Now I know that using videos from security cameras and ATM's has been used in American courts for a long time but how would we handle the government placing cameras specifically as a crime deterant?
I mean, do we have an expectation of privacy when walking down the street in view of the public?
That said, I expect that in more urban areas we might see similar cameras sometime in the next few years. The really fun part will be when some government agency starts to link all the different private and government cameras together to get a real-time image of any street corner or door in an area. Give the cops a whole new tool to squander. That'll be neat when it happens, no?
For an idea, look at how people have reacted to Google Streeview. People are outraged, outraged, that someone dare run a camera down a public street and catch them dealing drugs/leaving a strip club/making out with someone/being bored/etc. Whether they have a legal expectation of privacy is an interesting question (though I'm pretty sure that they don't), but it's clear that people, by-and-large, do have an expectation of privacy, whether they're entitled to said expectation or not.
That said, I expect that in more urban areas we might see similar cameras sometime in the next few years. The really fun part will be when some government agency starts to link all the different private and government cameras together to get a real-time image of any street corner or door in an area. Give the cops a whole new tool to squander. That'll be neat when it happens, no?
I can definitely see lawyers arguing the quality is too poor for identification.
The cops have done it around here because of the problem of street gangs in clubs close to where I live. They are using a loophole in the law. They can't have them up more then three months unless they judge the situation still needs another 3 months of cameras. Something along those lines. Needless to say the cameras haven'tcome down in the last 2 years.
It would probably take a lot of money for lawyers to get them down. The only ones who could afford this are the shop owners and they are happy with the cams. I hate this all Big Brother is watching you environment.
Did the crime rate go down? Did they work?
Canada is thought here to be soft on crime given their reluctance to surrender criminals that have fled our country to yours and face the death penalty here if they are returned.
Actually, that makes me wonder how Canadians feel about about American murderers running around up there.
Well as someone who lives in the UK i can honestly say I dont even notice the cameras are there. The thing that is does help with is the volume of news reporting where they can actually show the faces of the bad guys from off street cameras etc. Makes catching them a lot easier !
Awesome, I was hoping someone from the UK would chime in. That's what I thought the situation was. I imagine the people were more willing for the cameras to be put up due to the IRA bombings in the seventies and eighties.
Well as someone who lives in the UK i can honestly say I dont even notice the cameras are there. The thing that is does help with is the volume of news reporting where they can actually show the faces of the bad guys from off street cameras etc. Makes catching them a lot easier !
Awesome, I was hoping someone from the UK would chime in. That's what I thought the situation was. I imagine the people were more willing for the cameras to be put up due to the IRA bombings in the seventies and eighties.
I dont remember the cameras being around much before the 90's really. I seem to recall they were aimed at making streets safer from street crime eg muggings, gbh etc. Also a lot of cameras started off on the roads to reduce road crime e.g. speeding - now everyone in the UK despises speed cameras lol.
I dont remember the cameras being around much before the 90's really. I seem to recall they were aimed at making streets safer from street crime eg muggings, gbh etc. Also a lot of cameras started off on the roads to reduce road crime e.g. speeding - now everyone in the UK despises speed cameras lol.
Yeah I thought the cameras were newer than that, but I thought that would have been an argument in their favor. Interesting that they were first used to deter speeding. Here we're still griping over radar guns. Though I think there are cameras at toll booths.
I dont remember the cameras being around much before the 90's really. I seem to recall they were aimed at making streets safer from street crime eg muggings, gbh etc. Also a lot of cameras started off on the roads to reduce road crime e.g. speeding - now everyone in the UK despises speed cameras lol.
Yeah I thought the cameras were newer than that, but I thought that would have been an argument in their favor. Interesting that they were first used to deter speeding. Here we're still griping over radar guns. Though I think there are cameras at toll booths.
Yep the UK is covered in speed cameras. These days the really sneaky ones are the digital cameras that measure how fast you travelled between two points often 2 or 3 miles apart on a motorway. They calculate average speed and bang you get fined :-( Even worse is its all automated - camera takes image, data is sent to internet based system, system issues letter and fixed penalty notice along with your photograph.
Yep the UK is covered in speed cameras. These days the really sneaky ones are the digital cameras that measure how fast you travelled between two points often 2 or 3 miles apart on a motorway. They calculate average speed and bang you get fined :-( Even worse is its all automated - camera takes image, data is sent to internet based system, system issues letter and fixed penalty notice along with your photograph.
What happens if someone else is driving your car? As an example, if you loaned your car to someone else and they speed, do you get the ticket or is there an effort to ticket the right person?
It probably went down, and the police staying is probably to keep it down. But street gangs are made up of stupid ****s. They get pissed at anyone "insulting" them so shootings still happen.
As for American murderers, it is not a subject of the news. Really. I rarely heard about it. I do not mean this as a insult, but we are less scared of the these sort of things. They are too anecdotale to be an actual concern. From watching a lot of American news and a lot of Canadian news, we are paying a lot less attention to criminals. But this is changing. The "foxiation" of the news and medias is happening, for better or worse.
The way the news makes it sound like down here, everytime it happens its like trying to avoid an international incident or something. Lots of arguments about Canada not respecting American laws or Canada trying to influence said laws.
I know you aren't representative of your countrymen but its good to hear that it really isn't that big of deal up there.
Yep the UK is covered in speed cameras. These days the really sneaky ones are the digital cameras that measure how fast you travelled between two points often 2 or 3 miles apart on a motorway. They calculate average speed and bang you get fined :-( Even worse is its all automated - camera takes image, data is sent to internet based system, system issues letter and fixed penalty notice along with your photograph.
What happens if someone else is driving your car? As an example, if you loaned your car to someone else and they speed, do you get the ticket or is there an effort to ticket the right person?
If its a digital camera then the photograph includes the face of the driver as the image is from the front. In this case its down to you as the owner to inform the police who the driver is unless the car had been stolen. Failure to name the driver is also a criminal offence.
Ifs its traditional speed camera which takes the image from the rear of the car then you as the owner are subject to the fine and/or prosecution unless again you can prove the car was stolen and more importantly had been reported as such. In the UK we pay a road tax annually that tags you to the car if you dont keep the data updated you are also subject to a fixed penalty of £80 ($110)
If its a digital camera then the photograph includes the face of the driver as the image is from the front. In this case its down to you as the owner to inform the police who the driver is unless the car had been stolen. Failure to name the driver is also a criminal offence.
Ifs its traditional speed camera which takes the image from the rear of the car then you as the owner are subject to the fine and/or prosecution unless again you can prove the car was stolen and more importantly had been reported as such. In the UK we pay a road tax annually that tags you to the car if you dont keep the data updated you are also subject to a fixed penalty of £80 ($110)
I see, that makes sense. We have a similar system here as far as road taxes. We have to renew our liscence plates every year signified by a sticker that goes on the plate its self. If you don't renew the plate the fine is about the same too.
Computer cameras.
Phone cameras.
ATM cameras.
Hell, even stuff that wasn't meant to be a camera. Like retinal scanners.
So, at least the popo doesn't see you "Free Willy" in the comfort of your own home.
In my modern fansty/horror game there's a self-aware self writing/altering computer virus with a soul that has infected every last electronic device connected to any other electronic device and likes to watch humanity and mimic it. And one way it does is by using every camera to see everything.
Computer cameras.
Phone cameras.
ATM cameras.
Hell, even stuff that wasn't meant to be a camera. Like retinal scanners.
So, at least the popo doesn't see you "Free Willy" in the comfort of your own home.
Wasn't there a film based around this idea about 15 years or so ago ?
In my modern fansty/horror game there's a self-aware self writing/altering computer virus with a soul that has infected every last electronic device connected to any other electronic device and likes to watch humanity and mimic it. And one way it does is by using every camera to see everything.
Computer cameras.
Phone cameras.
ATM cameras.
Hell, even stuff that wasn't meant to be a camera. Like retinal scanners.
So, at least the popo doesn't see you "Free Willy" in the comfort of your own home.
Wasn't there a film based around this idea about 15 years or so ago ?
Did the virus want to integrate itself in normal human society (and for once, not exterminate all the fleshbags)?
I honestly cant remember. I just seem to recall it being able to watch everything and anyone.
P.S. The X-Virus knows what you did. And he is disappoint.
I honestly cant remember. I just seem to recall it being able to watch everything and anyone.
P.S. The X-Virus knows what you did. And he is disappoint.
I think he's talking about eagle eye....and narlyathotep is laaaame :-p
I think he's talking about eagle eye...
That would be incorrect unless Dargurd mis-characterised the age of the movie.
Sfar as I'm concerend they should put up more, and increase the fine as well.
I think he's talking about eagle eye...
That would be incorrect unless Dargurd mis-characterised the age of the movie.
right thats what I was thinking
Sounds like the speed-cams in the UK work about the same as the ones here. I don't really get why people are "outraged" over them, considering they'll only notice them when they're speeding and then it's their own fault they got tagged.
Sfar as I'm concerend they should put up more, and increase the fine as well.
I'm not sure how it works in Europe, but here in Florida, the cameras are put up and maintained by private companies. They do it on behalf of the city that they are in, and the company pays a portion of the money that is collected from people running red lights or speeding. The thing is, the company turns over a very small amount of money. I heard in one place, the city was actually only getting about $2 - $4 from each citation. The average citation being about $120.
Some people have a problem with a private company having the power to enforce laws.
Yeah I can imagine how that might be an issue. As far as I know down here the money goes directly to the government. But people are still crying foul instead of just slowing down and driving responsibly.
Another issue, which as far as I know has been remedied, is that getting tickets for running a red light would get points added to your licence. each time you got points, your insurance would go up, and when it came time to renew your insurance, some people had a hard time finding insurance companies that would want to cover them.
The thing is, in order to get point added to your licence, the violation has to be witnessed by a police officer. When you were issued a citation from this private company, you had points added to you licence. There were lawsuits filed and complaints made and at least around here you no longer get points added to you licence.
Then you have he issue getting a citation issued when you weren't the one driving the car. It puts you in a real bad spot having to rat your family and friends if one of them was the one running the light or speeding.
As for the bad spot... it's not so bad. You don't need to rat them out, you just need to tell them to give you back the money of the fine. Just pay it yourself and have them give you the money back if you don't want to rat them out.
It's a bit of a trust-thing as well... if I had a car I'm not going to lend it to someone I know is a reckless driver, family/friend or not.
I do know that you can't points for getting flashed by a camera here (although the points aren't for insurance; if you get too many you simply have your license revoked, works much better), only when you actually get caught by an officer.
As for the bad spot... it's not so bad. You don't need to rat them out, you just need to tell them to give you back the money of the fine. Just pay it yourself and have them give you the money back if you don't want to rat them out.
It's a bit of a trust-thing as well... if I had a car I'm not going to lend it to someone I know is a reckless driver, family/friend or not.
After a certain number of points you get your licence suspended here also. It just gets more painful by the point. Your insurance goes up and then you loose you licence. Which isn't bad if it is happening to people that drive recklessly.
The funny thing is, people believe that you have to tell the courts who was driving your car when the citation was issued. I was listening to some lawyer on some radio show (NPR I think) who said that you are not required by law to tell on the person who was driving the car. He also mentioned that as long as it can't be proven that it was you who was driving the car, they can't give you the citation. According to him you could drive around wearing a gorilla mask and as long as they can't prove it was you driving, you can't get the citation.
I'm thinking of driving around with a fake bear and glasses. The city I'm in just passed a law to put up those cameras.
I don't agree with the gorilla mask thing though, sfar as I'm concerned, if your car gets flashed then you pay, unless you can show that it wasn't you driving it. Since it belongs to you, you are responsible for keeping it safe. Since it's activated by keys that you can keep on you, it shouldn't be too hard to keep it safe, so any dangerous acts committed by the vehicle are your responsibility (unless it was reported stolen or something like that)
Yeah I think they should be pretty easy on taking people's licenses if they've proven they can't be trusted with them. Cars are dangerous tools and should be treated with care.
I don't agree with the gorilla mask thing though, sfar as I'm concerned, if your car gets flashed then you pay, unless you can show that it wasn't you driving it. Since it belongs to you, you are responsible for keeping it safe. Since it's activated by keys that you can keep on you, it shouldn't be too hard to keep it safe, so any dangerous acts committed by the vehicle are your responsibility (unless it was reported stolen or something like that)
Fortunately we have the whole thing about innocent until proven guilty. You may have allowed a friend to drive your car and he/she may have been speeding. The picture could have been obscured by the visor or maybe the person looked the other way. I think it would be unfair to give you a citation when it wasn't you driving. You may not be able to identify the person driving either. You may even share your car with several people in your house and might not be sure who it was that was driving that day at that time.
I'd rather pay an unjust fine once per year over being afraid to drive because people with fake beards are driving like ****s, myself. But maybe that's just me...
If you give control of your car to someone else, then either they take responsibilty (by letting you and the authorities know they were driving) or the responsibility falls back on you as the owner who lent the vehicle to someone irresonsible.
Yeah, in any of such cases who exactly pays the money should be dealt with internally, as long as the fine is paid. Thing is that if everyone starts driving around with fake beards and glasses then they can just start driving recklessly again because nobody can prove anything, and we'll be back to square one.
I'd rather pay an unjust fine once per year over being afraid to drive because people with fake beards are driving like ****s, myself. But maybe that's just me...
If you give control of your car to someone else, then either they take responsibilty (by letting you and the authorities know they were driving) or the responsibility falls back on you as the owner who lent the vehicle to someone irresonsible.
The problem is that if you allow a private company, like the ones that run these cameras, to give you an unfair citations and you willingly pay it, they (the private company) may be more likely to start issuing other unfair citations. These companies don't run these cameras because they want to perform their civic duty. They do s because it makes them a ton of money.
Then they can do all the other stuff I was suggesting
Well I agree with that, I 100% support removing all private companies from being allowed to uphold laws. This should be moved back to the government first and foremost.
Then they can do all the other stuff I was suggesting
You have much faith in your government.
After a certain number of points you get your licence suspended here also
Here the poster explaining the penalty and punishments for each DUI offense goes up to 8.
After a certain number of points you get your licence suspended here also
Here the poster explaining the penalty and punishments for each DUI offense goes up to 8.
Yup, DUI's usually cost you a lot. Not to mention that depending on the state, there is a huge financial cost every time you get a DUI. I've heard that it could be around $10,000.00 for a DUI. This is of course including fines, court costs, lawyer fees (maybe), and all the other fun stuff that is included.
I find it quite distressing that they give the license back enough times for it to get to 8.
Drink driving is instant ban for 2 years (minimum i think) but in theory there is no top limit. Usually, but not always accompanied by heavy fine and or jail time. Drink driving has become a real anti social thing and people will often report drinkers to the police. Often before they drive to ensure they dont !
You mistake my concern.
I find it quite distressing that they give the license back enough times for it to get to 8.
In the UK everyone starts of with 0 points on their licence. Speeding offences typically carry a point value of 3 points although a Magistrate or a Judge can impose a higher number depending on severity. e.g. driving 30 miles mph or something carries a bigger number, driving over 100mph gets you something like 9 points etc. If you reach 12 points its a 1 year ban ! Its also common for magistrarte or judges to impose instant bans for offences.
Drink driving is instant ban for 2 years (minimum i think) but in theory there is no top limit. Usually, but not always accompanied by heavy fine and or jail time. Drink driving has become a real anti social thing and people will often report drinkers to the police. Often before they drive to ensure they dont !
It's pretty much the exact same thing here. You start off with 0 points and depending on the type of violation, you are given X number of points. From my understanding, DUIs usually cause you to have your licence suspended. i'm not sure for how long. This is why attorneys usually tell their clients not to submit to road sobriety testing. The funny thing is that refusing the test carries a 1 year suspension of your licence.
Sometimes people get tickets for things they did not do intentionally. I had a friend who got stopped and given a ticket for doing 45 mph in a 30 mph area. you would think that he deserved it, except that he lives near by and always took this road to get to work. The previous day it was a 45 mph zone. It had been changed earlier that day.
I've also met someone who has had his licence suspended for life. Too many DUIs I think.
Now I know that using videos from security cameras and ATM's has been used in American courts for a long time but how would we handle the government placing cameras specifically as a crime deterant?
I mean, do we have an expectation of privacy when walking down the street in view of the public?
That said, I expect that in more urban areas we might see similar cameras sometime in the next few years. The really fun part will be when some government agency starts to link all the different private and government cameras together to get a real-time image of any street corner or door in an area. Give the cops a whole new tool to squander. That'll be neat when it happens, no?
For an idea, look at how people have reacted to Google Streeview. People are outraged, outraged, that someone dare run a camera down a public street and catch them dealing drugs/leaving a strip club/making out with someone/being bored/etc. Whether they have a legal expectation of privacy is an interesting question (though I'm pretty sure that they don't), but it's clear that people, by-and-large, do have an expectation of privacy, whether they're entitled to said expectation or not.
That said, I expect that in more urban areas we might see similar cameras sometime in the next few years. The really fun part will be when some government agency starts to link all the different private and government cameras together to get a real-time image of any street corner or door in an area. Give the cops a whole new tool to squander. That'll be neat when it happens, no?
I can definitely see lawyers arguing the quality is too poor for identification.
The cops have done it around here because of the problem of street gangs in clubs close to where I live. They are using a loophole in the law. They can't have them up more then three months unless they judge the situation still needs another 3 months of cameras. Something along those lines. Needless to say the cameras haven'tcome down in the last 2 years.
It would probably take a lot of money for lawyers to get them down. The only ones who could afford this are the shop owners and they are happy with the cams. I hate this all Big Brother is watching you environment.
Did the crime rate go down? Did they work?
Canada is thought here to be soft on crime given their reluctance to surrender criminals that have fled our country to yours and face the death penalty here if they are returned.
Actually, that makes me wonder how Canadians feel about about American murderers running around up there.
Well as someone who lives in the UK i can honestly say I dont even notice the cameras are there. The thing that is does help with is the volume of news reporting where they can actually show the faces of the bad guys from off street cameras etc. Makes catching them a lot easier !
Awesome, I was hoping someone from the UK would chime in. That's what I thought the situation was. I imagine the people were more willing for the cameras to be put up due to the IRA bombings in the seventies and eighties.
Well as someone who lives in the UK i can honestly say I dont even notice the cameras are there. The thing that is does help with is the volume of news reporting where they can actually show the faces of the bad guys from off street cameras etc. Makes catching them a lot easier !
Awesome, I was hoping someone from the UK would chime in. That's what I thought the situation was. I imagine the people were more willing for the cameras to be put up due to the IRA bombings in the seventies and eighties.
I dont remember the cameras being around much before the 90's really. I seem to recall they were aimed at making streets safer from street crime eg muggings, gbh etc. Also a lot of cameras started off on the roads to reduce road crime e.g. speeding - now everyone in the UK despises speed cameras lol.
I dont remember the cameras being around much before the 90's really. I seem to recall they were aimed at making streets safer from street crime eg muggings, gbh etc. Also a lot of cameras started off on the roads to reduce road crime e.g. speeding - now everyone in the UK despises speed cameras lol.
Yeah I thought the cameras were newer than that, but I thought that would have been an argument in their favor. Interesting that they were first used to deter speeding. Here we're still griping over radar guns. Though I think there are cameras at toll booths.
I dont remember the cameras being around much before the 90's really. I seem to recall they were aimed at making streets safer from street crime eg muggings, gbh etc. Also a lot of cameras started off on the roads to reduce road crime e.g. speeding - now everyone in the UK despises speed cameras lol.
Yeah I thought the cameras were newer than that, but I thought that would have been an argument in their favor. Interesting that they were first used to deter speeding. Here we're still griping over radar guns. Though I think there are cameras at toll booths.
Yep the UK is covered in speed cameras. These days the really sneaky ones are the digital cameras that measure how fast you travelled between two points often 2 or 3 miles apart on a motorway. They calculate average speed and bang you get fined :-( Even worse is its all automated - camera takes image, data is sent to internet based system, system issues letter and fixed penalty notice along with your photograph.
Yep the UK is covered in speed cameras. These days the really sneaky ones are the digital cameras that measure how fast you travelled between two points often 2 or 3 miles apart on a motorway. They calculate average speed and bang you get fined :-( Even worse is its all automated - camera takes image, data is sent to internet based system, system issues letter and fixed penalty notice along with your photograph.
What happens if someone else is driving your car? As an example, if you loaned your car to someone else and they speed, do you get the ticket or is there an effort to ticket the right person?
It probably went down, and the police staying is probably to keep it down. But street gangs are made up of stupid ****s. They get pissed at anyone "insulting" them so shootings still happen.
As for American murderers, it is not a subject of the news. Really. I rarely heard about it. I do not mean this as a insult, but we are less scared of the these sort of things. They are too anecdotale to be an actual concern. From watching a lot of American news and a lot of Canadian news, we are paying a lot less attention to criminals. But this is changing. The "foxiation" of the news and medias is happening, for better or worse.
The way the news makes it sound like down here, everytime it happens its like trying to avoid an international incident or something. Lots of arguments about Canada not respecting American laws or Canada trying to influence said laws.
I know you aren't representative of your countrymen but its good to hear that it really isn't that big of deal up there.
Yep the UK is covered in speed cameras. These days the really sneaky ones are the digital cameras that measure how fast you travelled between two points often 2 or 3 miles apart on a motorway. They calculate average speed and bang you get fined :-( Even worse is its all automated - camera takes image, data is sent to internet based system, system issues letter and fixed penalty notice along with your photograph.
What happens if someone else is driving your car? As an example, if you loaned your car to someone else and they speed, do you get the ticket or is there an effort to ticket the right person?
If its a digital camera then the photograph includes the face of the driver as the image is from the front. In this case its down to you as the owner to inform the police who the driver is unless the car had been stolen. Failure to name the driver is also a criminal offence.
Ifs its traditional speed camera which takes the image from the rear of the car then you as the owner are subject to the fine and/or prosecution unless again you can prove the car was stolen and more importantly had been reported as such. In the UK we pay a road tax annually that tags you to the car if you dont keep the data updated you are also subject to a fixed penalty of £80 ($110)
If its a digital camera then the photograph includes the face of the driver as the image is from the front. In this case its down to you as the owner to inform the police who the driver is unless the car had been stolen. Failure to name the driver is also a criminal offence.
Ifs its traditional speed camera which takes the image from the rear of the car then you as the owner are subject to the fine and/or prosecution unless again you can prove the car was stolen and more importantly had been reported as such. In the UK we pay a road tax annually that tags you to the car if you dont keep the data updated you are also subject to a fixed penalty of £80 ($110)
I see, that makes sense. We have a similar system here as far as road taxes. We have to renew our liscence plates every year signified by a sticker that goes on the plate its self. If you don't renew the plate the fine is about the same too.
Computer cameras.
Phone cameras.
ATM cameras.
Hell, even stuff that wasn't meant to be a camera. Like retinal scanners.
So, at least the popo doesn't see you "Free Willy" in the comfort of your own home.
In my modern fansty/horror game there's a self-aware self writing/altering computer virus with a soul that has infected every last electronic device connected to any other electronic device and likes to watch humanity and mimic it. And one way it does is by using every camera to see everything.
Computer cameras.
Phone cameras.
ATM cameras.
Hell, even stuff that wasn't meant to be a camera. Like retinal scanners.
So, at least the popo doesn't see you "Free Willy" in the comfort of your own home.
Wasn't there a film based around this idea about 15 years or so ago ?
In my modern fansty/horror game there's a self-aware self writing/altering computer virus with a soul that has infected every last electronic device connected to any other electronic device and likes to watch humanity and mimic it. And one way it does is by using every camera to see everything.
Computer cameras.
Phone cameras.
ATM cameras.
Hell, even stuff that wasn't meant to be a camera. Like retinal scanners.
So, at least the popo doesn't see you "Free Willy" in the comfort of your own home.
Wasn't there a film based around this idea about 15 years or so ago ?
Did the virus want to integrate itself in normal human society (and for once, not exterminate all the fleshbags)?
I honestly cant remember. I just seem to recall it being able to watch everything and anyone.
P.S. The X-Virus knows what you did. And he is disappoint.
I honestly cant remember. I just seem to recall it being able to watch everything and anyone.
P.S. The X-Virus knows what you did. And he is disappoint.
I think he's talking about eagle eye....and narlyathotep is laaaame :-p
I think he's talking about eagle eye...
That would be incorrect unless Dargurd mis-characterised the age of the movie.
Sfar as I'm concerend they should put up more, and increase the fine as well.
I think he's talking about eagle eye...
That would be incorrect unless Dargurd mis-characterised the age of the movie.
right thats what I was thinking
Sounds like the speed-cams in the UK work about the same as the ones here. I don't really get why people are "outraged" over them, considering they'll only notice them when they're speeding and then it's their own fault they got tagged.
Sfar as I'm concerend they should put up more, and increase the fine as well.
I'm not sure how it works in Europe, but here in Florida, the cameras are put up and maintained by private companies. They do it on behalf of the city that they are in, and the company pays a portion of the money that is collected from people running red lights or speeding. The thing is, the company turns over a very small amount of money. I heard in one place, the city was actually only getting about $2 - $4 from each citation. The average citation being about $120.
Some people have a problem with a private company having the power to enforce laws.
Yeah I can imagine how that might be an issue. As far as I know down here the money goes directly to the government. But people are still crying foul instead of just slowing down and driving responsibly.
Another issue, which as far as I know has been remedied, is that getting tickets for running a red light would get points added to your licence. each time you got points, your insurance would go up, and when it came time to renew your insurance, some people had a hard time finding insurance companies that would want to cover them.
The thing is, in order to get point added to your licence, the violation has to be witnessed by a police officer. When you were issued a citation from this private company, you had points added to you licence. There were lawsuits filed and complaints made and at least around here you no longer get points added to you licence.
Then you have he issue getting a citation issued when you weren't the one driving the car. It puts you in a real bad spot having to rat your family and friends if one of them was the one running the light or speeding.
As for the bad spot... it's not so bad. You don't need to rat them out, you just need to tell them to give you back the money of the fine. Just pay it yourself and have them give you the money back if you don't want to rat them out.
It's a bit of a trust-thing as well... if I had a car I'm not going to lend it to someone I know is a reckless driver, family/friend or not.
I do know that you can't points for getting flashed by a camera here (although the points aren't for insurance; if you get too many you simply have your license revoked, works much better), only when you actually get caught by an officer.
As for the bad spot... it's not so bad. You don't need to rat them out, you just need to tell them to give you back the money of the fine. Just pay it yourself and have them give you the money back if you don't want to rat them out.
It's a bit of a trust-thing as well... if I had a car I'm not going to lend it to someone I know is a reckless driver, family/friend or not.
After a certain number of points you get your licence suspended here also. It just gets more painful by the point. Your insurance goes up and then you loose you licence. Which isn't bad if it is happening to people that drive recklessly.
The funny thing is, people believe that you have to tell the courts who was driving your car when the citation was issued. I was listening to some lawyer on some radio show (NPR I think) who said that you are not required by law to tell on the person who was driving the car. He also mentioned that as long as it can't be proven that it was you who was driving the car, they can't give you the citation. According to him you could drive around wearing a gorilla mask and as long as they can't prove it was you driving, you can't get the citation.
I'm thinking of driving around with a fake bear and glasses. The city I'm in just passed a law to put up those cameras.
I don't agree with the gorilla mask thing though, sfar as I'm concerned, if your car gets flashed then you pay, unless you can show that it wasn't you driving it. Since it belongs to you, you are responsible for keeping it safe. Since it's activated by keys that you can keep on you, it shouldn't be too hard to keep it safe, so any dangerous acts committed by the vehicle are your responsibility (unless it was reported stolen or something like that)
Yeah I think they should be pretty easy on taking people's licenses if they've proven they can't be trusted with them. Cars are dangerous tools and should be treated with care.
I don't agree with the gorilla mask thing though, sfar as I'm concerned, if your car gets flashed then you pay, unless you can show that it wasn't you driving it. Since it belongs to you, you are responsible for keeping it safe. Since it's activated by keys that you can keep on you, it shouldn't be too hard to keep it safe, so any dangerous acts committed by the vehicle are your responsibility (unless it was reported stolen or something like that)
Fortunately we have the whole thing about innocent until proven guilty. You may have allowed a friend to drive your car and he/she may have been speeding. The picture could have been obscured by the visor or maybe the person looked the other way. I think it would be unfair to give you a citation when it wasn't you driving. You may not be able to identify the person driving either. You may even share your car with several people in your house and might not be sure who it was that was driving that day at that time.
I'd rather pay an unjust fine once per year over being afraid to drive because people with fake beards are driving like ****s, myself. But maybe that's just me...
If you give control of your car to someone else, then either they take responsibilty (by letting you and the authorities know they were driving) or the responsibility falls back on you as the owner who lent the vehicle to someone irresonsible.
Yeah, in any of such cases who exactly pays the money should be dealt with internally, as long as the fine is paid. Thing is that if everyone starts driving around with fake beards and glasses then they can just start driving recklessly again because nobody can prove anything, and we'll be back to square one.
I'd rather pay an unjust fine once per year over being afraid to drive because people with fake beards are driving like ****s, myself. But maybe that's just me...
If you give control of your car to someone else, then either they take responsibilty (by letting you and the authorities know they were driving) or the responsibility falls back on you as the owner who lent the vehicle to someone irresonsible.
The problem is that if you allow a private company, like the ones that run these cameras, to give you an unfair citations and you willingly pay it, they (the private company) may be more likely to start issuing other unfair citations. These companies don't run these cameras because they want to perform their civic duty. They do s because it makes them a ton of money.
Then they can do all the other stuff I was suggesting
Well I agree with that, I 100% support removing all private companies from being allowed to uphold laws. This should be moved back to the government first and foremost.
Then they can do all the other stuff I was suggesting
You have much faith in your government.
After a certain number of points you get your licence suspended here also
Here the poster explaining the penalty and punishments for each DUI offense goes up to 8.
After a certain number of points you get your licence suspended here also
Here the poster explaining the penalty and punishments for each DUI offense goes up to 8.
Yup, DUI's usually cost you a lot. Not to mention that depending on the state, there is a huge financial cost every time you get a DUI. I've heard that it could be around $10,000.00 for a DUI. This is of course including fines, court costs, lawyer fees (maybe), and all the other fun stuff that is included.
I find it quite distressing that they give the license back enough times for it to get to 8.
Drink driving is instant ban for 2 years (minimum i think) but in theory there is no top limit. Usually, but not always accompanied by heavy fine and or jail time. Drink driving has become a real anti social thing and people will often report drinkers to the police. Often before they drive to ensure they dont !
You mistake my concern.
I find it quite distressing that they give the license back enough times for it to get to 8.
In the UK everyone starts of with 0 points on their licence. Speeding offences typically carry a point value of 3 points although a Magistrate or a Judge can impose a higher number depending on severity. e.g. driving 30 miles mph or something carries a bigger number, driving over 100mph gets you something like 9 points etc. If you reach 12 points its a 1 year ban ! Its also common for magistrarte or judges to impose instant bans for offences.
Drink driving is instant ban for 2 years (minimum i think) but in theory there is no top limit. Usually, but not always accompanied by heavy fine and or jail time. Drink driving has become a real anti social thing and people will often report drinkers to the police. Often before they drive to ensure they dont !
It's pretty much the exact same thing here. You start off with 0 points and depending on the type of violation, you are given X number of points. From my understanding, DUIs usually cause you to have your licence suspended. i'm not sure for how long. This is why attorneys usually tell their clients not to submit to road sobriety testing. The funny thing is that refusing the test carries a 1 year suspension of your licence.
Sometimes people get tickets for things they did not do intentionally. I had a friend who got stopped and given a ticket for doing 45 mph in a 30 mph area. you would think that he deserved it, except that he lives near by and always took this road to get to work. The previous day it was a 45 mph zone. It had been changed earlier that day.
I've also met someone who has had his licence suspended for life. Too many DUIs I think.