Originally Posted by
vkalia
Really, the only response I have is "sez you" - you disagree, fine. Doesnt automatically make your opinion "correct"
Yes says me.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
Read for comprehension. Why do I need to go to a court to prove that I was NOT the driver of the car that was captured on the camera?
Again it is the same boat as a parking ticket, or a speeding ticket. The judge is inclined to favor the officer, camera, meter maid if you do go to court, but that
is the system we have. What is so hard to comprehend?
Originally Posted by
vkalia
In short: little things do matter.
Is that really what you said? Right.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
Here we go again - "sez you"
Your lack of knowledge is self evident in your posts as I will shortly demonstrate.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
1/ Ascribing strawman motives to me is not only valid, it is a sign that you have nothing credible to add
2/ The content of what I wrote remains the same, regardless of my motives.
Actually, I didn't ascribe any motivation to you specifically, I mealy suggested that we view the "infringements civil rights or privacy" argument for what it is a distraction from the true issue at stake, one of personal responsibility. Apparently this struck a cord and you self identified. But if the shoe fits….
Originally Posted by
vkalia
Re-read "Assumption of guilt"
Since we are being all technical and legalish, "presumption of innocence" is a concept that applies to our
criminal court system, and is not relevant in
civil courts. Traffic violations (for the most part) are infractions and subject to civil penalties. So "Assumption of guilt" is a misnomer, and further evidence you lack basic knowledge of the facts at hand. Christ's sakes not to nit pick but the term is "
presumption of innocence [or guilt]" at least get the phraseology right.
And still you haven't demonstrated how a red-light camera differs with other civil citations such as parking tickets, tax liens. The government (local/state/federal) has the power to fine you for infractions of the civil code. Anyone who has dealt with the IRS knows this. This is not a matter of innocent until proven guilty, wrong legal context.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
I suppose you think people arrested for crimes are also guilty and need to prove their innocence in court, right? After all, all this talk of constitutional rights is just trying to misdirect attention from their personal transgressions.
Again criminal and civil courts are different animals, apples and oranges, failing to make that simple distinction proves that you don't know what you are talking about.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
There is effective and there is more effective. And there is "effective" in terms of "# of tickets issues" and there is "effective" defined as "safer."
As I stated they are effective, in terms of harm reduction, you can continue to mischaracterize my argument, if you like, but isn't aiding your case. Examples have been posted of how traffic-cameras, reduce the number of violations and accident statistics for those intersections. If you want to deny facts out of hand I can't help you there.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
Anyhow, I have said my piece. It can be summed up as "I am right, you are wrong"
V.
I'll use your own quote
"sez you". I just wish you had your stuff together, it would have been more fun to dissect you.