🚀 go-pugleaf

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> On 3/8/2008 10:08 AM Scott in SoCal spake thus:
> 
> > On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:52:08 -0800, David Nebenzahl
> ><nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 3/5/2008 1:45 AM Graham Harrison spake thus:
> > > 
> >>>"Ed" <editor@highwayrobbery.net> wrote in message
> news:b5912483-1fb1-43bd-b41e-13799c3fa19f@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com
> ...
> > > > > California Senate Bill 1325 was introduced on Feb. 20 and if
> > > > > it passes will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as
> > > > > photo radar tickets - to be mailed to you.   The bill could
> > > > > also allow stop sign camera tickets.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The first hearing on this bill will be this month (March), by
> > > > > the Senate Transportation Committee in Sacramento.
> > > > 
> > > > Would you please explain why you are opposed to these cameras? 
> > > 
> > > Yes; why do you assume that everyone's opposed to them? I'm not.
> > > 
> > > You speed, you lose.
> > 
> > One very good reason to oppose them is because they may not always
> > be accurate. Check out this radar speed sign in my neighborhood
> > that was wigging out a while back:
> > 
> > http://blip.tv/file/611844
> > 
> > If a malfunctioning speed camera nails you, good luck proving your
> > innocence. Even if you don't speed, you still lose.
> 
> So what's the difference between that and the possibility that a
> radar gun wielded by a human might be similarly inaccurate? I'm sure
> the courts are aware of the technological limitations here.

OK, why don't you be the first to test out your theory. Don't forget to
report back to us on the outcome of your court case.

-- 
Cliff