I'm definitely with Steve on this one, having been the victem of an
uninsured, unlicensed red light runner. Result- totaled car at mine and
my insurance company's expense.
I've even seen muni buses run red lights and not just once, but many times!
It may be a great revenue generator, but if it cuts down on the number of
jerks running red lights, I can live with it.
And Steve is right. This law has been in effect in CA for ages. It just
hadn't been enforced until red light running became such an big issue
during rush hour traffic, particulrly in urban areas.
Roland
_________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:24:33 -0800
From: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Front plate
Curtis,
We have heard from at least 5 list members that say it hasn't happened
in their state. I respond, "YET!".
You, apparently, recognize the need to reduce intersection red light
running.
The law for front plates has been on our books (except during WW II,
when they were using soy bean plates!) Look at vintage car photo's (1920
and on) and you will see the front plates in CA. (and England)
http://www.acdclub.org/
It was only enforced after you were stopped for something else, and
usually a inspection station report complied with judge's order to "fix
it", and a fine for why you were stopped originally.
Running a red light is a real lethal danger, and it is done frequently.
More people are killed in intersections than any other violation. They
tried to test enforcing it with cameras, to stop accidents. However,
the state got a real surprise. The company making the cameras,
detector's etc., in competitive bid for more, offered them for FREE, and
they would even handle the processing of results for a percentage of the
penalty.
A violation is $250 for the first one, without priors. They also check
for the mandatory accident insurance coverage. 50% are not insured!!
That income stream became really cost effective, and hard to fight in
court. The second violation doubled to $500, and the next, even more
money AND MANDATORY JAIL TIME, and impounding of car ($$$$$). Death to
innocent drivers and pedestrians at our intersections needs to be
stopped now.
That is when front plate enforcement became cost effective, especially
when it's "free", and the violator pays the costs, and leaves a large
profit behind. It is a good law, saves lives, and acts as a deterrent.
If one does not break the law by driving in an unsafe manner, then they
avoid the consequences. Violate the law, and you ARE punished.
No use arguing that California is not democratic, or violates rights.
This is a killing violation, and against the law everywhere. Enforcement
costs are the only deterrent, as nobody is for intersection killings.
Now, costs are little, and income large enough to expand the
intersections watched 24/7
There is NO good argument against it, as your state has light running
laws too. Only enforcement may be missing, and revenue will overcome
that issue. If front plates enhance law enforcement, watch for that
second plate law.
Steve
___
Steve Laifman
Editor - TigersUnited.com
65Tiger@comcast.net wrote:
>The only reason they are inforcing the front license plate is red light
>running. The cameras need a picture of you, the car and LP.
>The 'fix it' ticket to put on a plate does not generate any revenue.
>The 'enforcers' tend to cut a lot to slack to vintage.
>
>Curtis been there, got that
|