Postal Service claims immunity from local traffic laws

[John Galt]

[dontworrybehappy]

Yep, two things I forgot to mention and remembered before reading them.

It's the owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the driver, that gets the violation. You let someone borrow your car and they run a red light and get caught by a cop, THEY get the ticket. One of these red light cameras will send it to the owner of the vehicle. HE is on the hook to pay it. In no way should someone elses behavior effect you or your credit score.

They have been found unconstitutional in many locales. I hate it when people say "The only reason you're against them is because you run red lights and speed." Uh, no. I was against them long before I ever got my first and only ticket for a red light a few months ago, BY A REAL COP, in this tiny little town I live in that has one traffic light and a cop that sits there and watches that one red light to generate revenue for his little town. It was even on the local news how broke that city is and how desperately they need money. I just laughed at him and said "you guys need the money so bad, I'll just go pay the ticket right now" and he said "Oh thanks man." LOL

And I never had a speeding ticket in my life and after driving 17 years, NEVER been in an accident.

[Precocity]

I started this topic to get opinions and many of you are stating things that I also agree with. Traffic cams are ridiculous in my opinion when they are used like a form letter to use the law to generate revenue. There are many examples where the circumstances outweigh the unchallenged enforcement. It's also another angle that cities use to prevent police from having to appear in court.

If you get stopped by a policeman and given a ticket, you have the right to plead not guilty in court and the policeman is required to appear and testify or the charges are dropped.

If you get a ticket in the mail from a computer that you ran a red light from a traffic cam, you are not going to win if you plead not guilty. The camera doesn't lie does it?

But the whole situation wasn't based on the USPS contesting the tickets - he was flat out saying that the USPS drivers are exempt from local laws. That is what I was pointing out more than anything else and not one of you has addressed that issue.

[dontworrybehappy]

Well, that's because if you dig deeper, they haven't been found to have violated a law. I don't care what the guy says. A traffic camera ticket doesn't indicate anything, so why even mess with them? Does that make sense? Not a single USPS driver has gotten a traffic ticket by a cop that was ignored in your OP, just these red light camera things. That's not a law. You could say he's saying that USPS is above this nonsense of cameras on a pole traffic enforcement. Change "law" to "cameras on a pole traffic enforcement" and it makes sense.

[Precocity]

[dontworrybehappy]

Dude, this letter is in direct response to the USPS getting photo enforcement tickets. He did dispute the violations saying that the USPS is exempt from them. So the lawyer saying the USPS is above those is no big deal. Show me where that lawyer said that when a cop pulled over a USPS driver and THEN you'd have a leg to stand on.

[WizardfromOz]

[dontworrybehappy]

[Precocity]

[Hyperion]