Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
over the objections of ... the insurance industry,

Why would the insurance industry be against this? They supported the 55 speed limit, seat bealt laws, helmut laws etc.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
They're still cheaper than humans. And they never stop at donut shops.

Presumptive guilt is cheaper than trials, too.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
helmut laws

Hunh. Houston is even more cosmopolitan than I thought.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Governor’s reform agenda includes:

Proposition 74 which will require new teachers to work successfully for several years before they get tenure and a virtual job for life.
Proposition 75 which will give workers like police officers, firefighters and teachers the ability to choose whether or not money from their paychecks should be used for political purposes.
Proposition 76 which will control spending to end state deficits and balance the budget without raising taxes. At the same time, it will stabilize education funding to make sure our public schools are getting the money they need.
Proposition 77 which will allow independent judges to draw election districts instead of the politicians. It then allows voters to approve or reject those districts. It is about giving more power to the people and making politicians more accountable.

Can you cut and paste descriptions from a source that doesn't like them, so that we can get a more comprehensive idea of what they involve? Gracias.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hunh. Houston is even more cosmopolitan than I thought.

That would be on of those German Helmets with the little pointy cross on the top that bikers often wear.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
As someone who went to law school mainly to deal with all my traffic citations, I am way to close to this one to give a measured, thoughtful and unemotional analysis. However, I did hear that if you get one of these in the mail and just ignore it then nothing will happen. The reason I heard was because you have never been served properly. This is why cops force you to sign a ticket when they give it to you. They can't do that when it just comes in the mail. However, this does not seem necessary for parking citations, so who knows.

Not true. At least in DC (and I think this is the case in surrounding jurisdictions), the fine is against the car owner and the car. The ticket is sent to the owner. The owner can sign an affidavit that someone else was driving, or pay the fine. Not paying means the fine shows up next time you try to register. There are no consequences for the ticket other than the fine, however (like a parking ticket), which may save the gov't. That said, if your argument works, what are you going to do about it when they don't let you reregister your car? Claim "sufficiency of service"?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Can you cut and paste descriptions from a source that doesn't like them, so that we can get a more comprehensive idea of what they involve? Gracias.

Now you are sounding like Ty. Do your own research.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why would the insurance industry be against this? They supported the 55 speed limit, seat bealt laws, helmut laws etc.

2. Anything that allows them to rat out bad drivers is a good idea to them. Although maybe if the cameras meant less actual police enforcement, with a charge against the driver, they were concerned that it would diminish info about bad driving.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have to disagree with Will on the fact that you can't assume she has been a victim of discrimination. If she is 61, she had to overcome serious obstacles to get where she is today. Especially in Texas where the old boys network is a strong as ever. I believe those obstacles have been seriously diminshed but there were rock solid when she began her legal career.

Absolutely. She, like O'Connor, was at the top of her law school class but couldn't find a job when she graduated.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why would the insurance industry be against this? They supported the 55 speed limit, seat bealt laws, helmut laws etc.

I think it had to do with the fact that the insurance companies aren't getting the data, since the fines are civil, not criminal, (Texas ACLU blogger, Grits for Breakfast, has some analysis on contesting the tickets on that basis (if you follow his links, you'll see a lot more discussion on the cameras)), so it does them no good in analyzing who might be a dangerous driver.

ETA: Here's the link with the explanation of the insurance industry's objection: http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/004610.html

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not true. At least in DC (and I think this is the case in surrounding jurisdictions), the fine is against the car owner and the car. The ticket is sent to the owner. The owner can sign an affidavit that someone else was driving, or pay the fine. Not paying means the fine shows up next time you try to register. There are no consequences for the ticket other than the fine, however (like a parking ticket), which may save the gov't. That said, if your argument works, what are you going to do about it when they don't let you reregister your car? Claim "sufficiency of service"?

Just something I heard. Of course when I got mine I paid it. The cameras were amazing. Picture of me in the car from a few angles, close up of the license, close up of my face, etc.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay. Here's a chance to clarify. This post is a response to Shifter. In what way is Chavez "his boy?"

Funny, I don't think he responded to this one. Of course, sometimes it takes Penske a few hours to respond to posts.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Absolutely. She, like O'Connor, was at the top of her law school class but couldn't find a job when she graduated.

Maybe it was because she wore too much makeup to her interviews.

(I kid. I probably would have left that part out, too.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think it had to do with the fact that the insurance companies aren't getting the data, since the fines are civil, not criminal, (Texas ACLU blogger, Grits for Breakfast, has some analysis on contesting the tickets on that basis (if you follow his links, you'll see a lot more discussion on the cameras)), so it does them no good in analyzing who might be a dangerous driver.

In CA such tickets put points on your driving record which the insurance companys have access to. If the insurance companys did not have access to these records I would never go to traffic school.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think it had to do with the fact that the insurance companies aren't getting the data, since the fines are civil, not criminal, (Texas ACLU blogger, Grits for Breakfast, has some analysis on contesting the tickets on that basis (if you follow his links, you'll see a lot more discussion on the cameras)), so it does them no good in analyzing who might be a dangerous driver.

That's a pretty sorry equal protection argument. There are plenty of things we have both criminal and civil penalties for. Also, the "safer to run it in the conditions" argument is pretty weak, given that means the speed was unsafe.

That said, it raises a very fair point that it eliminates any discretion and contextual assessment. I have related elsewhere (under a sock) my story about speeding cameras in DC. Suffice to say the protest mechanism does not take into account circumstances that would ordinarily call for a police escort rather than a speeding ticket. (Nor, I'm told does it ever take into account any excuses--it's a rubber-stamp rejection of your appeal. But that's the due process issue, not the ticket in the first place).