Still different... Glock doesn't get a check everytime a cop shoots someone with one of their guns. If they did, maybe that thing might misfire a little more often.
The ammo manufacturer makes a profit with every shot fired. The horror!
With a security system, the cop still has to show up and catch the guy. Maybe he was a deliveryman at the wrong address. If his story is good enough, the cop can use his judgement to let him go. In at least some locales the camera company sends the ticket directly.
And with the red light cameras the cop still reviews all the evidence, just like the cop who reviews the evidence of a break-in. Again, just like the break-in, if the evidence doesn't warrant a ticket, the whole thing gets dropped. Do you have anything showing that the tickets are sent directly by the camera company? I have serious doubts that they could ever do this.
OK how about due process?
How about due process?
If I'm being charged with speeding, does not the fact that the picture contains absolutely no evidence of my driving the car provide reasonable doubt??????
You may (or may not) have noticed that I haven't commented on speeding cameras. Those are not in use in my local area, therefor our company has not had any training dealing with speeding cameras. We did have training that dealt with red light cameras that included a couple of officers to explain the details of how the entire system works, legally and technically. It has however been my understanding that speeding cameras are designed to take a picture of the driver. You are always free to make your best case in front of a judge. BTW, the fine for the red light tickets is in the same class as a parking ticket. No need to prove who parked your car there. You still have a certain responsibility for how things you own are used. As an example if I loan a gun to a friend and they go and shoot someone, I am not free of liability.
end of the day sifo- if you won't see it i can't show it to you. i read the report word for word and no the word 'worthless' wasn't used that was my word to describe what the authors of the report stated. i've studied enough math and statistical analysis to know a bs report based on fuzzy math when i see one. as for not being rear ended. yep that sucks for sure. however the intrusion into the lives of the populace of this country is insane further it's complete madness that we the people have allowed and are continuing to allow this course. esp when it's under the garbage guise "it's for your own good" or a similar mantra "it's for the children"(yes i am a parent 4x's over)
bottom line is that it stinks of a rat a big fat rotten rat.
I've spent quite a bit of time writing computer code for retail marketing analysis. Spent a lot of time working out algorithms with Dr. Ron. Yes, he actually wanted to be called Dr. Ron. He had his doctorate in statistics.
The big problem with doing this kind of study is choosing a control group. There will always be major problems in comparison to your control group. What is very clear however is that there is an astounding drop in the number of people running red lights when they know they will be fined for running the red light. Shocking, isn't it.
The thing that pisses me off is the scoffing attitude the people have about yellow lights. If it weren't for that, there would be no reason for red light cameras at all. Unfortunately when someone nails the gas to beat the red and crashes into the driver door of the innocent person following their green light, it is the person following the law that has the least amount of protection around them, and the scoffer who is well protected with a big crush zone at the front of the car. You seem to scoff at the idea of the fact that some laws are necessary to protect the public. Perhaps a truck plowing into the side of your car at 50 mph through a red light might make you rethink that, but I really wouldn't wish that on you. You would likely not have a chance to rethink anything ever again. People doing that deserve far worse than being fined a few bucks.
i agree it's a problem. there needs to be a solution. sadly no i don't have one that is practical.
what's really got me is this and other bogus 'stats' being used to scare the public into garbage big brother we have your best interests in mind programs.
and yes the control groups are challenging to find. however the truth is worth the effort. the truth is ALWAYS worth the effort.
this goes to the increasingly vertical slope we have been pushed onto by those we have given power.
i'm glad to hear you don't wish harm upon me. i do understand the score. i've worked wrecks in a few different capacities and the 't-bone' type wrecks here are some of the worst i've ever seen. thus i agree that something needs doing. being filmed is not what i think needs doing though.
no i don't have an expectation of privacy out in public i do have an expectation to a degree of anonymity though.
i know that most here will scoff at the idea but it's been happening else where after the red light and speeding cams come the corner cams and whether monitored by LEO's or not these are invasive as a free person cannot be expected or told to stay inside their home if they don't like whats going on outside. that's not what America in particular is all about. this country is ever faster becoming an active police state. that's never a good thing for the people and highly ironic considering what we are doing the world over in the name of democracy....
One of my friends got pulled and ticketed while riding his bike in Orlando..when he asked the LEO what he had done wrong...he was told that he had exceeded the maximum 14 mph turning speed...
Boogieman, your argument is shifting. Is your issue that they don't work, or that you feel the cameras are a violation of your rights.
It is my contention that they work. This is backed up not only from my personal experience (I live less than a mile from a red light camera that I drive through many times every week, often 4 or more times per day). I see the difference between the red light cam intersection and the next one down the road. I have seen the numbers on that intersection before and after. It works. There are many dozens of studies from other areas that come to the same conclusion. Common sense tells a sensible person that it will work. Your assertion that the statistics are being fudged needs to be backed up if you expect any credibility on this.
Now you are getting into how it's an intrusion into... What exactly I'm not sure. I agree with you that I don't like the idea, but I also don't like the number of times that I have had to avoid being hit when I have a green light. The bottom line on this is that this sort of enforcement has held up in court to this point, it's effective, and it provides a much better case against the offender than testimony from an eye witness cop. About the only way you will beat one of these cases is to prove that the video has been altered. And if you aren't running a red light, then you aren't even filmed, no harm no foul at all.
Having said all of that, I have some serious issues with the use of speeding cameras that I feel fall into a different category.
Your assertion that we are becoming a police state based on this sort of thing really falls short. We are and always have been a country based on the rule of law where the law treats everyone equally. Red light cameras actually fall squarely into those ideals. It does absolutely nothing to diminish us as a democracy. It's a nice sound bite, but it isn't based on reality.
One of my friends got pulled and ticketed while riding his bike in Orlando..when he asked the LEO what he had done wrong...he was told that he had exceeded the maximum 14 mph turning speed...
Or another example: Do you trust the government enough to do right by the Constitution? If not, you should have a huge problem with any deployment of private security forces (not sworn to uphold the Constitution) by that same government. What would happen if they were ordered by the gov't to shoot at US citizens, here on US soil, to break up protest against government abuse of power? Do you think Syria is so far away from us, really?
How much do you think a private, corporate-funded police force would "serve and protect" all of us citizens if some of us were to legally and peacably protest against the actions of that corporation?
(Edit: sorry for veering off the red light camera issue on this, but several in this thread were already going this way, so....)
You continue to make your case based on the fact that the police are responsible for making sure the ticket is valid. That may be true for your jurisdiction, but is not true for all.
BTW, the fine for the red light tickets is in the same class as a parking ticket. No need to prove who parked your car there.
Which I assume means there are no points involved on my license. Since the reason for the points system is to eventually rehab or remove poor offenders from the drivers pool, the camera system has no means by which to do this. So how does public safety improve. I get no points, but now I know where the camera is. Avoid the intersection, run red lights elsewhere. Some poor schmuck get run over at the next light. But the gov't still get the fine. Seems a lot like revenue over safety to me.
The ammo manufacturer makes a profit with every shot fired. The horror!
AGAIN, the ammo manufacturer has no ongoing involvement past the point of sale. The camera company is involved in the entire process and makes more profit when rules are changed to encourage that more citations are written.
We've had this argument before....You think the corporate world smells of roses and is the shining light on the hill and hate everything about the government. I think that many corporations and those that run them are a huge part of the problem in the world and I hate everything about the gov't.
My big difference is that while I can do little about the scumbag running the corporation, I get to try and improve the gov't once in a while at the voting booth.
I did have quite a nice ride in to work this AM though.
Boogiman, your argument is shifting. Is your issue that they don't work, or that you feel the cameras are a violation of your rights.
no it's not shifting it is being more fully explained. i do not like bigger more intrusive government on many levels for many reasons. not all of which have been explained in this thread. anecdotal evidence would suggest they do work not without some costs however. I'm not so sure than trading one kind of wreck for another is really something that the government should be doing for the people. i also don't believe that the government should be realizing a revenue stream from poor human behavior either.
It is my contention that they work. This is backed up not only from my personal experience (I live less than a mile from a red light camera that I drive through many times every week, often 4 or more times per day). I see the difference between the red light cam intersection and the next one down the road. I have seen the numbers on that intersection before and after. It works. There are many dozens of studies from other areas that come to the same conclusion. Common sense tells a sensible person that it will work. Your assertion that the statistics are being fudged needs to be backed up if you expect any credibility on this . It’s in the report you posted…
Now you are getting into how it's an intrusion into... What exactly I'm not sure. I agree with you that I don't like the idea, but I also don't like the number of times that I have had to avoid being hit when I have a green light. The bottom line on this is that this sort of enforcement has held up in court to this point, it's effective, and it provides a much better case against the offender than testimony from an eye witness cop. About the only way you will beat one of these cases is to prove that the video has been altered. And if you aren't running a red light, then you aren't even filmed, no harm no foul at all.
So if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about? This is a concept that is terrifying and been repeated several times throughout history with almost exclusively horrible results. it also doesn't allow a person that was say pushed out past teh light by an emergency vehicle the ability to explain that. or in my case a traffic light that to avoid would cost me no less that 15 minutes i run nearly every morning because the sensor doesn't 'see' my bike...
Having said all of that, I have some serious issues with the use of speeding cameras that I feel fall into a different category. Really? How?
Your assertion that we are becoming a police state based on this sort of thing really falls short. We are and always have been a country based on the rule of law where the law treats everyone equally. Red light cameras actually fall squarely into those ideals. It does absolutely nothing to diminish us as a democracy. It's a nice sound bite, but it isn't based on reality. The rule of law in this country has never since this country was founded, treated all members of its citizenry equally. this is just one small piece of a much larger puzzle that is being built whether maliciously or not. Actually the way that traffic violations are done at least in florida being that they are treated as a civil offense, yet with criminal punishments is a direct attack on civil liberties and due process.
You continue to make your case based on the fact that the police are responsible for making sure the ticket is valid. That may be true for your jurisdiction, but is not true for all.
And I will continue to ask for references where this is not the case.
Which I assume means there are no points involved on my license. Since the reason for the points system is to eventually rehab or remove poor offenders from the drivers pool, the camera system has no means by which to do this. So how does public safety improve. I get no points, but now I know where the camera is. Avoid the intersection, run red lights elsewhere. Some poor schmuck get run over at the next light. But the gov't still get the fine. Seems a lot like revenue over safety to me.
It is true that in our area it doesn't go to points on your driving record. It isn't entirely true that there is no way to revoke your license through this process though. In our training class it was made clear that for repeat offenders at red light cameras the municipality can petition the state to revoke driving privileges. They said that they have done this in the past, but it is quite rare. I don't know much detail past that though.
AGAIN, the ammo manufacturer has no ongoing involvement past the point of sale. The camera company is involved in the entire process and makes more profit when rules are changed to encourage that more citations are written.
We've had this argument before....You think the corporate world smells of roses and is the shining light on the hill and hate everything about the government. I think that many corporations and those that run them are a huge part of the problem in the world and I hate everything about the gov't.
Far from thinking that the corporate world smells of roses. If you remove government involvement in corporations though, you will be able to easily see their motivating forces. Add the many layers of government involvement and it gets far murkier. The government itself is a cesspool of corruption by comparison.
So it seems that your objection is with how the private corporation is compensated. Is it safe to say that if the municipality purchased the hardware and software and administrated the entire system internally that you would have no problem with the cameras? As long as things are done appropriately with proper checks and balances I really don't see the problem. If there are corporations doing this entirely on their own as you claim, then yes I have a potential issue with that. That is an administration issue though, not really an issue with the effectiveness of the red light camera program.
Fahren, That is some interesting stuff to ponder about privatization of public duties. Some relevant to this discussion, some not. I think that with anything the government does, it can be beneficial or disastrous. The devil is always in the details. I don't think setting up red light cameras can be compared to selling off parts of your country for example. Government does have a responsibility to reasonably ensure the public safety in public areas. Red light cameras seem to fall into this category. Forcing us to by CFL lights, not so much.
If you remove government involvement in corporations though, you will be able to easily see their motivating forces.
Yes, they will bundle crappy mortgages together and sell them to their clients as "investments" while simultaneously going short on them, betting that they would fail. When their greed then falls in around them, they cry to the gov't for a bailout.
Is it safe to say that if the municipality purchased the hardware and software and administrated the entire system internally that you would have no problem with the cameras?
That would indeed be one less problem I have with them. I also think that would make them far less likely to be installed, because the revenue stream generated would not be enough to justify the TRUE cost of the system. If safety is the true reason we want these things, then, yes we should be willing to pay the full cost.
no it's not shifting it is being more fully explained. i do not like bigger more intrusive government on many levels for many reasons. not all of which have been explained in this thread. anecdotal evidence would suggest they do work not without some costs however. I'm not so sure than trading one kind of wreck for another is really something that the government should be doing for the people. i also don't believe that the government should be realizing a revenue stream from poor human behavior either.
You brought in a completely different reasoning. That is shifting your argument from the effectiveness to the administration issues. It's not a matter of trading types of accidents, but providing maximum safety. Speed limits trade high speed accidents for low speed accidents, but the intent is to provide a reasonable level of overall safety.
It’s in the report you posted…
Then it should be pretty easy to cite the example.
So if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about? This is a concept that is terrifying and been repeated several times throughout history with almost exclusively horrible results. it also doesn't allow a person that was say pushed out past teh light by an emergency vehicle the ability to explain that. or in my case a traffic light that to avoid would cost me no less that 15 minutes i run nearly every morning because the sensor doesn't 'see' my bike...
It's the due process that protects us from over reach of the government. I'm not concerned about being prosecuted for burglary exactly for the reason that you cite. I'm not doing anything wrong. I still want the laws in place though. If I were accused of burglary due process would demand that evidence be brought, and I have a chance to examine and challenge that evidence. Nothing is different in this case. That is exactly how we are protected under our system of laws.
The red light cameras are pretty much only used at high traffic intersections. Are you really getting stuck at a high traffic intersection? Complain to the municipality being specific about exactly where and what lane. The sensors can be adjusted. Even so most will give a light every other cycle without being triggered by a sensor just to prevent what you are describing. I'm not sure that you are describing a real world situation.
Really? How?
Many ways. Speeding has never been treated as a black and white issue for one (or red and green). There are also environmental factors that can effect the operation of the radar equipment and there is no way to know anything about the environment at the time of the infraction. Also radar equipment needs to be calibrated periodically, something that is unlikely to happen to a radar sitting on a pole. By contrast a video is going to be pretty clear on showing a car running a red light or not. If you are moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle, that will be seen in the video tape when it's reviewed. Worst case is you would be in court showing the video to the judge. If that same a--hole cop busted you for the same thing sitting watching the corner in person, it would be your word against the cop with no video to prove your innocence. There are actually some protections for the innocent built into this sort of system.
The rule of law in this country has never since this country was founded, treated all members of its citizenry equally. this is just one small piece of a much larger puzzle that is being built whether maliciously or not. Actually the way that traffic violations are done at least in florida being that they are treated as a civil offense, yet with criminal punishments is a direct attack on civil liberties and due process.
This has little to do with the topic other than I would say that red light cameras will come closer to treating everyone equally better than any system we have had in the past. They tend to be brutally honest. No doubt our system of laws has never been perfect. That's a poor excuse for arguing for a system that actually works better though.
Yes, they will bundle crappy mortgages together and sell them to their clients as "investments" while simultaneously going short on them, betting that they would fail. When their greed then falls in around them, they cry to the gov't for a bailout.
Crappy mortgages that the government made them provide. You prove my case and provide more insight into where you are coming from.
That would indeed be one less problem I have with them. I also think that would make them far less likely to be installed, because the revenue stream generated would not be enough to justify the TRUE cost of the system. If safety is the true reason we want these things, then, yes we should be willing to pay the full cost.
How are we not paying the true cost now. That doesn't make any sense. Previously the argument was that corporations and municipalities were profiting from these cameras. Now the argument is that we don't even cover the cost of the system?
Goldman is generally not in the mortgage business. Regardless of who made who provide the mortgages, and the gov't program you are referring to is but a tiny portion of the bad mortgages made, Goldman willfully sold to their clients investments that they were betting would go bad. If you are going to defend that practice, then I truly don't understand you.
Notice the conspicuous absence of the word safety, in this quote from the Solicitor of Baltimore. "Fund" or "Revenue" did show up six times though.
The story was about a financial dispute. Discussion of safety would really be off the topic of the story.
Goldman is generally not in the mortgage business.
The mortgage companies that were forced into making those loans are in the mortgage business though. It's the forcing of making bad loans that is the root cause of the problem. I never said boo about Goldman.
You brought in a completely different reasoning. That is shifting your argument from the effectiveness to the administration issues. It's not a matter of trading types of accidents, but providing maximum safety. Speed limits trade high speed accidents for low speed accidents, but the intent is to provide a reasonable level of overall safety.
Therefore, I can only argue one way to make a point? Rather than trade a less safe act for one that is considered dangerous but less than the other is. Perhaps real retraining would be in order.
Then it should be pretty easy to cite the example. It is your data.
It's the due process that protects us from over reach of the government. I'm not concerned about being prosecuted for burglary exactly for the reason that you cite. I'm not doing anything wrong. I still want the laws in place though. If I were accused of burglary due process would demand that evidence be brought, and I have a chance to examine and challenge that evidence. Nothing is different in this case. That is exactly how we are protected under our system of laws.
The red light cameras are pretty much only used at high traffic intersections. Are you really getting stuck at a high traffic intersection? Complain to the municipality being specific about exactly where and what lane. The sensors can be adjusted. Even so most will give a light every other cycle without being triggered by a sensor just to prevent what you are describing. I'm not sure that you are describing a real world situation.
That is more than once you have made this personal….You have very little idea who I am and to suggest that I am lying is completely out of line. I have before about other places in this town and nothing changed. To that end I have reported it anyway. What due process?
Many ways. Speeding has never been treated as a black and white issue for one (or red and green). There are also environmental factors that can effect the operation of the radar equipment and there is no way to know anything about the environment at the time of the infraction. Also radar equipment needs to be calibrated periodically, something that is unlikely to happen to a radar sitting on a pole. By contrast a video is going to be pretty clear on showing a car running a red light or not. If you are moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle, that will be seen in the video tape when it's reviewed. Worst case is you would be in court showing the video to the judge. If that same a--hole cop busted you for the same thing sitting watching the corner in person, it would be your word against the cop with no video to prove your innocence. There are actually some protections for the innocent built into this sort of system.
How can you know that the emergency vehicle will actually be shown? I am guessing that you probably have not had much experience with the criminal/civil ‘justice’ system or if you have you’ve had the cash floating about to make sure that you had sufficient representation. My brushes with the law all deserved except one. Most I won’t lose sleep over. The one could have been worse much worse in the end however it should have been nothing. I was young and had no means, thus had to rely on the state to protect me from itself… A wise friend told me a few years back that, fair is what you pay to get on the bus, the rest is life. Since then I have seen firsthand and through others that fair is a fallacy and does not exist. Right and wrong exist in various shades of grey fair however does not.
This has little to do with the topic other than I would say that red light cameras will come closer to treating everyone equally better than any system we have had in the past. They tend to be brutally honest. No doubt our system of laws has never been perfect. That's a poor excuse for arguing for a system that actually works better though.
You brought the rule of law argument into the conversation. Therefore, everyone should be on camera whenever he or she is in public in order to protect him or her. Bottom line at end of the day. They aren’t right for all the reasons myself and others have provided before this post. One reason no matter how good is not sufficient to warrant further government intrusion. The types of wrecks these cameras may or may not help prevent effect the minority of citizens. Yes I know that a large number of the front to side collisions are horrible(see my previous post). Even knowing that I do not believe nor will I be convinced that they are the correct solution to the problem at hand. I see them as a nuisance an intrusion and a cash cow for the government. Any one of those reasons would be reason enough for me to want them taken down and banned. Add to it the likely hood of the camera programs expanding to cover more of our daily activities. Again the slippery slope we have been pushed over by the people we have elected to do just the opposite of that. The lives of the citizens in this country are governed so tightly and are getting more and more governed every day I can hardly call it the Land of the Free. Maybe we can start calling it: The land formerly known as free.
All of this and that being said we are not going to agree. I am guessing that you or someone you love has been t-boned. Or perhaps this issue just strikes a chord with you I don’t know. At this point I am not promising to stay out of it but I am going to do more watching than writing.
The story was about a financial dispute. Discussion of safety would really be off the topic of the story.
But it's fairly obvious where the dear solicitor's concern lies.
I never said boo about Goldman.
Goldman were the ones I originally posted about.
All of this and that being said we are not going to agree. I am guessing that you or someone you love has been t-boned. Or perhaps this issue just strikes a chord with you I don’t know. At this point I am not promising to stay out of it but I am going to do more watching than writing.
The city council is recommending to shut down the Red-Light Camera program saying, among other things, motorists can ignore paying the tickets because it's a voluntary pay deal. And that they are considered similar to parking tickets which won't be counted against your driving record by the DMV in the event the ticket is not paid because many of these tickets are written against the vehicle and not the driver.
Therefore, I can only argue one way to make a point?
You can argue as many points as you wish. Just don't deny that your argument is shifting.
Perhaps real retraining would be in order.
I would love to see much better driver training. Along with that goes more enforcement of the rules though. Take the autobahn as an example. You are required to stay right except to pass. They will bust you for parking it out in the left lane. Enforcement of the rules is a necessary part of the game.
It is your data.
No. It isn't.
That is more than once you have made this personal….You have very little idea who I am and to suggest that I am lying is completely out of line.
You brought your experience into this. I'm simply asking how it is that you get stuck at high traffic intersections not getting a signal. I never have this problem at red light enforced intersections even at 5:30 AM every day.
What due process?
That would be the right to defend ourselves in the court of law and challenge our accusers.
How can you know that the emergency vehicle will actually be shown?
No guarantee, but it will show 15 seconds of video. Why would you run a red light to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle in the first place. You are supposed to pull over or stay put. They will go around you. I've seen people do this and it really pissed off the firemen as they were trying to maneuver through the intersection. Had a cop seen that they would likely have gotten a ticket anyway.
Since then I have seen firsthand and through others that fair is a fallacy and does not exist. Right and wrong exist in various shades of grey fair however does not.
And yet for some reason you argue against a system that will treat people more equally. Odd.
Therefore, everyone should be on camera whenever he or she is in public in order to protect him or her.
I wouldn't take it to the extreme, but I have noticed that many people these days have cameras running during very normal everyday things, such as for example the biker that had an off duty copy cut him off and come at him with his gun un-holstered. This really has zippolla to do with being taped while breaking the law though.
One reason no matter how good is not sufficient to warrant further government intrusion.
Telling me I can't use an incandescent light bulb is government intrusion. Enforcing necessary traffic laws isn't. If you can't understand the difference then I really don't know what can be said.
The types of wrecks these cameras may or may not help prevent effect the minority of citizens. Yes I know that a large number of the front to side collisions are horrible(see my previous post). Even knowing that I do not believe nor will I be convinced that they are the correct solution to the problem at hand. I see them as a nuisance an intrusion and a cash cow for the government. Any one of those reasons would be reason enough for me to want them taken down and banned. Add to it the likely hood of the camera programs expanding to cover more of our daily activities. Again the slippery slope we have been pushed over by the people we have elected to do just the opposite of that. The lives of the citizens in this country are governed so tightly and are getting more and more governed every day I can hardly call it the Land of the Free. Maybe we can start calling it: The land formerly known as free.
Do you understand that all of this is nothing more than an anti-law enforcement rant? It seems that the bottom line is that you don't want the police to be able to enforce the law.
Or perhaps this issue just strikes a chord with you I don’t know.
I'll go with that one. Driving professionally makes you see a lot of bad drivers.
But it's fairly obvious where the dear solicitor's concern lies.
Yes. They are having a financial dispute.
Goldman were the ones I originally posted about.
And I pointed out the it was because of government regulations that those bad mortgages were originated in the first place. As I said, I never said boo about Goldman. They were just a later symptom of the problem. Somehow I'm reminded of the old song about the lady that ate a fly.
Griping about getting caught running a red light is lame.
Griping about being accused of running a red light when you think you didn't is another matter.
Let us know when that happens.
Stop light cameras in public are not intrusive gov't. They are law enforcement.
Intrusive is reaching into my home or telling me what to purchase or not to purchase or taking the fruits of my efforts and ideas to give to someone else.
Holding folks accountable for stopping at an intersection is in no way intrusive that I can see. It is simply effective law enforcement and very much safety oriented.
I said I had issues with Robot Justice. I still do. I worry about being a citizen and not a subject.
As a citizen ....... You shouldn't run red lights. 99.9% of the time. the emergency stuff that happens in the real world should be arguable... and sometimes you lose. I have, where I broke a traffic rule and saved lives. Unfortunate for me the police officer didn't see the whole incident. Oh, well, crap happens. He did compliment me on pulling over. He knew I could have rabbited. I had a passenger. I was responsible. ( has to happen sometimes )
Patrick, Do you consider it robot justice when the evidence is reviewed by multiple humans before making the accusation? This is one of the things that makes me wonder about the speed cameras. I don't know if there's anyway for a human to verify that you were speeding based on these beyond saying, "yep, it says your speed was 87 mph". Admittedly I know little about how the speed camera systems operate though.
Let's see if this guy gets a ticket from a speed camera.
honestly I'm conflicted on the robot ticket deals. It's not that I just want to be able to break the law and get away with it, ( though there is some truth to that ) it's the very idea of getting multiple policeman come to my door with shotguns and tasers to arrest me for disobeying a robot. Bad science fiction doesn't even cover it. How easy is it to hack the robot ticket system?
)