Proposal aims to ban license-plate covers (buying, safety, vehicles)

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Hassayampa Slim

Bear, I was talking with my son's attorney a few months ago, and he advised that legally you have ran the light if it goes red before you have cleared the intersection.

That is incorrect. I already posted a link to the relevant Arizona code several posts ago, and yet people are still speculating and passing on bad information. Unbelievable.

The relevant code is here. Read it for yourselves. ARS 28-645. Traffic control signal legend

Here's the applicable text. Nowhere will you see that you have to clear the intersection before it turns red.

2. Steady yellow indication:
(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is warned by the signal that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection.
(b) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in section 28-646, pedestrians facing a steady yellow signal are advised by the signal that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red indication is shown and a pedestrian shall not then start to cross the roadway.
3. Red indication:
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of this paragraph, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.

That's all that is written. If you receive a ticket for being in the intersection when it's red, print out the code and take it with you to court. You will win.

If you want to dispute this post, cite the actual ARS code. Hearsay doesn't count.

[Hassayampa Slim]

Originally Posted by kdog

That is incorrect. I already posted a link to the relevant Arizona code several posts ago, and yet people are still speculating and passing on bad information. Unbelievable.

The relevant code is here. Read it for yourselves. ARS 28-645. Traffic control signal legend

Here's the applicable text. Nowhere will you see that you have to clear the intersection before it turns red.

That's all that is written. If you receive a ticket for being in the intersection when it's red, print out the code and take it with you to court. You will win.

If you want to dispute this post, cite the actual ARS code. Hearsay doesn't count.

I can only tell you what the attorney has found in his dealings with the court. Hopefully I will be lucky and not have to worry about what the interpretation would be for me. If you know of a case where the ARS was stipulated and the court dismissed the charges, I would be glad to pass the name or case number on to the attorney for him to revue and maybe use as precedent in future cases. Unless you are a judge or commissioner, I'm afraid your interpretation of the statute, is only that.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Hassayampa Slim

I can only tell you what the attorney has found in his dealings with the court. Hopefully I will be lucky and not have to worry about what the interpretation would be for me. If you know of a case where the ARS was stipulated and the court dismissed the charges, I would be glad to pass the name or case number on to the attorney for him to revue and maybe use as precedent in future cases. Unless you are a judge or commissioner, I'm afraid your interpretation of the statute, is only that.

The statute is in plain English that my 2nd grade kid could understand. It's unambiguous and there's nothing there to interpret. It says "if the light is red, don't enter the intersection", that's it. Since I have referenced the actual traffic code, and you've only passed on hearsay, I would say the ball is your court to prove otherwise. Hearsay is worthless.

[Hassayampa Slim]

Originally Posted by kdog

The statute is in plain English that my 2nd grade kid could understand. It's unambiguous and there's nothing there to interpret. It says "if the light is red, don't enter the intersection", that's it. Since I have referenced the actual traffic code, and you've only passed on hearsay, I would say the ball is your court to prove otherwise. Hearsay is worthless.

Sorry Dog, didn't realize you had tender paws.
I'll pass your expertise on to the attorney. Like I said before, I hope to be lucky enough not to have to test any interpretation.
Too old to play ball unless you want to rack them up on the felt.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Hassayampa Slim

Sorry Dog, didn't realize you had tender paws.
I'll pass your expertise on to the attorney. Like I said before, I hope to be lucky enough not to have to test any interpretation.
Too old to play ball unless you want to rack them up on the felt.

Go ahead and hurl insults all you want. At least I don't have to go running to my attorney to read a simple english paragraph.

[astickman]

Originally Posted by Bummer

My sentiments exactly, Mike!



Something to hide or planning to do something that may require hiding?

Or it could be that they are citizens of this country that recognize once we go down a path of ignoring constitutional rights for "safety", those in power will seek to grab more and more power for their own pet projects.


Also, there is very strong evidence that these red light cameras are not about public safety, but taxation, aka, raising revenue. I do not think peoples rights should be tramped for taxation. Taxes should be strictly for the purpose intended, not to bulge the public coffers where politicians are free to spend it on their own pet project.


What rights? The "right" to face your accuser and the right to cross examine the witness. A robotic machine that captures 1/200th of a second of an event is not a reliable witness. They cannot testify to what happened before or after that split second in time. Imagine if you saw a picture of a man with a gun in his hand and a body on the floor. Sure it looks like he's guilty, until you find out later that outside the camera view is a person running away with a gun in their hand, and that person in the picture with the gun is the good Samaritan that ran off the bad guy before they could finish the job. But such the picture paints very different scenario of what happened doesn't it?


Most traffic laws allow momentary overages of the limit for certain reasons, and as I recall from a driving class I took cops usually ignore slight increases speed to do things like get around slower traffic to get into a lane to exit or if there is another driver driving too slow, etc. Cops I've spoken with almost never say they give a ticket for this. In fact, I was pulled over for speeding because I had passed a truck. I told the officer the truth, I had just passed by the semi and pulled back into my lane when he got me on the radar. The truck was 200' behind me and he didn't give me the ticket. There is also the problem with cruise control. On some cars when to have the cruise set to say 75, upon going up a hill it'll give it more gas to try and keep speed. Then as you crest the hill, you overshoot the speed, on my wifes toyota I've seen it go as high as 5mph over what the cruise control was set at. Within 30 seconds you are back to 75, but if there's a cop setting there just on the other side of the hill, his radar will show you carrying your speed up the hill and then cresting and then going back down. And probably no ticket. But if that camera is there instead, it's going to snap that picture as you crest the hill and bingo you get a ticket that an officer would know not to write.


Regarding red light cameras... I can see the situation where you cross the imaginary line and are now in the intersection. The light is yellow (or even green)but there is a pedestrian walking in the crosswalk. So you have to stop for them. By the time they get thru the intersection and you go, now it's red but in fact, you didn't really run the light, you did enter it on the green or yellow and in fact that's not legally running the red light. But the camera does not show the pedestrian, they are out of view.


For me I support red light cameras ONLY on the straight across run of the red or running the left turn arrow, which happens all the time. But the right turn has too many possibilities of giving a false ticket, so I do not think they should be used. And 'speed' cameras should be totally outlawed. (Which they are in some states.)

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by astickman

Also, there is very strong evidence that these red light cameras are not about public safety, but taxation, aka, raising revenue. I do not think peoples rights should be tramped for taxation. Taxes should be strictly for the purpose intended, not to bulge the public coffers where politicians are free to spend it on their own pet project.

Lots of empty words, astickman!

Personally, living very near a Red Light Camera Intersection, I COULD CARE LESS regarding your claims, founded or otherwise, for the ulterior motives behind these cameras!

However, I am impressed with the end results . . . A HUGE REDUCTION (upwards to 50%) IN ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY THE DISRESPECTFUL AND BLATANTLY OBNOXIOUS RED LIGHT RUNNERS.

I sincerely hope you are never involved in an accident caused by those first person singular drivers.

[wit-nit]

Right on bummer

[Home_Kid]

Originally Posted by astickman

Also, there is very strong evidence that these red light cameras are not about public safety, but taxation, aka, raising revenue. I do not think peoples rights should be tramped for taxation. Taxes should be strictly for the purpose intended, not to bulge the public coffers where politicians are free to spend it on their own pet project.

if this is the reason then the folks who decided to invest in the system are blind to the facts. another city in the US (i forget where) found that the cameras did lower accidents but severely impacted city revenue generated from traffic violations. its unfortunate but true, some cities rely heavily on traffic violations as a major source of revenue. in the end this city decided to stop investing in the cameras.

[astickman]

Originally Posted by Bummer

Personally, living very near a Red Light Camera Intersection, I COULD CARE LESS regarding your claims, founded or otherwise, for the ulterior motives behind these cameras!

Spoken like a true comrade. I'm sure you will enjoy living under the socialist republic of america. But I will continue to fight to get the original freedom of individual liberty republic we started out with.