| CRAZY KEN | 11-08-2002 04:43 PM |
Red Light Camera Deterent
�
�
There was a spray on the news that reflects the flash of those pesky red light and speed trap cameras, but I forgot the companies name. All those license plate covers don't work and are illegal(obstruction of justice)! Anyone know???
CRAZY KEN
CRAZY KEN
| pdximpreza | 11-08-2002 06:05 PM |
Why you like running red lights? :monkey:
Does it make you feel cool? :eek:
Hope you dont live in Oregon. I would follow you and get your liscense plate # and file a citizens citation.
Did it to a cop once, so you aint nothing special :devil:
Does it make you feel cool? :eek:
Hope you dont live in Oregon. I would follow you and get your liscense plate # and file a citizens citation.
Did it to a cop once, so you aint nothing special :devil:
| mr2guru | 11-08-2002 07:04 PM |
There is a company that makes a license plate cover that is blurry from angles. More for speed camera traps, they usually take a picture from behind at a 45deg angle or so. The plate will be unreadable.
| SlideWRX | 11-08-2002 07:36 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pdximpreza [/i]
[B]Why you like running red lights? :monkey:
[/B][/QUOTE]
I know I don't like running them, but when camera's are there, they are a money making setup, pure and simple.
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/keyword_searchresults.xml[/url]
If you want to see how red light camera's came to be, check out Car and Driver. Do a search on 'camera', and several articles will come up. They have had several columns explaining that companies have promoted their red light system to towns & cities as an income tool more than a safety device. Unfortunately the devices don't make money when yellow lights are set to the proper timing (as decided by the designers of the street systems). Then cities will short the yellow to create more tickets, and incidentally increase the accident rate at the light. once the money starts coming in, no-one reviews the intersection to prove the camera's are ineffective.
EDIT: I checked the last article on C&D, and several cities noticed and increase in accidents.
After the light timing changes, some people slam on the brakes, some think there is plenty of time to go through. When the faster are behind the slower, accidents happen.
Something to think about.
Tom
[B]Why you like running red lights? :monkey:
[/B][/QUOTE]
I know I don't like running them, but when camera's are there, they are a money making setup, pure and simple.
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/keyword_searchresults.xml[/url]
If you want to see how red light camera's came to be, check out Car and Driver. Do a search on 'camera', and several articles will come up. They have had several columns explaining that companies have promoted their red light system to towns & cities as an income tool more than a safety device. Unfortunately the devices don't make money when yellow lights are set to the proper timing (as decided by the designers of the street systems). Then cities will short the yellow to create more tickets, and incidentally increase the accident rate at the light. once the money starts coming in, no-one reviews the intersection to prove the camera's are ineffective.
EDIT: I checked the last article on C&D, and several cities noticed and increase in accidents.
After the light timing changes, some people slam on the brakes, some think there is plenty of time to go through. When the faster are behind the slower, accidents happen.
Something to think about.
Tom
| DrD | 11-08-2002 09:45 PM |
[QUOTE][B]I know I don't like running them, but when camera's are there, they are a money making setup, pure and simple.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If you don't run red lights, they are never going to be a problem.
Speaking as someone who has been hit by someone running a red, I think they should be at every light - might stop people from running them... wouldn't that just be awful! If it makes more money for the state in the process, that's just fine with me. Personally, I don't think the police should have to waste time pulling people over who do stupid, irresponsible things like that - there are other things more deserving of their attention.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If you don't run red lights, they are never going to be a problem.
Speaking as someone who has been hit by someone running a red, I think they should be at every light - might stop people from running them... wouldn't that just be awful! If it makes more money for the state in the process, that's just fine with me. Personally, I don't think the police should have to waste time pulling people over who do stupid, irresponsible things like that - there are other things more deserving of their attention.
| mikkyo | 11-08-2002 11:13 PM |
This article talks about some of those photo blockers..
[URL]http://www.escortstore.com/jammer.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.escortstore.com/jammer.htm[/URL]
| Sordid Philosopher | 11-09-2002 12:37 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrD [/i]
[B]
If you don't run red lights, they are never going to be a problem.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I am speaking as someone who has been rear-ended no less than 5 times in the past 2 years for stopping on a yellow (there were cameras at the lights, so I stopped and got rear ended).
Every time I've been rear-ended except once by someone tailgating while I had to slam on my brakes for someone making an illegal U turn...has been at a camera intersection. I stop anyways on yellow but I am sure to stop on yellow if there is a camera and I have been rear-ended 6 times in the past 2 years...I am not sure the cameras are working so well to stop/reduce accidents.
Except for the cameras, I have only been rear ended one other time....Not necessarily evidence, but my experiance.
[B]
If you don't run red lights, they are never going to be a problem.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I am speaking as someone who has been rear-ended no less than 5 times in the past 2 years for stopping on a yellow (there were cameras at the lights, so I stopped and got rear ended).
Every time I've been rear-ended except once by someone tailgating while I had to slam on my brakes for someone making an illegal U turn...has been at a camera intersection. I stop anyways on yellow but I am sure to stop on yellow if there is a camera and I have been rear-ended 6 times in the past 2 years...I am not sure the cameras are working so well to stop/reduce accidents.
Except for the cameras, I have only been rear ended one other time....Not necessarily evidence, but my experiance.
| Driver Tom | 11-09-2002 09:26 AM |
I saw a report on the learning channel were they used about 4 or 5 different things in the market and put them on the back of police cars and none of them worked. With infered they can get your number no matter what.
| DrD | 11-09-2002 09:36 AM |
[QUOTE][B]
I am speaking as someone who has been rear-ended no less than 5 times in the past 2 years for stopping on a yellow (there were cameras at the lights, so I stopped and got rear ended).
Every time I've been rear-ended except once by someone tailgating while I had to slam on my brakes for someone making an illegal U turn...has been at a camera intersection. I stop anyways on yellow but I am sure to stop on yellow if there is a camera and I have been rear-ended 6 times in the past 2 years...I am not sure the cameras are working so well to stop/reduce accidents. [/B][/QUOTE]
so is it 5 or 6 times?;) that sucks!
They aren't going to do much to stop the moron who is tailgating you from hitting you - generally, if the light is yellow, and it isn't safe to stop, you can go on through (that's sort of what a yellow light is for - stop if it's safe to do so) - that doesn't help much if the driver behind you is inattentive, and doesn't notice your brake lights, though... however, that's really not the sort of accident they are designed to prevent - they are to stop the pinhead who is speeding through the red and t-bones a car who just pulled into the intersection because the light is green... a bit more serious collision than a rear-ender.
Hopefully, if people know that they will get ticketed for running the red (and actually have been ticketed before), they will probably be less likely to rush an old yellow... and you'll get rearended less often :)
I am speaking as someone who has been rear-ended no less than 5 times in the past 2 years for stopping on a yellow (there were cameras at the lights, so I stopped and got rear ended).
Every time I've been rear-ended except once by someone tailgating while I had to slam on my brakes for someone making an illegal U turn...has been at a camera intersection. I stop anyways on yellow but I am sure to stop on yellow if there is a camera and I have been rear-ended 6 times in the past 2 years...I am not sure the cameras are working so well to stop/reduce accidents. [/B][/QUOTE]
so is it 5 or 6 times?;) that sucks!
They aren't going to do much to stop the moron who is tailgating you from hitting you - generally, if the light is yellow, and it isn't safe to stop, you can go on through (that's sort of what a yellow light is for - stop if it's safe to do so) - that doesn't help much if the driver behind you is inattentive, and doesn't notice your brake lights, though... however, that's really not the sort of accident they are designed to prevent - they are to stop the pinhead who is speeding through the red and t-bones a car who just pulled into the intersection because the light is green... a bit more serious collision than a rear-ender.
Hopefully, if people know that they will get ticketed for running the red (and actually have been ticketed before), they will probably be less likely to rush an old yellow... and you'll get rearended less often :)
| WRX1 | 11-09-2002 09:38 AM |
There is also one other very important thing to remember, when they lower the yellow light time, it also decreases the thinking time about stopping. It brings the go/no go time and space to the limit, so there are going to be times that once you hit that spot, you are going to have the slam on the brakes and make sure you stop before you hit the middle of the intersection, or you hit the gas and hope you make it through before the light turns red. There was a real good article on red light cameras in sport compact car a couple of months back, and the author of the article was timing the yellow light and noticed that the yellow on time was getting shorter and shorter, and all that is going to do is cause more accidents because of the driving of some people.
Russ
Russ
| ForceFed4 | 11-09-2002 12:41 PM |
First, it sucks that you were hit by a red light runner, but...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrD [/i]
[B]They aren't going to do much to stop the moron who is tailgating you from hitting you[/B][/QUOTE]No, there's building evidence they actually PROMOTE that idiot hitting you. - [QUOTE][B]generally, if the light is yellow, and it isn't safe to stop, you can go on through (that's sort of what a yellow light is for - stop if it's safe to do so)[/B][/QUOTE]Unless, of course, the city turns down the yellow light time to 2 seconds to ticket anyone who goes through the yellow too(scoff all you want, it's already happened and is happening right now) [QUOTE][B]- that doesn't help much if the driver behind you is inattentive, and doesn't notice your brake lights, though... however, that's really not the sort of accident they are designed to prevent [/B][/QUOTE]I hope not, as there's pretty much no way to escape the fact that they're increasing rear-end accidents at stoplights. Personally, I don't feel trading one type of accident for another is sound safety logic.
That isn't to say that cameras COULDN'T be used as a safety device, but the way they've been used here so far the primary concern has definitely been profit, not safety. There's no other way to explain why cities would shorten yellow lights where there were camaras, when it's been demostrated that doing so reduces these rear-end accidents. Magically, it also reduces tcket revenues (imagine that, people stop "running" the light when the times are reasonable), so feh, safety takes a back seat to greed, and the promise of red-light cameras is bunk.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrD [/i]
[B]They aren't going to do much to stop the moron who is tailgating you from hitting you[/B][/QUOTE]No, there's building evidence they actually PROMOTE that idiot hitting you. - [QUOTE][B]generally, if the light is yellow, and it isn't safe to stop, you can go on through (that's sort of what a yellow light is for - stop if it's safe to do so)[/B][/QUOTE]Unless, of course, the city turns down the yellow light time to 2 seconds to ticket anyone who goes through the yellow too(scoff all you want, it's already happened and is happening right now) [QUOTE][B]- that doesn't help much if the driver behind you is inattentive, and doesn't notice your brake lights, though... however, that's really not the sort of accident they are designed to prevent [/B][/QUOTE]I hope not, as there's pretty much no way to escape the fact that they're increasing rear-end accidents at stoplights. Personally, I don't feel trading one type of accident for another is sound safety logic.
That isn't to say that cameras COULDN'T be used as a safety device, but the way they've been used here so far the primary concern has definitely been profit, not safety. There's no other way to explain why cities would shorten yellow lights where there were camaras, when it's been demostrated that doing so reduces these rear-end accidents. Magically, it also reduces tcket revenues (imagine that, people stop "running" the light when the times are reasonable), so feh, safety takes a back seat to greed, and the promise of red-light cameras is bunk.
| DrD | 11-09-2002 02:40 PM |
[QUOTE]No, there's building evidence they actually PROMOTE that idiot hitting you[/QUOTE]
If they are indeed shortening the yellow light, then that's what's promoting the accidents, not the camera itself (you would think there would be standards for how long a light must stay yellow, based upon the speed limit on the road itself... evidently not...). Plus, unless you really hammer the brakes, if the person behind you is paying attention, they should be able to stop without incident. Tailgating, aggressive driving, etc. is an altogether different issue.
[QUOTE]That isn't to say that cameras COULDN'T be used as a safety device, but the way they've been used here so far the primary concern has definitely been profit, not safety.[/QUOTE]
To an extent, one could argue that all ticket writing is just designed to make money for the state/town - but what is the alternative - suspend the license and impound the car? You could do one day for running a light, two for speeding, etc. - would that be better? The monetary fine system is a way of saying - you did something wrong - without placing too much strain on the driver - it's just a slap on the wrist. Seriously, though - it's pretty hard to argue that running red lights, blowing through stop signs, etc. is an ok thing to do.
That being said, I think that yes, it is a decent trade to go from high speed side impact accidents to lower speed rear-enders - would you rather be hit from behind at 10mph by someone who couldn't quite stop in time, or hit broadside on the drivers door by some pinhead who blew through a red at 25 or 30 mph (or in many cases, much faster)... that side airbag can only do so much...
If they are indeed shortening the yellow light, then that's what's promoting the accidents, not the camera itself (you would think there would be standards for how long a light must stay yellow, based upon the speed limit on the road itself... evidently not...). Plus, unless you really hammer the brakes, if the person behind you is paying attention, they should be able to stop without incident. Tailgating, aggressive driving, etc. is an altogether different issue.
[QUOTE]That isn't to say that cameras COULDN'T be used as a safety device, but the way they've been used here so far the primary concern has definitely been profit, not safety.[/QUOTE]
To an extent, one could argue that all ticket writing is just designed to make money for the state/town - but what is the alternative - suspend the license and impound the car? You could do one day for running a light, two for speeding, etc. - would that be better? The monetary fine system is a way of saying - you did something wrong - without placing too much strain on the driver - it's just a slap on the wrist. Seriously, though - it's pretty hard to argue that running red lights, blowing through stop signs, etc. is an ok thing to do.
That being said, I think that yes, it is a decent trade to go from high speed side impact accidents to lower speed rear-enders - would you rather be hit from behind at 10mph by someone who couldn't quite stop in time, or hit broadside on the drivers door by some pinhead who blew through a red at 25 or 30 mph (or in many cases, much faster)... that side airbag can only do so much...
| Kostamojen | 11-10-2002 03:37 AM |
I only have two lights that I tend to drive through that have Red Light Camera's. Both are major intersections with like 10 lanes of traffic each direction, and one of them is in the countries top 10 of the "worst intersection" list.
I am glad that there are red light camera's at these lights, or people would run them all the time... (both are commute type intersections where the same people drive through them all the time, so most of the drivers know what is going on)
I am glad that there are red light camera's at these lights, or people would run them all the time... (both are commute type intersections where the same people drive through them all the time, so most of the drivers know what is going on)
| Frederf | 11-10-2002 03:49 AM |
I'd hate to have a ticket because I was 1 milisecond across too late and there was someone riding me ass when a cop would have shrugged.
| fluffybunny | 11-10-2002 01:04 PM |
um, one thing about red light camera's...
if they take your picture to prove you ran the light, and you ran it because someone was tailgaiting you...and you want to protest it, that photo is evidence. on the one hand it shows you ran it, on the other hand, it should show the jackball behind you as well, right? isn't that the evidence you need to get the judge to shrug, like a patrolman would have?
just a thought.
if they take your picture to prove you ran the light, and you ran it because someone was tailgaiting you...and you want to protest it, that photo is evidence. on the one hand it shows you ran it, on the other hand, it should show the jackball behind you as well, right? isn't that the evidence you need to get the judge to shrug, like a patrolman would have?
just a thought.
| ForceFed4 | 11-10-2002 03:38 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrD [/i]
[B]
If they are indeed shortening the yellow light, then that's what's promoting the accidents, not the camera itself (you would think there would be standards for how long a light must stay yellow, based upon the speed limit on the road itself... evidently not...).[/B][/QUOTE] Well, maybe, but if the only reason they shorten the yellow is to increase ticket revenue from the camera, I'm still going to argue that the camera is the source of the problem. As I said, it's not as if they couldn't be used responsibly as traffic safety devices. If the authorities choose to abuse them however, I feel they should loose the right to use them, and it sure looks like they're abusing them.
[B][QUOTE]To an extent, one could argue that all ticket writing is just designed to make money for the state/town - but what is the alternative - suspend the license and impound the car? ... Seriously, though - it's pretty hard to argue that running red lights, blowing through stop signs, etc. is an ok thing to do.[/B][/QUOTE]I'm not trying to say that blowing through red lights is cool. Setting up a dangerous situation that causes people who would not normally run reds to mistakenly do so for increased ticket profits is hardly the solution though.
[B][QUOTE]That being said, I think that yes, it is a decent trade to go from high speed side impact accidents to lower speed rear-enders - would you rather be hit from behind at 10mph by someone who couldn't quite stop in time, or hit broadside on the drivers door by some pinhead who blew through a red at 25 or 30 mph (or in many cases, much faster)... that side airbag can only do so much... [/B][/QUOTE]Personally, sure, I'd much rather be hit @ 10mph from behind than 30mph on the driver side door, for obvious reasons. Actually, I'd prefer not to be hit at all. And I'm not sure asking 10 drivers to "take one for the team" for the benefit of MAYBE preventing one accident is fair. I'd imagine (maby mistakenly) that most people blatantly blowing through a red light at 30mph are probably impaired in some way that would make the camera's deterence meaningless anyway.
I think there is a place for these cameras; I just don't think their current method of usage is it.
How many of you would be screaming bloody murder if these were robot speed cameras on the interstates?
[B]
If they are indeed shortening the yellow light, then that's what's promoting the accidents, not the camera itself (you would think there would be standards for how long a light must stay yellow, based upon the speed limit on the road itself... evidently not...).[/B][/QUOTE] Well, maybe, but if the only reason they shorten the yellow is to increase ticket revenue from the camera, I'm still going to argue that the camera is the source of the problem. As I said, it's not as if they couldn't be used responsibly as traffic safety devices. If the authorities choose to abuse them however, I feel they should loose the right to use them, and it sure looks like they're abusing them.
[B][QUOTE]To an extent, one could argue that all ticket writing is just designed to make money for the state/town - but what is the alternative - suspend the license and impound the car? ... Seriously, though - it's pretty hard to argue that running red lights, blowing through stop signs, etc. is an ok thing to do.[/B][/QUOTE]I'm not trying to say that blowing through red lights is cool. Setting up a dangerous situation that causes people who would not normally run reds to mistakenly do so for increased ticket profits is hardly the solution though.
[B][QUOTE]That being said, I think that yes, it is a decent trade to go from high speed side impact accidents to lower speed rear-enders - would you rather be hit from behind at 10mph by someone who couldn't quite stop in time, or hit broadside on the drivers door by some pinhead who blew through a red at 25 or 30 mph (or in many cases, much faster)... that side airbag can only do so much... [/B][/QUOTE]Personally, sure, I'd much rather be hit @ 10mph from behind than 30mph on the driver side door, for obvious reasons. Actually, I'd prefer not to be hit at all. And I'm not sure asking 10 drivers to "take one for the team" for the benefit of MAYBE preventing one accident is fair. I'd imagine (maby mistakenly) that most people blatantly blowing through a red light at 30mph are probably impaired in some way that would make the camera's deterence meaningless anyway.
I think there is a place for these cameras; I just don't think their current method of usage is it.
How many of you would be screaming bloody murder if these were robot speed cameras on the interstates?
| Choku Dori | 11-10-2002 08:15 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrD [/i]
[B]
would you rather be hit from behind at 10mph by someone who couldn't quite stop in time, or hit broadside on the drivers door by some pinhead who blew through a red at 25 or 30 mph (or in many cases, much faster)... that side airbag can only do so much... [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't condone running red lights or stop signs, but the one time I was rear-ended, it was when I stopped for a red light and this dumb broad wasn't paying attention. Unfortunately, I wasn't rear ended at your supposed 10mph, I was plowed into at about 40mph and pushed about 10 feet into a busy intersection (even though I was flooring the brake pedal when I was hit, her damn SUV just pushed my poor BMW forwards anyway). Just wanted to let you know that getting rear-ended while stopping for a red light isn't all fun and games. My neck is still screwed up, and it's been a good two and half years now.
Red light cameras aren't necessarily a bad thing - just shortening yellow lights to line city coffers from camera profits is a bad thing. I'm 100% positive it's happening here in S.F.
[B]
would you rather be hit from behind at 10mph by someone who couldn't quite stop in time, or hit broadside on the drivers door by some pinhead who blew through a red at 25 or 30 mph (or in many cases, much faster)... that side airbag can only do so much... [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't condone running red lights or stop signs, but the one time I was rear-ended, it was when I stopped for a red light and this dumb broad wasn't paying attention. Unfortunately, I wasn't rear ended at your supposed 10mph, I was plowed into at about 40mph and pushed about 10 feet into a busy intersection (even though I was flooring the brake pedal when I was hit, her damn SUV just pushed my poor BMW forwards anyway). Just wanted to let you know that getting rear-ended while stopping for a red light isn't all fun and games. My neck is still screwed up, and it's been a good two and half years now.
Red light cameras aren't necessarily a bad thing - just shortening yellow lights to line city coffers from camera profits is a bad thing. I'm 100% positive it's happening here in S.F.
| Mulder | 11-10-2002 08:33 PM |
This is definitely a problem here in NYC, yellow light times are very inconsistent. The general rule of thumb is there should be one second of yellow for every 10MPH of speed on the particular road where the light is, but the yellows here are almost always less than that. At some intersections they are so short (less than a second) that it is impossible to react in time before the light turns red.
If you get used to driving in NYC and become conditioned to stopping on yellow because they are so short, it becomes a problem when leaving the city and driving in adjacent counties such as LI where the lights are timed correctly. When you see a yellow your reflexive reaction is to stop but someone behind you who knows the yellow will last for a few seconds will be expecting to keep going.
If you get used to driving in NYC and become conditioned to stopping on yellow because they are so short, it becomes a problem when leaving the city and driving in adjacent counties such as LI where the lights are timed correctly. When you see a yellow your reflexive reaction is to stop but someone behind you who knows the yellow will last for a few seconds will be expecting to keep going.
| kdmd2b | 11-10-2002 09:49 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pdximpreza [/i]
[B]Why you like running red lights? :monkey:
Does it make you feel cool? :eek:
Hope you dont live in Oregon. I would follow you and get your liscense plate # and file a citizens citation.
Did it to a cop once, so you aint nothing special :devil: [/B][/QUOTE]
I am curious. When you file a citizen's citation what happens to the person? What if the person says they didn't run the red light? What evidence do you have? Do you know that anything happened to the cop? Unless there have been other complaints about the same cop I doubt anything happened. Also, you can't follow the person if they were in front of you unless you run the red light too.
[B]Why you like running red lights? :monkey:
Does it make you feel cool? :eek:
Hope you dont live in Oregon. I would follow you and get your liscense plate # and file a citizens citation.
Did it to a cop once, so you aint nothing special :devil: [/B][/QUOTE]
I am curious. When you file a citizen's citation what happens to the person? What if the person says they didn't run the red light? What evidence do you have? Do you know that anything happened to the cop? Unless there have been other complaints about the same cop I doubt anything happened. Also, you can't follow the person if they were in front of you unless you run the red light too.
| mr2guru | 11-10-2002 10:11 PM |
If someone follows me for too long I just flash my gun.....they usually stop following me. :devil:
| Frederf | 11-10-2002 10:13 PM |
If places are changing the yellow timings to a weird value, there should be some evidence that this is happening. I'd take legal action against the city/state if they endangered me by putting unintuative timings on lights.
| OneArmedScissor | 11-10-2002 10:16 PM |
i did a study on this last year
it ended up being that because they decreased the time of yellow lights to an unsafe level (it was found that an increased yellow time prevented a red light violation something like 17 or 18 times out of 20) that the use of red light cameras rather than more precise light/speed timing caused more INJURIES and DEATHS than anything else.
the statistics i found spoke for themselves, i used a colleges access to journals and etc.
TX senator Dick Armey is a strong advocate AGAINST RLC usage and provided much of the data showing how it was unsafe.
so :monkey: to all of you that jumped on him. RLC's are immoral and unsafe and a money making scheme (just like most of the other traffic "violations" theyve created)
it ended up being that because they decreased the time of yellow lights to an unsafe level (it was found that an increased yellow time prevented a red light violation something like 17 or 18 times out of 20) that the use of red light cameras rather than more precise light/speed timing caused more INJURIES and DEATHS than anything else.
the statistics i found spoke for themselves, i used a colleges access to journals and etc.
TX senator Dick Armey is a strong advocate AGAINST RLC usage and provided much of the data showing how it was unsafe.
so :monkey: to all of you that jumped on him. RLC's are immoral and unsafe and a money making scheme (just like most of the other traffic "violations" theyve created)
| DDMan | 11-10-2002 10:23 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kostamojen [/i]
[B]I only have two lights that I tend to drive through that have Red Light Camera's. Both are major intersections with like 10 lanes of traffic each direction, and one of them is in the countries top 10 of the "worst intersection" list.
I am glad that there are red light camera's at these lights, or people would run them all the time... (both are commute type intersections where the same people drive through them all the time, so most of the drivers know what is going on) [/B][/QUOTE]
Hey, which intersections are these...isnt Fair Oaks/Howe one of them?
Just to make sure ;)
[B]I only have two lights that I tend to drive through that have Red Light Camera's. Both are major intersections with like 10 lanes of traffic each direction, and one of them is in the countries top 10 of the "worst intersection" list.
I am glad that there are red light camera's at these lights, or people would run them all the time... (both are commute type intersections where the same people drive through them all the time, so most of the drivers know what is going on) [/B][/QUOTE]
Hey, which intersections are these...isnt Fair Oaks/Howe one of them?
Just to make sure ;)
| DrD | 11-10-2002 11:39 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Milin [/i]
[B]RLC's are immoral and unsafe and a money making scheme (just like most of the other traffic "violations" they've created) [/B][/QUOTE]
I would love to hear the "RLC's are immoral" argument. For that matter, the "unsafe" one as well. All the camera does is document who ran the light - if used properly, it shouldn't even be a concern to the typical driver.
[B]RLC's are immoral and unsafe and a money making scheme (just like most of the other traffic "violations" they've created) [/B][/QUOTE]
I would love to hear the "RLC's are immoral" argument. For that matter, the "unsafe" one as well. All the camera does is document who ran the light - if used properly, it shouldn't even be a concern to the typical driver.
| WRXVT | 11-10-2002 11:51 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrD [/i]
[B]
I would love to hear the "RLC's are immoral" argument. For that matter, the "unsafe" one as well. All the camera does is document who ran the light - if used properly, it shouldn't even be a concern to the typical driver. [/B][/QUOTE]
What if the typical driver knows there is a redlight camera there and the person behind him doesn't? Where I live, the RLC's are marked, and I know were they are... if the light turns yellow I STOP. I don't want a ticket in the mail. In case there is a tailgater behind me, I also look in my rearview to make sure I can slam on the brakes. You see, the camera does more than just document... it changes driver behavior, -- what happens if someone slams on their brakes to avoid a ticket, not paing attention the the driver behind them (the reaction of the typical driver) especially when the person behind is tailgating them?
[B]
I would love to hear the "RLC's are immoral" argument. For that matter, the "unsafe" one as well. All the camera does is document who ran the light - if used properly, it shouldn't even be a concern to the typical driver. [/B][/QUOTE]
What if the typical driver knows there is a redlight camera there and the person behind him doesn't? Where I live, the RLC's are marked, and I know were they are... if the light turns yellow I STOP. I don't want a ticket in the mail. In case there is a tailgater behind me, I also look in my rearview to make sure I can slam on the brakes. You see, the camera does more than just document... it changes driver behavior, -- what happens if someone slams on their brakes to avoid a ticket, not paing attention the the driver behind them (the reaction of the typical driver) especially when the person behind is tailgating them?
| DrD | 11-10-2002 11:52 PM |
[QUOTE][B] Well, maybe, but if the only reason they shorten the yellow is to increase ticket revenue from the camera, I'm still going to argue that the camera is the source of the problem. As I said, it's not as if they couldn't be used responsibly as traffic safety devices. If the authorities choose to abuse them however, I feel they should loose the right to use them, and it sure looks like they're abusing them. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with you here - there should be standards in place before such devices are used.
[QUOTE][B]I'd imagine (maby mistakenly) that most people blatantly blowing through a red light at 30mph are probably impaired in some way that would make the camera's deterence meaningless anyway.[/B][/QUOTE]
In many cases, that's probably true - however, even around here, when the light turns green you have to wait a few seconds before heading into the intersection because people are still heading through the intersection the other way (people who didn't even enter the intersection until the light was green for the other traffic) - this happens every day - that's the sort of thing which needs to stop. Even when there isn't alot of traffic, there is often that one straggler who come screaming through the instersection after the light is red - this is particularly a problem (here, anyway) where you have lanes for a left turn only parallel to the normal lanes
[QUOTE][B]I think there is a place for these cameras; I just don't think their current method of usage is it.
How many of you would be screaming bloody murder if these were robot speed cameras on the interstates? [/B][/QUOTE]
I can't comment on useage - everything I have seen is what I have read - they don't use them here (though they are considering it) - as far as speed traps on the interstate, those have been around for quite a while - photo-radar (that was the initial use for the Ka radar band) - I know they used them for a little while in NJ on the jersey turnpike (used to drive that alot heading from school back home for holidays, etc.) - they only had them for a little while, though, if I remember correctly. Not sure who uses them now (there used to be a radar website where you could look all that up - not sure if there still is) - there are always radar detectors for that sort of thing :-)
I agree with you here - there should be standards in place before such devices are used.
[QUOTE][B]I'd imagine (maby mistakenly) that most people blatantly blowing through a red light at 30mph are probably impaired in some way that would make the camera's deterence meaningless anyway.[/B][/QUOTE]
In many cases, that's probably true - however, even around here, when the light turns green you have to wait a few seconds before heading into the intersection because people are still heading through the intersection the other way (people who didn't even enter the intersection until the light was green for the other traffic) - this happens every day - that's the sort of thing which needs to stop. Even when there isn't alot of traffic, there is often that one straggler who come screaming through the instersection after the light is red - this is particularly a problem (here, anyway) where you have lanes for a left turn only parallel to the normal lanes
[QUOTE][B]I think there is a place for these cameras; I just don't think their current method of usage is it.
How many of you would be screaming bloody murder if these were robot speed cameras on the interstates? [/B][/QUOTE]
I can't comment on useage - everything I have seen is what I have read - they don't use them here (though they are considering it) - as far as speed traps on the interstate, those have been around for quite a while - photo-radar (that was the initial use for the Ka radar band) - I know they used them for a little while in NJ on the jersey turnpike (used to drive that alot heading from school back home for holidays, etc.) - they only had them for a little while, though, if I remember correctly. Not sure who uses them now (there used to be a radar website where you could look all that up - not sure if there still is) - there are always radar detectors for that sort of thing :-)
| DrD | 11-11-2002 12:08 AM |
[QUOTE][B]What if the typical driver knows there is a redlight camera there and the person behind him doesn't? [/B][/QUOTE]
That should be irrelevant (though in todays society, it clearly isn't) - the choice to run through a red light shouldn't be based upon whether or not you are going to get caught.
[QUOTE][B]Where I live, the RLC's are marked, and I know were they are... if the light turns yellow I STOP. I don't want a ticket in the mail. In case there is a tailgater behind me, I also look in my rearview to make sure I can slam on the brakes.[/B][/QUOTE]
Now this brings up an interesting point - if the light is yellow when you head into the intersection, then it turns red when you are half-way through, do you get a ticket? According to the law, you shouldn't - the light was yellow when you entered the intersection, and clearly when you saw the yellow light you made the decision that you couldn't safely stop in time (i.e., road wet, going too fast, tailgater, etc.). I would bet that if if a cop were watching, as you were heading into an intersection, and the light turned yellow, and you slammed on the brakes, causing the person behind you to slam into you (provided they weren't riding your bumper), that you would be cited for unsafe driving, not the driver behind you.
[QUOTE][B]You see, the camera does more than just document... it changes driver behavior, -- what happens if someone slams on their brakes to avoid a ticket, not paing attention the the driver behind them (the reaction of the typical driver) especially when the person behind is tailgating them? [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, I think the whole point is to change driver behaviour, though not to the extreme that you mention here. If the light is yellow when you are entering the intersection, and it's unsafe for you to stop, then you can go through - that's what the yellow light is supposed to signify - stop if it's safe to do so. If the only thing you can do to stop is slam on the brakes, then it isn't safe to stop.
Things like aggressive driving (tailgating, etc.), speeding through intersections, etc. are different issues altogether - and are the sort of thing which causes accidents, which need to be stopped
Now, I am not trying to take the holier than thou stance here - I occasionally speed (I own a WRX... what am I gonna do?;) ) and rush the odd yellow light - but I don't run reds. However, if I did knowingly go through one, and got a ticket for it, what am I going to say? I ran the light, I earned the ticket. That old saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is pretty fitting here...
That should be irrelevant (though in todays society, it clearly isn't) - the choice to run through a red light shouldn't be based upon whether or not you are going to get caught.
[QUOTE][B]Where I live, the RLC's are marked, and I know were they are... if the light turns yellow I STOP. I don't want a ticket in the mail. In case there is a tailgater behind me, I also look in my rearview to make sure I can slam on the brakes.[/B][/QUOTE]
Now this brings up an interesting point - if the light is yellow when you head into the intersection, then it turns red when you are half-way through, do you get a ticket? According to the law, you shouldn't - the light was yellow when you entered the intersection, and clearly when you saw the yellow light you made the decision that you couldn't safely stop in time (i.e., road wet, going too fast, tailgater, etc.). I would bet that if if a cop were watching, as you were heading into an intersection, and the light turned yellow, and you slammed on the brakes, causing the person behind you to slam into you (provided they weren't riding your bumper), that you would be cited for unsafe driving, not the driver behind you.
[QUOTE][B]You see, the camera does more than just document... it changes driver behavior, -- what happens if someone slams on their brakes to avoid a ticket, not paing attention the the driver behind them (the reaction of the typical driver) especially when the person behind is tailgating them? [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, I think the whole point is to change driver behaviour, though not to the extreme that you mention here. If the light is yellow when you are entering the intersection, and it's unsafe for you to stop, then you can go through - that's what the yellow light is supposed to signify - stop if it's safe to do so. If the only thing you can do to stop is slam on the brakes, then it isn't safe to stop.
Things like aggressive driving (tailgating, etc.), speeding through intersections, etc. are different issues altogether - and are the sort of thing which causes accidents, which need to be stopped
Now, I am not trying to take the holier than thou stance here - I occasionally speed (I own a WRX... what am I gonna do?;) ) and rush the odd yellow light - but I don't run reds. However, if I did knowingly go through one, and got a ticket for it, what am I going to say? I ran the light, I earned the ticket. That old saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is pretty fitting here...
| kdmd2b | 11-11-2002 02:05 AM |
I agree that in their current state RLCs are immoral in that they put making a few bucks in front of safety, while claiming to be for our good. I have heard, although I don't recall the source, that it was shown that some of the cameras were giving people who enter the intersection on yellow tickets. I believe the cameras could be a good thing if they were set to ticket the people that really and truely run the reg light. Not the people that were just trying to squeeze the yellow and didn't quite make it. Perhaps if a person was pretty close but didn't quite make it they should get a warning and if it happens again in the next say 6 weeks then they get a ticket. This way people can learn the limits and know when to go and when they should stop. As it is people are unsure so they tend to error on the side of overbraking. I know that it is hard to set an exact standard that accomplishes the goal of improving safety, but right now the goal seems to be writing tickets, not improving safety and that is why RLCs get the monkey :monkey:.
| Kostamojen | 11-11-2002 03:07 AM |
I guess its just my personal experience again, but the redlight camera's i see dont take pics unless a person entered the section like right when the yellow was ending. Ive seen some people cut it at what to me seems like "too late" without the camera's taking pics...
But, I guess my local government is out for good instead of evil :rolleyes:
But, I guess my local government is out for good instead of evil :rolleyes:
| CRAZY KEN | 11-11-2002 10:31 AM |
WOW...what a response!!!
�
�
FYI, I haven't ran a red light! But the same camera setup are stationed around D.C., VA and MD to catch speeders. I was only going 10 mph over the posted speed limited. Anyways , it seems no one has a real answer to my question so I guess I'll share what I have found out thus far!
[URL=http://www.reichracing.com/fog.htm]Photo Fog[/URL]
[url]http://www.reichracing.com/photofog3.jpg[/url]
;)CRAZY KEN:cool:[IMG]http://www.reichracing.com/photofog3.jpg[/IMG]
[URL=http://www.reichracing.com/fog.htm]Photo Fog[/URL]
[url]http://www.reichracing.com/photofog3.jpg[/url]
;)CRAZY KEN:cool:[IMG]http://www.reichracing.com/photofog3.jpg[/IMG]
| OneArmedScissor | 11-11-2002 11:08 AM |
this is a very interesting discussion
it hink we can all agree that red light runners should be caught on VIDEO not on photo.
if they took a small 5 second mov file (like many modern digital cameras do)
the ticket could be taken to court if the light wer run for a safety reason (i.e. so as not to get hit from behind)
or if the yellow were too short or otherwise.
the best solution is still hto have a police officer observe the situation and give a ticket based on judgement, as interpretation is half the battle.
sometimes there ARE times when you should run that yellow.
(i.e. a large 18 wheeler following too closely behind)
as a member of the motorcycling community you learn a lot of things about safety that most car drivers overlook.
it is better to break a traffic law than to end up dead. human judgement is what makes us superior to machines and when we stop letting ourselves use that, we lose our humanity.
thus my :monkey: still stands.
it hink we can all agree that red light runners should be caught on VIDEO not on photo.
if they took a small 5 second mov file (like many modern digital cameras do)
the ticket could be taken to court if the light wer run for a safety reason (i.e. so as not to get hit from behind)
or if the yellow were too short or otherwise.
the best solution is still hto have a police officer observe the situation and give a ticket based on judgement, as interpretation is half the battle.
sometimes there ARE times when you should run that yellow.
(i.e. a large 18 wheeler following too closely behind)
as a member of the motorcycling community you learn a lot of things about safety that most car drivers overlook.
it is better to break a traffic law than to end up dead. human judgement is what makes us superior to machines and when we stop letting ourselves use that, we lose our humanity.
thus my :monkey: still stands.
| Frederf | 11-11-2002 02:27 PM |
It disgust me that RLCs can provide an evil incentive to "put them to use."
"We put in those RLCs, but no one is running red lights."
"Shorten the yellow timing, we have to make up for the costs!"
"We put in those RLCs, but no one is running red lights."
"Shorten the yellow timing, we have to make up for the costs!"
| MMBOOST | 11-11-2002 03:25 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrD [/i]
[B]
If you don't run red lights, they are never going to be a problem.
. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's uh, dumb.
I guess you don't live in a city where they periodicly change (up and down) the yellow duration? You know what happens when they do that?
Say you are used to the long yellow and it goes short. You used to be able to safely navigate thru the yellow without having to speed up, perfectly legal. Now you are forced to either illegally speed up or to obnoxiously hit your brakes... yeah this is going the speed limit.
Say you are used to the short yellow. Now you see the yellow and you are used to having to slam on your breaks (yeah this is going the speed limit)... but wait, its still yellow for a long while. Now everyone around you is pissed.
This causes two problems in San Francisco:
1) it makes for a lot of tickets
2) it makes for a lot of accidents.
What's the freakin' point... small town people like pdximpreza :monkey:
jason
[B]
If you don't run red lights, they are never going to be a problem.
. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's uh, dumb.
I guess you don't live in a city where they periodicly change (up and down) the yellow duration? You know what happens when they do that?
Say you are used to the long yellow and it goes short. You used to be able to safely navigate thru the yellow without having to speed up, perfectly legal. Now you are forced to either illegally speed up or to obnoxiously hit your brakes... yeah this is going the speed limit.
Say you are used to the short yellow. Now you see the yellow and you are used to having to slam on your breaks (yeah this is going the speed limit)... but wait, its still yellow for a long while. Now everyone around you is pissed.
This causes two problems in San Francisco:
1) it makes for a lot of tickets
2) it makes for a lot of accidents.
What's the freakin' point... small town people like pdximpreza :monkey:
jason
| fluffybunny | 11-11-2002 04:50 PM |
[QUOTE]What's the freakin' point... small town people like pdximpreza [insert monkey here][/QUOTE]
wow, that's pretty rude, jason. and not an entirely accurate accusation, either.
if you'd notice, pdx is from Portland, Oregon, which has about 2.6 million people in it's metro area. sure it's not bigger than your 6.5 million bay area population, but it's a long way from small.
feel free to disagree with him, or anyone you want, but when you start calling people names, be sure you can back them up, otherwise, shut up.
wow, that's pretty rude, jason. and not an entirely accurate accusation, either.
if you'd notice, pdx is from Portland, Oregon, which has about 2.6 million people in it's metro area. sure it's not bigger than your 6.5 million bay area population, but it's a long way from small.
feel free to disagree with him, or anyone you want, but when you start calling people names, be sure you can back them up, otherwise, shut up.
| fluffybunny | 11-11-2002 05:01 PM |
in defence of your statement about yellow light duration changes, i did find this bit of info to support your claim:
[QUOTE]Traffic signals do not change according to the numerous fluctuations in daily traffic because they are timed using historic traffic volumes. But, SFgo is changing this! Through the SFgo Program, DPT is replacing the existing infrastructure and installing a new fiber optic communications network, installing new advanced traffic signal controllers, and building a Transportation Management Center (TMC). Operators at the TMC will be able to monitor the traffic signal system and change signal timing in response to actual conditions.[/QUOTE]
this came from: [url]http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/sfgo/keystrategies.htm[/url]
it sounds like an interesting idea, but from MMBOOST's complaints, it must not be executed very effectively. i haven't done more research than what i just quoted, but i wonder what their guidelines are. there is the distinct possibility that they are way off, and in need of alteration.
another thing that would probably be wise is if the drivers were informed of the guidelines, so as to allow them to anticipate changes. as it is the motorvehicle operator's duty to be able to safely operate his/her vehicle.
(as an aside, i don't really feel that driving is a right. it's a priviledge. drivers should do what it takes to keep their licenses. but, stupid and poorly thought out laws should be changed.)
[QUOTE]Traffic signals do not change according to the numerous fluctuations in daily traffic because they are timed using historic traffic volumes. But, SFgo is changing this! Through the SFgo Program, DPT is replacing the existing infrastructure and installing a new fiber optic communications network, installing new advanced traffic signal controllers, and building a Transportation Management Center (TMC). Operators at the TMC will be able to monitor the traffic signal system and change signal timing in response to actual conditions.[/QUOTE]
this came from: [url]http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/sfgo/keystrategies.htm[/url]
it sounds like an interesting idea, but from MMBOOST's complaints, it must not be executed very effectively. i haven't done more research than what i just quoted, but i wonder what their guidelines are. there is the distinct possibility that they are way off, and in need of alteration.
another thing that would probably be wise is if the drivers were informed of the guidelines, so as to allow them to anticipate changes. as it is the motorvehicle operator's duty to be able to safely operate his/her vehicle.
(as an aside, i don't really feel that driving is a right. it's a priviledge. drivers should do what it takes to keep their licenses. but, stupid and poorly thought out laws should be changed.)
| PPower | 11-11-2002 05:46 PM |
Well, this could easily get into a discussion of how bad the US government is about invading and controlling all aspects of life. The things they do can always be supported in one way or another that it is helpful in one way or another. How long will it be before we cannot even drive our own cars? We will just enter in our destination and sit back. Just wait, it will happen in the name of safety. Situations like these make me appreciate being away from the states.
| DrD | 11-11-2002 07:42 PM |
[QUOTE][B]
That's uh, dumb.
I guess you don't live in a city where they periodicly change (up and down) the yellow duration? You know what happens when they do that?[/B][/QUOTE]
yup - people who like to rush the yellow now run a red. It seems that seeing a yellow light is interpreted as "keep going if you can make it through before it turns red" - in reality, the law is if the light turns yellow, you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so. So one could say that having a yellow go from long to short shouldn't have an effect at all on your decision to stop. Thoughts like will I be able to navigate through the intersection before it turns red rather than stopping, or worrying about what other people around you think about you stopping isn't getting the point of traffic signals.
That's uh, dumb.
I guess you don't live in a city where they periodicly change (up and down) the yellow duration? You know what happens when they do that?[/B][/QUOTE]
yup - people who like to rush the yellow now run a red. It seems that seeing a yellow light is interpreted as "keep going if you can make it through before it turns red" - in reality, the law is if the light turns yellow, you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so. So one could say that having a yellow go from long to short shouldn't have an effect at all on your decision to stop. Thoughts like will I be able to navigate through the intersection before it turns red rather than stopping, or worrying about what other people around you think about you stopping isn't getting the point of traffic signals.
| ForceFed4 | 11-11-2002 09:39 PM |
Regardless of the "point", if decreasing a yellow light from a reasonable 4 seconds to a short 2 seconds increases rear-end collisions it's stupid. At least from a safety perspective; if you want to increase ticket revenues then it makes perfect sense. After all, the city doesn't have to pay for the accidents, and if anyone complains, the governement just makes it sound like they're attacking a "safety device", which is complete BS.
Traffic laws need to be based on consistancy. It's confusing and dangerous to have some traffic lights behave normally, then have others with barely any yellow light in places where you want to make ticket money. I believe that 1 second / 10mph is a reasonable time; but if a city wants to have 2 second yellows they should at least do it accross the board. Driving while paying attention to what everone else is doing on the road is bad enough. Having to play chicken with every light doesn't help, and the accident numbers have proven that. You can't change the driving behaviour of an entire society overnight with some magic cameras; trying to do so is misguided at best. Trying to do so while conveinently raking in a hefty profit for yourself at drivers' expense is even worse.
Traffic laws need to be based on consistancy. It's confusing and dangerous to have some traffic lights behave normally, then have others with barely any yellow light in places where you want to make ticket money. I believe that 1 second / 10mph is a reasonable time; but if a city wants to have 2 second yellows they should at least do it accross the board. Driving while paying attention to what everone else is doing on the road is bad enough. Having to play chicken with every light doesn't help, and the accident numbers have proven that. You can't change the driving behaviour of an entire society overnight with some magic cameras; trying to do so is misguided at best. Trying to do so while conveinently raking in a hefty profit for yourself at drivers' expense is even worse.
| pdximpreza | 11-11-2002 09:56 PM |
Ok, I will try to reply to everyone.
kdmd2b
[QUOTE]I am curious. When you file a citizen's citation what happens to the person? What if the person says they didn't run the red light? What evidence do you have? Do you know that anything happened to the cop? Unless there have been other complaints about the same cop I doubt anything happened. Also, you can't follow the person if they were in front of you unless you run the red light too.[/QUOTE]
That person is given a court date that they must attend, just like when you recieve a ticket. The cop that ran the red light was almost t-boned by a Durango, she came so close and broke so hard her back tired come off the ground. I had her liscense plate and she was supeonaed (sp?). I also had to appear in court as I was supeonaed. The cop was verbally reprimanded it was placed in his permanent record. Also since the cop pulled me over in the end and wrote me tickets, which were dropped, i have filed a suit against him because he was in violation of my constitutional rights. I am not sure which one, but it pretty much states that any public official who abuses his power shall be prosecuted by the applicable laws and impeached from office. Also I waited at the light and then caught up to him, the speed limit was 45, but traffic was doing 35 by the time I caught up to him.
mr2guru
[QUOTE]If someone follows me for too long I just flash my gun.....they usually stop following me.[/QUOTE]
Oh man, I hope ur not a cop..... I would love to see one pull that **** on me. I am sick and tired of those pigs thinking because they were a badge, that they are above the law. Shoot me I dont give a ****, at least I know when I die, and I am standing before the man, I was in the right, and that person will burn in hell. May sound all martyr like and ****, but I dont care.
MMBOOST
[QUOTE]What's the freakin' point... small town people like pdximpreza[/QUOTE]
Actually I did grow up in a small town. 1000 people. I now live in a much larger city, which is just outside Portland. And just for your information there highspeed, I make business trip often to Belmont, and so I spend a lot of recreational time in SF. In fact at this moment I am just outside of San Jose, in Santa Clara. And you know what, I have yet to have a problem EVER in ANY city I have ever been to with being able to stop in time at a light. I havent been to em all, but whatever.
Now as for what I think about the whole camera thing, yeah take a 5 sec video. But the fact of the matter is, is that the traffic laws in place are mostly to make money, and thats the courts objective, how else can they buy those lavish marble courtrooms with exotic woods. I am living proof, I have an SR22 because I was convicted of driving without insurance, even though I showed the cop, and I showed the court, I pay $450 a month for insurance on my 2.5RS. Its a long story, but it comes down to it being another tax, its just more random than the others.
And I dont know about anywhere else, but in Oregon if you run a yellow, the ticket is that same as running a red. Failure to obey a traffic control device.
kdmd2b
[QUOTE]I am curious. When you file a citizen's citation what happens to the person? What if the person says they didn't run the red light? What evidence do you have? Do you know that anything happened to the cop? Unless there have been other complaints about the same cop I doubt anything happened. Also, you can't follow the person if they were in front of you unless you run the red light too.[/QUOTE]
That person is given a court date that they must attend, just like when you recieve a ticket. The cop that ran the red light was almost t-boned by a Durango, she came so close and broke so hard her back tired come off the ground. I had her liscense plate and she was supeonaed (sp?). I also had to appear in court as I was supeonaed. The cop was verbally reprimanded it was placed in his permanent record. Also since the cop pulled me over in the end and wrote me tickets, which were dropped, i have filed a suit against him because he was in violation of my constitutional rights. I am not sure which one, but it pretty much states that any public official who abuses his power shall be prosecuted by the applicable laws and impeached from office. Also I waited at the light and then caught up to him, the speed limit was 45, but traffic was doing 35 by the time I caught up to him.
mr2guru
[QUOTE]If someone follows me for too long I just flash my gun.....they usually stop following me.[/QUOTE]
Oh man, I hope ur not a cop..... I would love to see one pull that **** on me. I am sick and tired of those pigs thinking because they were a badge, that they are above the law. Shoot me I dont give a ****, at least I know when I die, and I am standing before the man, I was in the right, and that person will burn in hell. May sound all martyr like and ****, but I dont care.
MMBOOST
[QUOTE]What's the freakin' point... small town people like pdximpreza[/QUOTE]
Actually I did grow up in a small town. 1000 people. I now live in a much larger city, which is just outside Portland. And just for your information there highspeed, I make business trip often to Belmont, and so I spend a lot of recreational time in SF. In fact at this moment I am just outside of San Jose, in Santa Clara. And you know what, I have yet to have a problem EVER in ANY city I have ever been to with being able to stop in time at a light. I havent been to em all, but whatever.
Now as for what I think about the whole camera thing, yeah take a 5 sec video. But the fact of the matter is, is that the traffic laws in place are mostly to make money, and thats the courts objective, how else can they buy those lavish marble courtrooms with exotic woods. I am living proof, I have an SR22 because I was convicted of driving without insurance, even though I showed the cop, and I showed the court, I pay $450 a month for insurance on my 2.5RS. Its a long story, but it comes down to it being another tax, its just more random than the others.
And I dont know about anywhere else, but in Oregon if you run a yellow, the ticket is that same as running a red. Failure to obey a traffic control device.
| DrD | 11-11-2002 10:34 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ForceFed4 [/i]
[B]Regardless of the "point", if decreasing a yellow light from a reasonable 4 seconds to a short 2 seconds increases rear-end collisions it's stupid. At least from a safety perspective; if you want to increase ticket revenues then it makes perfect sense. After all, the city doesn't have to pay for the accidents, and if anyone complains, the governement just makes it sound like they're attacking a "safety device", which is complete BS.
Traffic laws need to be based on consistancy. It's confusing and dangerous to have some traffic lights behave normally, then have others with barely any yellow light in places where you want to make ticket money. I believe that 1 second / 10mph is a reasonable time; but if a city wants to have 2 second yellows they should at least do it accross the board. Driving while paying attention to what everone else is doing on the road is bad enough. Having to play chicken with every light doesn't help, and the accident numbers have proven that. You can't change the driving behaviour of an entire society overnight with some magic cameras; trying to do so is misguided at best. Trying to do so while conveinently raking in a hefty profit for yourself at drivers' expense is even worse. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree that reducing the yellow time to a dangerously low interval (e.g., 2 seconds on a speed limit 45 road) is not an altogether bright thing to do - I have a hard time believing that some regions do that, but as I don't live where they have reduced the yellow duration, all I can speak for is here.
As far as changing driver behavior - that is [I]exactly[/I] what must be done - running lights is a chronic problem pretty much everywhere right now - it's dangerous and needs to be stopped (I think the camera's alone could accomplish that - the fact that they are being implemented in intersections where they are evidently decreasing the yellow duration to an unreasonably short time is a shame) - people need to consider the implications of their actions beyond how they improve things for themselves.
[B]Regardless of the "point", if decreasing a yellow light from a reasonable 4 seconds to a short 2 seconds increases rear-end collisions it's stupid. At least from a safety perspective; if you want to increase ticket revenues then it makes perfect sense. After all, the city doesn't have to pay for the accidents, and if anyone complains, the governement just makes it sound like they're attacking a "safety device", which is complete BS.
Traffic laws need to be based on consistancy. It's confusing and dangerous to have some traffic lights behave normally, then have others with barely any yellow light in places where you want to make ticket money. I believe that 1 second / 10mph is a reasonable time; but if a city wants to have 2 second yellows they should at least do it accross the board. Driving while paying attention to what everone else is doing on the road is bad enough. Having to play chicken with every light doesn't help, and the accident numbers have proven that. You can't change the driving behaviour of an entire society overnight with some magic cameras; trying to do so is misguided at best. Trying to do so while conveinently raking in a hefty profit for yourself at drivers' expense is even worse. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree that reducing the yellow time to a dangerously low interval (e.g., 2 seconds on a speed limit 45 road) is not an altogether bright thing to do - I have a hard time believing that some regions do that, but as I don't live where they have reduced the yellow duration, all I can speak for is here.
As far as changing driver behavior - that is [I]exactly[/I] what must be done - running lights is a chronic problem pretty much everywhere right now - it's dangerous and needs to be stopped (I think the camera's alone could accomplish that - the fact that they are being implemented in intersections where they are evidently decreasing the yellow duration to an unreasonably short time is a shame) - people need to consider the implications of their actions beyond how they improve things for themselves.
| SlideWRX | 11-11-2002 10:43 PM |
RLC's as they are now are fundamentally flawed. They are maintained and operated by a FOR PROFIT company, which sends some of the profit to the government. once the part of the government that controls the lights starts receiving money from that control, there isn't a check in the system.
Basically there should be a stipulation that the camera is there to reduce red-light running/accidents near or at the intersection, and if it is not doing so, it is either removed or the situation changed(longer yellow lights or any other change to the intersection that cold help).
more info on RLC's.
[url]http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/index.html[/url]
Tom
Basically there should be a stipulation that the camera is there to reduce red-light running/accidents near or at the intersection, and if it is not doing so, it is either removed or the situation changed(longer yellow lights or any other change to the intersection that cold help).
more info on RLC's.
[url]http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/index.html[/url]
Tom
| topcover | 11-12-2002 12:36 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kostamojen [/i]
[B]I only have two lights that I tend to drive through that have Red Light Camera's. Both are major intersections with like 10 lanes of traffic each direction, and one of them is in the countries top 10 of the "worst intersection" list.[/B][/QUOTE]
Kosta -
When I first scanned your thread the first thing that came to mind was, "Isn't there ONLY two traffic lights in Roseville?" :lol:
[B]I only have two lights that I tend to drive through that have Red Light Camera's. Both are major intersections with like 10 lanes of traffic each direction, and one of them is in the countries top 10 of the "worst intersection" list.[/B][/QUOTE]
Kosta -
When I first scanned your thread the first thing that came to mind was, "Isn't there ONLY two traffic lights in Roseville?" :lol:
| MMBOOST | 11-12-2002 12:50 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrD [/i]
[B]
yup - people who like to rush the yellow now run a red. It seems that seeing a yellow light is interpreted as "keep going if you can make it through before it turns red" - in reality, the law is if the light turns yellow, you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so. So one could say that having a yellow go from long to short shouldn't have an effect at all on your decision to stop. Thoughts like will I be able to navigate through the intersection before it turns red rather than stopping, or worrying about what other people around you think about you stopping isn't getting the point of traffic signals. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, well not in my state.
In California yellow means slow down, not stop. Therefore, if you get thru a light legally (fully thru before red) but speed up on the yellow they can still get you. The most evil style of "officer's discretion". Get it? There's no "I did stop" and therefore he can't nail you. Its all his view of your speed. You basically have no say.
I have gotten one speeding ticket and one red light ticket while 100% obeying the law. Infact, using basic physics I proved it to a local DPT magistrate. She even agreed with my proof and convicted me anyway.... the officer [i]wasn't even at court and there was no affidavit[/i]. I argued with the cop and the court case was pre-arranged between the officer and the magistrate.
I've decided its better to always be on the lookout for cops than to watch my driving habits, thanks to the money making machine of the SF-DPT nad SFPD.
Hot headed assumptions is what I see in most responses to the posts on this thread (and most of I-Club). I've never seen more people lie about their driving habits in my life... just for a chance to bitch at someone who's honest.
jason
[B]
yup - people who like to rush the yellow now run a red. It seems that seeing a yellow light is interpreted as "keep going if you can make it through before it turns red" - in reality, the law is if the light turns yellow, you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so. So one could say that having a yellow go from long to short shouldn't have an effect at all on your decision to stop. Thoughts like will I be able to navigate through the intersection before it turns red rather than stopping, or worrying about what other people around you think about you stopping isn't getting the point of traffic signals. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, well not in my state.
In California yellow means slow down, not stop. Therefore, if you get thru a light legally (fully thru before red) but speed up on the yellow they can still get you. The most evil style of "officer's discretion". Get it? There's no "I did stop" and therefore he can't nail you. Its all his view of your speed. You basically have no say.
I have gotten one speeding ticket and one red light ticket while 100% obeying the law. Infact, using basic physics I proved it to a local DPT magistrate. She even agreed with my proof and convicted me anyway.... the officer [i]wasn't even at court and there was no affidavit[/i]. I argued with the cop and the court case was pre-arranged between the officer and the magistrate.
I've decided its better to always be on the lookout for cops than to watch my driving habits, thanks to the money making machine of the SF-DPT nad SFPD.
Hot headed assumptions is what I see in most responses to the posts on this thread (and most of I-Club). I've never seen more people lie about their driving habits in my life... just for a chance to bitch at someone who's honest.
jason
| MMBOOST | 11-12-2002 01:03 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pdximpreza [/i]
[B]Ok, I will try to reply to everyone.
MMBOOST
Actually I did grow up in a small town. 1000 people. I now live in a much larger city, which is just outside Portland. And just for your information there highspeed, I make business trip often to Belmont, and so I spend a lot of recreational time in SF. In fact at this moment I am just outside of San Jose, in Santa Clara. And you know what, I have yet to have a problem EVER in ANY city I have ever been to with being able to stop in time at a light. I havent been to em all, but whatever.
. [/B][/QUOTE]
I guess you haven't been here in a while. And for recreation time you are probably downtown. These are not cameras in the heart of downtown, right around market, at best in the vicinity yet, but not around downtown. Why? Cabs, among other things.
Its places like 19th and Sloat. 19th and Holloway. Fell and Arguello. Sunset and Vicente. Stanyan and Fulton. Various places along Potrero, esp. as you get closer to the freeway. Among others. 19th and Sloat is the worst I've seen to date. It has changed from at least 4 seconds to under 2 and eveywhere in between. If you're doing the speed limit on Sloat , 35mph.... that's what about 51fps? 2 seconds makes about 100ft. That's about the width of that intersection. If it changes to yellow at 50ft from the intersection and you do not slam on your brakes you'll be in the intersection when it changes to red. If you are used to a 4 second yellow... where you can cruise thru without speeding, perfectly legal... you're in for a ride... or a ticket.
I live here, I'm not a visitor. I drive these intersection all the time. The other way I know about this is that its been published on the news more than once. The City completely ignores it. They haven't even denied it.
jason
[B]Ok, I will try to reply to everyone.
MMBOOST
Actually I did grow up in a small town. 1000 people. I now live in a much larger city, which is just outside Portland. And just for your information there highspeed, I make business trip often to Belmont, and so I spend a lot of recreational time in SF. In fact at this moment I am just outside of San Jose, in Santa Clara. And you know what, I have yet to have a problem EVER in ANY city I have ever been to with being able to stop in time at a light. I havent been to em all, but whatever.
. [/B][/QUOTE]
I guess you haven't been here in a while. And for recreation time you are probably downtown. These are not cameras in the heart of downtown, right around market, at best in the vicinity yet, but not around downtown. Why? Cabs, among other things.
Its places like 19th and Sloat. 19th and Holloway. Fell and Arguello. Sunset and Vicente. Stanyan and Fulton. Various places along Potrero, esp. as you get closer to the freeway. Among others. 19th and Sloat is the worst I've seen to date. It has changed from at least 4 seconds to under 2 and eveywhere in between. If you're doing the speed limit on Sloat , 35mph.... that's what about 51fps? 2 seconds makes about 100ft. That's about the width of that intersection. If it changes to yellow at 50ft from the intersection and you do not slam on your brakes you'll be in the intersection when it changes to red. If you are used to a 4 second yellow... where you can cruise thru without speeding, perfectly legal... you're in for a ride... or a ticket.
I live here, I'm not a visitor. I drive these intersection all the time. The other way I know about this is that its been published on the news more than once. The City completely ignores it. They haven't even denied it.
jason
| MMBOOST | 11-12-2002 01:08 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kostamojen [/i]
[B]I guess its just my personal experience again, but the redlight camera's i see dont take pics unless a person entered the section like right when the yellow was ending. Ive seen some people cut it at what to me seems like "too late" without the camera's taking pics...
But, I guess my local government is out for good instead of evil :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
Kosta,
I've been to Roseville only a few times, but every time it was really nice. Even the cops were friendly (the interaction was voluntary :lol: ) So, I wouldn't be surprised if those cameras actually served a good purpose.
I think these cameras can do good. But when used in conjuction with other tricks (like my rant on yellow timing), its down right evil... and dangerous.
jason
[B]I guess its just my personal experience again, but the redlight camera's i see dont take pics unless a person entered the section like right when the yellow was ending. Ive seen some people cut it at what to me seems like "too late" without the camera's taking pics...
But, I guess my local government is out for good instead of evil :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
Kosta,
I've been to Roseville only a few times, but every time it was really nice. Even the cops were friendly (the interaction was voluntary :lol: ) So, I wouldn't be surprised if those cameras actually served a good purpose.
I think these cameras can do good. But when used in conjuction with other tricks (like my rant on yellow timing), its down right evil... and dangerous.
jason
| MMBOOST | 11-12-2002 02:32 AM |
Heheh I'm from NYC... gee I bet that's a BIG surprise ;)
Its a trade off. You deal with the daily crap of the big city but then you get all the city life of culture and neighborhoods. Sometimes I wish outter Sac was my thing... but after a while it'd drive me crazier that SF.
There's actually a main redeeming quality of SF over almost any other metro area.... 20 minutes of driving and you have some nice nature to play in of many various kinds.... all stop signs :D
jason
Its a trade off. You deal with the daily crap of the big city but then you get all the city life of culture and neighborhoods. Sometimes I wish outter Sac was my thing... but after a while it'd drive me crazier that SF.
There's actually a main redeeming quality of SF over almost any other metro area.... 20 minutes of driving and you have some nice nature to play in of many various kinds.... all stop signs :D
jason
| Kostamojen | 11-12-2002 02:52 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by topcover [/i]
[B]Kosta -
When I first scanned your thread the first thing that came to mind was, "Isn't there ONLY two traffic lights in Roseville?" :lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
:lol:
Roseville has lots of roads, and all of them are all 45mph+ aparently, with multiple lanes and lots of traffic :p That nasty light is actually by Sac State though... (Howe and Fair Oaks)
BUT, in contrast, its not at all like SF... MMBOOST, I was down at SF a couple weeks ago, and ive never driven around downtown in SF before, and I think I ran about 2 lights before I figured out they were actually stoplights :lol: And I nearly got in about 3 accidents cause I had no clue what was going on :lol: :lol:
My suggestion: MOVE THE HECK OUT OF SAN FRAN!!! :eek:
You would love the greater sacramento region... You can take your sweet time slowing down for lights without worrying about people running into you, and unlike in New York, people dont sit at stoplights waiting to jump the gun!! (Yes, ive heard about NY driving habbits too...)
[B]Kosta -
When I first scanned your thread the first thing that came to mind was, "Isn't there ONLY two traffic lights in Roseville?" :lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
:lol:
Roseville has lots of roads, and all of them are all 45mph+ aparently, with multiple lanes and lots of traffic :p That nasty light is actually by Sac State though... (Howe and Fair Oaks)
BUT, in contrast, its not at all like SF... MMBOOST, I was down at SF a couple weeks ago, and ive never driven around downtown in SF before, and I think I ran about 2 lights before I figured out they were actually stoplights :lol: And I nearly got in about 3 accidents cause I had no clue what was going on :lol: :lol:
My suggestion: MOVE THE HECK OUT OF SAN FRAN!!! :eek:
You would love the greater sacramento region... You can take your sweet time slowing down for lights without worrying about people running into you, and unlike in New York, people dont sit at stoplights waiting to jump the gun!! (Yes, ive heard about NY driving habbits too...)
| idealrides | 11-12-2002 04:36 AM |
Here's a CRAZY idea... why don't you slow down BEFORE you go through the intersection??? :confused: Thats right, could you imagine actually driving close to the speed limit for a few seconds?
As an EMT, when driving an ambulance during an emergency I'm allowed to run red lights but not before SLOWING DOWN. It seems like every time I get on this website I read about how stupidly people drive.
As an EMT, when driving an ambulance during an emergency I'm allowed to run red lights but not before SLOWING DOWN. It seems like every time I get on this website I read about how stupidly people drive.
| Kostamojen | 11-12-2002 05:05 AM |
There is still a point of no return though. Theres no reason to slow down for a light that is green until it turns yellow, then its a judgment call as we all know. I always take the smart aproach and give myself some room to play with, IE i could make it through the light BARELY, but I will just stop anyway.
And ya, and OF COURSE you arer supposed to slow down as an EMT cause your going against the lights :lol: Its not like you just keep going through the red like its green :p :lol: :lol:
And ya, and OF COURSE you arer supposed to slow down as an EMT cause your going against the lights :lol: Its not like you just keep going through the red like its green :p :lol: :lol:
| file_id | 11-12-2002 05:26 AM |
They just started putting up red light cameras and speed bumps everywhere around my neighborhood and it sucks. They do shorten the yellow light, but if you think about it if you were going below pr at the posted speed limit you would have ample time to stop, say a 30 mph posted speed limit. For example i go 40mph in a 30mph zone, but when I see one of those photo enforced signs before the stoplight i slow down to go the posted speed limit so that I would have ample time to stop if it were indeed a yellow. But we all know no one follows the speed limit anymore, if its posted 30, people will go 35+. On the freeways a posted speed limit of 65 and people will go 70-80mph.
| mikkyo | 11-12-2002 05:55 AM |
Gee, everywhere I have been the Red Light Cameras(tm) fire only if you enter the intersection after the light is red, not if you enter/are in the intersection on yellow and the light turns red. You have to figure this would be the case, as during commute hours and traffic jams there are oftem people stuck in the intersection and like the camera would be going off taking pictures and dishing out tickets for stopped/trapped cars. Not something that would stand up to the community for more than one occurrance.
And I have to disagree, red light violation is definately not the "The most evil style of officer's discretion", tailgating would be that one. Look up the law on the books on tailgating and see what you can find ;)
Red light cameras are definately set up for being money makers, just like speeding tickets.
On the major freeways around here, for every 15 minute police stop of a speeder, there are hundreds of cars speeding past, which translates to 10s of thousands of speeders a day(the normal people). If there were 2 cops on a freeway all day, working with perfect efficiency, they'd only get about 192 people, and I see(pass) more that that number of speeders just during my commute hours. I rarely see them looking for flagrant violators. Often it is pull out from a recent stop and grab another. Easy pickings, easy money. Once in a while, there will be some cop with his radar on set at like 80+ in a 55 zone, this to me seems a bit more fair, but very very rare.
Most of the time it is about money.
Granted, you shouldn't be endangering others, speeding or running red lights, as that is wrong, but getting penalized for edge cases and "normal" driving is just as wrong. Screwing with yellow times just get more red light runner revenue is just as lame and more so cause it is dangerous.
Im surprised no one has hit on another aspect of the red light camera..rain.
Like as it is, yellow times don't change when it is raining, icy, snowing, etc. Yet it takes longer to stop in these conditions. So what happens in the pouring rain when you come up to an intersection and the light changes, but locking up your wheels to avoid rolling through is just not an option? Camera goes off ticket for you. Clearly you were going too fast for conditions or you could have stopped before the red. But the yellow was the same length as when dry! Sorry. But there wasn't even another car on the road. Sorry. It is all a game of cat n mouse, only the mouse doesn't get caught and eaten, its wallet does.
And I have to disagree, red light violation is definately not the "The most evil style of officer's discretion", tailgating would be that one. Look up the law on the books on tailgating and see what you can find ;)
Red light cameras are definately set up for being money makers, just like speeding tickets.
On the major freeways around here, for every 15 minute police stop of a speeder, there are hundreds of cars speeding past, which translates to 10s of thousands of speeders a day(the normal people). If there were 2 cops on a freeway all day, working with perfect efficiency, they'd only get about 192 people, and I see(pass) more that that number of speeders just during my commute hours. I rarely see them looking for flagrant violators. Often it is pull out from a recent stop and grab another. Easy pickings, easy money. Once in a while, there will be some cop with his radar on set at like 80+ in a 55 zone, this to me seems a bit more fair, but very very rare.
Most of the time it is about money.
Granted, you shouldn't be endangering others, speeding or running red lights, as that is wrong, but getting penalized for edge cases and "normal" driving is just as wrong. Screwing with yellow times just get more red light runner revenue is just as lame and more so cause it is dangerous.
Im surprised no one has hit on another aspect of the red light camera..rain.
Like as it is, yellow times don't change when it is raining, icy, snowing, etc. Yet it takes longer to stop in these conditions. So what happens in the pouring rain when you come up to an intersection and the light changes, but locking up your wheels to avoid rolling through is just not an option? Camera goes off ticket for you. Clearly you were going too fast for conditions or you could have stopped before the red. But the yellow was the same length as when dry! Sorry. But there wasn't even another car on the road. Sorry. It is all a game of cat n mouse, only the mouse doesn't get caught and eaten, its wallet does.
| MMBOOST | 11-13-2002 01:04 AM |
For the record, I didn't say "redlight". I said "yellow light" :)
jason
jason
| Chuck H | 11-13-2002 10:37 AM |
For all the people who think red light cameras are a wonderful idea, read some of the articles in Car and Driver and other magazines about them. They are a money-making venture, pure and simple. They have nothing whatsoever to do with increasing safety.
The latest Car and Driver quoted a study where a city did an experiment by just adding another couple of seconds to the yellow light. I think they went from 4 to 6 seconds and red-light running dropped to zero. But that doesn't make the city any money, whereas dropping the yellow down from 4 to 2 seconds and installing a red light camera gets them a lot of money.
Another thing to consider. I don't know if there are multiple vendors of the systems now, but the original red light camera system was designed and manufactured by Lockheed. They didn'
t sell it to cities, they leased it and got a big cut of the ticket proceeds -- something like 40%. They also had it written into the contracts that the cities were not allowed to increase the yellow light duration to be more than 2.5 seconds or the city had to pay a big penalty because of the revenue that Lockheed would lose. So much for being worried about public safety! :rolleyes:
Also in the article, they talk about the cities where you have to pay a big fee to get a copy of the picture so that you can protest the ticket. That hardly seems legal. It sort of goes against the innocent until proven guilty theory that's part of our justice system. They also found systems that were incorrectly calibrated and that the camera was firing a second or so before the light turned red. Don't for a minute think that cities are above playing games when it comes to a huge money maker like these systems.
The latest Car and Driver quoted a study where a city did an experiment by just adding another couple of seconds to the yellow light. I think they went from 4 to 6 seconds and red-light running dropped to zero. But that doesn't make the city any money, whereas dropping the yellow down from 4 to 2 seconds and installing a red light camera gets them a lot of money.
Another thing to consider. I don't know if there are multiple vendors of the systems now, but the original red light camera system was designed and manufactured by Lockheed. They didn'
t sell it to cities, they leased it and got a big cut of the ticket proceeds -- something like 40%. They also had it written into the contracts that the cities were not allowed to increase the yellow light duration to be more than 2.5 seconds or the city had to pay a big penalty because of the revenue that Lockheed would lose. So much for being worried about public safety! :rolleyes:
Also in the article, they talk about the cities where you have to pay a big fee to get a copy of the picture so that you can protest the ticket. That hardly seems legal. It sort of goes against the innocent until proven guilty theory that's part of our justice system. They also found systems that were incorrectly calibrated and that the camera was firing a second or so before the light turned red. Don't for a minute think that cities are above playing games when it comes to a huge money maker like these systems.
| pdximpreza | 11-13-2002 10:46 AM |
I just dont see the issue. If you see a yellow light you try to stop. If you cant, you go through. If the light turns red while you were in the intersection and it has a camera, you get the ticket in the mail.
You go to court, you explain your situation. They look at your driving record. If you havent had a ticket in 6 months, they usually drop it.
The problem comes, when someone is already doing 10-15mph over the posted speed limit, see a yellow light and decide to floor it to make the light.
You guys need to look at from the other person point of view too. Hes sitting at the light, it turns green, he takes off and a car flys in front of him. Whos in the wrong? Regardless of what explanation you want to give, you are supposed to slow down at intersections, and you are supposed to stop at yellows. This whole argument over them changing the timing of the yellow is just an excuse so you dont have to take responsibilty for your behavior.
And I was just driving downtown SF yesterday. And from my observation, on not so busy streets, the lights turned yellow just as you entered the intersection. The magnetic sensor that you just ran over tripped it. The intersections are only timed 2 ways, either by sensors or by a static timing. And ALL red light camera'd intersections, have the magnetic sensors. They have a static timing based on the time of day, if nothing trips a sensor for a given time, it will change anyways.
The quote pertaining to them changing traffic timing had nothing to do with the timing of the yellow lights, but the timing of how long the light stays green, according to traffic conditions.
The only way yo ucan convince me that they are ganging the yellow light timing, is take a video of the same intersection proving it and post it here. Otherwise it is all in your head.
Deal with it.
You go to court, you explain your situation. They look at your driving record. If you havent had a ticket in 6 months, they usually drop it.
The problem comes, when someone is already doing 10-15mph over the posted speed limit, see a yellow light and decide to floor it to make the light.
You guys need to look at from the other person point of view too. Hes sitting at the light, it turns green, he takes off and a car flys in front of him. Whos in the wrong? Regardless of what explanation you want to give, you are supposed to slow down at intersections, and you are supposed to stop at yellows. This whole argument over them changing the timing of the yellow is just an excuse so you dont have to take responsibilty for your behavior.
And I was just driving downtown SF yesterday. And from my observation, on not so busy streets, the lights turned yellow just as you entered the intersection. The magnetic sensor that you just ran over tripped it. The intersections are only timed 2 ways, either by sensors or by a static timing. And ALL red light camera'd intersections, have the magnetic sensors. They have a static timing based on the time of day, if nothing trips a sensor for a given time, it will change anyways.
The quote pertaining to them changing traffic timing had nothing to do with the timing of the yellow lights, but the timing of how long the light stays green, according to traffic conditions.
The only way yo ucan convince me that they are ganging the yellow light timing, is take a video of the same intersection proving it and post it here. Otherwise it is all in your head.
Deal with it.
| Frederf | 11-13-2002 05:38 PM |
It's a good idea, but a conflict of interest in its current form. It [i]could[/i] be enforcement but why not make a little money with it and oops, I guess our money making made things unsafe.
| mikkyo | 11-13-2002 08:13 PM |
I saw this today and knew it applied to this thread.
[URL=http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/280841|oddlyenough|11-12-2002::09:11|reuters.html]Police Seek Camera Shooter[/URL]
All the ones I have seen have magnetic sensors(same ones for traffic standing at light to activate the ones in the intersection). I have even seen the flash go off at night at one intersection.
I even managed to charge the flash late one night approaching the intersection. Light went yellow and I slowed and stopped. The flash powered up on the camera and then dimmed since I didn't enter the intersection.
I say again, running Red lights is stupid, don't do it.
I don't think this thread is continuing on cause folks want to run Red lights, they just don't want a ticket if it is a grey area. Cameras don't lie and show no consideration.
[QUOTE]You go to court, you explain your situation. They look at your driving record. If you havent had a ticket in 6 months, they usually drop it.
[/QUOTE]
Your world sure is a nice one.
No one I know has gotten a red light or speeding ticket dropped. Reduced fine maybe but not dropped.
My favorite is the friend that didn't "yield" enough when making a right on red through one of those yield lanes. Officer said he didn't slow down to check for cars yet there weren't any in the intersection or even coming that way. Friend went to court with a lawyer and witnesses(happened to know some folks that were on the opposite corner waiting to cross) judge said it was the officer's discretion and refused to change anything. The cop wanted to put him down for reckless at the time cause his tires squeaked, good thing he didn't or he would have been stuck with that too even though his alignment was off and he had proof.
The judge didn't care. Such is life.
Sort of like how the cop is happy to catch you for speeding 12 above on an empty road, but never notices that psycho during commute hours zipping in and out traffic, cutting people off, and nearly hitting things.
I think maybe 2 times in 20 years of driving I have seen a cop pull over someone that *I* thought should be ticketed. The rest of the time is it just normal folks making good time or having a fun drive.
[URL=http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/280841|oddlyenough|11-12-2002::09:11|reuters.html]Police Seek Camera Shooter[/URL]
All the ones I have seen have magnetic sensors(same ones for traffic standing at light to activate the ones in the intersection). I have even seen the flash go off at night at one intersection.
I even managed to charge the flash late one night approaching the intersection. Light went yellow and I slowed and stopped. The flash powered up on the camera and then dimmed since I didn't enter the intersection.
I say again, running Red lights is stupid, don't do it.
I don't think this thread is continuing on cause folks want to run Red lights, they just don't want a ticket if it is a grey area. Cameras don't lie and show no consideration.
[QUOTE]You go to court, you explain your situation. They look at your driving record. If you havent had a ticket in 6 months, they usually drop it.
[/QUOTE]
Your world sure is a nice one.
No one I know has gotten a red light or speeding ticket dropped. Reduced fine maybe but not dropped.
My favorite is the friend that didn't "yield" enough when making a right on red through one of those yield lanes. Officer said he didn't slow down to check for cars yet there weren't any in the intersection or even coming that way. Friend went to court with a lawyer and witnesses(happened to know some folks that were on the opposite corner waiting to cross) judge said it was the officer's discretion and refused to change anything. The cop wanted to put him down for reckless at the time cause his tires squeaked, good thing he didn't or he would have been stuck with that too even though his alignment was off and he had proof.
The judge didn't care. Such is life.
Sort of like how the cop is happy to catch you for speeding 12 above on an empty road, but never notices that psycho during commute hours zipping in and out traffic, cutting people off, and nearly hitting things.
I think maybe 2 times in 20 years of driving I have seen a cop pull over someone that *I* thought should be ticketed. The rest of the time is it just normal folks making good time or having a fun drive.
| kdmd2b | 11-13-2002 08:31 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Chuck H [/i]
[B]Also in the article, they talk about the cities where you have to pay a big fee to get a copy of the picture so that you can protest the ticket. That hardly seems legal. It sort of goes against the innocent until proven guilty theory that's part of our justice system. They also found systems that were incorrectly calibrated and that the camera was firing a second or so before the light turned red. Don't for a minute think that cities are above playing games when it comes to a huge money maker like these systems. [/B][/QUOTE]
Isn't this a violation of discloure of evidence? Doesn't the prosecution have to proivde you with evidence? Oh wait I forgot only criminal trails get any rights. For traffic violations a person has to prove his innocence not show reasonable doubt.
[B]Also in the article, they talk about the cities where you have to pay a big fee to get a copy of the picture so that you can protest the ticket. That hardly seems legal. It sort of goes against the innocent until proven guilty theory that's part of our justice system. They also found systems that were incorrectly calibrated and that the camera was firing a second or so before the light turned red. Don't for a minute think that cities are above playing games when it comes to a huge money maker like these systems. [/B][/QUOTE]
Isn't this a violation of discloure of evidence? Doesn't the prosecution have to proivde you with evidence? Oh wait I forgot only criminal trails get any rights. For traffic violations a person has to prove his innocence not show reasonable doubt.
| pdximpreza | 11-13-2002 09:41 PM |
I know that isnt how it works. Read my previous post, I have been screwed pretty bad by the court. I have even been told by a judge that my constitutional rights didnt apply in a traffic court. And when I said that there is no situation where my constitutional rights dont apply, I wasnt threatened with contempt of court.
Its a fact that it is our priveledge(sp?) to drive not our right. Yet we are forced to pay road taxes, so I have the right to drive on them then............. anyways.
My point is this, dont bitch about the symptoms of a problem and say that the red light cameras are a bad idea. The court system is the problem, and that should be fixed. If that was fixed, then this wouldnt even be a problem.
Also, in a court, when it is just your word against the officer, he holds 51%. Which not only means that you are guilty before you even appear in court (against my rights), but there is also a constitutional bill that states no person or group of persons, given the same situation will be given rights not given to the others. So the officer having more sway than you is double unconstitutional.
But since we all decide to bitch here, or to our friends, or just to ourselves, instead of filing a petition and following through with the "due process", it will never change.
Its a fact that it is our priveledge(sp?) to drive not our right. Yet we are forced to pay road taxes, so I have the right to drive on them then............. anyways.
My point is this, dont bitch about the symptoms of a problem and say that the red light cameras are a bad idea. The court system is the problem, and that should be fixed. If that was fixed, then this wouldnt even be a problem.
Also, in a court, when it is just your word against the officer, he holds 51%. Which not only means that you are guilty before you even appear in court (against my rights), but there is also a constitutional bill that states no person or group of persons, given the same situation will be given rights not given to the others. So the officer having more sway than you is double unconstitutional.
But since we all decide to bitch here, or to our friends, or just to ourselves, instead of filing a petition and following through with the "due process", it will never change.
| file_id | 11-13-2002 10:15 PM |
There is an article on how these cameras work here [URL=http://www.howstuffworks.com/red-light-camera.htm]How red like cameras work[/URL]
Uses some induction coil to detect a car passing over it, time to make cars out of plastic i guess.
Uses some induction coil to detect a car passing over it, time to make cars out of plastic i guess.
| Choku Dori | 11-14-2002 12:21 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pdximpreza [/i]
[B]
My point is this, dont bitch about the symptoms of a problem and say that the red light cameras are a bad idea. The court system is the problem, and that should be fixed. If that was fixed, then this wouldnt even be a problem.
Also, in a court, when it is just your word against the officer, he holds 51%. Which not only means that you are guilty before you even appear in court (against my rights), but there is also a constitutional bill that states no person or group of persons, given the same situation will be given rights not given to the others. So the officer having more sway than you is double unconstitutional.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Very true, the red light cameras themselves are not a problem. It's the shortened yellow lights that are associated with them. You stated in an earlier post that the yellow lights are NOT shorter - THINK AGAIN! I've driven the intersection of 19th and Sloat nearly everyday since I got my driver's license (and sat shotgun for countless years before), and I can tell you for sure that the yellow has gotten shorter. I have an uncle who visits me from Toronto every few years, and every time he's here he invariably drives. The time he came after the camera was first installed at 19th and Sloat, he was third car in the lane when the light turned yellow. He thought that by the time the yellow was over, he'd be possibly first or at least second at the stop like before (and like at "normal" yellows). Instead, the first driver stopped, and my uncle was surprised that the light changed so quickly. If you've driven in San Francisco during pre-red light cam days, you'll most definitely feel the shortened yellow light. Still not convinced? Go to a city where there's no red light cams, and feel how good a truly 4 or 5 second yellow light is! In my case, that's Toronto and its suburbs Markham and Unionville.
[B]
My point is this, dont bitch about the symptoms of a problem and say that the red light cameras are a bad idea. The court system is the problem, and that should be fixed. If that was fixed, then this wouldnt even be a problem.
Also, in a court, when it is just your word against the officer, he holds 51%. Which not only means that you are guilty before you even appear in court (against my rights), but there is also a constitutional bill that states no person or group of persons, given the same situation will be given rights not given to the others. So the officer having more sway than you is double unconstitutional.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Very true, the red light cameras themselves are not a problem. It's the shortened yellow lights that are associated with them. You stated in an earlier post that the yellow lights are NOT shorter - THINK AGAIN! I've driven the intersection of 19th and Sloat nearly everyday since I got my driver's license (and sat shotgun for countless years before), and I can tell you for sure that the yellow has gotten shorter. I have an uncle who visits me from Toronto every few years, and every time he's here he invariably drives. The time he came after the camera was first installed at 19th and Sloat, he was third car in the lane when the light turned yellow. He thought that by the time the yellow was over, he'd be possibly first or at least second at the stop like before (and like at "normal" yellows). Instead, the first driver stopped, and my uncle was surprised that the light changed so quickly. If you've driven in San Francisco during pre-red light cam days, you'll most definitely feel the shortened yellow light. Still not convinced? Go to a city where there's no red light cams, and feel how good a truly 4 or 5 second yellow light is! In my case, that's Toronto and its suburbs Markham and Unionville.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét