Originally Posted by
DaveWC
But it is one of the aspects of photo radar that can have an identical impact on motorists. Using the logic presented in this thread, a motorist who runs 3 red lights and is caught on all 3 by photo radar should only be fined once since he wasn't warned after the first offence. Once I became aware that I had no way of knowing I'd just been caught speeding & could be caught again & again on one trip, it slowed me down. There should be no requirement for any method of catching lawbreakers to warn these people that they are breaking the law so they can limit their fines & be more wary in the future. I don't believe for a minute that this cyclist was unaware that he was breaking the law. He ran all 3 lights knowing that it was illegal and should suffer the consequences.
i think you missed the point. there is a BIG difference between the radar and the officer - the photo radar cannot stop the next violation from happening. the officer can. i am not talking about this from only the cyclist's perspective - perhaps the opposite. imagine if you are legally walking across the street and get hit by the cyclist running the third red light. you require hospitalization, and the bill is pretty hefty. if you found out that the reason that the cop didn't stop him was because he was hoping to increase the cyclist's fines, wouldn't you be mad? using the robbery example from above, if you were the owner of the 2nd through 10th store that was robbed, wouldn't you be mad that the officer didn't arrest the guy after the first violation witnessed?