5 ms·

Photo traffic tickets are just another tool for those with a monopoly on force to steal money from people. Fortunately, in Arizona the state is still required t

Photo traffic tickets are just another tool for those with a monopoly on force to steal money from people. Fortunately, in Arizona the state is still required to serve in person in order for the ticket to be binding. My wife and I have got for or five of these tickets in the mail over the years. We just throw them in the trash.

leesalminen 9y ago
> Fortunately, in Arizona the state is still required to serve in person in order for the ticket to be binding. Colorado as well. > We just throw them in the trash. This worked once for me. The second time, an off duty Sheriff's Deputy came to my house and served me.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Not exactly true - in CO you can get a speed trap van to mail you a ticket from Arizona - they can't add points to your record but they can take you to court if you don't pay.
- 0x445442 9y ago
  That happened to us once I think but it was not law enforcement. They tried to have someone serve us in the evening. We just didn't answer the door
  - leesalminen 9y ago
    Interesting...the guy flashed some kind of metal, cop looking badge. They do give badges to lots of people these days other than police/sheriff so I guess it could've been any .gov thug.
revelation 9y ago
You run red lights and think it's a "money grab"? And are happy about non-enforcement? I believe you lack the maturity to operate multi-ton vehicles on public streets.
- mulmen 9y ago
  1) GP admitted no wrongdoing, accusation is not proof. 2) Traffic cameras are used to issue more than just red light tickets, speed cameras being another example. 3) TFA is about flaws in those devices that can lead to incorrect accusations on the part of the state employing them.
  - revelation 9y ago
    Driving is a privilege, not a right. What proof are you looking for? And this is a thread about red light cameras. Is this confusing to you? What's the difference in "money grabbiness" between red light cameras and speed cameras? Is someone who disregards the one but not the other qualified to drive? And you seem to have missed it, but this article and the "engineer" isn't even claiming the devices are wrongfully ticketing.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      Just because driving is a privilege, doesn't mean that it is ok for the government to use broken systems that do not accurately catch lawbreakers.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      > You run red lights and think it's a "money grab"? There is no proof of your statement. You assumed guilt because the state sent a ticket to someone. Just because a ticket showed up in the mail does not mean the person is guilty of anything. So what if driving is a privilege? Can the government stop us at its whim from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights? Red light cameras and speed cameras are both mindless automatons that are configured by fallible humans. They don't always work. I don't think a person's ability to drive should be judged by the findings of these machines. You seem to have missed it, but > Järlström was inspired by the $150 ticket his wife got in the mail in May after driving through an intersection with a red-light camera in Beaverton, Ore. His research showed that the mathematical formula used in the timing of yellow lights was outdated and unfair to drivers. > Järlström’s interest in traffic cameras has grown into a passion. He says the original formula for calculating the duration of yellow lights dates back to the 1950s and only accounts for cars driving in straight lines. Cars in turning lanes need more time to slow down and make a legal right-hand turn, he says.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
The other problem is that they invade privacy. Having a camera constantly recording in a public area is not something that I find reasonable. Cameras do not announce their presence. Cameras do not get tired, or leave. Cameras made for law enforcement assume guilt.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  I'm torn about this. Surveillance by people is expensive, grueling, and hard to hide. If I imagine police wanting to replace a team of people surveilling some person or people or place with a camera, I don't notice any outrage. It's more the ubiquity of surveillance that seems unreasonable, but, like a lot of things, there's no clear dividing line between what should be allowed and what should be prohibited. And it's even more complicated by the ability of, e.g. police, to pool multiple cameras owned by private individuals or groups.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Why do we need to constantly surveil people? What happened to trust? When people do illegal things to other people or their property, that is when law enforcement should get involved. We shouldn't just watch people waiting to see them do something that we have defined as "wrong". We should react to the things that people do wrong, and educate people about how to go about their lives without harming others. > Surveillance by people is expensive, grueling, and hard to hide. Laws are designed for a law enforcement body that has these inadequacies. If we start enforcing them in a different way that does not have these limitations, the aspects of those laws that were designed to make up for those inadequacies suddenly become harsh and constrictive.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > If I imagine police wanting to replace a team of people surveilling some person or people or place with a camera, I don't notice any outrage. Here you are talking about "warranted" surveillance. Traffic cameras are warrantless.

leesalminen 9y ago

> Fortunately, in Arizona the state is still required to serve in person in order for the ticket to be binding. Colorado as well. > We just throw them in the trash. This worked once for me. The second time, an off duty Sheriff's Deputy came to my house and served me.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Not exactly true - in CO you can get a speed trap van to mail you a ticket from Arizona - they can't add points to your record but they can take you to court if you don't pay.
0x445442 9y ago
That happened to us once I think but it was not law enforcement. They tried to have someone serve us in the evening. We just didn't answer the door
- leesalminen 9y ago
  Interesting...the guy flashed some kind of metal, cop looking badge. They do give badges to lots of people these days other than police/sheriff so I guess it could've been any .gov thug.

revelation 9y ago

You run red lights and think it's a "money grab"? And are happy about non-enforcement? I believe you lack the maturity to operate multi-ton vehicles on public streets.

mulmen 9y ago
1) GP admitted no wrongdoing, accusation is not proof. 2) Traffic cameras are used to issue more than just red light tickets, speed cameras being another example. 3) TFA is about flaws in those devices that can lead to incorrect accusations on the part of the state employing them.
- revelation 9y ago
  Driving is a privilege, not a right. What proof are you looking for? And this is a thread about red light cameras. Is this confusing to you? What's the difference in "money grabbiness" between red light cameras and speed cameras? Is someone who disregards the one but not the other qualified to drive? And you seem to have missed it, but this article and the "engineer" isn't even claiming the devices are wrongfully ticketing.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    Just because driving is a privilege, doesn't mean that it is ok for the government to use broken systems that do not accurately catch lawbreakers.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    > You run red lights and think it's a "money grab"? There is no proof of your statement. You assumed guilt because the state sent a ticket to someone. Just because a ticket showed up in the mail does not mean the person is guilty of anything. So what if driving is a privilege? Can the government stop us at its whim from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights? Red light cameras and speed cameras are both mindless automatons that are configured by fallible humans. They don't always work. I don't think a person's ability to drive should be judged by the findings of these machines. You seem to have missed it, but > Järlström was inspired by the $150 ticket his wife got in the mail in May after driving through an intersection with a red-light camera in Beaverton, Ore. His research showed that the mathematical formula used in the timing of yellow lights was outdated and unfair to drivers. > Järlström’s interest in traffic cameras has grown into a passion. He says the original formula for calculating the duration of yellow lights dates back to the 1950s and only accounts for cars driving in straight lines. Cars in turning lanes need more time to slow down and make a legal right-hand turn, he says.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

The other problem is that they invade privacy. Having a camera constantly recording in a public area is not something that I find reasonable. Cameras do not announce their presence. Cameras do not get tired, or leave. Cameras made for law enforcement assume guilt.

aeorgnoieang 9y ago
I'm torn about this. Surveillance by people is expensive, grueling, and hard to hide. If I imagine police wanting to replace a team of people surveilling some person or people or place with a camera, I don't notice any outrage. It's more the ubiquity of surveillance that seems unreasonable, but, like a lot of things, there's no clear dividing line between what should be allowed and what should be prohibited. And it's even more complicated by the ability of, e.g. police, to pool multiple cameras owned by private individuals or groups.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Why do we need to constantly surveil people? What happened to trust? When people do illegal things to other people or their property, that is when law enforcement should get involved. We shouldn't just watch people waiting to see them do something that we have defined as "wrong". We should react to the things that people do wrong, and educate people about how to go about their lives without harming others. > Surveillance by people is expensive, grueling, and hard to hide. Laws are designed for a law enforcement body that has these inadequacies. If we start enforcing them in a different way that does not have these limitations, the aspects of those laws that were designed to make up for those inadequacies suddenly become harsh and constrictive.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > If I imagine police wanting to replace a team of people surveilling some person or people or place with a camera, I don't notice any outrage. Here you are talking about "warranted" surveillance. Traffic cameras are warrantless.