Here's the story:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/metro/A30253-2000May18.html
spike66@ibm.net comments:
> an example of a camera being set up and eventually resulting in a
relaxation of a
law that suddenly became much easier to prosecute.
My understanding of this article was as follows:
It wasn't at a real intersection, and it wasn't a normal traffic light. That
sounds awful "trap"ish to me. (Please, where was the "green light" in that
discription? A flashing yellow means go, a solid yellow means stop and so
does red?)
> the city acknowledging that the intersection is designed illogically, the
city
government deciding to stop fining the light runners.
Right, as far as it goes...
but there are "no plans to reimburse the legions of motorists" who (some
20,000 of them) had already paid the $75 fine....
Only the ones whose cases have not yet been heard are to be "let off".
There is something that strikes *me* wrong about the whole set up.
$75 x 20,000 = a nice little golden egg for Lockheed-Martin and the city to
share.
It's down to the "Who is watching the watchers?" ... again.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:28 MDT