Red-light camera bill coasts through state Senate
Original post made on Aug 29, 2012
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 2:59 PM
on Aug 29, 2012 at 2:09 pm
What's wrong with using red-light cameras to raise revenue, besides monitoring safety? If someone runs a red light, anywhere, they deserve to get a ticket, period. If speed limits on the freeways were enforced, the state could get out of its budget jam. On Freeway 80 to Sacramento, it seems like half to 2/3 of the drivers are speeding more than 5 mph over the speed limit.
on Aug 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm
The bill also specifies that evidence from a red-light camera is not "hearsay" and can be used as evidence in a court of law.
That's really funny. The California legislature cannot override constitutional law upheld by the Supreme Court that has repeatedly mandated that the pictures from these cameras cannot be used to convict a driver of a criminal infraction unless s/he has the opportunity to cross-examine the people who maintain the camera (in Menlo Park's case, an Australian company). If someone receiving a ticket knows the correct arguments to make, without fail the tickets will get dismissed by the San Mateo courts.
on Aug 31, 2012 at 9:04 am
Charlie, I'll tell you what's wrong with using red light cameras to raise revenue. Red light cameras
* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.
The rear-end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera studies."
Red light cameras are a net loss to society.