Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Almighty Buck The Courts Transportation Your Rights Online

Tennessee Town Releases Red Light Camera Stats 567

Posted by timothy
from the let's-rethink-the-rolling-stop-at-least dept.
SonicSpike links to what he calls "a transparent look at some statistics released by a small town's red-light camera program," writing "Specifically, in the last fiscal quarter, 7,213 incidents were recorded, 2,673 incidents were rejected by the reviewing officer, and 662 incidents were not processed due to technical issues or lack of information. All in all 3,878 citations were issued between April 1 — June 30 in a town of 17,000 residents. Interestingly enough there are two nearby cities claiming that individuals 'have no presumption of innocence' when accused by the red light cameras." Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tennessee Town Releases Red Light Camera Stats

Comments Filter:
  • no-harm no-foul (Score:4, Insightful)

    by topham (32406) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:00PM (#33061672) Homepage

    No problem.

    No-harm, no foul. However, you fuck up, spend life in prison. seems reasonable to me.

  • Yield signs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kehren77 (814078) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:06PM (#33061748)

    Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.

    I too am bugged by rolling stop fines. However the biggest problem I see with merging stop signs with yield signs is that some people tend to believe that a yield sign means they just need to try to merge with traffic, not stop and yield right of way.

  • by Peach Rings (1782482) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:06PM (#33061752) Homepage

    The point is that they have to prove you did it. Fundamental tenant of criminal justice, etc.

  • Re:no-harm no-foul (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0123456 (636235) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:07PM (#33061758)

    I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

    There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.

    But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.

  • by kbreak (1378527) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:07PM (#33061762) Homepage
    So, the big question is, "did the redlight cameras reduce accidents or increase them?" Here in Los Angeles, a TV station got ahold of the records, and in most cases, accidents *increase* at camera intersections.
  • by clang_jangle (975789) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:08PM (#33061774) Journal
    Yes, and we all know how infallible those revenue-generating ticket machines are. Also your local government would *never* cheat...
  • by Yakasha (42321) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:11PM (#33061830) Homepage

    If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent? Bear in mind that red light cameras don't tend to trip below about 5mph, so "I just pulled into the junction to let the ambulance past" won't fly.

    Just a few:

    • The city improperly shortened the timing on the yellow light.
    • The date on the camera is wrong.
    • The camera violates anti-wiretapping laws
    • My brakes were broken
    • That isn't my car
  • by cruff (171569) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:11PM (#33061832) Homepage

    Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me

    Perhaps you have never been side swiped by someone who failed to stop at a red light or stop sign? It can be much worse when you are a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorcyclist without a steel cage to protect you. You might think differently then.

  • by cosm (1072588) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <3msoceht>> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:14PM (#33061860)

    If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

    Many ways. It could have been wild kids putting printouts of my plate on theirs, and then blowing threw the lights so that I could be mailed the ticket, it could be a computer error (those never happen), it could be foul play, maybe a database problem. The prevailing assumption from this line of rationale is that even though technology progresses, nothing is absolute. And if you are willing to risk your criminal history, driving record, insurance cost, etc against an electronic system sold to people who haven't been known to be the most honest with matters of money and law, well good sir, keep pissing it away.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

  • by CLorox (7) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:15PM (#33061884)

    The article doesn't state how many residents of the town were ticketed as opposed to out of town drivers passing through, but lets pretend it did. Nearly 50% of people in this town flagged, and a little under a quarter were ticketed.... in 3 short months? Not sure how many were drivers from outside the town, but that is a ridiculous sum. Change the law or scrap the camera, this is not working and is a burden to the citizens. I wonder how many traffic collisions will occur because people are slamming on the breaks trying to avoid getting ticketed.

    How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court. Burden to the court, burden to the citizen and a significant expense of time and money. What a racket.

  • Screw em (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lisany (700361) <slashdot@ t h edoh.com> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:17PM (#33061918)

    As someone who has almost been run over by morons failing to stop at a stop sign and red light I endorse red-light and stop sign cameras. I say put the cameras at every intersection and raise the penalty for not stopping at stop signs or red lights.

  • by cosm (1072588) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <3msoceht>> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:18PM (#33061928)
    And what happens if I own the exact same model of car, same color, same look and feel, and somebody drives through that light with a well done forgery of the innocent persons plates, landing them a ticket, with the picture as 'proof' and all.

    Oh but the picture shows them guilty. They must have done it. Don't be so willing to throw away the "Innocent until proven guilty" clause to the heralding of new technology. Because that just means you will see ten-fold increase in convictions by 'no presumption of innocence', as you have happily given away your right to fight by not voting the county-city-state 'tards out who made it all possible.
  • Re:Yield signs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rotide (1015173) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:19PM (#33061938)

    That's because the morons who make decisions to put yield signs at the end of _on_ ramps onto major interstates create a system where you learn to ignore them.

    If you actually stop and yield to traffic on an interstate, one of two things will happen. Either you will be stopped forever, or you will be plowed into by the guy behind you.

    Now, on normal roads, at least I yield to traffic when I see them. I know they have their place, but interstate on ramps, no.

  • by Myopic (18616) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:20PM (#33061956)

    Hmmm. Does that fit under no-harm-no-foul? To me it seems like swiping a person would violate the "no harm" part of the phrase.

    I guess I don't really think that strict enforcement of absolutely full stops at stop signs (or right turns at red lights) increases the safety of pedestrians. If it does, then it is probably "worth it"; but if it doesn't, then it certainly isn't. I'm not a traffic professional so I can't really say.

  • by egandalf (1051424) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:20PM (#33061958)
    There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't. You either break the law, or you don't. Not harming someone or their property doesn't make it any more legal to disobey rules of the road.

    This whole concept reminds me of the George Carlin bit about staying seated until the plane comes to a "complete stop." There is no such thing as a partial stop. If you roll through a light, get caught and fined, at least own up to it. Any driver who does this knows they are taking the risk, knows it's against the rules, and, while I'm not saying they deserve to get caught, should at least take personal responsibility if they do.

    I roll through stops sometimes, though I do try to make a conscious effort to not do so. I also speed - and have no shame in doing it. If/when I get caught, I accept the consequences unless I have what I feel is a justifiable reason for what I did.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:21PM (#33061970)

    The timing of the yellow light has nothing to do with whether or not you ran the red.
    Why should the date on the camera make any difference? It's proof of what you did.
    Wiretapping has nothing to do with taking pictures of public behavior.
    Are broken brakes a defense against moving violations? I don't think they should be.
    If that isn't your car, why does it have your license plate?

    Is this the best you can do?

  • by MrBB (1866342) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:22PM (#33061982)
    There are quite a few black tire marks leading into the intersections that are camera enforced where I live... The winter here is ESPECIALLY dangerous where ice + snow + fear of a ticket = scary situations. I actually avoid areas that are camera enforced. I have heard of studies that show a decline in local economy because of these systems.
  • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:23PM (#33062012)

    On the other hand if you just want to reduce all accidents you make the yellow light longer. Almost 0 cost, and actually effective. On the other hand it doesn't generate thousands of dollars in revenue for the police department so it's a no go.

  • Re:no-harm no-foul (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Captain Splendid (673276) * <capsplendid@gmai ... m minus caffeine> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:23PM (#33062016) Homepage Journal
    Yaah, they're called roundabouts. Problem is, they're too confusing for yanks apparently. No skin off my nose, but you did ask.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:23PM (#33062020)

    I wasn't driving the car - someone else was

  • by Myopic (18616) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:25PM (#33062044)

    I have long thought that a majority (not all, not even most, but more than half) of stop signs should be replaced by yield signs which specifically list the speed to which you should slow down. For instance, we all do rolling stops because, honestly, it's almost always safe to do so. You rarely see people doing it at blind intersections with unclear views (I don't see that, anyway). Almost all intersections have very good visibility and slowing down to 5mph is perfectly safe. Some intersections, 10mph will be good enough; some, 2 or 3mph is good enough. On a small number of intersections require a full absolute STOP to make the intersection safe.

    (Please note, I followed the link but could not watch the video. I was hoping for a text summary but there was none. If he said exactly what I said, then I'm silly and apologize.)

  • by maxume (22995) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:25PM (#33062054)

    Are you really so sure they aren't just targeting intersections where they have more problems, rather than the people that live near those intersections?

  • by Myopic (18616) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:27PM (#33062070)

    I'm not a lawyer, but I think "preponderance of evidence" is a lower standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt". Presumption of innocence is a different concept which would apply to both standards of evidence. Can a lawyer please say for sure?

  • by ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:29PM (#33062104)

    The photograph IS the proof.

    If the driver is not positively identified then it is only proof of the vehicle's role in the infraction; not the identity of the perpetrator.

  • by Necreia (954727) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:29PM (#33062106)

    The article doesn't state how many residents of the town were ticketed as opposed to out of town drivers passing through, but lets pretend it did. Nearly 50% of people in this town flagged, and a little under a quarter were ticketed.... in 3 short months? Not sure how many were drivers from outside the town, but that is a ridiculous sum. Change the law or scrap the camera, this is not working and is a burden to the citizens. I wonder how many traffic collisions will occur because people are slamming on the breaks trying to avoid getting ticketed.

    How is it not working? People violating the law are being caught and fined as appropriate. The problem/complaints seem to stem from it working too well. Also according to the article, people who were not violating the law were not given tickets. To quote: "more than 41 percent of the total recorded incidents were rejected. Although most were still violations of state law, they were considered very close calls or were due to such reasons as vehicles stopping a short distance over the stop bar that did not pose a traffic hazard, vehicles moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle, plates that were unidentifiable and weather related issues."

    ...How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court...

    In inclement weather, or other situations in which the speed limit is too high to drive safely, then it's the drivers responsibility to low down to safe speeds. If the driver couldn't react (for whatever reason) and stop for a red light, then they were going too fast under the circumstances. The Green->Yellow->Red timings are not arbitrary, and are based on good weather conditions and acceptable reaction time expectations. If you can't stop for a red light, you'll not stop for a pedestrian. In short, they are going too fast and deserve the ticket.

  • by IgnitusBoyone (840214) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:31PM (#33062116)

    In Louisiana these things are always used to also give out speeding tickets for (they claim 11 over, but my wife received one for 7 so I personally think its 6mph). Might sound bad as I have had to pay tickets from these things, but I disagree in handing out speeding tickets through automated systems. This Article cites a reviewing officer, but to my knowledge the system in place where I live uses company employees and not police officers to review the video's. Anyways I have no problem with ticketing anyone who runs a stop sign its a dangerous act that you can't expect cops to witness enough to enforce the law. However, I can't say I like the idea of ticketing a car and not a driver, but at least they have a spot on the ticket to transfer the ownership of the ticket to the driver.

    I do have problems with getting speeding tickets from them with out the benefit of the doubt or consideration to the flow of traffic and day of the week. In a big city normally the roads are so busy its not possible to speed when it would be really dangerous to do so, but it is possible to run red lights. However, on the weekdays or early in the morning when no one is on the road its easy to forget that some parts of a five lane road are 35MPH and be caught going 42MPH. They do not release the stats here that often, but it was reported by the local news (for what ever that is worth) that the five camera's in my area produced more revenue then the traffic tickets issued by the regular police force during the first year of operation. As I can't find the quote right now online I will have to take that fact with a grain of salt, but worth mentioning.

  • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:32PM (#33062124)

    There are legal requirements for the length of the yellow that are dependent upon the speed limit on the road. The city violating those requirements would significantly weaken their position that you could have avoided going through the red light. Taken to the logical extreme, imagine the city shortens the yellow light to 0 seconds and then fines everyone for going through on red.

    Camera date is the weakest of his arguments, but it does point to general problems within the system and chain of evidence. If nothing else, if the camera says you were at intersection X at 1pm on Tuesday and you can prove that you and your car were somewhere else it weakens their case considerably.

    Police departments have recently been using wiretap laws to argue that it is illegal to film them in public. This is simply turning that argument around on them, more in protest to their not wanting to be filmed than an argument to your innocence. Still a point worth mentioning since the argument has worked for others (the police) in the past.

    Broken brakes would result in a fix-it ticket, generally little to no fine if you provide proof that the issue has been professionally repaired. Yes, this is absolutely a valid defense assuming that it is true.

    Stolen plates, you let someone borrow the car, stolen car... all situations which would end up with you getting a ticket that for an action that you never performed. You might have to prove that one of these was the case, but it is a valid argument.

  • by RackinFrackin (152232) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:38PM (#33062198)

    Some states are considering banning red light cameras altogether, so there is clearly plenty of cause for concern about the issue.

    At least one state has already done it [arstechnica.com].

  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:43PM (#33062258)

    There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't

    Yes, you've spotted an oxymoron, good job and all, but it's not actually "rolling on through" either. There is a significant difference between a car driving past a stop sign at 30 mph and a car that slows down to 5 mph at the stop sign: one of those gave the driver enough time to make sure they weren't going to t-bone a car or smash a person, satisfying the intended function of a stop.

    It's a widely accepted term, the fact that literally it doesn't make much sense doesn't matter.

  • by Anonymous Cowpat (788193) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:45PM (#33062294) Journal

    Also, don't short-change people with the filters.

    Near where I live there are several junctions with right turn filters (I live in the UK, we drive on the correct side of the road so a right-filter is precious). The entire cycle of the lights is around 3 minutes, the right filter is about 15 seconds tops (it may only be 10). As such, people jump the red because they want to get through the junction without having to wait another 3 minutes. Someone stalling can cost everyone the entire cycle, someone not being in gear with the handbrake off can easily cost 20% of the available time.
    If people weren't being left with only a 12th or less of the total cycle in which to use the junction, they may be less inclined to jump the light.

    Another one is where, at peak times, one road just gets dropped from the cycle. By the time the people in that road have seen where their light should have gone green staying red for the third time, they start to assume that the lights are broken and push into the junction anyway.

  • by Myopic (18616) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:50PM (#33062360)

    Indeed. The lesson is don't go do that small town, especially when you want to buy goods and services. It's even more helpful if the local business owners know why you have been 'driven' away from their stores.

  • by blueg3 (192743) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @04:58PM (#33062476)

    If you have to slam on your brakes to stop in the amount of time it takes a traffic light to change from yellow to red, you're going too fast for the conditions.

  • by cosm (1072588) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <3msoceht>> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @05:01PM (#33062516)
    While this is true in some jurisdiction, statements like:

    A motion responding to two $10 million lawsuits in Hamilton County chancery court says a camera infraction that carries a $50 civil penalty has a lower standard of constitutional protection than criminal offenses....

    ...The court filing obtained by the Chattanooga Times Free Press says offenders "are not entitled to a trial by jury, a presumption of innocence or a heightened burden of proof.

    are not very reassuring for the future of the proliferation of these devices, and further spin-offs that use the same automate-print-fine process.

  • by Surt (22457) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @05:05PM (#33062582) Homepage Journal

    Which is depressing, considering how well established it is that police officers widely engage in fraud, lying, etc. In much, much higher percentages than the rest of the population.

  • by cynyr (703126) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @05:10PM (#33062636)

    lets see, cost of 1 tbone, 2 cars, driver of the tboned car's medical bills, any lost productivity due to injury or death.
    Cost of a rear end, 2 cars repair bills(easily the cost of a car with modern cars), medical bills for the whiplash of the hit driver, lost productivity due to injury/death.

    Hmm seems to have a similar cost, just that one might have a higher death rate. On a side note, are your yellow times long enough to account for all legal driving conditions? legal min tread tires, just legal brakes, .07 BAC(or .09 depending on your state), and 2" of freezing rain followed by 2 feet of fresh snow at the speed limit? if not, your yellows need to be longer or you need to install a "count down to yellow" counter, to warn drivers of when the light will be red/yellow.

  • Re:no-harm no-foul (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Faluzeer (583626) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @05:16PM (#33062722)

    Hmmm

    It is not the roundabouts that are dangerous, it is the morons that are abusing them that are dangerous.

  • Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Posting=!Working (197779) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @05:18PM (#33062750)

    I can't believe that every one of these cameras has not been hit by a paintball gun already. Simple, quiet, effective, makes them cost more than they're worth, and although certainly illegal, pretty easy to get away with (if you shoot at 4 am and when your light is green.)

    What ever happened to civil disobedience? So very few are willing to make a stand anymore.

  • by burquedout (1702826) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @05:19PM (#33062758) Homepage
    But slowing down to 5mph is often slow enough to determine if you have right of way or not and continue through. The fact that it's equally illegal is the stupid thing, there is no reason to come to a complete stop other than the law. The law needs to be changed in my opinion.
  • by SleazyRidr (1563649) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @05:30PM (#33062942)

    Then of course is the case where you get rear-ended which pushes you into the intersection, where you get t-boned.

  • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @06:03PM (#33063320)

    So if nobody gets hurt (this time) it's okay?

    The problem with rolling stops is that they turn into slow-down-a-bits, and it's much harder to look around for pedestrians or bicycles when you're still moving forward. Just stop and look.

  • Re:no-harm no-foul (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kreigaffe (765218) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @06:14PM (#33063464)

    Yes, saving 5 seconds of your time 99% of the time is sure great. It's that 1% of the time you cause an accident which causes *everyone* to lose many minutes of their travel, and potentially causes you and/or others to lose their *LIFE*.. that's what really throws things off.

    Stop at the fucking stop sign. You want to save 5 seconds, run to and from your car instead of walking. I find it amusing yet depressing that people are concerned about shaving a few seconds off their travel when driving their car -- potential risks be damned! -- but when it actually would require physical effort on their part to move faster -- moving faster than a slow crawl when walking -- those same people won't step up to the plate.

  • Re:Yield signs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by radish (98371) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @06:16PM (#33063484) Homepage

    But they _don't_ mean "stop and yield right of way" they mean "prepare to yield, stopping if necessary". If there's nothing to yield to, you don't have to stop (obviously) - likewise if there is traffic but you can yield without stopping (for example by just slowing down) that's OK too.

    It depends on your definition of "merge" but if there's a steady stream of traffic with large enough gaps between the vehicles and I can merge without causing the car approaching to get too close to me or to have to slow down, I think I've satisfied the requirement of yielding.

  • Re:no-harm no-foul (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bl968 (190792) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @06:24PM (#33063562) Journal

    err the last link above should have been http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/finalreport.pdf [thenewspaper.com]

  • by Itninja (937614) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @06:36PM (#33063694) Homepage
    According to Snopes.com, this is actually a truw story:
    http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp
    Warning for non-NoScript users: site has many pop-ups, pop-unders, and various other unpleasant scripts....
  • Re:no-harm no-foul (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HermMunster (972336) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @06:39PM (#33063740)

    I was watching (a rare event for me) a Sunday morning news segment (that was quite long) about red light cameras. I picked up some interesting information.

    For instance:

    1) The cameras are not owned by the Cities that use them. The cameras are rented and a portion of the fines collected are pocketed by the companies that own the cameras.

    2) Most Cities proudly reduce the yellow light duration to 3 seconds. Those companies that own the cameras require that the Cities reduce the yellow to 3 seconds, otherwise they'll pull the cameras out. The fines must also be within a certain threshold or those companies owning the cameras will pull them out.

    Before pleading guilty remember to check the City ordinances on how long those yellow lights are supposed to be.

    3) The cameras must yield a certain number of tickets or the cameras don't make money. So, they reduce the yellow duration, or they put more cameras up.

    4) There's at least initially, a substantive increase in rear end accidents.

    5) The red light cameras make a significant amount of money for the Cities with little to no discernible increase in traffic safety. Most cities refuse to produce the factual statistics showing the results.

    6) Most people that dispute the tickets should dispute them and ask that the Judges reduce the fine.

    7) Residents should ask to have the proposals for red light cameras put on the ballot before the City does so; and they should set the maximum fine to equal the lowest ticket fine possible. In most communities that's $20.00 whereas if that's not made part of the ballot then fines are around $150.

    8) Most red light camera tickets/fines don't go on your driving record nor on your insurance record.

  • by garyebickford (222422) <gar37bic.gmail@com> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @06:54PM (#33063862)

    wasn't that a prank some kids in the UK did last year? IIRC they printed out copies of the school principal's license, pasted it over their own licenses and then blew through stop lights all over town. He had like 50 tickets for running lights and speeding. I think they wore disguises for obvious reasons.

  • Re:no-harm no-foul (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jschen (1249578) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @08:38PM (#33064282)

    Actually, roundabouts have become very popular in my hometown (Fargo, ND) because they are much safer when roads are icy. At a 4-way stop or a traffic light, if your car slides it goes into traffic. Our roundabouts have a small hill in the middle so if the car slides it hits a curb and eventually some dirt to stop it. It's much safer. And most are designed to be beautiful as well as functional.

    Sure, that's great if you happen to slide into the roundabout when no one's going by. But what if you slide whine on the roundabout into someone waiting to get into the roundabout? Or if you slide into the roundabout as someone's going past? And with everyone now needing to do some turning (not just the people changing roads), there should be more risk of sliding. Seems to me like you've just traded one problem for another.

  • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @09:50PM (#33064626)
    The first one I thought it so obvious that I was making a legal right turn that I requested a hearing without my presence, figuring that the judge would get it. They still charged me.

    Sorry, what? A hearing without your presence? Are you not aware that any hearing/lawsuit is an automatic win for one party if the other party does not show up?? That's why the recommend going to contest your tickets even if you are fully guilty - if the accusing officer does not bother to show up, you automatically get the ticket tossed.
    Also, you would lose because you are showing lots of contempt for the judge by not showing up and he would actively look for a way to screw you over.

  • by gerardrj (207690) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @10:00PM (#33064702) Journal

    So if I borrow your rolling pin from the kitchen then bludgeon you neighbor with it, you are the one that should be held responsible because its your rolling pin?
    Unless of course you report the rolling pin stolen.

  • Re:no-harm no-foul (Score:3, Insightful)

    by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday July 29, 2010 @11:54AM (#33071252) Journal

    >>>It is not the roundabouts that are dangerous, it is the morons that are abusing them that are dangerous.

    So then why bother to replace the redlights, if the new idea can also be abused, and therefore no more effective?

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...