[s-cars] guilty, not guilty?

Thu Jul 22 17:47:44 PDT 2010

 A couple of misconceptions present.  In Illinois, there is no need to "Identify" the driver, as this is not a points infraction, this is a revenue generator.  Identifying the car is the only requirement, it's up to you to put your hand out to whomever was driving (btdt to my daughter and a buddy that borrowed my truck).  Bill, the way these sensors work (I'll assume these are not the radar type = these are the pad type), they follow the simple timing rule to determine speed over two sensors.  This triggers the camera/video, and there ya go.  If you can figure out whom gives you your right to due process, you would need to provide evidence of a stop (many have been successful proving that the stop was somewhere prior or post sensor).  It appears to me (thinking referee instant replay review), it's really tough to prove a full stop with your video.  Illinois Law on Right Turn on Red is clear that you have to establish a "complete stop" at the line (see reference on the site I gave you).  I'm sure there is an interpretation of that that can be challenged to an extent, but rolling stops usually don't qualify.  The revenuers gotcha man.  Your choices are to pay and learn that rolling stops can be wallet-challenging.  Or, you can fight this some other way...  The latter seems to be a weak choice, as the video is clear, the hockey puck appeared to clear the net without interruption or interference.

WRT S-fest, my plans will rotate around the need to transport a daughter back to college.

Scott "stops completely" J

-----Original Message-----
From: bill mahoney <airbil at gmail.com>
To: qshipq at aol.com
Cc: fastscirocco_2000 at yahoo.com; s-car-list at audifans.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 22, 2010 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: [s-cars] guilty, not guilty?

Scott et. al.,
Rolling, schmolling.  I learned this fine technique in the great state of CA a long, long time ago.  They, in fact, were probably the first to come up with this right on red thing and thus the name "California Stop."  Thank you California.
Funny how if I watch this video enough times, I can visualize the car to come to a stop:)  If I could only mind control the judge to see it the same way.
At any rate, the street from the left was not even a street but entrance to a small shopping mall from where usually about three cars will exit at a time and my cursory "coast" was enough to see the coast was clear.  Henceforth I will at least re edumicate myself to stop and go.... and begin my search for some kinda plate blocker defense technology.
As I read up, I believe this is like a parking ticket / aka revenue generator and who was driving is not relevant... so they say.
I noted how the camera is aimed only at the right lane as they know that that's where the revenue will come from and yikes, at $100 a crack they gotta $5000 a day with the same crime.  If they really wanted people to stop, they would put a sign on the camera post saying red light camera ahead or something.  Nope.  This is grand theft, right on red.  They just want the money honey.
Bill~lovin' the robber barons~M

Ps Scotty,  Will you be beaming out to sfest ?

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:34 PM,  <qshipq at aol.com> wrote:

 Mr Bill
The right turn camera's use either radar or sensors to detect speed of the right turn ('on red')...  See the sensor type here http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=306391
The amount of 'roll' can be adjusted from a complete stop to double digit MPH.  The law states complete stop.  Your video defines a rolling stop IMestimation.  You can ck the dailyherald on which suburbs are doing what with the right turn on red issues.  I suspect until banned, even if you took that to court, that video reviewed by a judge would clearly indicate a complete stop was not made.

My daughter got caught rolling 2 stops in Chicagoland with these cameras.  200cash disappears from the wallet, with nothing but a crappy video...

Cheers

Scott J

-----Original Message-----
From: chris chambers <fastscirocco_2000 at yahoo.com>
To: bill mahoney <airbil at gmail.com>; s-car-list at audifans.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 22, 2010 11:06 am
Subject: Re: [s-cars] guilty, not guilty?

Bill,

I can't see the light to tell where it's at, assuming they have another way of 

knowing.

Otherwise I guess it depends on what "the man's" definition of stop is.

Personally I think Serge was behind the wheel.

Can they really hold you responsible because you are the owner if they can't 

prove who was driving?

I despise traffic cams .... glad they aren't here in kazoo land.

Chris

________________________________

From: bill mahoney <airbil at gmail.com>

To: s-car-list at audifans.com

Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 11:03:33 AM

Subject: [s-cars] guilty, not guilty?

Moral issues aside, here's a the "mans" video of me in the D2 alleged to

have run a red to the tune of a hondo US fiat bucks.

Very bizzare feeling to think back to a crime committed two weeks back when

I can't remember 10 minutes ago.

I'll play it out and claim I stopped, but they can't even say who was

driving.

Whatcha all say?

http://flic.kr/p/8kDLsT

Bill~glad they don't ask for payment in gold~M

_______________________________________________

S-CAR-List mailing list

http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list

http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information

_______________________________________________

S-CAR-List mailing list

http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list

http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information