AB 666 - "Red Light" Camera Outrage

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

California State Legislature

There is no AB 666. How about using the correct name and not being stupid with false names? Doing stuff like this just gives you less creditability. After all, if you're lying about the name of the bill then you're probably lying about what is in it too.

Really?

AB 666 Assembly Bill - AMENDED

Don't tell anyone but there's an SB 666 as well.

Accuracy's a beautiful thing. Calling someone who's right a liar, not so much!

[Senno]

Thanks for the link

I read the bill and do find that an appeal to superior court is provided for. The bill also relieves criminal courts of the necessity to see these ticky tacky cases and allows for re-assignment of the judges to more urgent matters, I hope. Nothing to fear in civil court really. They are generally ok there and will listen to your arguments.

I find OP's reaction to be overboard in general as I thought but did not say directly earlier.

It does not require traffic cameras to be installed, leaving that up to local jurisdiction as usual. It's not that scary I don't think.

We've run traffic cameras out of Fresno, you can to.

[BeauCharles]

Red light camera bandits are exactly why I haven't traveled through Marysville in almost a year. When I go south I take a few extra minutes and go through Yuba City instead (which got rid of their red light cameras awhile back). I used to go through Marysville until I got a "snitch ticket" for stopping a foot over the white line while making a right at a red light. I threw it away (it carries no legal weight) and vowed to avoid Marysville from that point on. I used to go through their frequently and spent a bit of money gassing the car or eating. Its their loss for being so "C.S.".

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Senno

Thanks for the link

I read the bill and do find that an appeal to superior court is provided for. The bill also relieves criminal courts of the necessity to see these ticky tacky cases and allows for re-assignment of the judges to more urgent matters, I hope. Nothing to fear in civil court really. They are generally ok there and will listen to your arguments.

I find OP's reaction to be overboard in general as I thought but did not say directly earlier.

It does not require traffic cameras to be installed, leaving that up to local jurisdiction as usual. It's not that scary I don't think.

We've run traffic cameras out of Fresno, you can to.

In legislation/law there are huge differences between "requires" and "permits," "must" and "may." Statute can make provision for without establishing necessity.

[Des-Lab]

Just a small price we have to pay for nice weather, tasty fish tacos, and mixed ethnicity dating.

[USDefault]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

There is no AB 666.

Oh really? What's this: AB 666 Assembly Bill - AMENDED

How about using the correct name and not being stupid with false names? Doing stuff like this just gives you less creditability. After all, if you're lying about the name of the bill then you're probably lying about what is in it too.

You were saying?