Ticketed by a camera
Once again The Post has by its own admission subjugated the Constitution to “common sense” [“Red-light cameras: Q.E.D.,” editorial, Feb. 6].
Citing a self-serving insurance lobby study, the paper deemed the right to confront one’s accuser less important than feeding the District’s coffers. Moreover, the editorial raised the question: If committing a traffic infraction in the presence of a police officer is punishable by fines and points, why are no points assessed for the same infraction witnessed by only a camera?
By
John R. Posniak, Alexandria
| February 8, 2011; 8:21 PM ET
Categories:
D.C., traffic, transportation
Save & Share:
Previous: A heartbreaking hearing in D.C.
Next: Driving is a right
Because there is no proof as to the identity of the driver. The owner of the car is assessed the fine; it's up to that person to determine who the driver was.
Posted by: krickey7 | February 9, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse
On a slightly larger scale, I've noticed that the proliferation of cameras has coincided with a decrease in the enforcement of vehicle licensing regulations. I'm guessing it's because the Police are focusing their attention elsewhere, but that's not going to make me feel any better if I get hit by an uninsured driver (insurance being equivalent to current vehicle registration).
Posted by: momosity1 | February 9, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.