The Governator's latest and greatest idea
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,096
Likes: 9
From: So Cal where the OC/LA/SB counties meet
The Governator's latest and greatest idea
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/traffic/t...-81065122.html
I'm going to start wearing a Nixon mask while on surface streets as standard equipment if this becomes law.
I'm going to start wearing a Nixon mask while on surface streets as standard equipment if this becomes law.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,096
Likes: 9
From: So Cal where the OC/LA/SB counties meet
They still shoot you in the rear. So doesn't help. But if they can't match the face in the photo with the registered owner of the car, and the registered owner of the car checks the I don't know who that is box, it all becomes a non-issue. Thus the Nixon mask.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,096
Likes: 9
From: So Cal where the OC/LA/SB counties meet
From recent reading, it sounds like Arizona is an under current official view that the idea of camera speed enforcement a bad economic idea and getting out of the game.
Maybe Arnold should learn how to use Google http://www.ncsconline.org/d_icm/prog...dEnforceAZ.pdf
Googles up the Monkey Mask:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...onkey0908.html
Then you get stories like this
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/107733
and this
http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/
Maybe Arnold should learn how to use Google http://www.ncsconline.org/d_icm/prog...dEnforceAZ.pdf
Googles up the Monkey Mask:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...onkey0908.html
Then you get stories like this
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/107733
and this
http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,096
Likes: 9
From: So Cal where the OC/LA/SB counties meet
Check this out. Article not much older than a week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us...na.html?ref=us
Not only is Arizona state loosing money on the program, even better their contractor/hired gun Redflex is loosing money as well. I hope they go bankrupt.......................
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us...na.html?ref=us
Not only is Arizona state loosing money on the program, even better their contractor/hired gun Redflex is loosing money as well. I hope they go bankrupt.......................
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,376
Likes: 28
From: Chino Hills, CA
Been pretty conclusively proven that the red-light cameras actually increase accidents... people panic-stopping and collecting the car behind them, trying to avoid the ticket.
All about the money. Not the safety.
All about the money. Not the safety.
KILLIN EM SINCE 88'
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: West Covina/Riverside
I remember watching the news a year or more ago about how some people went to a hardware store and bought some clear coating, and would spray it on their license plates, so that way when the camera would take the picture the flash would reflect off the license plate and it would make it impossible to see the plate number. I think the can ran for like 1.50 or so, I'm not sure if they still sell it, but if they do, that's an easy and cheap way to not get a ticket 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 4
From: San Jose, CA (NorCal/S.F. Bay Area)
I personally don't care myself as I don't speed on the streets anyways. If it will increase revenue than so be it let them do it. Now its when they install those cameras up in the canyons is when I will get mad.
I think the guy is just pulling out all the stops due to his inability to utilize 2 terms to get rid of the deficit. Wants to go out with a bang.
I think the guy is just pulling out all the stops due to his inability to utilize 2 terms to get rid of the deficit. Wants to go out with a bang.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,376
Likes: 28
From: Chino Hills, CA
Heard on the radio this afternoon; the CARB is proposing to make it a criminal act, as in $1000 fine and 6 months in jail, to... drive with under-inflated tires.
Insane air board's new role: Tire *****
By Chris Reed,
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 12:54 p.m.
I read the proposed rules and I think the concerns of the California New Car Dealers Association are spot-on:
CARB is proposing to require every repair dealer to check the inflation of every tire during repair to improve mpg for all vehicles which, in theory, is meritorious.
However (the) regs. CARB’s pushing through (released this week and subject to a 15 day comment period) ... provides that the only times that consumers may decline a check and inflate service—they can never decline the service if it’s offered for free—is when they are charged for services AND if they can PROVE (with DOCUMENTATION!) that they’ve had their tires checked and inflated in the last 30 days, or if they WILL do so within the next week. It is unclear, but possible, that CARB could take enforcement action against the consumer if they don’t follow through with their promise?!
Note that even the Department of Consumer Affairs opposed the last draft of these rules—letter attached (and I’m guessing these amendments won’t remove their opposition). CARB’s not messing around with these either—the potential penalty for violating the regulation is at least up to $1,000 per violation and six months imprisonment. The enforcement section referred to by CARB states that a violation of the regulation shall be “deemed to result in an emission of air contaminants,” potentially leading to even harsher penalties.
Too much. CARB is interpeting AB 32 in such absurdly broad fashion it wants to deputize the state's auto boards to bully all vehicle owners. It's too much for Brian Stiver, director of the state Department of Consumer Affairs, and Sherry Mehl, chief of the state Bureau of Auto Repairs:
Unless (Automotive Service Providers) offer the (tire check/inflation) service for free to the consumer and the consumer accepts it, the regulation would have the effect of either forcing the ASPs to check tires without the consent of the consumer in violation of the ... Automotive Repair Act, or force ASPs to refuse to provide any repair services at all to the consumer. These are legally untenable options ...
When does the backlash begin? These people are insane.
Note the "documentation" requirement for vehicle owners who say their tires are properly inflated. These owners can't be trusted to do this complex procedure all by themselves and then tell the truth about it. No, they have to GET OUTSIDE PROOF!
I will ask the gov's office if it backs the nuts at the air board or the sane people from the state Department of Consumer Affairs.
ADDENDUM, 3:20 P.M.:
It’s a still a draft rule – agencies are engaged in discussions and we’re helping them work it out. We’d like to see the rule get to a place where Californians are conscious of tire pressure and the impact it has on air quality – but without anything that would stick unsuspecting consumers with a bill.
from Amanda Fulkerson in the gov's office.
By Chris Reed,
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 12:54 p.m.
I read the proposed rules and I think the concerns of the California New Car Dealers Association are spot-on:
CARB is proposing to require every repair dealer to check the inflation of every tire during repair to improve mpg for all vehicles which, in theory, is meritorious.
However (the) regs. CARB’s pushing through (released this week and subject to a 15 day comment period) ... provides that the only times that consumers may decline a check and inflate service—they can never decline the service if it’s offered for free—is when they are charged for services AND if they can PROVE (with DOCUMENTATION!) that they’ve had their tires checked and inflated in the last 30 days, or if they WILL do so within the next week. It is unclear, but possible, that CARB could take enforcement action against the consumer if they don’t follow through with their promise?!
Note that even the Department of Consumer Affairs opposed the last draft of these rules—letter attached (and I’m guessing these amendments won’t remove their opposition). CARB’s not messing around with these either—the potential penalty for violating the regulation is at least up to $1,000 per violation and six months imprisonment. The enforcement section referred to by CARB states that a violation of the regulation shall be “deemed to result in an emission of air contaminants,” potentially leading to even harsher penalties.
Too much. CARB is interpeting AB 32 in such absurdly broad fashion it wants to deputize the state's auto boards to bully all vehicle owners. It's too much for Brian Stiver, director of the state Department of Consumer Affairs, and Sherry Mehl, chief of the state Bureau of Auto Repairs:
Unless (Automotive Service Providers) offer the (tire check/inflation) service for free to the consumer and the consumer accepts it, the regulation would have the effect of either forcing the ASPs to check tires without the consent of the consumer in violation of the ... Automotive Repair Act, or force ASPs to refuse to provide any repair services at all to the consumer. These are legally untenable options ...
When does the backlash begin? These people are insane.
Note the "documentation" requirement for vehicle owners who say their tires are properly inflated. These owners can't be trusted to do this complex procedure all by themselves and then tell the truth about it. No, they have to GET OUTSIDE PROOF!
I will ask the gov's office if it backs the nuts at the air board or the sane people from the state Department of Consumer Affairs.
ADDENDUM, 3:20 P.M.:
It’s a still a draft rule – agencies are engaged in discussions and we’re helping them work it out. We’d like to see the rule get to a place where Californians are conscious of tire pressure and the impact it has on air quality – but without anything that would stick unsuspecting consumers with a bill.
from Amanda Fulkerson in the gov's office.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Where Gangbangers Reside, CA
this state is in so much trouble, this is just an example of how they are trying to squeeze more money out of honest hard working people living here.
i admittedly speed through the intersection because i am overly worried about getting caught by the camera because i know it is there. they cause people to drive more wrecklessly than necessary, not the other way around.
i admittedly speed through the intersection because i am overly worried about getting caught by the camera because i know it is there. they cause people to drive more wrecklessly than necessary, not the other way around.
