Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

California Senate Bill 1300 will allow automated SPEEDING ticket cameras
- also known as photo radar - to be mailed to you. It's in the state
senate right now. Presently, the bill is restricted to a pilot program
in only one town, Beverly Hills, and only in 25 mph zones. But it is
early in the session and the bill could easily be amended to include
other cities; also, there is no technical reason the cameras couldn't be
used for the enforcement of higher speed limits. A current example is
Scottsdale, Arizona, which recently installed cameras on an 8-mile
section of the 101 freeway loop. Even though there was a 30 day period
during which warning tickets were mailed out (Jan. 22 to Feb. 22), the
Mar. 31 East Valley Tribune reported that in the five weeks after Feb.
22, more than 6500 REAL tickets were issued!

The use of a pilot program ("It's just one town") as a way of getting a
foot in the door may be part of a national plan by the industry - very
similar legislation has just been passed by the Maryland legislature.
(Article at: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/922.asp)

To stop SB 1300, please call all the state legislators who represent the
districts in which you live, work, or shop. Ask them to vote "no."
Their phone numbers are in your phone book's government pages.

The auto clubs are staying neutral position on the bill, so far. If you
are an auto club member, call your club and talk to them - maybe they
will change their position, and actively oppose the bill. If the auto
clubs strongly oppose SB 1300, it will not pass. Club phone numbers are
available at: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlig....htm#autoclubs

Speak now or forever hold your peace. Now is the time to let your
elected representatives, and your auto club, know what you think.

Ed.

Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

Surely theres a Constitutional reason to ban those damn things.
Its not going to stop there.

I was one of the people to point out in big cities that the yellow times
were set shorter and in some cases set so short they were violating Federal
guidelines and yes I have been hauled into court to fight them and won.
Knowing this issue, they still set a trial so I HAD to come in or be found
guilty. They can't say this makes intersections safer because people are
getting rear-ended from stopping when they have every legal right to go
through a yellow light, even if it turns red after they get into the
intersection.

So speed cameras are next. Lovely. Search around and look at what they did
in England about those.
Find a site with pics. You'll see.

Misuse of our tax money in my opinion. Good luck California.


"Editor" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> California Senate Bill 1300 will allow automated SPEEDING ticket cameras -
> also known as photo radar - to be mailed to you. It's in the state senate
> right now. Presently, the bill is restricted to a pilot program in only
> one town, Beverly Hills, and only in 25 mph zones. But it is early in the
> session and the bill could easily be amended to include other cities;
> also, there is no technical reason the cameras couldn't be used for the
> enforcement of higher speed limits. A current example is Scottsdale,
> Arizona, which recently installed cameras on an 8-mile section of the 101
> freeway loop. Even though there was a 30 day period during which warning
> tickets were mailed out (Jan. 22 to Feb. 22), the Mar. 31 East Valley
> Tribune reported that in the five weeks after Feb. 22, more than 6500 REAL
> tickets were issued!
>
> The use of a pilot program ("It's just one town") as a way of getting a
> foot in the door may be part of a national plan by the industry - very
> similar legislation has just been passed by the Maryland legislature.
> (Article at: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/922.asp)
>
> To stop SB 1300, please call all the state legislators who represent the
> districts in which you live, work, or shop. Ask them to vote "no." Their
> phone numbers are in your phone book's government pages.
>
> The auto clubs are staying neutral position on the bill, so far. If you
> are an auto club member, call your club and talk to them - maybe they will
> change their position, and actively oppose the bill. If the auto clubs
> strongly oppose SB 1300, it will not pass. Club phone numbers are
> available at: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlig....htm#autoclubs
>
> Speak now or forever hold your peace. Now is the time to let your elected
> representatives, and your auto club, know what you think.
>
> Ed.

Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

Hold your speed down and you won't have to worry about it.

Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

I can think of a very easy solution to the problem of getting tickets
from radar triggered cameras - jus stay within the speed limit.

You did little more than list the bill and encourage people to contact
the AAA. Maybe you could take the time to tell us why you think that
enforcing an agreed upon speed limit is wrong.

Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 02:52:37 GMT, "norm" > wrote:

>Surely theres a Constitutional reason to ban those damn things.
>Its not going to stop there.
>
>I was one of the people to point out in big cities that the yellow times
>were set shorter and in some cases set so short they were violating Federal
>guidelines and yes I have been hauled into court to fight them and won.
>Knowing this issue, they still set a trial so I HAD to come in or be found
>guilty. They can't say this makes intersections safer because people are
>getting rear-ended from stopping when they have every legal right to go
>through a yellow light, even if it turns red after they get into the
>intersection.

People are getting rear-ended from stopping? No. That's a position
only a ****-poor driver would take. People get rear-ended when other
drivers are following closer than is safe. Regardless of the
conditions or surroundings, the driver of the lead vehicle should be
able to bring his/her vehicle to a complete stop as quickly as they
desire, without being hit from behind. If they are indeed hit from
behind, the driver of the following vehicle is operating that vehicle
in an unsafe manner.

Lay the blame where it belongs.



>
>So speed cameras are next. Lovely. Search around and look at what they did
>in England about those.
>Find a site with pics. You'll see.
>
>Misuse of our tax money in my opinion. Good luck California.
>

Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

In article >,
says...

>Hold your speed down and you won't have to worry about it.

If only it were that simple. You should be advocating properly set speed
limits. Then the cameras would be unecessary. Traffic would also flow
smoother and you would have less accidents. Unfortunately non of those
options puts more money in the pot for politicians to spend, so it won't
happen unless you put pressure on the politicians.
---------------
Alex

Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

> says...
>
> >Hold your speed down and you won't have to worry about it.
>
> If only it were that simple. You should be advocating properly set speed
> limits. Then the cameras would be unecessary. Traffic would also flow
> smoother and you would have less accidents. Unfortunately non of those
> options puts more money in the pot for politicians to spend, so it won't
> happen unless you put pressure on the politicians.
> ---------------
> Alex

Au contrere, Alex.
Enforcement will never be unnecessary as long as drivers consider it their
right to push the envelope and avoid the laws.

In this state, we know what the speed limits are, and many of us feel it
is our civic duty to abide by them. We know how much distance we are
supposed to maintain from the vehicle in front of us.

This is not about politicians and their propensity to take our money and
pee it away. It is, to me, about driving responsibly and safely. And if
the people can't or won't regulate themselves, then this type of enforcement
will always be necessary.

Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

In article >,
> wrote:

> Hold your speed down and you won't have to worry about it.
>
>

Ah, yes... The ever-popular "Since you say you've got nothing to hide,
you won't mind if we search your <house/car/barn/person/whatever>"
argument.

As always, it's pure bull**** and government intrusion.

Instead of hanging photo-radar rigs, the actual proper method would be
to review and re-post the posted speed limits, which are, in more than
90% of cases, I'd estimate, deliberately set low enough to generate easy
money for the local government, rather than having anything to do with
"safety".

Case in point: My route from town to home.

Posted for 45.

*OBVIOUSLY* designed and intended for 65 or higher, and *EASILY*
drivable (by anyone competent to be behind the wheel of a vehicle) in
any vehicle other than a semi at speeds above 70.

Actual traffic speed the majority of the time: Roughly 60-70MPH.

Wrecks on this stretch in the last 7 years: Two.

#1 - A drunk who apparently fell asleep at the wheel, missed a turn,
crossed the centerline, continued across the other lane, then launched
himself down the embankment to the lake, and had to be fished out as a
DOA - cause of death later found to be (surprise...) drowning, with a
BAC at the autopsy almost twice the legal limit. (I chalk this one up as
a "Darwin" - Too stupid to control your drinking? Or at least use a
designated driver? Out of the gene-pool, dumbass!)

#2 - A little old lady who hit a chain-binder, presumably dropped by one
of the logging trucks that are seen from time to time, blowing two tires
and piling her into the embankment. She walked away with scrapes and
bruises.

Speed of drunk: Unknown, but estimated at 50-60MPH from how long he was
airborne before touching down after missing the (almost perfectly banked
for 70MPH) turn. Speed of little old lady: Stated as "about 40",
estimated from skid marks and vehicle damage to be closer to 45.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

"Don Bruder" > wrote in message
...

> Ah, yes... The ever-popular "Since you say you've got nothing to hide,
> you won't mind if we search your <house/car/barn/person/whatever>"
> argument.
>
> As always, it's pure bull**** and government intrusion.


Government, to some, is an intrusion.

We were not discussing anyone searching our house, or person, or barn, or
even
car. We were talking about enforcement of posted speed limits and
intersection
laws.

If you don't like it, complain vigorously to your council, representative,
congressman,
senator, or whomever. You either live by a system of laws or you try to
survive a
condition of anarchy.

Photo radar bill in Calif - will pass if motorists say nothing
 

> wrote:

>
> "Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
>
> > says...
> >
> > > Hold your speed down and you won't have to worry about it.
> >
> > If only it were that simple. You should be advocating properly set
> > speed limits. Then the cameras would be unecessary. Traffic would
> > also flow smoother and you would have less accidents.
> > Unfortunately non of those options puts more money in the pot for
> > politicians to spend, so it won't happen unless you put pressure on
> > the politicians. ---------------
> > Alex
>
> Au contrere, Alex.
> Enforcement will never be unnecessary as long as drivers consider it
> their right to push the envelope and avoid the laws.
>
> In this state, we know what the speed limits are, and many of us feel
> it is our civic duty to abide by them. We know how much distance we
> are supposed to maintain from the vehicle in front of us.
>
> This is not about politicians and their propensity to take our money
> and pee it away. It is, to me, about driving responsibly and safely.
> And if the people can't or won't regulate themselves, then this type
> of enforcement will always be necessary.



I beg to differ. I recently recounted an instance of political
limit-setting in my province.

By the highway design director's own admission, the highway in question
was widened and upgraded to feel "natural" at about 62mph (100km/h).
They could have built it for 50, since it was well-known even before
the upgrade that the limit would be set at 50, but they were told to
make it for 62.

The limit was then set at 50mph, which it had been before the upgrade.
The cops had/have a field day nabbing people going...the design speed
of the highway!

If the politicians and the cops refrained from such sneaky tricks, I'd
be more willing to support your view.