On Thursday, October 3, 1996 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, Oregon National Motorists   
   Ass'n. wrote:   
   > With photo radar usually in place where limits are lowest, accidents   
   > are rarest, and most motorists safely exceed posted limits, it pays to   
   > know the foolproof and legal way to beat a photo radar ticket.   
   >   
   > Before mentioning the loophole left deliberately by the legislature,   
   > be aware that no state accepts regular mail as adequate for "service   
   > of process,"  that is, notice that you are being subjected to the   
   > authority of a court.  A peace officer or certified mail is required.   
   > It is notable that officials in Pasedena, CA admitted after a failed   
   > photo radar pilot program, that the 20% of people who ignored their   
   > tickets-by-mail were free and unpunished, and that if word got out of   
   > this fact, the whole program would fall apart.  The fact is: there is   
   > no law that requires you to read your mail.   
   >   
   > Now, for the loophole:   
   >   
   > Fearing many trials contesting the identity of the person in the   
   > ohoto, the legislature decided to allow, (following ORS 811.123,   
   > Sections 1 to 3, chapter 579, Oregon Laws, 1995.)  Sec. 2 (3)(a):   
   >   
   > 	"If a registered owner of a vehicle responds to a citation   
   > issued [by photo radar] by submitting a certificate of innocence   
   > within 30 days from the mailing of the citation swearing or affirming   
   > that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and a photocopy of   
   > the owner's driver's license, the citation shall be dismissed."   
   >   
   > SHALL be dismissed.  Not "may" be, or "will be if a review shows the   
   > claim to be credible," but SHALL be.   
   >   
   > For those who fear that they might be mistaken when they claim   
   > innocence, consider how the subsection continues:   
   >   
   > 	"A person may not be prosecuted for perjury or false swearing   
   > in connection with submission of a certificate of innocence."   
   >   
   > Here is an example that all are welcome to copy:   
   >   
   > *************************************************************   
   > CERTIFICATE OF INNOCENCE   
   >   
   > To: [court listed on the mailing,  address]   
   >   
   > Re:[case/citation number on mailing]   
   >   
   > I hereby swear or affirm that I am innocent of the infraction accused   
   > in the above-noted citation dated (copy enclosed,) as I was not the   
   > driver of the vehicle.  I am enclosing a photocopy of my driver's   
   > license number ODL__________.   
   >   
   > I certify that this certificate of innocence was submitted within 30   
   > days from the mailing of the citation.   
   >   
   > Sworn or affirmed,   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > _____________________________   
   > [your name]   
   >   
   > *************************************************************   
   >   
   > It's that simple.  Now, if they were posting the units where accidents   
   > were occuring most frequently, or if they were neighborhood side   
   > streets (as the legislature required) instead of "collector" through   
   > streets, we should assume that those who are ticketed deserve it,   
   > right?  But not with the current cynical system.   
   >   
   > The legislature also requires that an indication of the actual speed   
   > of the vehicle is displayed within 150 feet of the location of the   
   > photo radar unit.  Do you think that this requirement (intended to   
   > encourage voluntary compliance) is satisfied by a display in the back   
   > window that clicks on only a fraction of a second before a vehicle   
   > passes, and which is barely visible peripherally, even to one who   
   > knows he is passing a unit (at the limit,) and who wishes to see the   
   > speed.   
   >   
   > Did you know that U.S. Public Technologies, Inc. receives between $16   
   > and $30 per citation, as well as lease fees for providing the units?   
   > This isn't about public safety, it is about money.   
   >   
   > Make it unprofitable, and it will go away.  Our law enforcement   
   > officers deserve a more respectable mission than tax fund-raising.   
   > --   
   > Ben Langlotz   
   > National Motorists Association, Oregon Chapter Coordinator   
   > langlotz(at)teleport.com   
   > http://www.motorists.com   
      
   just read your loophole argument   
   and   
   i agree so wholeheartedly it maddens me.   
   thank you in advance   
      
   i was driving down a thru-street   
   the ticket "said" that i was traveling a dangerous 31 mph   
   somehow the street was posted at 20   
   bicycles go much faster than that.........ouch   
      
   170 dollars   
   when i saw the flash, i knew   
   i actually, maybe not so intelligent, went back and for an   
   hour waved down unsuspecting motorists warning them   
   of what was up ahead......much to the displeasure of the   
   officer or money collector.   
      
   like you said if i was really speeding   
   and endangering people or their pets   
   i would happily pay the ticket.   
      
   now the photo does "look like me"   
   does your loophole really work   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)