You missed the point, there are video cameras on the police cars. They could be used to video the running of the stop sign, but they are only turned on when it is advantageous to the police, not the taxpayer. If the police are honest, they won't mind turning them on. We wouldn't be paying one cent more.

I called my insurance company, Allstate, and confirmed. The person that wrote the below quote is correct. If there are a lot of tickets written in your area, they raise everyones rates that live in the are of 'high incidents' premium. Peachtree City and Tyrone are legions for tickets.

"I also was also informed by the adjuster, that since there were

....so many 'incidents' ,....(meaning tickets written),in my area area...(meaning Tyrone)

that also makes my insurance higher. "

This is not fighting crime, this is just making insurance companies more money and anyone that belives a police department that spends all their time sitting under bridges, talking on their cells phones, instead of doing dopers, is stupid! This is what out tax dollars are really being spent on. I for one, don't need it.

At 11:35 a.m., on Tuesday, March 10, I noticed a PTC police car positioning itself on the Highway 54 bridge (or overpass) across Lake Peachtree, on Highway 54, going east, in the leftmost lane. At that location there is a third lane that opens up on the left, right after the grassy median on which there are various plants. The officer was backing up so the police car would not be visible to an approaching driver.

Georgia Code section 40-14-7 states that No stationary speed detection device shall be employed by municipal law enforcement officers where the vehicle from which the device is operated is obstructed from the view of approaching motorists or is otherwise not visible for a distance of at least 500 feet.

It is clear that that officer should have been better trained about what is legal and what is not. Police officers are not permitted to break the law to make a case.

By the time the officer has caught up with the speeding driver, the driver has no idea where the police car was, and is thus in no position to argue that the officer violated the law.

Is that fair?

Does it invite respect for the law, the justice system, or law enforcement?

The only speeding ticket I have gotten was on the Fayetteville trap coming west on 54 from the Tiger Lane to the Gingercake Road.
I was ticketed at 58MPH in a 45 zone before I got to the 55 MPH sign.

I don't know if I was speeding or not--it is hard to tell at 58 MPH going downhill on a clear road.

But, I must say that the 500 foot visibility of a police car law is stupid!!!
From what direction? It would have to be ALL DIRECTIONS which in town is quite impossible usually.

The Fayetteville trap uses one of the left side home streets to park under trees usually--across from a cut across to the 54 going west.

I would venture to say that 95% let their car drift down that hill at whatever speed it attains. Seems strange to brake on a main highway from drift speed!

Hiding is OK with me as long as they use common sense and do what they can to get such a speed limit changed at least for part of that drive. Once past Grady, 55 should be the limit.

I doubt much time is spent evaluating these things, however.

Whats the deal with Hwy 74? Its three lanes now and the speed limit is still only 45mph. What the hell?

Sweetie, according to the PTCPD and the DOT, that is still a construction zone in spite of the 3 lanes. What is left to do? I don't know - looks done to me and the speed trap cops;)

The insurance company raising rates because the police give out tickets doesn't show that the police are benefiting. That's the insurance company's using another BS excuse to make more money (how does someone else getting a ticket affect your rates? only the ticketed drivers rates should go up). The same BS that got us into this slump in the first place. Goes back to another post of mine... People (business) will lie, cheat and steal to get ahead or to get one more all mighty dollar.

As for those cameras, more looking on the internet (Google is your friend) showed that VHS type cameras turn on when the officer turns the lights on. I didnt see any of the VHS types having "prerecord". So it wouldnt start until after the officer pulls you over anyway.

I believe it would not be unreasonable to ask our own local legislators to sponsor legislation which would state something like this:

No conviction for a traffic offense shall be had in any municipal court of this state on the sole testimony of a police officer where all the following conditions shall have been met: (1) the accused personally testifies and denies under oath that he committed the offense, and nothing in his testimony constitutes an admission that he committed the offense, (2) there is no articulable reason to believe the accused is not telling the truth, (3) the prosecutor had or could reasonably have had the opportunity to gather physical evidence of the infraction through a videotape, radar or other device, and (4) the accused was not guilty of another traffic offense occurring within the three years preceding the date of the traffic offense for which he is being tried.

In any such traffic case where there is a conviction after the accused challenged the facts leading to his conviction, the court shall enter upon the record of the case the condition or conditions which were not met which justified the conviction.

As I said in the article I published last week, our legislators are in the legislature "to serve and to protect," and it's up to the citizens to put the pressure on them to do just that.

Put the bong down, Claude....What a ridiculous suggestion---- the cop's testimony is not enough. Typical lawyer/legislator--- let's pass another 50 volumes of new rules and regulations to keep the lawyers in business and the perps on the street.

It seems strange the police have a video camera but only use it ..after... they pull someone over.

Our town governments have got completly out of control with this money maker. It doesn't serve the taxpayers, nor give them justice in court. Only more dollars to the town.

It does a lot of damage to the taxpayer. Case in point. I just got my car insurance canceled because one of Tyrone's finest, gave me a ticket for as they said, not comming to a complete stop. It wasn't true, but you never win in their court.

When I called the insurance ajustor, I was told I had another 'incident' in 2006.

The 'incident' was one of Tyrone's who tickets me for a... blinker light... out.

Not a warning,

a ticket.

I was also informed by the ajustor, that since there were

....so many 'incidents' ,....(meaning tickets written),in my area area...(meaning Tyrone)

that also makes my insurance higher.

So I could be home sleeping in my bed, Tyrone could be out there writing tickets while I sleep, and because this shows up to the ajustors as a 'high incident area', my insurance goes up.

Also in the traffic court, there is no presumtion of innocents. That is a joke. The town and the police should find a more respectable way to earn money.

Three Atlanta cops were sent to federal prison last week because they had lied to a magistrate to obtain a warrant to search the residence of a 92-year-old woman and, after causing her to be killed while she defended her own home in the middle of the night, planting little baggies of either weeds or drugs through her house so they could justify the search.

Now I've got to ask: what planet are you livinge on, ilockmeup?

More laws are not needed. But perhaps that is the only reflexive response which could be expected from the legal profession. Mr. Paquin, I will wager, had an unfortunate traffic court experience (for which he accepted no blame) and wants to create more law. Perhaps the legislature will call it "Claude's Law", have annual parades complete with tee shirts. Please--- just say no to more laws.

The Internal Revenue, it was recently observed, consists of 17,000 pages. The Code of Federal Regulations consists of 75,000 pages. Average Americans waste 5 billion hours doing taxes, estimated to be a net loss to the economy of $200 billion dollars. Businesses, in keeping up with the Federal Regulatory morass, waste another $500 billion on (you guessed it) lawyers to translate the Congressional gibberish.

The answer here is not more laws. It is simple accountability. If a cop is corrupt, send him or her to prison. A single anecdote by Mr. Paquin turns into a justification for making the system even more complicated and making the public even more hopelessly dependent on lawyers. Ah, Mr. Paquin is a lawyer.

Take for example cell phones and texting and driving. Rep. Ramsey, in desperation to show he is doing anything, wants create a new sanction which discriminates against young drivers. Why? If someone is driving distracted, regardless of the cause or the driver's age, there is an infraction and it should be punished. Why is the teen so horrible and yet if I choose to eat my BK Double loaded sandwich while driving, I'm ok....Oh no, here comes the legislative sanction on driving while feeding face.

No, Mr. Paquin, more laws and more lawyers is most assuredly not the solution.

just saying what is true. With the burden of proof on the novice citizen, and being up against the police, judge, prosecuting attorney,and town, you don't stand a chance. The video cameras are in the police cars. They are only turned on when it is to the police's advantage. We pay for those cameras as well as the police cars. The video would be the only shred of evidence the citizen would have. To not video 'the crime' is BS. And Mr P is also correct. There were some police sent to to prison for killing an old woman and then trying to make it look like she was a dope dealer. If you don't think that happens on smaller issues, like writing tickets to justify their existence, then guess again.

There aren't many people that act like you. Most people would do anything to get around a fine. Some officers might be guilty and then a good fraud lawyer can save us. Still, a cop wouldn't risk his job...so I'm going with a 20-80% in the cops' favor.