01-14-2005, 01:41 AM
There are other issues as well
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/nma_photo_radar_position.html">http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce ... ition.html</a><!-- m -->
NMA opposes the use of photographic devices (video, motion picture or still), including the citing of vehicle owners with moving violations that may or may not have been committed by the vehicle's owner. With properly posted speed limits and properly installed traffic-control devices, there is no need for camera-based traffic law enforcement devices. Taking a reckless driver's picture does not stop that incident of reckless driving.
NMA OBJECTIONS TO PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SCHEMES
Inadequate notification of defendants
Most governments using photo enforcement notify defendants via first class mail. There is no reasonable guarantee that the person to whom the letter is addressed will actually get the letter, understand the letter nor know how to properly respond. However, the government makes the assumption that proper notification was achieved and the defendant is willingly ignoring the order to appear or pay. The result can be a warrant issued for the arrest of the person named on the ticket.
Failure to positively identify the driver of the vehicle
Frequently, the photo does not adequately identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even though the owner was not driving the vehicle and in some instances may not know who was driving the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is forced to prove his/her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
Failure to promptly notify defendant
Defendants may not receive citations until several days, sometimes weeks, after the alleged violation. This makes it extremely difficult to reconstruct the circumstances involved in the supposed violation. There may be circumstances that justified exceeding the speed limit or being in a controlled intersection under a red light. There may have been confounding factors that led to a photo being taken in error. Having traversed a given intersection or roadway dozens of times over a short time frame makes it almost impossible to recall the specific events of a two-week-old trip.
No certifiable witness to the violation
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those instances where a photo enforcement operation is being overseen by a law enforcement officer, it is highly unlikely the officer would have any personal recollection of the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for the defendant to confront, a Constitutional Right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation. Because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.
System designed to inconvenience motorist
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor handling defendant notification may withhold send a copy of the photo of the alleged violation to the vehicle owner. (Many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver, or the driver is not the vehicle owner.) The Vehicle owner is forced to travel to the courthouse to see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience to discourage ticket challenges.
No safety benefit
Despite the claims of photo enforcement equipment marketing departments and press releases about tens of thousands of extra tickets being issued, there is not any independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce accidents or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of the companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is on a par with accepting the claims of any commercial interest that wants to improve its profitability. Claims are frequently made that it is only the U.S. where photo enforcement is opposed. It should be noted that the U.S. has a lower fatality rate than most of the countries that regularly employ photo enforcement devices.
Unable to apprehend or stop dangerous drivers
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless and otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/nma_photo_radar_position.html">http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce ... ition.html</a><!-- m -->
NMA opposes the use of photographic devices (video, motion picture or still), including the citing of vehicle owners with moving violations that may or may not have been committed by the vehicle's owner. With properly posted speed limits and properly installed traffic-control devices, there is no need for camera-based traffic law enforcement devices. Taking a reckless driver's picture does not stop that incident of reckless driving.
NMA OBJECTIONS TO PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SCHEMES
Inadequate notification of defendants
Most governments using photo enforcement notify defendants via first class mail. There is no reasonable guarantee that the person to whom the letter is addressed will actually get the letter, understand the letter nor know how to properly respond. However, the government makes the assumption that proper notification was achieved and the defendant is willingly ignoring the order to appear or pay. The result can be a warrant issued for the arrest of the person named on the ticket.
Failure to positively identify the driver of the vehicle
Frequently, the photo does not adequately identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even though the owner was not driving the vehicle and in some instances may not know who was driving the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is forced to prove his/her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
Failure to promptly notify defendant
Defendants may not receive citations until several days, sometimes weeks, after the alleged violation. This makes it extremely difficult to reconstruct the circumstances involved in the supposed violation. There may be circumstances that justified exceeding the speed limit or being in a controlled intersection under a red light. There may have been confounding factors that led to a photo being taken in error. Having traversed a given intersection or roadway dozens of times over a short time frame makes it almost impossible to recall the specific events of a two-week-old trip.
No certifiable witness to the violation
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those instances where a photo enforcement operation is being overseen by a law enforcement officer, it is highly unlikely the officer would have any personal recollection of the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for the defendant to confront, a Constitutional Right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation. Because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.
System designed to inconvenience motorist
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor handling defendant notification may withhold send a copy of the photo of the alleged violation to the vehicle owner. (Many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver, or the driver is not the vehicle owner.) The Vehicle owner is forced to travel to the courthouse to see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience to discourage ticket challenges.
No safety benefit
Despite the claims of photo enforcement equipment marketing departments and press releases about tens of thousands of extra tickets being issued, there is not any independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce accidents or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of the companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is on a par with accepting the claims of any commercial interest that wants to improve its profitability. Claims are frequently made that it is only the U.S. where photo enforcement is opposed. It should be noted that the U.S. has a lower fatality rate than most of the countries that regularly employ photo enforcement devices.
Unable to apprehend or stop dangerous drivers
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless and otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!
CCVT VP 05-06
1991 Sentra SE-R w/ SR20VE
1994 Yamaha Seca II
1991 Sentra SE-R w/ SR20VE
1994 Yamaha Seca II