Judge Rejects 290 Stoplight Camera Tickets

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - A San Diego judge on Tuesday threw out 290 traffic tickets issued to motorists by the city's controversial red light camera system, placing the privately operated program in jeopardy along with its millions of dollars in revenue.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn, ruling in a case that has been closely watched on both sides of a growing debate over the new technology, said that a contingency fee paid to the private operator of the city's system, Lockheed Martin IMS, made the evidence unreliable.

``The evidence from the red light cameras will not be admitted,'' Judge Ronald Styn said in reaffirming his Aug. 15 opinion in a class-action lawsuit against Lockheed Martin. Styn's ruling came after he heard arguments from attorneys representing the motorists and by Deputy City Attorney Steven Hansen, who said he was considering an appeal.

``I'm pretty adamant,'' Hansen said. ``The judge's decision was incorrect. The judge said that there was no problem with the camera's system. The only problem ... was that a private company was operating it.''

Attorney Arthur Tait, who represented the motorists, said he last week filed a suit in federal court under the government's anti-racketeering statute asking the city to reimburse 100,000 motorists already fined.

The plaintiffs are arguing that the city engaged in a scheme to defraud the public. Lockheed Martin, which has been operating the system since 1998, is also named in the suit. While his decision is not binding in other cases, Styn said evidence in this suit was unreliable because the system was operated by a private entity on a contingency fee basis, which was not what the state legislature intended when it passed the statute that gave the go-ahead for the cameras, he said.

Since the cameras were installed at 19 intersections, they have issued citations carrying a $271 fine for each conviction, with Lockheed Martin getting $70 of every fine paid. Attorneys for the motorists argued that because the company's fees were based on the number of tickets issued, the system was flawed.

Lockheed Martin's goal was ``to grab as many people as they can,'' said plaintiff's attorney Christopher Plourd.

But Hansen argued that even if the state statute had been violated, the evidence was still admissible.

-- (news@to.me), September 05, 2001

Answers

So the issue here was "fraud" or "privacy"? As a driver, I am in favor of the city increasing the safety of intersections, if it can do so by nonfraudulent means. If it can pick up a few bucks while doing so, so much the better.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 05, 2001.

I saw on CNN tonight that the real issue is the $$$ being paid to the camera companies. $70.00 per pop. Conflict of interest.

I dont like the big brother approach. I also heard that it has increased the number of rear end collisions. Hmmm, wonder why?

See, it all starts with just a lil bit then next thang you know, they have camera's everywhere. IMHO that is why we have police. I am happy this judge had the wherewithall to stand up and say nope to it.

-- sumer (I@aint.sayin), September 05, 2001.


The most logical way to improve safety on the roads, Lars, is for state governments to take licensing just a little more seriously. Driving is a skill which requires coordination, concentration, an understanding of the rules, and a willingness to follow them.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Unfortunately, governments in every state in which I've lived give lip service to this prior statement. Acquire a driver's license and it's your for life.

That's a recipe for disaster. But also one hell of a money maker for local, county and state coffers.

-- Rich (living_in_interesting_times@hotmail.com), September 06, 2001.


SD City Council's sitting w/ a mostly egg facial on this one. While trying to get by on the cheap by sharing fines they put this worthy effort on the block. Chopping block for the first competent judge.

Didn't take long. Lesson: Buy the damned camera operaton outright and protect your citizens that don't run lites. Good program unless your agency is too cheap and too stupid to avoid the obvious.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 06, 2001.


Gee Lars, we could eliminate speeding by mandating that all new cars have a computer chip that records every time a car is driven over 55 mph. Do you think this would be a good thing also?

-- ? (?@?.?), September 06, 2001.


"I also heard that it has increased the number of rear end collisions. "

I recently read that "hands free cellphones" cause just as many accidents as handheld, and that motorcyclist wearing helmets were injured just as frequently as their non-helmeted counterparts.

Add this to the growing list of "whoops, guess it don't work that way", like fire ant poison that kills their natural predators, forest fire prevention that ends up creating huge fuel stocks for monster fires, the "paperless office" which now consumes 10 times the amount of paper, etc. etc.

-- hmm (ha@ha.ha), September 06, 2001.


Not only do I favor the remote cams but I think there should be a community channel that brodcasts them 24-7. I predict they would make fascinating shows as we could catch Mr Jones reurning from his clandestine nooner with Mrs Smith and the everready Ms Johnson shooting beaver at all "comers". Teenagers would drive round and round the same block yelling and mooning the camera. The city could sell advertising to Mike's carwash and other local enterprises.

A win-win. The population would be pacified and entertained. Local government would be subsidized. Local businesses would be hyped. Local troubled youths would be given a harmless outlet for their enthusiasm. The Smith and Jones families would reconcile.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 06, 2001.


Lars, lol, now that would be a REAL reality show. ;-0

But watch whatcha wish for. I can see it happenin.

-- sumer (I@aint.sayin), September 06, 2001.


I respect your concerns Sumer but if slippery-slope theory is invoked everywhere, nothing would ever get done.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 06, 2001.

By the silence in response to my suggestion, I am to presume all are happy with licensing everyone who applies for a one and has the cash to pay the fees? Yeah, better to institute band-aid approaches such as spy cameras in order to "make the roads safe" than to first winnow out those who don't have the capacity to drive with some measure of skill. Why am I not surprised? Ah America! The land of the free (running out of fingers to plug the holes in that dyke) and the home of the those who aspire to mediocrity.

-- Rich (living_in_interesting_times@hotmail.com), September 06, 2001.


camera's,don,t LIE do they????ummmm or will they????

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), September 06, 2001.

There should be a sport, "spy camera huntin'", of course some will call it vandalism, while others will seek to join the 'resistance'.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), September 06, 2001.

Ah my dear cap, NOW there IS the suggestion. Where can I apply?

I spy.....notta

-- sumer (I@aint.sayin), September 06, 2001.


Ok, Rich. No, not everyone should have a driver's license. Kids in particular shouldn't be driving without an adult until they are eighteen, an opinion shared by our kid's drivers ed teacher -- a man prematurely aged by his profession.

No one with a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol should be re-licensed to drive. Enforcement would be a booger. Labs can't keep up with the demand for services in violent crimes, much less provide services for every driver who crosses a line in a front of a cop. And do you go after "other drugs" like antihistamines? What about sleepy helens who drive like a drunk when overworked? What about just plain old sloppy drivers?

AARP lobbies against the passage of laws requiring repeat testing for licenses for senior citizens. We ran into that problem with a relative who was extremely unfit to drive, and yet no one would deny this person a license. We could have been sued for interfering with this relative's "right" to drive.

Every driver should be retested on the road every time the license is renewed. I can't imagine how it would be paid for. I went to the licensing office today on behalf of our kid, and it was standing-room only. The people there were mostly kids or people who had relocated to our state. If they add ALL drivers, they'd have to keep the doors open seven days a week.

-- helen (drive@with.eyes.shut), September 06, 2001.


I agree about the testing upon renewal, helen. What should the renewal period be? Five years ok with everybody? Seven? Ten? I'm easy. Just do it!

How do we pay for it? Why helen, user fees of course. Say a $100 per year fee? Well worth it to keep the worst of the drivers off the streets, don't you think?

Instituting such far-reaching reform would obviously change our way of life. It might even bring us together just a little bit. Maybe even result in our getting to know our neighbors. Nice side benefit.

-- Rich (living_in_interesting_times@hotmail.com), September 06, 2001.



Driving is a right, not a privilege.

However, the state and its minions will fine/incarcerate/kill you if you exercise this right without their almighty 'permission'.

Happy slaves are ignorant slaves... let me rewrite that history book for you...

-- zipperpull (*@*.&), September 06, 2001.


Rich

I agree with you in part and disagree with you on part. I think that after a certaion age, let's say 55, then driving skills should be tested on renewal. I do not agree with charging a "ransom" for the priviledge; $100 a year would be an undue burden on those folks at poverty level but are very good drivers.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 06, 2001.


Shameless ageism!

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 07, 2001.

And how does anyone propose we monitor those deemed not fit to drive?

Simple, You can't.With the full force of the law behind them the authorities cannot keep multiple DUI offenders from behind the wheel, unless they are incarcerated.

Or maybe it should be a law that *anyone* who has 3-4-5 accidents automatically loses their drivers license? That might be you, though only 1 of those accidents were your fault.

Isn't driving a car akin to owning a gun? Until you committ a crime(s) with said object there has been no crime committed.I may think you are a terrible driver and I may refuse to ride with you but that's a far cry from making everyone pay $100 for another gov agency to monitor your driving capability.Your driving record speaks for itself.

Please, we need less stupid laws not more.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), September 07, 2001.


How often do you fire a gun, capn? How often do you drive? When you fire your gun do you do so while dozens, hundreds of others are firing in your direction? Do you talk on the phone, listen to music, eat, drink, etc. while firing a gun? Are the bullets you fire five feet wide by seven, eight, ten feet long? Guns akin to driving? Um, not IMO. Sorry, man. I don't see it.

FS, the figure of $100 was not proposed after exhaustive study of the field of my proposal. It may very well be by not licensing the truly incompetent drivers it would lower insurance by the increased cost of testing & licensing. Can we not imagine this might be the case?

Your theory is people with poverty-level incomes should be able to afford cars but probably could not by paying $100 +/- once every five or seven or ten years for a license? BTW, how much do you pay for registration, license and insurance now? (I don't want to know. Just something many of us really don't think about often)

I lived at poverty-level. I drove a wreck with minimal insurance and could not afford to maintain it properly. I would have ridden a bicycle to work if I'd had one. Many a night I walked to and from work when the car was out of service. Somehow I lived to tell about it.

-- Rich (living_in_interesting_times@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.


OK, capn. You asked: "How do we monitor those deemed not fit to drive?" Well, how is it done now? Pretty simple, eh? As to those who drive without a license, as I did myself for more than a year way back when, they get away with it until they are discovered, IF they are discovered. I was not caught. It was a gamble for me and it paid off. I would probably not drive without a license now. I was willing to suffer the consequences if caught then. Not now.

Speaking of consequences, what should the consequences be for driving without a license? What are they now? A fine and further revocation of driving PRIVILEGES? Fines are regressive. Revocation was ignored before. Why would the perpetrator suddenly have a change in heart? Nothing impacts a person like a few days in jail, IME. I recommend it highly for a variety of serious offenses.

I DO NOT want to see road blocks, as is done now in some states, in order to check credentials. I boil inside every time I get caught in one, and have turned around in order to avoid road blocks (not out of necessity, BTW) with much success.

Or maybe it should be a law that *anyone* who has 3-4-5 accidents automatically loses their drivers license?

There are point systems in place now which include certain types of accidents as demerit-earning events. I fail to see why generic motor vehicle accidents should impact licensing qualification.

...may think you are a terrible driver and I may refuse to ride with you but that's a far cry from making everyone pay $100 for another gov agency to monitor your driving capability.

Another gov agency? Why would we require that? The infrastructure is already in place, capn. Ever hear of the Department of Motor Vehicles? (Or similar. I don't know that it is called that in each state) These state agencies road test all drivers once already, so far as I know. An additional test once every 5-10 years (believe me I'm not stuck on any particular schedule) would require some expansion of facilities and personal. Not my favorite thing to do - increase the size of government, but I believe the benefits to society at large would trivialize the small outlay.

As to monitoring your driving capability - how many short driving tests would a typical adult undergo in a lifetime under this plan? Assuming once every 10 years - 4 maybe 5. This is offensive somehow? We are monitored DAILY by cops covertly and overtly, road blocks, and now cameras. I have no problem placing my abilities to a G.E.D. level driving test once a decade, give or take.

As I stated above, driving is a privilege, not a right.

From the NJ DMV web site: "Having a driver license is a privilege". The word privilege is used 3 times just on that one page linked above.

-- Rich (living_in_interesting_times@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.


Realistically, our national physical plant has evolved to accommodate cars. Maybe once upon a time Rich could walk to work. This makes him a very rare exception. NOBODY where I work could walk to work, or even ride a bicycle (forbidden on the highway where the building is located).

So if your licence is revoked, driving without one is not a moral choice or anything like it. Those who are unable (as opposed to not permitted) to drive are effectively prisoners in their own homes. Those not permitted to drive, must drive anyway. The alternative is starvation, or else excessive cost and inconvenience far beyond the punishment for being caught driving without a license.

Yes, a few days in jail might be bracing and salutary. It is NOT going to stop you from driving without a licence, since doing so is a punishment far worse than a mere few days in jail.

So all this discussion about periodic driving tests, and revoking the license of those who fail, is largely moot. "Gee, you failed this test. I guess you're going to have to quit your job, you and your kids get to starve, you can't transport them anywhere, too bad the nearest grocery store is beyond walking distance. Have a nice life."

I don't care how many times some document claims driving is a privilege. It is not. It is an absolute necessity for the vast majority of people, simply because we have structured our living conditions everywhere so as to make driving mandatory.

So how DO we deal with incompetent drivers? Basically, we tolerate them, we fine them, we hope they won't cause too much damage or injury, and we muddle along. Personally, I'd like to see them be required to pay for damages actually caused (and breaking a speed limit causes no damage per se). If they kill someone, they pay with their lives. If the can't afford to cover repairs or medical expenses, they become indentured servants of those they injured until they've earned the price of the damage. If they refuse to be servants, we send them to Southern California or New Jersey some other armpit to suffer for their sins.

[Not my favorite thing to do - increase the size of government, but I believe the benefits to society at large would trivialize the small outlay.]

Ah, incrementalism. We've been making these "small increase, vast improvement" tradeoffs for 70 years, with devastating results. Capn is right, this is yet another move in the wrong direction.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 07, 2001.


Uh oh, I agree with alot of what Flint has to say. Here in Ohio, they fine the hell out of you. 1st dui is $405.00 reinstatement fee after 90 court ordered suspension, one year if you refuse a breath test, MANDATORY. So, by the time you pay attorney, court costs, fines, pay to spend a 3 day tour of the dui movies, it costs about close to $3000.00. On a 1st offence, you MIGHT get work privilege ONLY. 2nd offense, none., notta. Btw, I agree wholeheartedly with this.

I too like Rich had to take public transportation along time ago. They moved the place where I worked and therefore lost my job because I could not get there. I was a single mom at the time, it was not pleasant.

It is hard for people over 73 here in ohio to get preferred insurance rates due to their age. Some companies even require a doctor fill out an exam form to keep you on.

Imho, alot is being done, but, we do have to put up with those like flint said. Fines fines fines.

What I completely disagree with is the camera's watching our movement. I just believe mistakes can and do get made that way. Let the police do the work, catch criminals and clock radar. Thats what they do here in ohio.

-- sumer (I@aint.sayin), September 07, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ