another.

I also have a real obsession with HONESTY and DISHONESTY. And this is all about STEALING from the motorist. They are extorting money from motorists when they have no evidence of wrong doing and hoping that he will not notice and just pay up - well even you must see how dishonest that is.

The libertarian in me tells me that it is dishonest to "fine" (or penalise in any way) a VICTIMLESS CRIME anyway, and that is just what this is. That is what most motoring offences are really. It is a whole other story when someone hits another car or a pedestrian with their car, or causes a traffic accident to happen, but disobeying an arbitrary rule - such as a speed limit or not wearing a seatbelt - hurts no one, it is just designed to "line the coffers" of government.

And if you are going to say "oh, but POTENTIALLY it may hurt someone", well the answer to that is: That's just what it is - potential, nothing more!

First, what I put in bold begs to ask the question, why have you said it many, many times? Perhaps because you are defending yourself in the way you come across to other people?

There is not nor will there ever be a "perfect" system. Why? People are not perfect.

Believe me, I understand your grip when it comes to government! One of my favorite sayings from Reagan is "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives".

Ahh, but there is that word protect. Well, guess what law enforcements main objective is? There are sayings such as "noodle legs" and "red asphalt" that beg to differ when it comes to telling motorists speed shouldn't matter. While the seat belt law only affects the individual who makes the choice not to wear it, speed affects anyone involved in an accident because of it.

[buckthesystem]

Hey People you have fallen for the oldest "trick in the book", "make out that this is really about traffic violations", and you are talking about how good or bad people drive in California.

The point is that this is incredibly dishonest! They are STEALING from the motorist! There's no other word for it!

The California government - or any government for that matter - doesn't care at all about how people drive. In fact if motorists suddenly stopped committing any violations at all, overnight, and became perfect drivers, this would be the worst thing that could happen as far as the state government is concerned.

They simply couldn't do without all that "lovely extorted money" and would be reduced to picking on (say) every 10th car and demanding a fine from the driver for having his car painted the wrong colour or something.

This could be justified, if ever challenged, by saying "we've got to pay for these machines somehow".

wow. just wow. this totally amazes me, even from you.

it's dishonest to ticket people for running red lights, or for driving 90-to-nothing on a 45mph street? please tell me i'm reading you wrong.

i know you don't have much appreciation for government, and in some cases, i agree with you. but do you think total anarchy would be better? why do you consider it extortion to fine people for breaking laws? it's not as if those same people didn't AGREE to pay the fine if they committed the violation! they know the consequences, they accept the risk, and you call it stealing from them to enforce what they already agreed to?

i still think they should sent tickets 100% of the time. period. it would make people drive more safely. including myself. i would be horribly inconvenienced if i started getting camera tickets, but i would not in any way think i was being extorted. i'm willing to accept the consequences of my actions. aren't you?

driving is not a "right". it is a privilege. and no i'm not just parroting some whacked out dept. of motor vehicles spokesperson. there are responsibilities that go along with the privilege of being able to drive. and when you take that driving test, the written exam, and sign your name on the dotted line as you receive your license, you are putting your name on the line saying you understand the laws and agree to abide by them, or that you are willing to pay the penalty if you choose to do whatever you want.

I always know when you start a post with "wow" that you are going to follow it by some very refutable statement, and totally (deliberately, maybe) misconstrue a statement I have made so that you can exaggerate it as much as possible and make it sound really radical and unreasonable.

Did I say "it's dishonest to 'ticket' people for running red lights, or driving 90-to-nothing on a 45mph street"???????????

What I was saying is that it is MOST DECIDEDLY DISHONEST to extort money from people accusing them of something when you have no good evidence that they are guilty of what you have alleged!!!!! That's what the original post was about.

Also I must take issue with your use of euphemisms like "ticket" - it's not "ticketing", it is "extorting money"! And there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of person C profitting out of an a situation whereby person A's driving affects person B, or no one at all. And I sure didn't ever "agree to pay a fine" at any time in my life. Any fine I have paid has been taken from me with the threat of force. That is actually the definition of "theft", but I'm opting for the term "extortion".

As for your statement: "it would make people drive more safely. including myself. i would be horribly inconvenienced if i started getting camera tickets, but i would not in any way think i was being extorted" I guess we are not all so obsequious. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with "consequences for actions" with regard to driving badly or otherwise, the only consequences for actions are that this is the consequence for the stupid actions of people who let these "red light cameras" be used in the first place.

Now "driving is not a "right". it is a privilege. and no i'm not just parroting some whacked out dept. of motor vehicles spokesperson. there are responsibilities that go along with the privilege of being able to drive. and when you take that driving test, the written exam, and sign your name on the dotted line as you receive your license, you are putting your name on the line saying you understand the laws and agree to abide by them, or that you are willing to pay the penalty if you choose to do whatever you want." What?? Driving a privilege?? Not a right?? If you really believe that, you have been tricked big time! Somehow the state magnanimously granting citizens the privilege of something so basic as driving doesn't quite "sit right".

The supreme court, in the state of Illinois (I guess it would be much the same for any state) in 2005 ruled: "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience."

And: "The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So I guess it is a RIGHT!

After all you pay for the roads, you pay for your car, your insurance etc. etc., so what right does the government have to say that you cannot use your own property?

"Freedom of movement" has always been one of our most basic, fundamental "rights" that exist. I have heard people argue that "freedom of movement" only applies to walking or riding a horse, or a horse and dray, but we have to be real and say that today it must be "by the usual means", and what is the "usual means"? Motor vehicles of course? Our modern society demands it.

And as for "agreeing to "pay the penalty" etc. "by signing your name on the dotted line when you receive your licence", I sure didn't agree to pay any extortionate "fines" when I first received my licence. In fact I don't remember signing anything. I don't think you did in those days anyway, and I'd be surprised if they do now.

[Guest LadyC]

Also I must take issue with your use of euphemisms like "ticket" - it's not "ticketing", it is "extorting money"!

in case you missed the memo, tickets cost money. without a ticket, there is no "extortion" as you like to put it.

we have freedom of movement. sure that's a right. one can move without driving. if driving was a right, there would be no written exam, no driving test, and no laws. if it was a right, then people could not get their licenses suspended for having a history of DUI. if it was a right, then children would not have to wait til the age each state deems appropriate before being allowed a license. if it was a right, insurance would not be a requirement. try to wrap your brain around this... there are PLENTY of ways to get around in a motor vehicle without being the person behind the wheel. the priviledge of driving has nothing to do with the right to mobility, even on our highways.

it is NOT stealing to fine someone for driving recklessly. if one is not guilty and can prove it, they don't get fined. in the case of camera tickets, if the camera doesn't get a good photo of the driver and the driver can't be identified, the case gets dismissed and no money is "extorted".

i love how you always try and say things are victimless crimes. i've heard you say the same thing regarding the use of drugs. there are no victimless crimes. if someone is running a red light, there are victims. at the very least there are potential victims. i suppose you think running a red light, or speeding, or any other traffic violation, is only a crime if a pedestrian or someone in another vehicle gets mowed down by the person driving like a maniac.

my arguments are not refutable as you claim. your arguments, however, are senseless.

and yes, if you have a driver's license and signed your name on it, you agreed to obey the laws or pay the penalty.

[Guest LadyC]

by the way... 40% may indeed work for the government. that doesn't mean law enforcement. it includes doctors and nurses who work at VA hospitals. it includes the guy delivering your mail. it includes construction workers, and maintenance workers, and workers from every walk of life. it includes millions upon millions of civilians. not everyone who works for the government is a federal employee in the sense that your statistic implies.