News-Record.com

"My crime? My tires were over the white line."

You obviously realize that the white line is there for a reason, and you admit that you broke the law. And why do you think you're entitled to break the law without punishement?

I've never heard of a red-light camera giving somebody a ticket for crossing the white line. (Although I've got a few myself for running them) I wonder exactly how far across that white line your tires were.

I think the red light cameras served a purpose. I have noticed that since they were turned off, people are running lights even worse than before. My complaints with the cameras is that they weren't at ALL intersections, a private company reaped so high a profit on them, and you had to pay the fine BEFORE your day in court.

What do you mean that the cameras are 'being used to punish those who care enough to stop instead of speeding up and endangering lives'?

If you had run the red light you still would have got a ticket.

Maybe a lot of resentment comes from people being presumed absolutely guilty with a blind eye toward the nuances of driving. (sometimes, following granny to Little Texas means not to get separated between lights) The local government chose to erect these cameras to increase their coffers, it's human nature to be defiant to such a lie.

Maybe the increase in whiplash and swallowed pacifiers can be rationalized as job creation in the medical field.

Don't kid yourself Mr T. They WILL give you a ticket for your front tires being over the white line. My brother in law got one on his motorcycle.

Just more proof that they are there for the MONEY and not as a safety vehicle.

The Red-Light Cameras were supposedly placed at "dangerous" intersections to hamper serious accidents. While the statistics show that the intersections where the cameras were located accidents declined, running a red light did not. The number of tickets issued supports this analysis.

The whole scheme was about raising more money for government coffers. Sadly, the government did not get the larger percentage of this money.

And from a constitutional standpoint, the camera idea is invalid. The penalty has to be met before one is heard. Thus, one is no longer innocent until proven guilty; rather, one is thus guilty until proven innocent.

I can only wonder, how many police officers issued tickets to drivers who ran a red light as compared to the cameras? This would be interesting information to have presented to the public.

Still, I am just another among many who are glad that the cameras are gone. I say this, for my part, not because I run red lights, rather, I say it because I feel that the lights were unconstitutional.

If they could only take all of the red-light cameras and repurpose them. Place them near handicap-designated parking spaces and fine all of the losers who knowingly break the law to park there "...just for a minute".

The counterpoint to yours, Darryl, is that because the citation is civil and not criminal, the Constitution is irrelevant. I got a ticket, had my "hearing", and plead the same case to no avail.

It's a bunch of hogwash. The only solution to me seems to be to elect the right council members who agree that a ticket from an inanimate object is antithetical to liberty. Remember to ask about this when the next city council election comes around. I won't vote for anyone who supports them.