Scruit

I agree he should be treated like a civilian - but, if a civilian did this they wouldn't even lose their license. It'd be a charge of "Full Time And Attention" and a hefty insurance payout to the riders. Loss of license comes with intentional acts like OVI. Bear in mind that driving is not the only thing this officer can do - there are non-driving roles that the officer can be moved/demoted to. Even if you don't want him driving, firing him goes beyond what is needed to keep him off the road and becomes punitive / revenge. I predict a suspension followed by desk duty and probably driver retraining.

NSFW for visuals too - especially at the end.

Nanny state: Meh - I don't mind the concept. I see too many people running red lights. Revenue Maker: Instead of a fine, how about a one week suspension?

Doesn't matter, unless they were also banned by the Senate and a bill signed by the Governor.

Your original link was truncated.

It was just a joke... You can stand down.

And now we're taking over again. Starting with yer wimmin'. (It's the accent. Turns them to jelly)

I'll have to look closer. The link doesn't work for me so I'll google it separately. The rules for red light / stop sign stops are clear. You stop before any part of your vehicle crosses the leading edge of the stop bar (if there is one). If no stop bar then you stop before any part of your vehicle crosses the leading edge of the first crosswalk line (if there is one). If no stop bar or crosswalk, then you stop before you enter the intersection. I also remember some complaints where vehicles were misidentified due to poor image quality of the license plate (even to the point where a white pickup truck was fined for the actions of a red sedan). There were issues with vehicles being fined for speeding when it's clear from the pictures/video that a vehicle in an adjacent lane was the one that was speeding. Finally, the kangaroo courts they have set up are staffed by people on the payroll of the camera companies, and they are therefore not highly motivated to be impartial. All of those reasons are why I say these systems should be run by the police and every violation reviewed and validated by a sworn LEO. Dispute handled just like any other ticket, so you get your day on court. Of course this means you are STILL pleading your case to a man/woman who is paid by the entity that will profit from you being found guilty... Can't win, huh?

In the UK the tickets are real, not civil penalties. Due process is afforded etc. People still object though. Why? It doesn't matter if it's a cop or a camera. Nobody likes getting caught. They just dislike cameras because they are extremely effective. Now, in the US the private/civil implementation creates it's own problems that must be addressed. Not arguing that the UK is utopia of happy slow drivers... I'm just conceding that even a constitutionally approved implementation will not make people happy. The bad implementation just gives them an outlet for their anger - so they don't have to be angry at themselves for running the red light.

Easiest way to get rid of them is for EVERYONE to stop running red lights. The system would generate no revenue and the city would dismantle the program to avoid the maintenance costs. Notice that's slightly different then just saying; "Don't run red lights then". If you want to run a red then that's on you - I'm just speaking about the reality of what would happen if the system quit being profitable.

The concept is not unconstitutional - just the "private" and "civil" execution that companies and cities have adopted. If the alleged violation videos were reviewed by a sworn officer who then wrote a ticket based upon that, and the ticket goes through the normal court system with due process just like a ticket handed to you by a cop in person.... the constitutional concerns of due process, right to face accuser etc are addressed. If done correctly... - The due process is the same as an actual ticket - because it would be an actual traffic ticket. - The accuser is the cop who reviewed the violation. Just like a burglary of a business closed for the night - the cop would view the video and the charges flow from there.

Entrapment means the government talked you into committing the crime. Red light cameras a no more "entrapment" the the security cameras at a bank.

TO be fair, each violation video must be reviewed by a sworn officer who must authorize citations. No minimum-wage lackeys.

I don't mind the concept, but the ticket generated must be subject to the same due process as a ticket handed to you by a cop. The idea that the city is "settling" a "lawsuit" with you for "allowing your car to be driven through a red light" is bravo sierra. Also, the camera purchase and maintenance fees must be paid at a flat rate - not per-ticket rate. No more private companies profiting from each ticket.

I wonder if I cn get an "in God.." plate in Ohio and use the letter "NT RLY"

Had I seen her signal before I made my lane change, I would have stayed put.

Good good. I know someone going through this right now and withholding the kids got her taken to court for a full custody challenge. As it turns out her reasons for withholding the child were vindicated and she was ok.

No, it's a track that came on Pandora on the Morgan Page channel.

I hope you have your attorney's blessing for withholding the kids... This could get bad for you otherwise.

It says the video should still play but that UMG is having a shit fit because it's dashcam video and there's a song playing on the radio. Gonna edit the video and re-upload. I took the audio section where the song in question was playing and reversed it. That wrecks the song but leaves the ambient noise in a state where it actually works still.

There is the music on my radio in the background - I wonder if they're throwing a shit-fit over that? Can you see it on youtube? I can see it here and on youtube...?

Right after leaving 270 accident scene, I came across this:

Problem is I need to exit on 71. I need to cross the churning traffic - even though it feels like a game of frogger sometimes. I stay left past 23, then make my way right for 71. I don't want to be in the back of the slow traffic because I don't want to get rear-ended at freeway speeds. I think from now I'll wait until much closer to 71 to make my way across. By that time most of the chinese fire drill crap is done with and people aren't so quick to switch lanes.

About 33% of the folk in that lane are going to move left, 33% are going to move right, and the remaining 34% are going to stay put. Of those signalling, 50% are signalling because they are about to move. 49% are signalling because they are completing, or have just completed, their lane change. 1% just left the signal on.

Whatever you do, do with the blessing of your attorney. The stakes are too high.