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.

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.

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.
>

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

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

"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.

> 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.

"Hugo Schmeisser" > wrote in message
news
>
> If the politicians and the cops refrained from such sneaky tricks, I'd
> be more willing to support your view.

It would have been a sneaky trick if they hadn't posted speed limit
signs.

In article > ,
says...
>"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.

Set the limits properly and at least 85% of the drivers on the road would
not be 'pushing the enevelope' as you describe it. Then the cops could
concentrate on getting the truly dangerous drivers off the road.

>In this state, we know what the speed limits are, and many of us feel it
>is our civic duty to abide by them.

That so many in your state ignore the limtis on interstates points to
improperly set limits.

>We know how much distance we are
>supposed to maintain from the vehicle in front of us.

That has nothing to do with speed limits.

>This is not about politicians and their propensity to take our money and
>pee it away.

Really? Where does the money go? Does it go into fixing unsafe roads? Does
it go into better driving training? I would bet that the money does not go to
either and just goes into the general fund for the politicians to spend on
projects that they think will net them the most votes at the next election.

>It is, to me, about driving responsibly and safely.

Me too. But I also use my brain and don't blindly follow.

>And if the people can't or won't regulate themselves, then this type of
>enforcement will always be necessary.

Most folks do the right thing. Unfortunately the right thing has been made
illegal by ignorant folks setting the laws.
---------------
Alex

"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message news:e13bb7$nb5



> Set the limits properly and at least 85% of the drivers on the road would
> not be 'pushing the enevelope' as you describe it. Then the cops could
> concentrate on getting the truly dangerous drivers off the road.

*********And who will decide where they are to be set, Alex??


> >In this state, we know what the speed limits are, and many of us feel it
> >is our civic duty to abide by them.
>
> That so many in your state ignore the limtis on interstates points to
> improperly set limits.

******No, I don't think it means this at all.



> >We know how much distance we are
> >supposed to maintain from the vehicle in front of us.
>
> That has nothing to do with speed limits.

*******Actually, it has a lot to do with the speeds we drive. You worry
about getting hit from behind at a crossing light? If that driver behind
you
is maintaining the distance set forth in the traffic codes, you have little
to
worry about. If you are tailgating, then -yes- you may get creamed.


> Really? Where does the money go? Does it go into fixing unsafe roads?
Does
> it go into better driving training? I would bet that the money does not
go to
> either and just goes into the general fund for the politicians to spend on
> projects that they think will net them the most votes at the next
election.

********There will never be enough money that politicians cant spend it,
waste
it, or steal it. And I dont believe that enforcing traffic laws is about
making more
money.


> Most folks do the right thing. Unfortunately the right thing has been
made
> illegal by ignorant folks setting the laws.

*********
Some folks drive alertly, carefully, and considerately. Others dont, but
believe they
have the right to do what they wish.

I still have faith that the laws are enacted to protect the people in
general, not
to provide a money trap.

I heard one of the secretaries bitching not too long ago about getting a
ticket
on the outer loop in Houston. It is a toll road, and she thought she was
paying
to drive as fast as she wanted. It was someone else's fault they clocked
her at
over 90 mph. People like this really need to do a little stint in jail.