One Citizen Speaking...
DEVIL'S RED LIGHT CAMERA BILL IS BAIT AND SWITCH FOR THE BENEFIT OF RED LIGHT CAMERA VENDORS
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 02:48 AM PDT
It's about municipal revenue and political corruption, not safety ...
In case anyone has not been paying attention, red light cameras were sold to the public as an accident prevention safety measure. However, statistical analysis has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is more about municipal revenue generation and the political corruption of red light camera vendors. There have been relatively few red light accidents, while there has been an increase in rear-end accidents as people jam on the brakes to avoid a camera ticket. In fact, the great majority of tickets are for rolling right hand turns, a far cry from the danger posed from running a red light.
It appears that, with ticket cost gouging ($400 – $500) for not stopping before a right turn on a red light, many motorists are becoming more cautious or are demanding that the red light cameras be removed altogether. This has lead to a significant reduction in municipal revenues and severely impacts the fortunes of red light camera vendors who partner with municipalities to share the bounty.
Now, the dishonest red light camera vendors appear to be, once again, lobbying “compliant” (spelled corrupt) politicians, to hoodwink the public into continuing the abominable camera systems.
Enter uber-liberal political tool and water carrier for the red light camera industry, California Assembly Member Bob Wieckowski …
Bob Wieckowski is an American attorney and politician in California. He was elected November 2, 2010 to the California State Assembly. Wieckowski previously served as vice-mayor of Fremont, and was a member of their city council. Wieckowski attended the University of California, Berkeley where he earned a bachelor of art before attended law school at Santa Clara University School of Law where he earned a juris doctorate. Following law school he worked in bankruptcy law at The Law Offices of Robert A. Wieckowski.
Bait and Switch …
You would believe a progressive lawyer would want to protect consumers and our legal system? But you would be wrong. Because here comes Bobby Babble who is telling people that his legislation will reduce the amount of those onerous and pesky red light camera tickets.
The amount of the civil penalty for an automated violation that is recorded and cited under this section is an amount equal to one-half the total bail for a violation of Section 21453, 21455, 22101, or 22451, as the case may be, as set forth in the uniform countywide schedule of bail. As used in this subdivision, “total bail” means the amount established pursuant to Section 1269b of the Penal Code in accordance with the Uniform Statewide Bail Schedule adopted by the Judicial Council, including all assessments, surcharges, and penalty amounts.
Yes, the amount is one-half the total bail of an amount that the courts set – plus those outrageous “add-on” supplementary charges that jack up the fees.
According to the California DMV …
Traffic fines in California are difficult to pinpoint due to additional penalty assessment fees and surcharges that vary by county. Consequently, a ticket with a $35 base fine may actually cost you $146.
Surcharges: The state charges a 20% surcharge on all traffic tickets. This means, for example, a $40 fine will incur a surcharge of $8.
List of Other Additional Fees
State Penalty Assessment
County Penalty Assessment
Court Facility Construction Penalty Assessment
DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Penalty Assessment
Auto Insurance Rate Increase
Depending on the infraction, points may be added to your driving record, resulting in a jump in your car insurance rates.
So, if a $35 ticket can cost $146, what do you think a $250.00 ticket might cost?
So what does the aptly-numbered Assembly Bill A.B. 666 really do?
Eliminates Your Right to a Trial if You Get a Red Light Camera Ticket
Makes You Responsible for the Ticket Even When Someone Else Is Driving
Sets up Kangaroo “Administrative Hearing” Courts Run By Those Who Gave You the Ticket
No Evidence Other than the Ticket Itself is Needed to Convict You
No Right to Face Your Accuser
You Are Assumed Guilty and Have to Prove Your Innocence
You Will Have to Pay a Fee If You Want Your Case Heard in Court
Expands the Use of Photo Enforcement to Other Traffic Violations
Red Light Tickets will Count on Your Moving Violation Point Count – Affecting Your Insurance Rates
Refusal of Registration for Nonpayment of Automated Violation Penalties
And, about those notorious “snitch tickets” …
If you were not driving, you, the car owner, must turn snitch and provide information on who was actually driving when it was ticketed or be responsible for paying the ticket! Why is this important? Because under current law, you are not compelled to respond to the red light camera operator. This turns YOU, the vehicle owner, into an agent of the municipality and their partners, the red light camera vendors.
There are several legal questions that remain to be answered.
If a husband, the car owner, is forced to testify against his wife, the driver, does this violate California's "Spousal Privilege" provisions?
Or, does this legislation violate the "due process" provisions of the Constitution?
Is there a problem with someone who swears that they have witnessed a violation by simply reviewing a film?
Is there a corrupt conflict of interest between those who install red light cameras for the sole purpose of revenue generation when a "disparate analysis" of the data shows that the installation of the cameras does not provide a meaningful increase in resident safety?
Here is a Google Chat Session with Journalists …
Bottom line …
Red light camera systems are not about keeping the public safe or I would be on the other side of the argument. They are just another revenue generation mechanism for funding an increasingly corrupt political system and corrupt politicians who are willing to carry the water of the red light vendors who influence this troublesome legislation. And, it is not just about those staggering fines, but about increasing your insurance premiums.
If you want to see the full impact of red light cameras, snitch tickets and other such political machinations, you may wish to visit www.highwayrobbery.net to see the full impact of these nefarious red light camera systems.
-- steve
Reference Links …
California Assembly AB666
Highway Robbery -- Best Site for Red Light Ticket Information and Advice
Related articles
CA introduces "AB 666″, an evil scheme to fleece motorists and eviscerate their rights
Letter to the Editor: Red light cameras
The Red Light Camera Program Controversy: How Prevention Methods May Break an Impasse
DEBATE: Should Red Light Cameras Be Used to Help Police in Criminal Cases?
Safety Warnings Must be Repeated to be Remembered
Red light camera tickets bring in millions
California Committee Would Give Photo Ticket Points To Non-Drivers
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS: WHO OWNS YOUR DATA? WHO SHOULD CONTROL ACCESS? HOW MUCH OF YOUR OWN DATA SHOULD YOU BE ALLOWED TO SEE?
Posted: 27 Mar 2013 05:08 PM PDT
There is a difference between voluntary, involuntary and mandatory data collection …
Unlike Facebook, where a user VOLUNTARILY provides non-public personal information to a company knowing that it will be data-mined for sale to advertisers as an aid to producing narrowly-targeted advertising; ostensibly as a benefit to the consumer in reducing spam and to the advertiser in reducing unproductive costs, certain private companies are now attempting to monetize transactional data for the same purposes. Many consumers also give grocery stores, pharmacies and other shops the same VOLUNTARY right to their data by using affinity cards in return for in-store discounts and access to other promotions. Unfortunately, in these cases, the consumer has no rights to review the data, even if it contains gross errors.
As we have seen with credit reporting agencies, financial institutions have exerted their right to control your transactional data and provide this personal and non-public information to credit reporting agencies as a public service to consumers … to reduce the amount of effort and paperwork needed to verify your credit-related information and provide you with stress-free credit opportunities. Your right to review your data and correct erroneous data is guaranteed by federal statute; although you should be aware that the consumer disclosure report is far different from the report actually sent to subscriber companies requesting your data.
But, what if your telephone company exerted the same type of transactional claim and used your telephone record to serve targeted advertising in return for a discount on your voice or data plan? You might be just a little more concerned about how that data is being used and who is allowed to see it.
Now, physicians are attempting to limit how much of their patient’s data they should be able to access as we move to government-mandate electronic health records …
Most U.S. Doctors Believe Patients Should Update Electronic Health Record, but Not Have Full Access to It, According to Accenture Eight-Country Survey
A new Accenture survey shows that most U.S. doctors surveyed (82 percent) want patients to actively participate in their own healthcare by updating their electronic health records. However, only a third of physicians (31 percent) believe a patient should have full access to his or her own record, 65 percent believe patients should have limited access and 4 percent say they should have no access (See figure 1). These findings were consistent among 3,700 doctors surveyed by Accenture in eight countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Singapore, Spain and the United States.
Patients Access to Records
While nearly half of U.S. doctors (47 percent) surveyed believe patients should not be able to update their lab test results, the >vast majority believe patients should be able to update some or all of the standard information in their health records, including demographics (95 percent), family medical history (88 percent), medications (87 percent) and allergies (85 percent).And, the majority of doctors (81 percent) believe patients should even be able to add such clinical updates to their records as new symptoms or self-measured metrics, including blood pressure and glucose levels.
“Many physicians believe that patients should take an active role in managing their own health information, because it fosters personal responsibility and ownership and enables both the patient and doctor to track progress outside scheduled appointments,” said Mark Knickrehm, global managing director of Accenture Health. “Several U.S. health systems have proven that the benefits outweigh the risks in allowing patients open access to their health records, and we expect this trend to continue."
In fact, nearly half of doctors surveyed (49 percent) believe that giving patients access to their records is crucial to providing effective care. But, only 21 percent of doctors surveyed currently allow patients to have online access to their medical summary or patient chart, the most basic form of a patient’s record.
Perceptions of Electronic Health Records
More than half of doctors surveyed (53 percent) believe that the introduction of electronic health records has improved the quality of patient care, and the overwhelming majority (84 percent) say they are somewhat or strongly committed to promoting electronic records in their clinical practice. Most (77 percent) believe the right investments in adopting electronic records are being made and 83 percent believe they will become integral to effective patient care in the next two years.
Bottom line …
I have mixed feelings about electronic healthcare records.
One, I believe that there should be tight security on all medical records and that an inviolable access log; along with criminal and civil penalties for the inappropriate use of medical records for commercial, political or personal use by unauthorized personnel.
Two, I believe that there should be specific controls on information releases, including probable-cause subpoenas, controls on overly-broad releases of the entire record, governmental access controls and insurance company controls. I do not believe a patient should be allowed to issue a unilateral release for any and all medical information as a routine part of dealing with an insurance company or any other entity.
Three, I believe that medical records should be divided into three components: primary medical record containing exam and test results along with the doctor’s impressions; a secondary medical record containing confidential information that should not be reviewed or released to any third-party; and a patient area for anecdotal information and uncalibrated instrument test results.
Four, I believe that the patient should have the right to review all of the medical records, but that the update procedure should be formalized and the information reviewed by a doctor if it is entered in a primary record. Primarily because of low-quality scanned information and the uncertainty of illegible handwriting which can be misinterpreted.
Five, I believe that a patient should also have access to the coding used to describe their visits and treatments as many doctors falsify or shade coding to maximize their insurance payments – coding which may portray the patient in a wrong light or add non-existent conditions and complications to the record.
In the final analysis, while I trust my doctor implicitly with my medical care, I have my doubts about his medical coders and the ability of his staff to even place the right information in the right file. This is a serious subject which must be given serious attention as we move forward with electronic health records.
-- steve
