Georgia May Ease Motorist Photo Ticket Challenges

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

The Georgia House of Representatives as early as tomorrow is expected to take up legislation that would ease the burden on motorists wrongly accused of running a red light. The House Committee on Judiciary Non-civil on Thursday endorsed House Bill 31, which proposes a series of fundamental changes designed to force the city or county government operating the camera system to prove its case. State Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Cassville) introduced the legislation with five of his colleagues.

“The primary issue with the way red light cameras are operated in Georgia is that it violates the 5th an 14th Amendment rights of citizens, by placing the burden of proof on the accused,” Loudermilk told TheNewspaper. “When the registered owner of the vehicle was not the driver, the owner has to prove it to the government. Often local governments make it very difficult for the non-driver owners by making them appear in court or requiring they provide the name of the driver.”

Loudermilk’s measure addresses the problem by forcing the automated enforcement company that generates and mails the citations to include a form with check boxes that registered vehicle owners can fill out to indicate that someone else had been driving the car, the car was stolen or that the vehicle was part of a funeral procession. Because many jurisdictions force vehicle owners to take off time from work to go to court in order to assert these defenses, the bill would force them to accept a notarized copy of the mailed-in form.

“Current law states that a local government may accept a notarized statement from the registered owner that they weren’t the driver of the vehicle as sufficient evidence to dismiss the citation,” Loudermilk explained. “Unfortunately, the word ‘may’ has given too much flexibility as some governments are still making owners appear before the court or identify who was the driver.”

The bill also reduces the existing penalty for lying on the form to a misdemeanor with a fine of $100 to $1000 and possible jail time. Current law considers such a false statement to be a felony.

Loudermilk previously had authored legislation that increased the yellow time at red light camera intersections by one second. As a result, the cities that obeyed the law saw violation reductions of up to 80 percent. The resulting drop in revenue generated caused a half-dozen cities to stop photo ticketing entirely. Still, Loudermilk is not satisfied.

“The complete solution to the problem is to repeal the law that allows the operation of red light cameras in Georgia,” Loudermilk said. “However, we have not been able to get enough support to get a complete repeal through the legislature.”

A copy of HB31 is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below.

House Bill 31 (Georgia General Assembly, 3/18/2010)

[courtesy: thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
 1 comment
  • Speedlaw Speedlaw on Mar 22, 2010

    Hmmm. Photo $cameras. Take in a lot of revenue..... -BUT- annoys the sheeple enough to find my office.... What's a politician to do ?

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next