Tigers List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jim" <(email redacted)>

Move to Florida.

We don't need no stinkin' front plates.


Jp

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Ditto. Indiana.

Once again an example of how Californians have let big government
rule their lives. America is the land of the free except for California.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Move to Pennsylvania. We ain't got no stickin' front plates either.

We also have registration that is free for the life of your car, or you,
whichever goes first.

Fred Baum
9470768

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Steve Laifman <(email redacted)>

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)

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



(email redacted) 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

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jim" <(email redacted)>

Yes there is.

A front plate makes a much better laser target for the cops to nail you when
you are speeding.

With no front plate and a laser jammer.......well.........let's just
say...........



>
> There is NO good argument against it............

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Theo Smit <(email redacted)>

Hi all,
Alberta went from two plates to no-front-plate-required about twelve
years ago. We (in Calgary) have red light cameras arranged so they take
a picture from the rear of the car. With the tickets you get from this,
as well as the Multanova radar camera pictures, it's up to you to prove
that you were not the driver when the picture was taken. No alibi? You
pay the fine. The only concession with this is that because they don't
have definite proof it was the registered owner driving the car, they
don't issue demerit points against the owner's license.

Theo

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Thomas Witt" <(email redacted)>

Y-E-A-R-S ago South Pasadena, CA. was notorious for their adaptation of
radar. I recall they were one of the first cities to use cameras. While I'm
not one to endorse obscene gestures I'll admit I did find it a bit amusing
when the local newspaper displayed someone deliberately driving through a
photo-ed intersection with a blocked out plate, a raised middle finger and a
Dick Nixon mask to make a statement about the implementation.
So, in Canada, you are guilty until proven innocent, and photo-ed from the
rear to make it difficult to defended yourself (if you were not the driver).
Hummm....
Tom Witt

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

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 <(email redacted)>
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)

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



(email redacted) 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

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

I too agree with Steve and Roland. The bother of an extra plate is well
worth it if it makes us a little safer. Intersections have become death traps.
I'm to the point (in any State) that I don't leave when the light is green
unless I've looked in both directions.
Mark L

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

Yep, I also look both ways, no matter the color of the light, before
proceeding.

And I've seen the reverse- a car barreling through an intersection when
the light turned green and ploughing into the side of a car that was
running a red light. It's just a no win situation.

Roland


> I too agree with Steve and Roland. The bother of an extra plate is well
> worth it if it makes us a little safer. Intersections have become death
> traps.
> I'm to the point (in any State) that I don't leave when the light is
> green
> unless I've looked in both directions.
> Mark L

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Theodore Brown <(email redacted)>

OK, here's my story about photo monitoring at intersections, compliments of
New York City or how I fought the system and actually won (kinda)

When my younger daughter was a senior in high school, we bought her a new
car so that we did not have to drive her to all her activities and for her
to use in her college years. The car was a Nissan Sentra two-door (you
don't think I would give her the Tiger, do you?). For some reason, Katrina
named the car Sammy and he was, indeed, her buddy throughout her college
years and beyond. In recognition, she obtained a NY vanity plate SAM I M
(note the spacing). A couple of years after Sammy had left her ownership,
after some 160,000 miles and many adventures, including a round trip to
Colorado and her trailing John Denver around the country one summer on his
concert tour, I got a summons from NYC explaining that the vehicle with the
plate SAMIM (sic) had run a red light in Queens on such and such a date and
included a photo. By this time Sammy had been traded in on a new Sentra
and the plate returned to the NY MV bureau (Katrina had moved to
Massachusetts, so couldn't keep SAM I M) which cost me a dollar (go
figure!) The plate shown in the photo appeared to be mounted on some kind
of SUV (Ford Explorer, maybe) and was clearly not a plate issued by the
State of NY. I wrote to the authorities in NY explaining that neither I
nor anyone else driving a car registered to me had been in Queens on the
date specified so that they had the wrong time, wrong place, wrong vehicle,
wrong plate, wrong state and wrong person, just to mention a few of their
inconsistencies. I further explained that, although I had been born in
NYC, I consciously avoided the place except on special occasions (like when
the Red Sox were in town) and NEVER drove within the city limits. I asked
them to cancel the summons and refund the price of the stamp that I used to
send the letter of objection/explanation. They did the former but not the
latter. Technology is wonderful but the fundamental principle still
pertains - GIGO (Garbage in, garbage out).

Cheers,

Tod (why did I move to Maine?)
B382002384LRXFE

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Gary Crandall <(email redacted)>

I believe this discussion has taken a turn in the wrong direction. Nobody wants anybody to run red lights and hit another vehicle, let alone injure another person, be they driver or pedestrian. People, who intentionally run red lights, do so without regard to others, as well as themselves. Front license plates and cameras will not stop these people and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Personally, I feel that if they guilty of gross negligence, they should never drive again. All our major cities have adequate public transportation to accommodate such people at a relatively inexpensive cost, funded by law abiding tax payers, like you and me. For those people who accidentally run red lights, a ticket or two may suffice in making them more careful in the near term, but it does not guarantee that their attention span will necessarily be improved in the future; cell phones, ipods, stereos, makeup, passengers, smoking, drinking, being late, etc. will see
to that. Front plates and cameras are only a means to document their driving behavior. Sadly, politicians dont have the balls to actually require people to know how to drive, let alone take away their drivers license. Heck, here in California we even give them away to non-citizens. Funny, how you have to surrender your license from another state when you get a California license, but you dont have to be a citizen of the United States. What a country?!!!

Several years ago I had dinner with a personal friend who was assistant chief of police. When I asked him about red light cameras, he just chuckled. He said his city spends about $250,000 per year for the maintenance of each camera (private firm), which includes the laser range finder, the radar, the camera equipment and film processing. The fines brought in about $750,000 a year for each light. At the time they had 7 lights installed in the city for a total of $3.5 million profit. My friend personally liked this, because the cameras run 24/7 and this freed up several traffic officers for other duties. I mentioned to him that extending the time between the red light in one direction and the green light in the other, would do much more for avoiding accidents in the first place, whether people intentionally or unintentionally run the red light. He whole heartedly agreed, but admitted it was all about the money.

Realistically, the time between lights should be extended in the interest of public safety, whether there are cameras or not. Unfortunately, if that were the case, it would take away the primary argument for red light cameras in the first place. And politicians cant be seen as being soft on crime and uncaring about public safety, especially when they can fatten the city coffers at the same time. Its a win-win situation for almost all involved, except it doesnt physically stop people from running red lights. I have also witnessed people who panic and slam on their brakes, because its a camera controlled intersection, when they could have easily made the yellow light. So it works both ways. Luckily the rear enders are rarely life threatening, as opposed to the red light runners.

So if your city wants to install red light cameras, make them extend the time between red and green lights first and see what happens. It will take the wind out of their sails. If they are really interested in public safety, it's the quickest and easiest thing to do. Unfortunately, it will also take away their financial return, so you'll have a hard time selling it, unless they do both. Then they will naturally claim it was the cameras that solved the problem and not the timing, but, of course, they will still get their (your) money, too.

GC



---------------------------------
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Scott Hutchinson" <(email redacted)>

Interesting.

We could just do what the europeans do. Have the light go yellow before it goes green. I have always wondered why they don't do that over here.


Scott Hutchinson
Assistant Director of Operations
Netjets International

Office 860.292.1191
Mobile 843.290.2805

**********
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Frenken, Eric" <(email redacted)>

Or even better, do what the Austrians do. Green starts flashing, then yellow,
then red. An adequate time of about 5-6 seconds to make up one's mind whether
to stop or to go. Although I'm no citizen of Austria I think common sense is,
flashing green means hurry up, yellow means start braking and red, as
elsewhere, stop.

Eric
Heinsberg/Germany
123ignition dealership



Interesting.

We could just do what the europeans do. Have the light go yellow before it
goes green. I have always wondered why they don't do that over here.


Scott Hutchinson
Assistant Director of Operations
Netjets International

Office 860.292.1191
Mobile 843.290.2805

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/x-pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: " Ron Fraser" <(email redacted)>

Unfortunately, Governments are reactionary lawmakers for the most
part, not proactive. Safety laws are generally way down on the "To Do"
list.

It will probably take a serious accident involving a very famous
person which makes it into prime time broadcast news to move this type of
legislation to the top of the list. For safety reasons I hope I'm wrong
but to me it seems like more drivers are less courteous and safety conscious
every day. Its to bad we can't just get every driver to actually understand
and obey the current traffic rules without further government oversight.

We all deplore more "Big Brother is Watching" but then people do the very
things that move governments into that corner.

Ron Fraser

-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted) [mailtoemail redacted)] On
Behalf Of Scott Hutchinson
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:12 AM
To: (email redacted); (email redacted)
Subject: Re: Front Plate


Interesting.



We could just do what the europeans do. Have the light go yellow before it
goes green. I have always wondered why they don't do that over here.





Scott Hutchinson

Assistant Director of Operations

Netjets International



Office 860.292.1191

Mobile 843.290.2805



**********

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please
advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: 12/11/2006
4:32 PM

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

I agree that the driving has gotten scary over the past 20 years. Since the
requirement of commercial driver's CDL's, I think there has been an
improvement with truckers. So, that is one good thing that is going on.

I've often wondered if visitors to this country can rent a car with an
international driver's license?? I once saw a person miss an exit off I-4 to
Disney in Orlando...he merely decided to back up to the exit using the traffic
lane to do so. This was around 6:00 PM and caused quite a scene.
Mark L.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

We have not let it happen. We have fought it tooth and nail, but have been
abandoned by the Republican Part, NRA and the rest of the country. The money
I've spent on postage fighting our socialist dictator ship could have bought me
my next Tiger. Yes, I did take offense to your statement.

DR Moonstone