No and don't worry about them stop signs either. They are only suggestions.
Do I have to pay this speed camera fine?
- Thread starter Hawk and Awe
- Start date
Why all the snarky self righteous sarcastic posts? Oh right it's HROT....
Why do you guys think so many of these tickets get thrown out? Or why don't they effect your credit or go on your driving record? Seriously why can you escape penalty just by not acknowledging it?
I think its because the City knows these things arent constitutionally valid. They're not 100% accurate and they have no human representation there to judge your speed.
God forbid I challenge them to follow the standards we've all agreed to. Even if I have chosen a passive aggressive route such is just ignoring them
Why do you guys think so many of these tickets get thrown out? Or why don't they effect your credit or go on your driving record? Seriously why can you escape penalty just by not acknowledging it?
I think its because the City knows these things arent constitutionally valid. They're not 100% accurate and they have no human representation there to judge your speed.
God forbid I challenge them to follow the standards we've all agreed to. Even if I have chosen a passive aggressive route such is just ignoring them
To the OP... here's what you need to do.
Make a video of you torching the citation and post it to You Tube. Then when they throw you in jail, you can start a "GoFundMe" site and actually MAKE $$$ on the deal.
I haven't done this myself, so I'm not certain it will be successful.
Make a video of you torching the citation and post it to You Tube. Then when they throw you in jail, you can start a "GoFundMe" site and actually MAKE $$$ on the deal.
I haven't done this myself, so I'm not certain it will be successful.
Don't they have a version of the "Ticket Clinic" in Iowa?
You pay the lawyer instead of the state and get the ticket thrown out.
You pay the lawyer instead of the state and get the ticket thrown out.
I guess I just don't see what's so hard about going 60 in a 55 instead of 68 in a 55 for 2 minutes.
If you want to fight the power, don't speed. If everybody does this in that area, they collect nothing. I know, I hate laying all that personal responsibility onto my Common Man, and there will obviously be a wave of catastrophic consequences because thousands of people a day will be 5 seconds late to wherever they're going. Gotta be strong, folks! Fight through the injustice!
That is how utterly stupid simple this is. Sign says cameras nearby. You slow down. You get no ticket in the mail.
That wasn't so bad now, was it? Your mother and I are soooo proud of you!
If you want to fight the power, don't speed. If everybody does this in that area, they collect nothing. I know, I hate laying all that personal responsibility onto my Common Man, and there will obviously be a wave of catastrophic consequences because thousands of people a day will be 5 seconds late to wherever they're going. Gotta be strong, folks! Fight through the injustice!
That is how utterly stupid simple this is. Sign says cameras nearby. You slow down. You get no ticket in the mail.
That wasn't so bad now, was it? Your mother and I are soooo proud of you!
Yeah, but sometimes drivers are too busy texting or talking on their phones and simply forget where they are or are not focused on the speedometer.
It can happen!
Strange position to take, that if the government isn't throwing you in the clink they must deep down believe they are violating the Constitution.
Like when they don't work hard to collect on parking tickets, right?
Y'all have piqued my interest again, so I'll take a look at their ordinances this weekend.
Until next time bat fans!
I know. It's horrible. Cedar Rapids is such a cruel city. Goddam Nazi's I tell ya.
Fair point and I'll admit I had the parking ticket thought, but can't you get thrown in jail for refusing to pay parking tickets? Or is that just something that only happens in movies/TV shows?
I don't know.... the enforcement of these things and the fact that the DOT has made them take down a few seems weird to me. Not to mention how they trumpet all this extra revenue they're getting. Because that's the idea of fines right?
I'm not refusing to pay because I think I can get away with it. None of it feels right to me.
When delivering tough news/advice my dad would simply say, "Take it like a man". I assume he saw that in a movie and decided it was fatherly to pass that along. Shockingly it has been good advice for the most part.
When I lived in CR, I got 5 or 6 of them and never paid them. Moved out of state and have never heard anything since.
Credit report looks good. I figure after 3-4 years they would have reported it.
They're unconstitutional and actually make driving more unsafe. People slamming on their brakes at the S curve on 380 in CR because they know that's where the camera is is way worse than a few people speeding through there.
Credit report looks good. I figure after 3-4 years they would have reported it.
They're unconstitutional and actually make driving more unsafe. People slamming on their brakes at the S curve on 380 in CR because they know that's where the camera is is way worse than a few people speeding through there.
But a radar doesn't prove crap. You me and me have ha machines crap out on us. I've seen police radars miscalibrated.
To just assume the radar read it, is the problem.
That's not why the DOT has told them to take them down. In CR it is simply a location issue. In DM they did determine it didn't affect safety, so need to be rethought.
I just don't know why it feels different than any other myriad of laws and regulations which we accept on a daily basis.
Really I've just never understood the Constitutional argument against it.
I get other reasons not to like it, many of which have been suggested.
Interesting position, I'm not sure supported by facts. I would guess there is a tiny portion who actually mean it when they claim they weren't speeding there.
How are they unconstitutional?
Also, I completely disagree, that curve is much safer now and people are not slamming on their brakes. I've said for years, if there is any good place for it in the state, that would be on the list.
The random one in DM on only one side? That isn't safety related.
You have a constitutional right to confront your accuser.
Kinda hard to cross-examine a camera.
When I was at FSU, I could have wall-papered my dorm room with parking tickets. Didn't pay them and about 20 years later I wanted to go to FAU, and of course, I had to pay all the damn tickets in order to get my transcripts released.
They'll get their money sooner or later.
Seriously, think about this for a second. Are there ANY OTHER circumstances where you get fined/taxed/penalized without facing an accuser or running the actual court system?
Says person that failed to follow speed limit standards that we have agreed to.
When you enter CR from the North, there is a 60 MPH sign with a "photo enforced" sign attached. Another 60mph sign at Collins rd. Another at 42nd. Another at 32nd. Another at 29th. Then a " speed zone ahead" sign on a yellow diamond with 2 red flags on both signs of the highway. Then the 55mph sign with red flags and a "photo enforced" sign attached posted on both sides of the highway. And THEN the cameras. How much warnjng do people need? If you only followed the first 6 warnings and drive through at 60 mph...you won't get a ticket. It's not like the cameras are being secretly moved around to catch people unaware.
Say what you will about the legalities of the cameras...the flow of traffic through the s curves has slowed considerably, and those that are zooming through traffic at a faster rate probably deserve a ticket.
hell, we may as well install GPS in our vehicles that automatically sends us speeding tickets every time we speed. I mean, after all if you don't speed............
Also, are semi trucks still exempt from these things?
What about the cameras at stoplights? Are those still a thing? What's the procedure with those tickets? I honestly have no idea.
They still exist, but a number of state courts have struck them down recently. I don't think that industry will survive.
You can appeal these to the court. I haven't had the time to go back and look yet, but I will.
That technology has existed in many cars for a decade. Tracking most of your driving.
Can I have an independent expert witness investigate the camera in question and determine if there was anything wrong with its allegation against me? Can we bring the actual camera into court to show the judge what's wrong?
no kidding, I had a GPS on my mobile device that would ding everytime I go the speed limit. Insurance companies have their devices they try to get people to put in their car.
my point is, we should mandate that these be installed so we can get issued tickets every time we speed because as nck24 alludes to, if you travel at a faster rate than what the speed limit is, you deserve a ticket. you don't speed, you dont have anything to worry about, amirite?
Let's be clear here, we are talking about at least 10 over with these things. They aren't going to ding you for going 56 in a 55. Even with State Troopers I've been told they typically give at least a 7 mph leeway, I'm assuming to account for variations in speedometers and radar. Is it really that hard not to go 10 over, especially through town?
Yet another topic where you seem to fail to understand what is going on, including your own, earlier, argument.
Oh, good grief. The camera is my accuser. No person observed me doing anything illegal. I have a right to confront my accuser so the camera is all there is. How is this wrong?
How is what you are saying any different than getting caught on a security camera? No person observed you commit those crimes, they were simply caught on video.
In a decision that has wide-ranging implications for photo enforcement, speeding tickets and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) charges, the US Supreme Court yesterday reconfirmed the Sixth Amendment right to confront one's accuser applies to analysts who claim to have certified evidence from a machine. The 5-4 decision concluded that "stand-in" expert witnesses are not a substitute for the individuals who actually conducted the tests. The decision broadens the applicability of the landmark Melendez-Diaz ruling from 2009, which has already led to appellate division cases in four California counties to throw out red light camera evidence.
[...]
"Suppose a police report recorded an objective fact -- Bullcoming's counsel posited the address above the front door of a house or the read-out of a radar gun," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. "Could an officer other than the one who saw the number on the house or gun present the information in court -- so long as that officer was equipped to testify about any technology the observing officer deployed and the police department's standard operating procedures? As our precedent makes plain, the answer is emphatically 'No.'"
The court majority noted that using a surrogate witness would conceal any lapses or lies on the part of the certifying analyst. It also noted that the burden on the prosecution from the requirement of live testimony could have been cured by having Razatos retest the blood sample, which was preserved in accordance with New Mexico law.
[...]
The decision represented a rare coalition of the most liberal and most conservative members of the court. Ginsburg and President Obama's nominees to the court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, were joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2011/06/us-supreme-court-upholds-right-to.html
I still don't see a difference between being charged with a crime based on surveillance video and a traffic camera. Shouldn't surveillance video be unconstitutional as well then?
It's more than a camera. It's a camera synchronized with a radar speed detection device. The photo, by itself, doesn't prove you were speeding. All sorts of things can go wrong causing it to ping on your car even if you weren't in fact speeding. And then, they also need to prove that it was you driving the car.
