The loophole here is that they haven’t been properly “served” with the ticket. This must be done, in person, either by a police officer or by a process server hired for the job. Ordinary mail isn’t sufficient. The city and the camera company blow this off because it’s too expensive and they know that most people will just pay up because they don’t know the law. However, more and more people are catching on which makes the photo ticket racket less and less profitable. They are not scofflaws in the sense of ripping up and throwing away parking tickets. Until they are properly served, they have no legal obligation to respond.
Do you think because you haven’t passed that first sign you can just drive as fast as you want?
It is the driver’s responsibility to drive at a moderate speed until he or she passes that first sign.
Can’t a police officer set up a speed trap in an area between an entrance ramp and the first speed limit sign?
I think I remember hearing somewhere that “ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.”
You can serve someone with USPS certified mail. It doesn’t have to be done in person. Don’t ask me how I know. 
"FoDaddy, do remember the effect high energy prices had on our economy? Do you really want to repeat that? "
I seem to recall that the banking sector had more to do with our economy than high fuel prices did.
"I thought the answer was that safety equipment had increased, so we were able to reasonably increase speed limits to a point where automotive fatalities didn’t increase. At the increase you are proposing, that won’t be the case. "
Saftey equipment is an order of magnitude better than it was 50 years ago. Again I point your attention to the Autobahn; The speeds are higher yet the per capita death rate is lower than on the U.S. Interstate system. How does that manage to happen?
"You’ve given many justifications, but not any good reasons. You can justify increasing energy prices for poor Americans by saying other people in other countries pay more. That doesn’t make it a good idea. "
Nowhere did I say that you had to drive 100 MPH. I’m just saying that the option should be there for those who do choose to drive faster.
"You are the one who needs to “think big picture.” You can already take time off your cross country trips. We have these new inventions called jet airplanes, and you can find them in these newfangled buildings called airports. When you get to your destination, you can even rent a car. If you are moving, you can have your car transported for a reasonable fee. "
But what about the poor Americans who can’t afford a $3000 flight across the country, but perhaps could afford a few hundered bucks worth of gas to drive across the country.
“You seem to have all the answers, but clearly, you are ignoring reality, and your justifications read as short-sighted self-centered sophism”
You seem to be doing more name calling rather than telling me why my suggestion won’t work.
The energy crisis caused a separate recession before the banking crisis happened. Look it up. My memory seems to go back a little further than yours.
I never accused you of saying “you had to drive 100 MPH.” However, if enough people do, they will drive up demand, which will drive up the price of fuel for everyone.
I have recently been flying on business, and the cross country flights don’t cost $3,000. You can fly across the country round trip for as little as $400 to $600, which actually ends up being cheaper.
Perhaps I have crossed the line, but you are making some crazy points. I mean $3,000 for cross country airfare? Good God man, do 90 seconds of research. Go to Orbitz and price some flights between LA and Jacksonville, or San Francisco and Baltimore. I am serious. Some of the points you make fail the sniff test. You can do better.
If you’re referring to the oil crisis in the 70’s and early 80’s. You must remember that wasn’t caused due to increased demand it was caused by a regime change in Iran. Even the more recent high gas prices were at least partially the result of speculators. When you take inflation into account even at $4 a gallon gasoline wasn’t all that more expensive than it was 50 years ago.
That’s $400- $600 a person. A family of would be spending much on air fare than they would on gas on such a trip. My $3000 figure was based on more than one person making the trip.
Let me get this straight, FoDaddy. You think a poor family will be better off driving across the country at 100 MPH than at 70 MPH because of the time saved? Do you know how much more money that family would spend on fuel? Do you know how much added stress that would put on the car, increasing maintenance and repair costs? They might get there faster, but they will probably need to replace a cracked exhaust manifold when they get there, if they even survive the trip. They will probably die from Carbon Dioxide poisoning on the way. Once you factor in the fuel and repairs, spending $3,000 for plane tickets sounds like it might be the sounder financial choice.
We are not debating the cause of the high fuel prices of recent fuel crises. I merely bought up the effect increased demand would have on current and future fuel prices, and consequently, the effect those higher fuel prices would have on the overall economy, which is already in bad shape. I am not going to bicker about the causes of these fuel crises. Why are you trying to change the subject? Is that really the best you can do?
Wow! and yes come to think of it,certified mail is a kind of surrogate messenger.I dont suppose these tickets arrive via certified mail do they?-Kevin
You’re the one that seems to be harping on about fuel prices. Although I’m repeating myself, I will once again mention that nobody is obligated to drive at 100 MPH. It’s a personal choice. If someone is trying to maximize their fuel mileage, they are free to do so,just keep it in the right lane.
Now you’re trying to justify your argument with cracked exhaust manifolds? You can do better.
You can also refuse to sign for the certified letter and it will be returned to sender.
Twotone
It seems you have to pretty much follow the letter of the “Revenue Gatherers”(Law) around here,they get in your wallet-but very seldom come to “bat” for the average individual-Kevin
First, you made the justification that higher speed limits would save time on cross country trips. I answered that people in a rush can fly. You said it costs too much for poor people to fly. I rebutted with the fact that it would actually be more costly to drive the car fast. Now you say that nobody is going to make poor people drive fast.
Well, wait a minute. Weren’t the poor people the ones who you brought up as those who could benefit because they couldn’t afford to fly?
What you are attempting to do is create a circular argument. Your whole argument is like a snake swallowing its own tail.
I suspect this boils down to nothing more than the fact that you like to drive fast. The rest of what you have given us is pure sophism. People like you can pay track fees or you can pay speeding tickets. You have a choice.
The way the speed cameras are set up in Arizona, you can drive 10 MPH over the speed limit and not get a ticket? [i][u]Isn’t that enough for you? Do you really need to faster than 10 MPH over the speed limit?[/i][/u]
"Well, wait a minute. Weren’t the poor people the ones who you brought up as those who could benefit because they couldn’t afford to fly? "
I still maintain that it would likely be cheaper to drive across the country than it would be to fly. I still also maintain, it’s a personal choice
Let’s do some quick math. Let’s say that it costs $2400 for a family of 4 to fly across the country. Let’s say they own a typical family car, a Honda Accord. I’m not sure what the fuel consumption of an Accord is at 100 MPH. But I do know that a few years ago. Car and Driver ran an article where they crossed Montana in a Pontiac Montana minivan at 105 MPH the whole way (incidently nobody died of carbon monoxide poisoning) They averaged 13.8 MPG. So a resonable guessimate of an accord’s fuel mileage at 100 MPH would be 16 MPG, could be more, could be less, but I think that’s in the ball park. For a 3000 mile trip the Accord would use about 188 gallons of fuel. So that’s about 380 gallons of fuel for the round trip. At $2.75 a gallon that’s about $1075 or so. Even if you throw in an oil change,or even a minor repair, that’s still less than half the cost of flying. This could indeed benefit the poor people should they chose to drive at 100 MPH across the country.
“I suspect this boils down to nothing more than the fact that you like to drive fast. The rest of what you have given us is pure sophism. People like you can pay track fees or you can pay speeding tickets. You have a choice”
I pay track fees at the drag strip and at VIR a few times a year. I haven’t had a speeding ticket in 10 years, and have had two speeding tickets in my entire life (One of which was dismissed). On the road I travel at the prevailing speed.
My question to you is; Higher speed limits work well in Germany, where the price of fuel is considerably higher than it is here. Why does their system work so well?
I believe the German system works well because driving skill is more valued in Germany. It’s a cultural thing. They don’t have drink holders, they don’t talk on the phone or with passengers while they drive, and they typically have higher standards for getting a driver’s license. Here in the USA, just about anyone can get a license, and testing happens so infrequently, most of us let our driving skills suffer.
I absolutely agree, and that is one of the major problems with my idea of higher speed limits. Driving is a privledge, not a right. But most people think it’s the opposite.
Not neccessarily. One version only requires that the Post Office verifies delivery.
The only reason behind cameras is revenue generation. The people at city hall are not going to state this obviously so they provide the feel good justification of pretending to care about the public.
As to the comment by this Mr. Graves about fatalities dropping, I would say there is a lot of the story that may be missing. There could be any number of reasons why fatalties are down and which are not related at all to the camera useage.
Cameras are rare in OK but it’s announced that fatalities are down by half in OK for the first month of 2010 as compared to the first month of 2009. So does that mean rigid enforcement of traffic laws? No. Luck of the draw.
Wonder how many camera generated tickets are issued to some of the worst offenders around; law enforcement people. And I don’t mean officers on their way to a call either.
I contend that the question of whether speed cameras were the reason for reduced fatalities is still unsolved. Proponents don’t know the cause, and opponents don’t either. Let’s be honest. Both are speculating at this point.
Luckily, under most circumstances, the police won’t ticket someone who is traveling at the prevailing speed, even though techincally they could. Where I live that’s how they operate and it’s worked pretty well. The state police did try the aircraft-based speed limit enforcement for a while but they gave up on it since, radar detectors are illegal here anyway, and they weren’t catching enough people driving recklessly to justify the cost. If the police ticketed everyone who was exceeding the speed limit, little else in the realm of law enforcement would ever get done.
No, that’s wrong. The accuser is the State. A private firm is powerless to convict you of a criminal offense. Only the State can try and make a conviction. (Civil suits are another matter and fall under much different rules for evidence and follow a much different procedure.) Private firms routinely collect data to use as evidence and the as basis for accusations; fingerprints, camera footage, disaster and crime scene analysis, dna evidence. Many many governmental agencies use contractors and private firms for crime data collection and analysis. The State uses this information, data and analysis to form the basis for an accusation.