Stop! On Second Thought...

[MCWebsite.Staff]

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
** This thread discusses the Content article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
0

[punchbowl99]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
A few years ago, my mom got a ticket from one of these cameras. According to the time shown on the ticket, she ran the light at a time when she was in class at a local community college. When she went to court about it, she took a signed document by her teacher and a few other friends to witness that she could not have gotten the ticket because of where she was at. For these reasons, the ticket got dismissed. So even the cameras can be wrong on who they claim to have ran the light.

[Guest.Visitor]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
Another one of those sayings is: Two things we don't loan out down here, our g_ _ _ and our rides. Seriously, until we find the way on both sides of the border to get the politicians to stop wasting the money they collect from us, they will continue to come up with ways to get more of it, so they can keep themselves in power by redistributing our wealth to people who vote for them. Back thirty years ago when I was in England I found two ways that they collected taxes humorous as long as it stayed over there: First there was a tax of about 50-75 dollars for a TV license, to use a single TV in your home. Second was a license for about 2.50 for a garden hose that you would screw onto the faucet outside of your house. Makes me think about tea parties, or garden hose parties, or red light parties.

[tslateone]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
In most rear-end collisions it is very difficult to excuse the rear car. It's just the way the law was written. In the case you described, it is clearly playing catch-me-if-you-can with the yellow light which people do all the time. Many people slam the brakes on yellow regardless of cameras. I think your lady is extreme and not too bright anyway. In general, if a driver has prior knowledge of a camera, the car speed to the light itself will decrease because of caution, thus those behind will also decrease. The rear driver probably assumed the front driver would go through and accelerated. I see no excuse for the rear driver. Although no jurisdiction wants their revenue stream tampered with the simple way to handle all traffic light issues is to simply standardize the signals and timing across the country. There is no set standard for how long a yellow is a yellow. And simply regulate all greens, so that they cannot turn on until at least a 1-3 second pause after a red. Yes, in the beginning the light watchers will be upset and yes and people will figure they've got 1-3 seconds after a red, but then the fines should be ramped up to thousands of dollars and possibly time served. Each intersection could regulate timing where appropriate, for instance during rush-hour when car velocity generally slows down, or at extreme intersections, etc. Governments have to want to do this, not just generate revenue streams.

[J.Klebanoff]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
ctibodoe said:

Back thirty years ago when I was in England I found two ways that they collected taxes humorous as long as it stayed over there...

Nobody ever said that the tax base was rational or lacking in laughs. I suspect that if we stopped and thought about some of the things that are taxed in each of our countries we could come up with some more examples of silliness. A professor of a course I once took pointed out one of the absurdities of the tax system here in Canada. Here, lottery winnings are not taxed at all. Capital gains are included in regular income, but (currently) only 50% of the gain is included. So, here, the most frivolous income--lottery winnings--escapes taxation altogether. When you invest in an existing stock on the open market (as opposed to an IPO or a private placement) the money doesn't go to the company, so you aren't helping to build the company. Instead, you are basically just placing a bet on the company. Yes, your stock purchase does help to build market liquidity, which will help companies seeking funds in the market, but, for the most part, your investment is just a bet and not terribly productive at creating jobs or building wealth for anyone other than you or the seller of the stock that you bought. Only half of the winnings that you make on that "bet" get taxed here. If you work hard and earn an income by the sweat of your brow, creating goods and/or services that other people need and/or want, that gets taxed at the highest rate here. Does that make sense? I'm more familiar with taxes in Canada than elsewhere, but I'm sure that there are absurdities in every country's tax code.

red light parties

Are those on-again, off-again parties or are you taking about something in Amsterdam?

our g_ _ _

I'll ignore the "_ _ _" because I really have no interested in being dragged into that discussion again. Thanks for not filling in the blanks.

[J.Klebanoff]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
tslate said:

I think your lady is extreme and not too bright anyway.

As preparation for writing this tirade, I read a few articles about the topic. According to what I read, statistics show that while side-impact collisions go down when red-light cameras are used, rear-end collisions do go up. Thus it would seem that she was not an extreme case. As to whether she was "not too bright", I really can't comment. The articles I read did not comment on her IQ. It does seem, however, that she is not alone. Then again, by definition, 50% minus one of the population are below the median IQ, so the fact that others are doing the same thing does not necessarily remove her from the "not too bright" category.

[Guest.Visitor]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
The judge normally does not buy this argument. They would have said, "Well you might be in the class and loaned the car to a friend who ran the red light. Go sue your friend and get back the money you paid in fines!" In Edmonton, Canada, it happened to my friend who showed documentary proof to the judge that the car was in Garage and was not driveable. The judge said that probably the mechanic fixed it before time and did not tell you and went for a spin when he ran the red light!

[dacust]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
Joel, Have you read statistics about injury rates? Rear end collisions have a MUCH lower rate of injury and death than side impacts. -dan

[Guest.Visitor]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
Well the rear ending does not kill. First because there is a cushion of a trunk and a hood (diggie and bonnet in England). Second it is the type of collision that does not send the car spinning. Third may be a speed factor as collision due to stopping does not have that impact as collision due to speeding. But side impacts kill. On two occasions he was over run by a red light breaker. unh it is hard to believe but it happened on the same spot. Unh it is harder to believe but both were buses. Unh and it is very sexist because both drivers were SWF!!! Well aside from humor, he espaced death due to the newly installed steel side beam that Mazda had recently introduced due to many reported cases of death due to side impacts. My collegue also had similar accident but escaped death because of special safety features of his BMW. I think people should get used to stopping on red lights unless.

[bharder@nlrha.ab.ca]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
I think the woman was right to brake. The yellow is supposed to be to allow the intersection to clear. It's too bad that she needed to be "encouraged" to do the right thing by the presence of a camera! The guy behind her was clearly in the wrong however. Within the last few months I was driving home late at night and the light changed at a bad time. Brand new tires, icy roads, so the conditions were far from ideal. The saving grace was that there were no cars behind me, and very few anywhere in the area. I elected to brake but could not fully stop in time. My car's nose wound up in the intersection and then suddenly a strobe fires from behind me, over my right shoulder. I started getting my dander up, thinking I was going to be ticketed for making the safe choice! The interesting thing is that no ticket ever arrived. So did I dodge the bullet because someone in enforcement made a smart decision? Or did their camera simply not get a good shot of my license plate?

[Guest.Visitor]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
Sales tax is the weird one. Here in California if you go to a fast food place like Subway there is sales tax on all food if you don't order it to go. If, however, you order a COLD sandwich such as a tuna sandwich TO GO there is no sales tax. A hot sandwich such as a meatball sandwich to go is taxable. All "junk food" such as chips or a cola is taxable. Go figure. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "ctibodoe" wrote in message news:6b218c4a.1@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Another one of those sayings is: Two things we don't loan out down here, our g_ _ _ and our rides. > > Seriously, until we find the way on both sides of the border to get the politicians to stop wasting the money they collect from us, they will continue to come up with ways to get more of it, so they can keep themselves in power by redistributing our wealth to people who vote for them. > > Back thirty years ago when I was in England I found two ways that they collected taxes humorous as long as it stayed over there: First there was a tax of about 50-75 dollars for a TV license, to use a single TV in your home. Second was a license for about 2.50 for a garden hose that you would screw onto the faucet outside of your house. > > Makes me think about tea parties, or garden hose parties, or red light parties.

[J.Klebanoff]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
I think that a lot of jurisdictions have somewhat similar silly rules regarding eat-in versus take-out foods or some surrogate classification of eat-in versus take-out. Look at the rules, from the government of Ontario Web site, for the provincial Retail Sales Tax (RST) on Snack Cakes, Cookies and Pastries here in the province of Ontario, Canada:

Prepackaged

Prepackaged snack cakes, cookies or pastries are taxable except when sold by an eating establishment. When these items are sold by an eating establishment, they are considered to be prepared food products rather than snack foods. RST is to be charged on prepared food products only if the total transaction is more than $4.00.

When more than one individually-wrapped portion is further prepackaged in a larger container by the manufacturer for sale as a unit, the sale of this larger unit is considered a sale of food products and is exempt from RST. As an example, cupcakes may be wrapped individually and placed in a container, such as a bag or box. The container may hold six or more individually wrapped cupcakes. RST does not apply if the whole container of cupcakes is sold as a unit. If the cupcakes are sold individually, they are considered taxable snack cakes and do not qualify for exemption from RST, unless sold by an eating establishment. An individual portion is one that is intended for one person.

Baked Goods Sold By Bakeries

Bakeries selling beverages are considered to be operating an eating establishment. The sale of five or fewer pastries with a beverage or beverages is considered the sale of prepared foods and is taxable if the total charge is over $4.00. However, customers who buy more than five pastries, with or without beverages, are not required to pay RST on the baked goods. When six or more pastries are sold, the baked goods qualify for exemption as food products. For further details, please refer to RST Guide 500 - Food Products and RST Guide 300 - Prepared Foods.

Biscuits and Biscuit Wafers

Products prepackaged by manufacturers and specifically marketed as biscuits or biscuit wafers are exempt as food products. This includes products such as cream sandwiches, chocolate covered biscuits, milk chocolate biscuits, chocolate covered wafers, chocolate covered biscuit fingers and all similar items. Products prepackaged and specifically marketed to compete with chocolate bars are taxable.

Most food products intended to be consumed at home are tax-free (except for "junk food" like snack cakes, which is taxed). The distinction is made between eating establishments and other establishments because the tax rules are different for the two. Meals in an eating establishment are tax free if they cost $4.00 or less; they're taxable if over $4.00. Buy a prepackaged snack cake in an eating establishment and it's tax-free as long as your total bill is $4.00 or less. Buy it in a grocery store and you pay tax regardless of your total bill. Buy 6 muffins and you don't pay tax whether or not you buy a beverage. Buy 5 and also buy a beverage in an eating establishment and you do pay tax. Got all of that? Oh, by the way, we have both federal and provincial (although no municipal) sales tax. (Alberta is the only province without a provincial sales tax.) Some provinces have harmonized the provincial and federal sales taxes. Others, like Ontario, haven't. For those that haven't, the rules about what gets taxed and what doesn't get taxed differ for the federal and provincial taxes.

[David Abramowitz]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
Hassanfarooqi wrote: The judge said that probably the mechanic fixed it before time and did not tell you and went for a spin when he ran the red light IANAL but, What happenned to the presumption of innocence? Your friend's photograph and testimony was evidence. Any one (judges included) assuming probabilities is not evidence. I know this is just anecdotal, but it does not reflect well on Canadian jurisprudence. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
Just to clear something up about the UK TV Tax. It's not actually a tax, but a charge for having the BBC - the British Broadcasting Corporation is mostly funded by this charge. Which isn't too bad really, because you get several TV channels & radio stations without any commercials... It's a bit like CBC in Canada, just without the ads.

[Guest.Visitor]

Stop! On Second Thought...

** This thread discusses the article: Stop! On Second Thought... **
If I don't want to watch to the BBC, and I want to use a TV, and I am located in the UK, and I don't want the little van with the directional antenna thats picks up the leakage from my TV's local oscillator to identify that I am indeed operating a TV set without a license (tax)at that address, then I think that its a tax. If its a charge for the BBC, then disable the BBC unless its paid for. If the government provides it, then its paid for with a tax. I believe that many a license, that indeed started out as a license have evolved into a money generating tax for many a government entity. By the way, what is the charge nowadays? And I indeed did enjoy watching some of the BBC back then without commercials and rotating programs schedules before VCRS. What was the other choice? ITN or something like that?