dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3053
share rss forum feed


shortckt
Watchen Das Blinken Lights
Premium
join:2000-12-05
Tenant Hell

Traffic Cameras--Stop Assembly Bill AB-666

Some might say it's aptly numbered considering the disgust many people have for automated traffic enforcement.

*** Protect Your Right to a Trial for Automated Traffic Tickets ***

What does AB-666 Do?

• Eliminates Your Right to a Trial if You Get a Red Light Camera Ticket
• Makes You Responsible for the Ticket Even When Someone Else Is Driving
• Sets up Kangaroo “Administrative Hearing” Courts Run By Those Who Gave You the Ticket
• No Evidence Other than the Ticket Itself is Needed to Convict You
• No Right to Face Your Accuser
• You Are Assumed Guilty and Have to Prove Your Innocence
• You Will Have to Pay a Fee If You Want Your Case Heard in Court
• Expands the Use of Photo Enforcement to Other Traffic Violations

The bill was introduced by California Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D, 25th district-Fremont) who has taken campaign contributions from traffic camera manufacturers.

The worst part of this badly thought out bill is that it would change automated traffic tickets from criminal to civil matters, taking away important legal protections an accused person has such as the right to confront their accuser and see all the evidence against them. Fighting such a ticket would become the same as fighting a parking ticket, where you are considered guilty and must prove otherwise in front of an examiner who works for the city and always finds you guilty anyway.

It would also put the fine and the points on the vehicle owner's driving record even if someone else was driving. The only way to avoid the fine and points would be for the vehicle owner to rat out the actual driver. If the driver is a spouse this bill would violate important legal protections that now prevent the state from forcing one spouse to testify against the other.

If passed this bill would get around several legal protections that people now have when accused of a crime such as a traffic ticket.

This bill is pending in the California Judiciary Committee and Assemblyman Wieckowski is chair of that committee.

Regardless how you feel about traffic enforcement cameras, a law like this which strips away our legal protections in the name of revenue is a bad idea. It may end up being challenged in court on constitutional grounds which only means more of our taxpayer money being wasted to defend a law that was badly thought out to begin with.

If you care about this (and as a California driver you should) then read up on it and let Assemblyman Wieckowski know what you think about it. This bill will come up for a vote very soon!

READ ABOUT THIS BILL
A good article about this on »thenewspaper.com/news/40/4056.asp

Website with all the details: »stopab666.org

One source for the gritty legislative info: »leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces···eywords=

CONTACT ASSEMBLYMAN WIECKOWSKI
Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski's website where you can send him a message from the Contact Bob link, or you can phone his office at the state capitol:
(916) 319-2025

or phone his district office in Fremont California:
(510) 440-9030

(if you phone his office just ask for one of his Legislative Aides)

or send him a fax at:
(916) 319-2125

--
NOTE: JUST PASSING THIS ALONG, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH ANY OF THE WEBSITES MENTIONED ABOVE.
--

Edit: forgot the link for legislative info.



Boricua
Premium
join:2002-01-26
Sacramuerto

What's sad is it's all about the money .



Veloslave
Geek For God
Premium
join:2003-07-11
Martinez, CA
reply to shortckt

When Big Brother gets bigger... he needs more $$$ to play

(was I the only one that found AB-666 ironic and disturbing?)

--
Mom was right.... I NEED fiber!



shortckt
Watchen Das Blinken Lights
Premium
join:2000-12-05
Tenant Hell

Since this is at the municipal level, I would say it's more about new sources of revenue that don't require voter input in an attempt to cover their overspending ways. The camera manufacturers sell the idea to cities as revenue, revenue, revenue. Safety is just a talking point, and one study after another is finding that safety is not improving when cameras are installed.

And some state cubicle worker should have skipped that number when assigning one to this bill!



Waldothe3rd
Premium
join:2009-02-16
Sun N Sand
reply to shortckt

Signed the petition...

HATE the thought of Big Brother Law Enforcement.


hoyleysox
Premium
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
reply to shortckt

The cameras are not a money maker for cities.

San Diego officers issued nearly 20,000 tickets in 2011 based on the red light cameras. The city gets about $152 for each ticket, with the rest of the money going to the courts or the state. In fiscal year 2011, the city collected $1.9 million in red light camera revenue, paid $700,000 to its vendor and paid $1 million for the officers issuing the tickets, leaving $200,000 in profit for its general fund.

»www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct···ch-stop/

steevo22

join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA
reply to shortckt

The bill is state level, not municipal. Sometimes the cameras are put in by cities, however. Maybe that's what you meant?



shortckt
Watchen Das Blinken Lights
Premium
join:2000-12-05
Tenant Hell

I believe the cameras are always installed and managed at the municipal level, except when they are on state or federal land, for example within a state park.

This Assembly bill would change California vehicle code, which filters down to the local level. Since it would clear the path to increased revenues from automated enforcement I can't see any city not going along with the proposed changes.