No, you cannot always.

These RLC citations, at least in Ohio (some areas of Ohio that I know of), were issued as a civil penalty or some bullshit like that and there is absolutely no court involved at all and no way to challenge outside of an administration hearing with the company who leases the cameras to the city and a board created by the city. In Ohio, there are several court cases challenging the constitutionality of them because of this and it went in front of the state supreme court. We are waiting on their ruling.

The state legislature is attempting to create a law mandating that a police officer be present when the violation occurs and the camera captures it. They tried to ban them at one time but ran into some constitutional issues with the home rule provisions in the state constitution.

http://www.dispatch.com/conten...

No, society has to accept errors happen and strive to avoid them while not forgoing the process altogether. That is why when we find an error, instead of saying "but he was convicted anyways, let him rot", we release them and allow them to sue for reparations.

You are 100% right though. In that errors cannot be avoided. But they shouldn't be accepted either.

Sigh... I took his comment to mean that brakes in good working order would fail not that they would wear out.

If that was a defect rate for brakes in all cars manufactured. A 0.05% is excellent. It means you have a 99.95% chance of buying a car without the brakes failing.

actually no.. Take GM's recent recall about a spring in the key mechanism that was too weak. GM identified it caused 31 crashes and 13 deaths but is recalling 8.2 million vehicles over the problem. So 31 crashes out of 8.2 million vehicles is about a .000378048 % failure rate. GM is facing lawsuits, paid an record civil penalty, and it constantly being grilled on capitol hill by congress and government agencies because a number far less that .05% was not excellent.

Is doing better actually acceptable when wrong convicting an innocent person?

Everything in our justice system is supposed to be geared to allowing guilty people walk if there is any real doubt in order to escape convicting innocent people. sometimes it doesn't seem like it is still that way and sometimes is seems like the more guilty a person is, the less punishment they get while fringe cases are made examples of, but we need to strive to ensure innocent people are not punished if at all possible.

It's worse in my town. they shortened the green light on busy cross streets along the main drag with the red light cameras. You are lucky to get two cars through now and if you are waiting for apposing traffic before turning left, you will be in the intersection when your light turns red. They did this right after the cameras went up.

Luckily, soon after the cameras went up, the state and a court said they couldn't be used pending a couple court cases over them. One judge already called it "criminal" in one of the cases and another called it racketeering so I think the state supreme court might not allow them either. The state (Ohio) is not banking on the courts, they are trying to pass legislation that would bar their use unless a cop was at the intersection witnessing the infraction.

One of the very first yellow light studies was conducted over Chillicothe Ohio's cams. I don't know if this is the original or not (I originally remember reading a PDF about it and from another site) but this explains a lot of the problem with short yellows.

http://www.shortyellowlights.c...

I suspect that someone will challenge this on constitutional grounds as the state coining money.

First, there is a lot of information pointing to the rebel scum really early in this happening. It's almost as if it was prepared in advance in order to hand out once the rebel scum shot it down.

Second, who benefits the most from this?

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...

Finally, can we trust anyone who has an axe to grind this early in the game? It seems like everyone pointing fingers is in a position to want someone else to look bad. The Danes are going to investigate so I think I will wait until they report before I believe anything concrete. I'm not saying they are not corruptible, I just don't see anything they would gain right at the moment.

Well, how does your possibilities look considering this?

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...

I cannot say there is a connection or not, but as long as we are speculating, we might as well speculate.

Well, as lpng as we are going conspiracy here, wasn't the US trying to get the EU to impose sanctions on Russia and most EU countries were afraid it would have negetive impacts on their economies? I bet they support sanctions now.

Just as a reference, a typicle semi truck running down the highway will have almost 50,000 lbs carying capacity or roughly 25 tons. And these are not built to operate off road or with debris in the road. So if one of these shows up with supplies for disaster relief or whatever, its about the same as trucking in 12 fully loaded semis -or more if you figure the reduced hauling capacity from suring them up to operate in those conditions.

Sigh...

Not all harassment is sexual harassment. Please show me a dictionary that claims it is.

You would hope it would destroy the unemployment issues. However, i have serious doubts if the economic growth doesn't improve and workers retiring is the solution to unemployment. There will likely be problems negating and improvements.

Its sad. But i have little hope of real economic improvement any time soon. I agree that low unemployment is the best way to increase wages and brnefits.

What part og you're ugly or you're stupid is sexual or gender based?

And your insistance on having conversations in your head has nothing to do with me. You can disagree with me all day long. Just do not pretend i have said or done something when i nnever participated in your fantasies at all. Here you are trying to do it again using my telling you not to as an excuse.

Why do people have conversations with themselves and impose the results onto others as if they actually participated in them?

I mean seriously, the topic is sexual harassment, the parent post complained about the illegitimacy of the inclusion as sexual harassment, I made a comment about how it was not sexual so should not be included as sexual harassment and now all the sudden you know all about my life while taking the position that it doesn't matter if it is sexual or not to be included as sexual harassment.

Please, go back on your meds.

You make it sound like no-one thought of changes in demographics before now. The SS trust fund has always had assumptions about longevity built in. And the US is not outside of that predicted range (actually a little under, IIRC.)

I don't know how I made it sound anything of the sort. I simply commented on the life expectancy difference between dates.

The problems with the SS trust fund are purely due to the artificial contributions cap combined with the decline in median household income relative to GDP. The planners didn't expect to lose the gains in income equality over the prior to the '80s. (If the national income is more concentrated at the top end, and you exclude the top end from contributing....)

That's not the problem at all. Income inequality has little to do with it. Unemployment is rampant which hurts the basic premise of the social security schema. Add to that the problem of a somewhat negative population growth and it throws it all out of whack.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/da...

You see, the planners forecast population growth and the idea was that about 80% of the working population would pay for around 15% in social security benefits. I left 5% off because there will be some eligible to draw benefits but continue to work and end up paying their allotment back in penalties. But when you have a boom in population growth and then it slows, you end up with 25% or better of the population being over the age of retirement (in 2010, there was something like 20.7% of 65 and over compared to 18-64 with roughly 8% under 18 compared to the same source and another 41.9% coming.)

Or in other words, currently, the number of people 65 and over is equal to 20.7% of people of working age. The number of people under 18 year old who will replace the retiring workers is equal to roughly 8% of the current working age population. But the number of people within 18 years of being 65 is roughly 42% of the current working population. this means that 42% will leave while only 8% replaces them leaving a deficit of 34% without bothering to estimate the number of retirees who will still be with us and dependent on Social Security or the number of working age people and others who had tragic events happen and draw from the system too..

http://factfinder2.census.gov/...

But I like you try to push income inequality as a leading factor. It shows you are willing to make something up to push the idea and I bet people believed you too.