http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/article_8404f3a6-8cb4-11e0-9f57-001cc4c002e0.html
arty
These cameras are such bullshit !!
artyThese cameras are such bullshit !!
Napa judge rules red light cameras are illegal
- Thread starter *Tina*
- Start date
No shit !! I honestly didn't think this would ever happen. Its a pretty decent step.
aszrael1266
Resident Squid
Wow. I hope other cities follow their lead but I think that is just wishfull thinking.
2strokeYardSale
Moab on my mind
Attention whore, baiting the cameras which were just following orders and trying to do their job.
Idontdotrix
let sleeping bitches lie
it's called Cost Neutrality and it's a circumventing clause around a state law preventing private contracters from being paid per citation, a lw intended to remove bias from the system and financial motivation by the contrators to lie.
two years ago, an Orange CO appeals court judge ruled they illegal for the same reason. many cities are still using the illegal contracts.
two years ago, an Orange CO appeals court judge ruled they illegal for the same reason. many cities are still using the illegal contracts.
radvas
Well-known member
Seems like this defense worked for this woman this time, but since the problem was the contract, they can easily get around this with a new contract. Also, this sure as hell aint a case of Napa caring about it's people. This was a county judge's ruling about on contract law. The police department said they had no intentions to get rid of red light cameras.
Some quick math:
4 cams @ 7200/yr each = $43,200 paid to contracto over 18 month period. paid to contractor.
9700 citations * ~$500 = 4.85 million revenue over that same 18 month period.
So that leaves 4.8M in revenue after paying the contractor. When you subtract administrative and court costs of processing those 9700 tickets, the city of Napa is probably only in the hole by 10 million or so. :laughing
Some quick math:
4 cams @ 7200/yr each = $43,200 paid to contracto over 18 month period. paid to contractor.
9700 citations * ~$500 = 4.85 million revenue over that same 18 month period.
So that leaves 4.8M in revenue after paying the contractor. When you subtract administrative and court costs of processing those 9700 tickets, the city of Napa is probably only in the hole by 10 million or so. :laughing
Haha!
:laughing Some days I hate the truth.
Eldritch
is insensitive
Dr. Evil
Mother of God.
Why I am not overcome with riotous laughter at this very moment is a matter of some mystery to me. Maybe it's shock. :|
Shaggy
Zoinks!!!!
I believe the procedure is the company employs humans to review the photos and verify that a violation occurred. From there, I'm not exactly sure whether they appear for testimony, they speak to a traffic investigator who then testifies (not sure about hearsay rule), or they may send the photo to the investigator who then testifies to the photo....
It seems like cities could purchase and install their own equipment for close to what they are paying this company annually.
Marlowe
Beer Whisperer
They do appear if you contest it, at least around here.
Where it gets interesting is they are then individuals, working for a for profit corporation, that has a direct fiscal interest in the outcome of the trial.
(For bonus points, at least around here, and in Texas too, besides the state constitutional issues with the cameras, they were found by courts to be unlicensed PIs... since they were gathering evidence to prosecute a crime, for a fee...)
I really had serious issues with the speed cameras...I didn't initially have an issue with red light cameras, but after seeing how many municipalities have tweaked their light timings to increase violations I'm really starting to change my mind.
I don't mind the theory of a red light camera, but the execution hasn't worked out anywhere. Politicians need to keep their hands off enforcement and stop trying to turn it into a revenue generator; it's not, nor should it be.