Californian Judge Rules Against Big Brother’s Cameras
California: Another Appellate Court Strikes Down Cost Neutrality
San Mateo County, California appellate court joins Orange County in ruling cost neutral red light camera contracts illegal.
The Newspaper
A second appellate ruling has struck down a California city’s red light camera program as illegal. On September 22, the California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo, Appellate Department overturned motorist Al Bullock’s $387 conviction for making a right turn on red. Presiding Judge Mark R. Forcum concisely found that San Mateo’s cost neutral contract with an Australian company, Redflex Traffic Systems, was in direct violation of state law.
“Reversed,” Forcum wrote in a one-word decision.
[...]
A small victory for a man, but a huge victory for San Mateo’s oppressed community!
Explore posts in the same categories: Justice System
5 October, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Sorry, I miss the point. What is wrong with red-light cameras? It obviously requires stronger rules to stop people from driving illegally and dangerously.
I do have a problem when trafick controls are made for the purpose of revenue making, but the main concept is still to ensure rules and safety.
When I was in Turkey they had even the more succesfull concept of police in unmarked cars, vans and even on motos with cameras to ensure people drive carefully – I rather like that concept happening back in my home country – The Netherlands with all its protecive rules and the radio and GPS telling everyone were the cameras are!
Am I a minority here?
5 October, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I suppose an EU socialist type would welcome larger government into their lives. Most Americans want less government, and less taxes to pay companies to make cameras. I use a $250,000 ultrasound computer, and it makes mistakes all the time.
Dr. B, and Ronin may have other reasons for posting this subject.
5 October, 2009 at 8:53 pm
the cameras are dangerous especially after dark.the flash tends to startle unsuspecting drivers into slamming on their brakes.i,ve seen this happen many times.in freeway traffic—- well you can imagine.they may be o.k. in some places but it,s not on the interstate.
5 October, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Why am I highlighting the red-light camera issue?
It is quite simple: It circumvents our due process of law.
What are you going to do when you loan your car to a friend and he runs a red-light and you get a ticket for it? Obviously, you are now presumed guilty until you are able to prove your innocence to the courts.
Unlike the U.K. and other European countries, the American laws are based on a system in which the alleged violator is “presumed innocent until proven guilty” and the burden of proof rests solely on the accuser.
A red-light camera cannot pull you over and verify who you are. Therefore, if you were not the driver of the car and one of your friends—or your twin brother, or whoever—ran a red light while driving your car, you are now presumed guilty and the burden of proof now rests solely on you, the accused.
That is in direct conflict with America’s “presumed innocent” legal system!
Furthermore, in American law, the accused has the right to face and confront his accuser—this is why the police officer who tickets you MUST show up in court if you declare yourself innocent. In the case of a red-light camera, your accuser is a camera and only has a photo. The camera cannot answer your questions like, “If I had stopped, would it have caused an accident?” Or, “Was there a power surge that caused you to trigger?” Or, any other myriad of questions that one might wish to ask.
The cameras are not infallible. Case in point: After several drivers in San Diego, California protested their innocence in court, police officers were tasked by the court with proving their claims that the cameras don’t lie. So, they began checking the cameras and sensors embedded in the road which trigger a photograph. Instead of proving that the cameras don’t lie, they discovered that sensors at three intersections had been moved, which caused them to falsely trigger on drivers.
Also, short yellow lights trap drivers in what is known as a “dilemma zone” where there is neither time to stop safely — without slamming the brakes and risking a rear-end collision — nor to proceed through the intersection before it changes to red. Red light cameras capitalize on this, with four out of every five tickets issued before the light has been red for a full second, according to a report by the California State Auditor. This suggests that most citations are issued to those surprised by a quick-changing signal light.
And, the list goes on and on.
Another reason is far more insidious in nature and extremely Orwellian in its execution: Red Light Cameras can be used to spy on Americans.
Privacy laws in America are essential to our nation. We have numerous freedoms, or rights, as they are sometimes called. One of these rights is the right to privacy. Another is the right to petition the government—which is sometimes concomitant with the right to assemble—Now, if the government decided to spy on everyone who worked for “Centrists of America” because the current administration felt that Centrists were a threat because they opposed ______ (fill in the blank with whatever the Obama’s administration is doing today) and were organizing a protest to petition their government, it is not inconceivable that the government could set one of the red-light cameras outside of “Centrists of America’s” offices to record every car that enters the parking lot—complete with time stamps, license plate numbers, and photos of the drivers.
I don’t know about you, but I do NOT trust my government to play by “honorable” rules—especially this current administration (and believe you me, a few years ago, I didn’t think it could get any worse than Bush! Boy, was I wrong!)
But, be that all as it may, the main point here is that these red light cameras are unconstitutional and go against the most important foundations of our legal system—Innocent before proven guilty; burden of proof; and, the right to face your accuser.
While it may seem a small thing to you and others, it is not for me. Nor, as polls would show, is it a small thing to the vast majority of Americans. Every right and every freedom which is taken away, no matter how small, is just another step into the abyss of a Totalitarian society in which We the People have no rights left. Therefore, little, seemingly unimportant violations of our rights, like these red-light cameras, are just as important as the big, major violations of our rights. Because, when you start totaling up the seemingly unimportant violations of our rights, in the guise of “protecting” us from ourselves and others, you soon realize that the sum total is much bigger than even Bush’s fascist “Patriot Act” and/or even Obama’s _______ (fill in the blank with whatever fascist BS he’s trying to pull off this week).
Cheers
6 October, 2009 at 6:24 am
Interesting points the Doc and I will have to rethink my perception of US laws a bit as well.
Interesting thing though, in The Netherlands, when you register a vehicle in your name you sign the responsibility for its use – which means when the sppeding-light camera goes off on the Breda bi-pass (the central and main junction on the freeway between Antwerp in Belgium to Rotterdam in Hollnad) and you say it was my cousin, brother etc, they will say “that is nice – who’s vehicle is it?”. If it is a company car – they will say show me the driver’s log. If it was stolen they will ask for the police report. The same goes with seat-belts, the driver is responsible for those in his vehicle. Mind you, France has just changed that law and says adult passengers are now individually responsible. Not sure if I agree or not on that one.
6 October, 2009 at 6:51 am
On a lighter note: A man pulled out of a shopping center and noticed a flash from a traffic camera. He was sure he had not had a chance to accelerate quickly enough to exceed the speed limit. So he decided to circle the block and verify that the camera was indeed snapping a picture of him.
Sure enough on his second pass the camera flashed again. Slowing down a bit more, he circled the block again… and again the camera flashed.
Trying to prove the camera was malfunctioning, he slowed to a crawl and passed the camera again. Once again the camera snapped his picture.
Imagine his surprise when a couple weeks passed and he received four tickets … for failure to wear a seat belt.