On 1/12/2013 1:45 PM, Chris Crawford wrote:
> It isn't about revenue, its about limiting the power of the state. State
> law here explicitly requires that traffic violations be witnessed directly
> and in person (not watching through cameras) by a police officer in oder
> to charge the driver with the violation.
Calif. law is somewhat similar. It bans 'speed traps' for enforcement of the
Vehicle code, which disallows radar, hiding
behind buildings, billboards, and such. Speed enforcement from the air requires
that a sworn officer do the timing and
hand off the car to a vehicle officer with clear visual ID. The ground officer
may also attempt to confirm the speeding.
Radar is legal for enforcement of local speed ordinances. Red light cameras are
legal, but notice is required at
jurisdiction boundaries. I've not heard of speed cameras, so they may not pass
legal muster. I was surprised to see that
Carol's Seattle nephew received a speeding ticket in the mail from an automated
radar/camera installation.
OTOH, not all enforcement cameras are bad. Local toll bridges photo ID cars in
the transponder lanes that don't register
with the scanners. If the plate is for a car registered to a transponder, they
just charge the toll, no extra fees or
notices.
Probably done because the transponders aren't perfect. We didn't hear it beep
or see the OK on a bridge recently, but it
wasn't a problem. The up side is that for people like us, not regular
commuters, with only one transponder, but a few
vehicles, forgetting to grab it on the way out the door doesn't matter.
No Pics Please Moose*
* A harsh critic, indeed!
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|