I hate to break it to you, but that's pretty much the state of play with all minor violations, resulting from a traffic camera or not. However, in some places you can simply write a letter to the relevant police unit, giving a reason why you think the ticket is not justified. If they accept your reason, they dismiss the ticket, without involving an court time. Remember, it's a hassle for the police to spend time in court, too.
I'd like to see the implementation and administration of these systems improved, to allow for such cases. But I don't think there's any reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a few people abusing the system.
My concern is that sometime in the future, the Supreme Court is going to hear a case against some category of blatenly wrong juvenille law-- such as curfew-- where they will have no choice but to rule that it's unconstitutional to discriminate against people of any age, not just people over a certain age.
I don't think the implications are that far reaching. Remember, I'm only talking about driving age here. Driving is a privilege, and one needs to be licensed and competent to do so. It doesn't have any implications for broader human or civil rights.
Getting back to the point, I don't think adults should go to jail for an adminstrative prank, either. An earlier poster made a reference to "MAN SEX" as a pranked plate on his tow truck. I wouldn't have done that myself, but I think it's pretty funny that he and his friends liked it.
I think that's a pretty serious offense, not deserving jail time, but certainly a hefty fine, and perhaps a temporary suspension of driver's license. In a car-driven society, a license plate is part of one's official identity - so this is somewhat akin to tampering with a passport or other official document.
I'll reiterate my original point. We need to stop being an 0wnership culture. Diplomatic victories are the best kind, as everyone progresses. Punishment should be about prevention not revenge.
I fully agree with that - and a huge part of that is taking responsibility for one's actions. Gaming the system, even for pranks, goes completely against that ethos.
Your above statement is one of the reasons I think that automated traffic cameras are a good idea. Unlike human police offers, they don't take bribes, and they won't ticket somebody out of revenge. The fines are a good disincentive, but not overly punitive.
Of course, there are problems with how many of these systems are implemented and administered. But if they are properly implemented, then I think they go a good way towards your ideal of a diplomatic and sensible system of penalties.
Of course, the problem (as seen in many attitudes on slashdot) is that people get very irrational about them - purely because people hate getting speeding tickets. For that reason, you see some pretty incredible justifications for gaming the system and outright criminal behavior. So, unfortunately, I don't think there's going to be much improvement in their implementation when the opposing argument is based on rage and a "I can do whatever I want" attitude. If more people saw the value in automated traffic monitoring systems, then I think we'd be able to lobby to improve the implementations more effectively.
Yep, best way to solve the problem of kids acting out against authority is take away their rights, I mean "Privileges".
Yes, we are talking about privileges. Driving on a state's road system is not a right in any way.
Lets not worry about kids who have to work. They shouldn't be doing that in the first place, yep they should just stay inside and be forced to go to school behind razor wire with teachers who get paid regardless of how they perform.
Overreact much? There are these things called "public transport" and "bicycles" you know.
Force them to go through years of schooling so that they get out of college at 24 knowing less than they did when they got in, unthinking trained monkeys that are great at popping out widgets and living on debt, worthless to society. Yes Me Must Protect the Children.
Of course, I never implied any of the above - and I was not talking about protecting the children. I was talking about protecting society from the children. You seem to be the one that wants to gear society solely towards children's perceived needs. Yeah, why don't we give kids every single thing they demand on a whim? I'm sure that won't have any negative consequences or affect their education.
Did you read your own link? It described the type of word as "Nonstandard", and goes on to say:
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term.
So, yes, there are plenty of things wrong with that word.
Here we have a case of the computer being judge, jury, and executioner.
Except that isn't the case. The ticket is issued by the police, and can be contested in court.
Now, instead of a judge who makes an informed decision that can be understood and formally disagreed with, we have a contractor, who is completely removed from the job.
So, if you have a case to argue, go to court and contest it.
your flash will fire and blind the camera to your plate.
Only if the speed camera uses really shitty optics (which the generally don't) or if your flash is approximately as powerful as the sun. Both scenarios are highly unlikely.
True, jail is a bit harsh. But the crazy thing is - why let kids drive in the first place? It should be an adult vocation - then that would eliminate the "oh he's just a kid" gray area, and make it easier for adults to be expected to take full responsibility for their vehicular activities. It seems that with people starting driving as kids, they tend to regress to childhood when they get behind the wheel.
And they most likely have ample proof. Usually one gives reasons as to why they are not guilty, and that can be matched to the evidence. If they have photographic evidence of you doing it, and you simply say "not guilty" without any further explanation, you're not likely to succeed in your plea.
Can't you contest the ticket, and be the human filter yourself, just as you would with any other charge? Then the speed camera photo becomes evidence in a trial.
But that's the same thing. The speed camera is not bringing a charge, the police are. The speed camera is merely providing evidence, just like the CCTV.
Wouldn't that be a terrible thing, for our highways to be free from people who think they know how fast they can drive safely, irregardless of their training or experience.
I was with you, up to the point where you wrote "irregardless". Didn't your browser/spellchecker flag that one for you?
It's a perversion of justice for the profit of the state
Why is it a perversion of justice? And isn't the accuser the state? Don't they have an officer to represent the automatic speed camera division show up in court?
Because I only paid $90 for the motherboard, the $20 PSU I bought could completely take it out and I would STILL be saving money over the name-brand PSU.
Right. So you build crap computers out of junk parts. Good for you. But many people have standards and don't want to put up with that shit. Yay, you'll be saving money! But what about the hassle (and potential data loss) of having your system die? It's worth money to avoid such headaches.
Water can be pollution. Too much of anything can be pollution. Why don't you go and see how long you last in a room filled only with water.
See how silly your statement sounds?
No, I don't see how that sound silly. The people of New Orleans suffered from too much water just recently.
Thanks for proving my point about there being additional costs to industry if we implement harsh CO2 restrictions.
But what of the costs to others? Why is "industry" your only consideration?
But that's wrong. CO2 can be pollution. Too much of anything can be pollution. Why don't you go and see how long you last in a room filled only with CO2.
Because if there was some economic benefit to dealing with "environmental problems" (which CO2 is not)
Again, there are strong indications that excess CO2 emissions are an environmental problem.
then it would already be done by industry. The fact that they don't means that it will cost more money and resources to do it.
That's absurd. Industry does not account for 100% of the economy. And currently, the industry externalizes those costs onto everybody else. If they had to pay for all of their effects, then they probably would find a way to deal with it. But at the moment, they don't pay those costs. The industry doesn't see the value in environmental protection. And the value of the environment is not purely economic.
No, I get the idea from basic economics and common sense.
Not an expert, but I'm guessing it has partly to do with the quality of capacitors, and probably more importantly with general design principles and quality control.
2) You are advocating that spreading misinformation is the prefered way to get beneficial change.
Wait, where does he advocate misinformation in his post?
3) Not only that, you're essentially asking scientists to stop doing science, to stop questioning, and to stop learning.
Wait, where does he say that? He actually says the opposite - he's encouraging the asking of academic questions, he's advocating learning and examining the issue.
And I could just as easily say that the net result of your movement will be the tanking of the world economy.
But you'd be talking utter bollocks. The world economy is much more likely to crash if we don't deal with pollution, fuel consumption and emissions. Where do you get the idea that dealing with environmental problems will cause economic harm? Some right-wing "think tank"?
To the GW Faithful EVERY change "proves" GW. This attitude moves them from the area of science to that of Faith. When you can't falsify your hypothesis then your hypothesis is a Faith.
Well, I don't know about the "GW Faithful", but for you, every post seems to be a lunatic rant against those who consider heathens for not believing the same as you. You sound very religious about it.
This means there must be another variable in global temperatures than carbon emissions.
Wow, you're a fucking genius... nobody else has ever thought of that... What? Climate scientists are well aware that there are vast numbers of variables in global temperature. Wow.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to break it to you, but that's pretty much the state of play with all minor violations, resulting from a traffic camera or not. However, in some places you can simply write a letter to the relevant police unit, giving a reason why you think the ticket is not justified. If they accept your reason, they dismiss the ticket, without involving an court time. Remember, it's a hassle for the police to spend time in court, too.
I'd like to see the implementation and administration of these systems improved, to allow for such cases. But I don't think there's any reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a few people abusing the system.
No it's not. Do you really think the ticket gets sent directly from the camera, and not a computer system somewhere else?
My concern is that sometime in the future, the Supreme Court is going to hear a case against some category of blatenly wrong juvenille law-- such as curfew-- where they will have no choice but to rule that it's unconstitutional to discriminate against people of any age, not just people over a certain age.
I don't think the implications are that far reaching. Remember, I'm only talking about driving age here. Driving is a privilege, and one needs to be licensed and competent to do so. It doesn't have any implications for broader human or civil rights.
Getting back to the point, I don't think adults should go to jail for an adminstrative prank, either. An earlier poster made a reference to "MAN SEX" as a pranked plate on his tow truck. I wouldn't have done that myself, but I think it's pretty funny that he and his friends liked it.
I think that's a pretty serious offense, not deserving jail time, but certainly a hefty fine, and perhaps a temporary suspension of driver's license. In a car-driven society, a license plate is part of one's official identity - so this is somewhat akin to tampering with a passport or other official document.
I'll reiterate my original point. We need to stop being an 0wnership culture. Diplomatic victories are the best kind, as everyone progresses. Punishment should be about prevention not revenge.
I fully agree with that - and a huge part of that is taking responsibility for one's actions. Gaming the system, even for pranks, goes completely against that ethos.
Your above statement is one of the reasons I think that automated traffic cameras are a good idea. Unlike human police offers, they don't take bribes, and they won't ticket somebody out of revenge. The fines are a good disincentive, but not overly punitive.
Of course, there are problems with how many of these systems are implemented and administered. But if they are properly implemented, then I think they go a good way towards your ideal of a diplomatic and sensible system of penalties.
Of course, the problem (as seen in many attitudes on slashdot) is that people get very irrational about them - purely because people hate getting speeding tickets. For that reason, you see some pretty incredible justifications for gaming the system and outright criminal behavior. So, unfortunately, I don't think there's going to be much improvement in their implementation when the opposing argument is based on rage and a "I can do whatever I want" attitude. If more people saw the value in automated traffic monitoring systems, then I think we'd be able to lobby to improve the implementations more effectively.
Yep, best way to solve the problem of kids acting out against authority is take away their rights, I mean "Privileges".
Yes, we are talking about privileges. Driving on a state's road system is not a right in any way.
Lets not worry about kids who have to work. They shouldn't be doing that in the first place, yep they should just stay inside and be forced to go to school behind razor wire with teachers who get paid regardless of how they perform.
Overreact much? There are these things called "public transport" and "bicycles" you know.
Force them to go through years of schooling so that they get out of college at 24 knowing less than they did when they got in, unthinking trained monkeys that are great at popping out widgets and living on debt, worthless to society. Yes Me Must Protect the Children.
Of course, I never implied any of the above - and I was not talking about protecting the children. I was talking about protecting society from the children. You seem to be the one that wants to gear society solely towards children's perceived needs. Yeah, why don't we give kids every single thing they demand on a whim? I'm sure that won't have any negative consequences or affect their education.
Did you read your own link? It described the type of word as "Nonstandard", and goes on to say:
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term.
So, yes, there are plenty of things wrong with that word.
Here we have a case of the computer being judge, jury, and executioner.
Except that isn't the case. The ticket is issued by the police, and can be contested in court.
Now, instead of a judge who makes an informed decision that can be understood and formally disagreed with, we have a contractor, who is completely removed from the job.
So, if you have a case to argue, go to court and contest it.
He had a paper cutout of another person's face that he would hold over his own whenever passing by a camera so that he could not be given a ticket.
You really missed the key point of that stunt - it was Bill Oddie's face.
your flash will fire and blind the camera to your plate.
Only if the speed camera uses really shitty optics (which the generally don't) or if your flash is approximately as powerful as the sun. Both scenarios are highly unlikely.
True, jail is a bit harsh. But the crazy thing is - why let kids drive in the first place? It should be an adult vocation - then that would eliminate the "oh he's just a kid" gray area, and make it easier for adults to be expected to take full responsibility for their vehicular activities. It seems that with people starting driving as kids, they tend to regress to childhood when they get behind the wheel.
And they most likely have ample proof. Usually one gives reasons as to why they are not guilty, and that can be matched to the evidence. If they have photographic evidence of you doing it, and you simply say "not guilty" without any further explanation, you're not likely to succeed in your plea.
Can't you contest the ticket, and be the human filter yourself, just as you would with any other charge? Then the speed camera photo becomes evidence in a trial.
But that's the same thing. The speed camera is not bringing a charge, the police are. The speed camera is merely providing evidence, just like the CCTV.
Wouldn't that be a terrible thing, for our highways to be free from people who think they know how fast they can drive safely, irregardless of their training or experience.
I was with you, up to the point where you wrote "irregardless". Didn't your browser/spellchecker flag that one for you?
It's a perversion of justice for the profit of the state
Why is it a perversion of justice? And isn't the accuser the state? Don't they have an officer to represent the automatic speed camera division show up in court?
Sarcasm aside, the designs are the same,
Except that they aren't. Where did you get this idea from?
all PSUs I have used work until they fail
Well there's an informative comment. All cars go until they stop, so therefore all cars are the same, right?
Because I only paid $90 for the motherboard, the $20 PSU I bought could completely take it out and I would STILL be saving money over the name-brand PSU.
Right. So you build crap computers out of junk parts. Good for you. But many people have standards and don't want to put up with that shit. Yay, you'll be saving money! But what about the hassle (and potential data loss) of having your system die? It's worth money to avoid such headaches.
Water can be pollution. Too much of anything can be pollution. Why don't you go and see how long you last in a room filled only with water. See how silly your statement sounds?
No, I don't see how that sound silly. The people of New Orleans suffered from too much water just recently.
Thanks for proving my point about there being additional costs to industry if we implement harsh CO2 restrictions.
But what of the costs to others? Why is "industry" your only consideration?
Please read my entire post. CO2 is not pollution
But that's wrong. CO2 can be pollution. Too much of anything can be pollution. Why don't you go and see how long you last in a room filled only with CO2.
Because if there was some economic benefit to dealing with "environmental problems" (which CO2 is not)
Again, there are strong indications that excess CO2 emissions are an environmental problem.
then it would already be done by industry. The fact that they don't means that it will cost more money and resources to do it.
That's absurd. Industry does not account for 100% of the economy. And currently, the industry externalizes those costs onto everybody else. If they had to pay for all of their effects, then they probably would find a way to deal with it. But at the moment, they don't pay those costs. The industry doesn't see the value in environmental protection. And the value of the environment is not purely economic.
No, I get the idea from basic economics and common sense.
Both of which you clearly fail at.
Not an expert, but I'm guessing it has partly to do with the quality of capacitors, and probably more importantly with general design principles and quality control.
2) You are advocating that spreading misinformation is the prefered way to get beneficial change.
Wait, where does he advocate misinformation in his post?
3) Not only that, you're essentially asking scientists to stop doing science, to stop questioning, and to stop learning.
Wait, where does he say that? He actually says the opposite - he's encouraging the asking of academic questions, he's advocating learning and examining the issue.
And I could just as easily say that the net result of your movement will be the tanking of the world economy.
But you'd be talking utter bollocks. The world economy is much more likely to crash if we don't deal with pollution, fuel consumption and emissions. Where do you get the idea that dealing with environmental problems will cause economic harm? Some right-wing "think tank"?
There is no "pollution" movement,
Except there definitely is. Where have you been, not to notice?
Nonsense. The fossil-fuel driven industrial industries have spoken publicly in favor of making things shittier for everybody.
To the GW Faithful EVERY change "proves" GW. This attitude moves them from the area of science to that of Faith. When you can't falsify your hypothesis then your hypothesis is a Faith.
Well, I don't know about the "GW Faithful", but for you, every post seems to be a lunatic rant against those who consider heathens for not believing the same as you. You sound very religious about it.
This means there must be another variable in global temperatures than carbon emissions.
Wow, you're a fucking genius... nobody else has ever thought of that... What? Climate scientists are well aware that there are vast numbers of variables in global temperature. Wow.