OT: Photo stop sign enforcement in CA
04-04-2010, 01:43 PM
#16
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about you guys, but I love being under constant surveillance. And getting a fine from an automated system for breaking a traffic law, no matter how petty, it just makes me feel alive.
Maybe it's because I'm lonely and I need to feel like someone cares, even if that someone is a state/local government asking for more revenue than a 9.3% income tax and a 8.75% sales tax in the name of safety.
Maybe it's because I'm lonely and I need to feel like someone cares, even if that someone is a state/local government asking for more revenue than a 9.3% income tax and a 8.75% sales tax in the name of safety.
04-04-2010, 02:44 PM
#17
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By Associated Press
April 04, 2010
GLENDALE, Calif. — Glendale police who used a bunny costume to decoy bad drivers at crosswalks have abandoned the outfit after it made a city councilman hopping mad.
An officer wore the Easter outfit on Wednesday in crosswalks. Drivers who didn't yield to the furry pedestrian were ticketed.
But City Councilman John Drayman harshly criticized the head-turning costume, calling it "breathtakingly dangerous" and a poor use of city resources.
Glendale police continued the crosswalk sting on Thursday but the officer wore shorts and a T-shirt. A city spokesman says the city is re-evaluating the use of costumes for enforcement campaigns.
04-04-2010, 02:56 PM
#18
Instructor
HI Guys
I'm sorry to say that here in the UK our wretched politicians have adopted these systems to police our streets. I think the statistics say we have one surveillance camera for every 14 people.
We have the most predatory parking and traffic enforcement agencies. Westminster, our central London authority, generates more revenue from parking fines than residential property taxes (rates).
We are surrounded by a predatory army of 'Civil Enforcement Officers' an Orwellian term for Traffic wardens, our standard fines are £120.00 ($182.50) reduced to £60.00 (91.25) if paid within 14 days, contest a ticket and you are issued with veiled threats of increased fines, it's all very undemocratic.
There are also zones in the city where, if you enter into with your car, your number plate (tag) is read by a NPRT camera and then the info is passed to a third party to whom you must now pay a charge of £8.00 ($12.00) by midnight the same day, fail to pay that day and it goes up to £10 ($15.00).Failure to pay by midnight the following day and it goes up to £50.00 ($76.00) then to £100.00 in 14 days and £150.00 in 28.It is one of the most intrusive and ghastly taxes ever forced on the people of London easily forgotten in the hustle and bustle of daily life and a superb tool for revenue raising. You'll be pleased to hear, as am I, that the US Embassy refuses to pay this Tax.
Yes motoring fines are a large and increasing business that enable our politicians to further empty our pockets.
It's a sad state of affairs on both sides of the pond.
However at least stateside you are allowed to possess firearms, which I understand would be ideal for neutralising "enforcement cameras" not that I am advocating such measures of course!!
I'm sorry to say that here in the UK our wretched politicians have adopted these systems to police our streets. I think the statistics say we have one surveillance camera for every 14 people.
We have the most predatory parking and traffic enforcement agencies. Westminster, our central London authority, generates more revenue from parking fines than residential property taxes (rates).
We are surrounded by a predatory army of 'Civil Enforcement Officers' an Orwellian term for Traffic wardens, our standard fines are £120.00 ($182.50) reduced to £60.00 (91.25) if paid within 14 days, contest a ticket and you are issued with veiled threats of increased fines, it's all very undemocratic.
There are also zones in the city where, if you enter into with your car, your number plate (tag) is read by a NPRT camera and then the info is passed to a third party to whom you must now pay a charge of £8.00 ($12.00) by midnight the same day, fail to pay that day and it goes up to £10 ($15.00).Failure to pay by midnight the following day and it goes up to £50.00 ($76.00) then to £100.00 in 14 days and £150.00 in 28.It is one of the most intrusive and ghastly taxes ever forced on the people of London easily forgotten in the hustle and bustle of daily life and a superb tool for revenue raising. You'll be pleased to hear, as am I, that the US Embassy refuses to pay this Tax.
Yes motoring fines are a large and increasing business that enable our politicians to further empty our pockets.
It's a sad state of affairs on both sides of the pond.
However at least stateside you are allowed to possess firearms, which I understand would be ideal for neutralising "enforcement cameras" not that I am advocating such measures of course!!
04-04-2010, 03:19 PM
#19
And we know there's the pro and con that goes with that. Bad cop good cop, bad judge, good judge, etc.. How many times do we hear: "the cop just wouldn't hear my story and gave me a ticket," etc.. "That judge was way too harsh." Etc., etc..
Part of CA's problem is that it has to spend all its revenue each year. It can't save for a rainy day. You can thank Prop 13 for CA's downhill spiral. It's not the dot com bust that Cahrera suggests. Those sort of things are always cyclical. Prop 13 started the damage and it stuck.
CA was the model state with the best roads, schools, etc.. But during inflation of the late 1970s (you can now insert 2009 here) the California model began to falter. As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue soared. But the Governor neither spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians passed Proposition 13, which rolled back and limited property taxes, effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue.
Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded more by taxes on personal income and sales. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily reduced. Bring in a deep recession (2009), with state unemployment at 11 percent, tax revenue has fallen off a cliff. Personal income tax and sales tax revenue starts to disappear pretty quickly. California has some of the lowest property tax in the nation to this day (because of Prop 13; Warren Buffet once said how incredible it is that his estate in CA had less property tax then his much more modest house in Florida.) Add the housing debacle and foreclosures and poof! there goes everything.
The irony of it all is that today people complain why didn't the state save surpluses instead of spending them? Yet when the state did save its surpluses, everybody complained (hence Prop 13.) And it's the legacy of Prop 13 that turned the Golden State to tin.
No state is immune to this recession. Every state is bleeding in a major way. Even small states like Vermont are hard hit. (so far, only North Dakota and Montana have maintained their budgets.) The revenue collecting mode that states find themselves in is not unique to CA. It's also a reason why Arizona decided to use speed cameras on their highways. Arizona has been hit big time with the falling real estate market.
The decisions are cut everything and/or find ways to increase revenue. Corporations do the same thing when their profitability gets low. We'll be seeing all kinds of revenue collecting scenarios everywhere.
This is going too much OT. Sorry, and
Part of CA's problem is that it has to spend all its revenue each year. It can't save for a rainy day. You can thank Prop 13 for CA's downhill spiral. It's not the dot com bust that Cahrera suggests. Those sort of things are always cyclical. Prop 13 started the damage and it stuck.
CA was the model state with the best roads, schools, etc.. But during inflation of the late 1970s (you can now insert 2009 here) the California model began to falter. As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue soared. But the Governor neither spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians passed Proposition 13, which rolled back and limited property taxes, effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue.
Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded more by taxes on personal income and sales. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily reduced. Bring in a deep recession (2009), with state unemployment at 11 percent, tax revenue has fallen off a cliff. Personal income tax and sales tax revenue starts to disappear pretty quickly. California has some of the lowest property tax in the nation to this day (because of Prop 13; Warren Buffet once said how incredible it is that his estate in CA had less property tax then his much more modest house in Florida.) Add the housing debacle and foreclosures and poof! there goes everything.
The irony of it all is that today people complain why didn't the state save surpluses instead of spending them? Yet when the state did save its surpluses, everybody complained (hence Prop 13.) And it's the legacy of Prop 13 that turned the Golden State to tin.
No state is immune to this recession. Every state is bleeding in a major way. Even small states like Vermont are hard hit. (so far, only North Dakota and Montana have maintained their budgets.) The revenue collecting mode that states find themselves in is not unique to CA. It's also a reason why Arizona decided to use speed cameras on their highways. Arizona has been hit big time with the falling real estate market.
The decisions are cut everything and/or find ways to increase revenue. Corporations do the same thing when their profitability gets low. We'll be seeing all kinds of revenue collecting scenarios everywhere.
This is going too much OT. Sorry, and
04-04-2010, 04:24 PM
#20
"You can thank Prop 13 for CA's downhill spiral. It's not the dot com bust that Cahrera suggests. Those sort of things are always cyclical. Prop 13 started the damage and it stuck.
CA was the model state with the best roads, schools, etc.. But during inflation of the late 1970s (you can now insert 2009 here) the California model began to falter. As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue soared. But the Governor neither spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians passed Proposition 13, which rolled back and limited property taxes, effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue.
Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded more by taxes on personal income and sales. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily reduced. Bring in a deep recession (2009), with state unemployment at 11 percent, tax revenue has fallen off a cliff. Personal income tax and sales tax revenue starts to disappear pretty quickly. California has some of the lowest property tax in the nation to this day (because of Prop 13; Warren Buffet once said how incredible it is that his estate in CA had less property tax then his much more modest house in Florida.) Add the housing debacle and foreclosures and poof! there goes everything."
It is not Prop 13! That argument went out the window years ago. The blame falls directly onto the state legislature for continuing to raise their spending every year. A large portion of the problem is also caused by the Unions and their control of government workers. Overly generous salaries and pensions and taking a bigger and bigger bite out of the budget with no end in site. Additionally, they refuse to terminate any state workers. In the paper today, it stated that the payroll for the city of Los Angeles actually went UP over the past few months!!! Now that's the way to handle a shortfall of funds.
CA was the model state with the best roads, schools, etc.. But during inflation of the late 1970s (you can now insert 2009 here) the California model began to falter. As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue soared. But the Governor neither spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians passed Proposition 13, which rolled back and limited property taxes, effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue.
Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded more by taxes on personal income and sales. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily reduced. Bring in a deep recession (2009), with state unemployment at 11 percent, tax revenue has fallen off a cliff. Personal income tax and sales tax revenue starts to disappear pretty quickly. California has some of the lowest property tax in the nation to this day (because of Prop 13; Warren Buffet once said how incredible it is that his estate in CA had less property tax then his much more modest house in Florida.) Add the housing debacle and foreclosures and poof! there goes everything."
It is not Prop 13! That argument went out the window years ago. The blame falls directly onto the state legislature for continuing to raise their spending every year. A large portion of the problem is also caused by the Unions and their control of government workers. Overly generous salaries and pensions and taking a bigger and bigger bite out of the budget with no end in site. Additionally, they refuse to terminate any state workers. In the paper today, it stated that the payroll for the city of Los Angeles actually went UP over the past few months!!! Now that's the way to handle a shortfall of funds.
04-04-2010, 05:01 PM
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Agoura Hills (Los Angeles) California
Posts: 5,181
Received 357 Likes
on
211 Posts
IMHO.... That is the main problem. During the dot com boom the politicians were giving out 90% plus pensions to government workers. No doubt they had no concern for the future because they wouldn't be in office when the house of cards fell.
04-04-2010, 05:07 PM
#22
It's a complaint and an understandable issue. But it's not THE problem.
04-04-2010, 05:49 PM
#23
Burning Brakes
It's a way to try to control mishaps and bad driving in the parks. It's just like a parking ticket, so do what you want with it. CA residents who get too many parking tickets either get hassled when renewing tags or at the very worst, get a boot. I know what you're saying about the ID part of it, but again, it's a parking ticket and more or less just a slap on the wrist. If it wasn't you, then contest or don't pay it, or whatever.
But we don't roll through stop signs in our county parks, anyway.
But hey at least we don't have speed cameras on our freeways. "Arizona is the only state to implement "photo enforcement," as it's known, on major highways." In California, speed cameras are illegal.
But we don't roll through stop signs in our county parks, anyway.
But hey at least we don't have speed cameras on our freeways. "Arizona is the only state to implement "photo enforcement," as it's known, on major highways." In California, speed cameras are illegal.
The current Guv. and legislature think they are a bad idea so the contract will not be renewed with the third party vendor.
Good ridance to one of Big Brother's latest revenue generating ideas.
04-04-2010, 06:35 PM
#24
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As of July 1st all photo radar units (fixed and portable) are being turned off and dismantled in Arizona.
The current Guv. and legislature think they are a bad idea so the contract will not be renewed with the third party vendor.
Good ridance to one of Big Brother's latest revenue generating ideas.
The current Guv. and legislature think they are a bad idea so the contract will not be renewed with the third party vendor.
Good ridance to one of Big Brother's latest revenue generating ideas.
As for my original post, I think what really frosts me about the photo stop signs is that the whole nature of the rules of the driving game go out the window. It's pretty easy to justify nailing the owner or renter of an illegally parked car for a parking ticket. It would be absurd to expect a cop to prove who parked the car. We all accept that as reasonable even if the owner didn't park the car, but when it comes to moving traffic violations like rolling through the stop sign located in the city park's parking lot, don't we all have a reasonable expectation that the citing agency needs to prove who did the crime? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard of any jurisdiction in this country that doesn't require proof of who broke the law when the law involves moving traffic violations. Am I wrong?
04-04-2010, 07:35 PM
#25
Burning Brakes
Well, I wouldn't bet ten cents that they won't come back to AZ. As another poster noted, the publicized rationale for these devices is safety, but the elected officials see them as revenue-generating wonders.
As for my original post, I think what really frosts me about the photo stop signs is that the whole nature of the rules of the driving game go out the window. It's pretty easy to justify nailing the owner or renter of an illegally parked car for a parking ticket. It would be absurd to expect a cop to prove who parked the car. We all accept that as reasonable even if the owner didn't park the car, but when it comes to moving traffic violations like rolling through the stop sign located in the city park's parking lot, don't we all have a reasonable expectation that the citing agency needs to prove who did the crime? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard of any jurisdiction in this country that doesn't require proof of who broke the law when the law involves moving traffic violations. Am I wrong?
As for my original post, I think what really frosts me about the photo stop signs is that the whole nature of the rules of the driving game go out the window. It's pretty easy to justify nailing the owner or renter of an illegally parked car for a parking ticket. It would be absurd to expect a cop to prove who parked the car. We all accept that as reasonable even if the owner didn't park the car, but when it comes to moving traffic violations like rolling through the stop sign located in the city park's parking lot, don't we all have a reasonable expectation that the citing agency needs to prove who did the crime? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard of any jurisdiction in this country that doesn't require proof of who broke the law when the law involves moving traffic violations. Am I wrong?
It ran into trouble on the legal and collection sides here. A statute in the AZ constitution clearly states that an arresting officer must hand you the ticket for your signature at the time of the "crime". When that word got out, collections fell before 30 per-cent and now there is a class action suit against the state for reimbursement.
More trouble than it is worth they claim now.
Arizona is getting back to being the wild west soon, it won't even be necessary to have a concealed weapons permit here to pack my P9S in the glovebox or my coat!
04-04-2010, 11:50 PM
#26
Of course it doesn't really help with mobile camera/radar setups, and you can still get hit by a unit that's not yet in the database, but it's better than nothing (no affiliation.)
04-05-2010, 12:20 AM
#27
Anjin San
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South Pasadangerous, California
Posts: 21,881
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
Even dress cops up like bunnies to catch drivers not stopping for crosswalks fast enough -- http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...WS11/100409898
By Associated Press
April 04, 2010
GLENDALE, Calif. — Glendale police who used a bunny costume to decoy bad drivers at crosswalks have abandoned the outfit after it made a city councilman hopping mad.
An officer wore the Easter outfit on Wednesday in crosswalks. Drivers who didn't yield to the furry pedestrian were ticketed.
But City Councilman John Drayman harshly criticized the head-turning costume, calling it "breathtakingly dangerous" and a poor use of city resources.
Glendale police continued the crosswalk sting on Thursday but the officer wore shorts and a T-shirt. A city spokesman says the city is re-evaluating the use of costumes for enforcement campaigns.
By Associated Press
April 04, 2010
GLENDALE, Calif. — Glendale police who used a bunny costume to decoy bad drivers at crosswalks have abandoned the outfit after it made a city councilman hopping mad.
An officer wore the Easter outfit on Wednesday in crosswalks. Drivers who didn't yield to the furry pedestrian were ticketed.
But City Councilman John Drayman harshly criticized the head-turning costume, calling it "breathtakingly dangerous" and a poor use of city resources.
Glendale police continued the crosswalk sting on Thursday but the officer wore shorts and a T-shirt. A city spokesman says the city is re-evaluating the use of costumes for enforcement campaigns.
The LA County Sherrifs, Pasadena & LAPD who patrol neighboring cities are a different story. Totally professional.
As for getting a ticket in an LA County park it was probably LACOUNTY PD, think Paul Blart, Mall Cop, with a gun. They don't do very much and act accordingly.
IIRC you can fight the ticket by written declaration.
