Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: popeye on October 28, 2002, 10:23:00 AM
-
The camera automatically photographs drivers who run red lights, so police can ticket them.
http://www.redlightcamera.com/howitworks.html
Boon to public safety, or infringement of right to privacy?
-
I see pro's and con's, personally speaking, it doesn't affect me, so I could care less either way...
An example of a pro is evident, possibly less "T-Bone" type accident potential (incidently, thats the worse kind of accident you can be in apparently since a side blow to the head is more deadly than a frontal blow)
A Con? Can't think of one right off hand...other than the old "privacy" arguement.
-
Eventhough the cameras serve the same purpose as having a COP sitting on the corner, I was on the fence on this issue until I saw a TV program last month.
They now have red light camera systems that are integraded with the hardware that runs the traffic lights. Computers not only take pics of people running a red light, they are also able to determine if a car is slowing for a red light or if they are going to run it before they even reach the intersection. If the system predicts that a car is going to run the red light, it does not give a green light to any other traffic for a predetermined number of seconds in order to give the idiot time to run the light without hitting someone else.
Put them everywhere, I say.
-
Didn't know about mickey very cool. Well I don't run red lights so it doesn't concern me.
There is a very bad attitude in this country that if no one is watching they didn't break they law.
Can't tell you how many times I wish a cop was present to pull over someone for being stupid.
Put em in I say!
-
I used to watch aholes in Chicago use the turn lanes to "jump ahead" of the standing traffic. In NY I've seen traffic lights that are just "suggestions." On some expressways, you can watch cars use the shoulder as their private lane. I'm all for traffic cameras, since the police don't seem to like actually patrolling in heavy traffic. Given the public nature of driving, and hopefully some common sense where yellow lights are concerned, I personally don't feel it's a privacy issue.
Charon
-
Pro: Catches everyone who runs a red light.
Con: They have lights now-a-days with a yellow that is more of a white. How the shreck am I supposed to know what light I'm looking at in the middle of the night? It suddenly changes red, and I'm running the light?? That's a joke, right?
Pro: Allows police officers to do things other than watching intersections.
Con: As it is now, virtually every intersection in Wash, DC has a policeman camping at it.. it's a waste of money to put the cameras in if we're gonna have policemen at every corner.. (dunno if it's a temporary thing or what, but it's been this way for the past month)
The biggest con: There are several easy ways to beat the cameras...
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The biggest con: There are several easy ways to beat the cameras...
-SW
Elaborate please.
-
California stops, reflective plate covers, or simply driving between the two lanes through the intersection...
if there's a camera there, chances are there ain't a cop..
-SW
-
I found one. "CrossingGuard" is one such product.
"Additionally, CrossingGuard can also help to reduce the risk of intersection crashes associated with red light running. Through its advanced video detection technology, CrossingGuard is able to track approaching traffic to predict whether or not a driver will stop for the red light. If the system predicts that the vehicle will not stop, the system begins recording the violation, and it sends a message to the signal light controller to briefly extend the red light for crossing traffic. The violation is captured on video and a collision can be avoided."
http://www.nestor.com/
-
how do the police know who was driving the car? or do they give the car a ticket?
"i had to sell my car, it had a bad driving record"
-
It always goes to the owner of the vehicle...
Unless you can prove otherwise (which I assume would be easy if you wore face paint and drove around :-), then you'll get the ticket.
BTW, the cameras not only give you a fine for running the red light, but also for how fast you were going above the speed limit to get through that light.
-SW
-
As Someone living in Europe Cameras are everywhere and are quite effective not only for Lights but also along the highways for speed control, I must admit I hate the dam things but on the other hand the do work, the only other draw back is people soon learn where they are at and slowdown to the speed limit just long enough to pass out of the range of the camera then speed back up which creats other problems.
-
I've often wondered, what happens if an intersection with a camera happens to have a police car sitting there waiting for a turn and you run the red light. Will you get two tickets? Eg, will the cop pull you over in addition to automated ticket? How does the cop know whether or not the violator was was imaged?
Just something to ponder...
-
I'm all for them. I live near a bad intersection where almost daily, someone guns it when its yellow and shoots thru a red light at 50mph in a 25mph.
Cops cant be everywhere, and as someone that's been t-boned by someone who ran a light (an insurance salesman! Fastest settlement I ever had in all the accidents I've heard of!)...its one more piece of evidence that can help sweep away a frivolous lawsuit....or when witnesses "arent sure" etc etc.
I also think they should put a big sign that says "THIS INTERSECTION IS VIDEO MONITORED" Hell, even if it isn't, just that sign alone will slow down many.
I'm used to the kids running the lights...and the old lady not knowing better. Its the guys in service trucks, 18 wheelers and dump trucks wooshing thru a school area that annoy me. If they value that commecial license, slow down.
-
Originally posted by popeye
The camera automatically photographs drivers who run red lights, so police can ticket them.
http://www.redlightcamera.com/howitworks.html
Boon to public safety, or infringement of right to privacy?
Why would it be an infringement of right of privacy?
-
we've had them here for a while. at first I kinda liked the idea, we had a real problem with people running them, it was the norm to have to wait after your light to go green for the 2 cars that where running the tail end of the yellow. one positive thing is this has improved since the redlight-cams.
but lately I'm begining to doubt them. a major intersection by my kids school has them. you can tell when it catches somebody because the flash goes off. several times I've noticed the flash going off for every car on a green cycle. so basicly it's malfunctioning. it somehow has become 'confused' and is taking picks of all the cars rolling through the green (twice it's taken my pic, many times I've seen it taken the cross trafics pic while I'm at red and they have green.
I've never recieved a ticket for either of the times it's taken my pic. so I'm assuming that they looked at the pics found 10-20 cars all getting popped one right after another, realised the machine screwed up and didn't send the tickets. so far so good.
so my question is what if the machine screws up late at night and you are the only car going through the light on that cycle. there's no 'parade of cars' to prove you inocent and I doubt that the sub-contractor who runs these for the city is going to make public that their machine screws up. they make their dime on the assumption that they are proof positive of a crime.
same thing with the automated radar trap.
how do you deffend yourself against this. at least when a cop pulls you over you are imediatly aware of the situation. making it much easier to deffend the situation if you aren't guilty.
but how do you gather any evidence to deffend yourself when you recieve a ticket in the mail that says '3 weeks ago you where doing this, at this time, at this location' hell it's nothing for e to put 1k or more on my car in a week. thats alot of miles and time to go by before you are notifed that someone has a problem with the way you drive.
another issue is professional drivers or company cars. when they pull up your lic #, they send the owner a ticket. if it's not the owners face at the wheel he files a protest and they look up the pic on his license. if it doesn't match, case dismissed. so only private citsens are ticketed by this means, corperations and pro drivers (included the city owned cars) are exempt. not exactly fair.
btw- I am sure about the pro-drivers my wife is a driver. she got a speeding ticket in the company car, by the camerra. the ticket was dismissed and all that happened was she got scolded by her boss.
-
those reflective plates don't work to well at all BTW, had a friends who had them.
He ran a toll still got ticketed, with a picture of his plate. (numbers showed up quite nicely)
-
Not reflective plates.. the covers, there's different types out there... and they do work, and very well.. you need the right style tho.
-SW
-
What's that one quote about the world producing better idiots? :D
Oh, BTW:
"California Vehicle Code 5201(e) states that no covers shall be used on license plates."
-
I would like to see them with a Maverick option,,
Run a red light,,,
Get lit up by a Maverick.
I have been in 2 wrecks in my life and both of them involved a frickin moron running a red light.
-
Yeah, but that's California Mickey... plenty of people in and around the DC area drive with plate covers...
Certain types are illegal (if they prevent a police officer from making out the numbers on the plate and the state)...
but then again, driving with one headlight out is illegal... how many of those do you see every night?
-SW
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo
I would like to see them with a Maverick option,,
Run a red light,,,
Get lit up by a Maverick.
I have been in 2 wrecks in my life and both of them involved a frickin moron running a red light.
yep
you guys came within 2 sec of losing me because of a light runner last week - put away the hankies :)
sitting at red, get turn arrow for left turn crossing 4 lane blvd.
hear something to the right, hestitate, look right - see nothing, look straight ahead about to press gas when zooom -- black Camero going bout 100mph blasts through the light from my left.
If I'd jumped ahead as soon as the light turned green, I'd been T-Boned big time. My little honda civic would have become part of me.
yea, I'm for cameras
beside the fact if we had enough cameras posted about, the DC sniper may have been caught sooner or been to leary to even start...
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo
I would like to see them with a Maverick option,,
Run a red light,,,
Get lit up by a Maverick.
I have been in 2 wrecks in my life and both of them involved a frickin moron running a red light.
First part, LOL! Great idea!
Second part, sorry to hear about that :( Hope your both okay.
-
Eagler, thats what they teach in defensive driving courses (amongst other techniques) ALWAYS look both ways before proceeding thru an intersection even if you have green light.
-
Wow, I'm suprised they aren't more common, here in NZ we've got:
- Red light camera's
- pole mounted speed cameras (sometimes theres no camera, the shift the camera round randomly) that use sensors under the road, so the don't show up for radar detectors
- mobile speed cameras, these show up on the better radar detectors, cheap units let you know your picture was just taken
- heavy use of Laser, K, and digital Ka band radars
The cops also HAVE to ticket you if you exceed the limit by 10km/h (ie 110 in a 100 area). Rumour is they're gonna drop this margin to 5km/h. The traffic cops also have a quota, 3 'contacts' per hour, otherwise they get taken off traffic duty.
It all started of as 'safety enforcement' and has well and truely ended up as revenue gathering I'm sad to say. Hence I invested in a damn good radar detector and laser jammer.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yeah, but that's California Mickey... plenty of people in and around the DC area drive with plate covers...
You mentioned California, I thought you were from there.
but then again, driving with one headlight out is illegal... how many of those do you see every night?
Driving with a burned out or broken headlight is not usually considered an attempt to conceal your vehicle registration while committing a traffic violation.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Wow, I'm suprised they aren't more common, here in NZ we've got:
- Red light camera's
- pole mounted speed cameras (sometimes theres no camera, the shift the camera round randomly) that use sensors under the road, so the don't show up for radar detectors
- mobile speed cameras, these show up on the better radar detectors, cheap units let you know your picture was just taken
- heavy use of Laser, K, and digital Ka band radars
The cops also HAVE to ticket you if you exceed the limit by 10km/h (ie 110 in a 100 area). Rumour is they're gonna drop this margin to 5km/h. The traffic cops also have a quota, 3 'contacts' per hour, otherwise they get taken off traffic duty.
It all started of as 'safety enforcement' and has well and truely ended up as revenue gathering I'm sad to say. Hence I invested in a damn good radar detector and laser jammer.
Heh! ASHCROFT! HE MUST BE an NZ'er!
-
I didn't mention California, someone else prolly did...
Driving with a burned out or broken headlight is not usually considered an attempt to conceal your vehicle registration while committing a traffic violation.
Yes, but it's nevertheless a violation... but I was using that as a means to point out just because it's illegal, that won't stop people from doing it.
OTOH, you are allowed to have plate covers, even tinted ones, in the DC Metro area... but after a certain point of tint they are illegal. Kind of like tinted windows... certain amounts of tint are allowed, but too much and it's illegal.
I'm not for or against intersection cameras. They ticket people who blow through intersections.. either at the moment the light changes or after the light has already changed.
There's a grey area where you can get off from getting the ticket, depending on how good you are at providing convincing evidence.
Of course, in the end... it's still just a ticket. It doesn't prevent people from going through an intersection, especially if the light is just yellow.. they'll speed up and go through... light could turn red right as they hit the camera activation point... they get a ticket.. but keep traveling through at the expense of other, both pedestrian's and vehicle driver's safety, people's safety and their own...
A cop at an intersection, OTOH, would deter most people doing that, so arguing the cameras as a deterrant is like someone getting food poisoning... that won't deter them from eating. :)
-SW
-
Im all for em. But let's do like Lepaul says.
Big "red light/photo dar" sign before the device. That way it wont seem like such a cash grab.
But of course if these tickets open more youth centres, shelters, and soup kitchens, make the sign really really small.
Yeah AKSWULFE, those plate covers are illegal here too, but i think most of the good ones can be seen fine from level on, but not from any steep vertical or horizontal angle.
Btw Mickey that sounds super cool.
-
It's all about the revenue
-
Originally posted by Rude
It's all about the revenue
more power to them
rather a speeder pay for road improvements than everyone who pays taxes
-
Basically a road usage tax.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Basically a road usage tax.
only if you run a red light. :)
-
Call it a "Sin Tax" :)
-
what if you call it a mistake. in oregon disobeying a trafic device can be almost $300 in fines. if the damn light malfunctiuons you are screwed. and thats just the begining of your troubles. because now your insurance rates go up for the next 3 years.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
. if the damn light malfunctiuons you are screwed. and thats just the begining of your troubles.
ya, that happens daily ..............
excuses, excuses ...
-
They put in lights a lot where they aren't needed, where a stop sign would have sufficied. They make you wait when there is no traffic for a mile. Then when you get tired of waiting and cross the intersection, they take your picture and charge you. It's a usage tax, just like the speed laws. If you want to use the roads in an efficient manner, you have to pay extra.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I didn't mention California, someone else prolly did...
Your use of the term "California stops" was what confused me. What is that exactly?
A cop at an intersection, OTOH, would deter most people doing that, so arguing the cameras as a deterrant is like someone getting food poisoning... that won't deter them from eating. :)
-SW
A cop at a light will stop people from running that ONE light. The possibility that a driver could be caught running ANY light by a camera will deter most from running any light. I would rather have a camera (and the postal service) writing traffic tickets and the cop out working his/her cruiser district. There are more important things than writing traffic tickets (although we all know that cars kill more people than anything else).
These are 10 years old, but interesting anyway.
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~tco/html/red_light_camera.htm
-
California stops are basically rolling stops... used mostly at stop signs as opposed to stop lights... but I've seen people do it at stop lights too... pull up to it very slowly.. enter the intersection ~5MPH... and keep rolling through. Pass 1/3 of the way through and gun it.
It's dangerous to do, I don't do it... I've seen plenty of people do it tho.
A cop at a light will stop people from running that ONE light. The possibility that a driver could be caught running ANY light by a camera will deter most from running any light. I would rather have a camera (and the postal service) writing traffic tickets and the cop out working his/her cruiser district. There are more important things than writing traffic tickets (although we all know that cars kill more people than anything else).
Yes, but most cameras are placed only at troublesome intersections in the DC metro area... so this means that people now look for the cameras sitting on the signal light post or at any nearby posts near the intersection. They are very easy to see and not hidden at all. I look for 'em all the time... most places these cameras are setup at also have the aforementioned (by someone) signs indicating there's a traffic camera ahead.
Still see people blow right throug those lights. Their loss, I don't care...
I'm just saying, these cameras are no more effective at deterring someone from running a light or blowing a stop sign than the *new* camping cop cars located along roads here in the DC metro area that nail people for speeding by using the same technology (camera mounted on grill) stops people from speeding.
-SW
-
A "Rolling Stop"? I call oxymoron.
If you don't stop, it's not a stop. Calling it a rolling stop doesn't mean it's related to any real stop, just like calling a whale shark a whale shark doesn't mean it's related to whales.
-
Yeah well a cat burlgar doesn't burgle cats... so...
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I'm just saying, these cameras are no more effective at deterring someone from running a light or blowing a stop sign than the *new* camping cop cars.......
http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/traffic/speedresults_text.shtm
If by "no more effective" you mean 70% deterrence, I would be happy to agree with you.
-
The percentage of aggressive speeders on DC roads and highways has declined by more than 70 percent since the program began.
And how do you think they measured this? By monitoring the amount of tickets that came into their electronic center where they compile all of the tickets and sent them out?
Then yeah I guess 70% of people were deterred... or perhaps only 70% of the traffic that goes through those select intersections and roads.
Which would still only result in less than 30% of the roads here in DC.
-SW
-
I would think that the computer stats would speak for themselves, ie: the relationships between citations issued and accident rates.
In most places, when numbers of citations written goes up, accidents will go down.
Conversely, if the number of citations written goes down, numbers of accidents will go up.
Its proven, at least in the geographical area that I'm familure with.
The question is whether cameras and mailed citations would have the same effect.
-
Yeah, and that's why it's a violation, Chairboy. As for the red light cams, I don't have a solid opinion on them. At first thought I was against them, but when I lived and worked in Beaverton OR, running red lights seemed to be just a part of everyday driving for quite a few people. Once they installed the cameras at a few select locations, I went from seeing 4-5 daily (on average) to hardly seeing any...even at intersections without them.
They are quite easy to see too...big square boxes mounted on the horizontal poles with a plexiglass front.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Eagler
more power to them
rather a speeder pay for road improvements than everyone who pays taxes
Speeders should be HAPPY to pay it and see it go to improvements. I've never seen any auto racer unhappy about a smoother track :p
-
Some red light camera studies: Apparently, elongating the "yellow" light has a good effect..
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/studies.html
-
san franciscans are chronic red light runners - they did the cameras here and a big propaganda campaign in 800 languages and it hasn't helped at all not even a little.
people have this weird philosophy here: if the car ahead of you is just barely making it as the yellow turns then it is ok for you to go too as long as you are 3 feet from their bumper - you get these huge trains of people pretending to be one car up to 5 seconds after the light turns.
also it is ok to run the light if you are special, better, richer or different than everyone else, and of course, if you are late.
i'm all for cameras and mandatory 30 day license suspensions for the first offense and jail time for every offense thereafter. i live on lombard street and almost get run over every day because of some love muffin - it's really no laughing matter.
-
I dont get it. I have seen a few good points to support red light cameras, but no decent points against. (having to pay a fine because you broke the law isnt a good point.)
Fine, maybe these things screw up from time to time, but in my experience, i have never gotten a traffic ticket i didn't deserve.
The only valid point against is that these systems are expensive as all hell.
Big brother watching, nope..if it saves lives and reduces accident insurance claims we are all ahead.
If getting a ticket makes some tard think twice about killing Eagler, we are all ahead again.
Btw what Ripsnort said, my Dad is a driver examiner and taught me how to drive........95% of all accidents are avoidable.
-
eagler____________________
ya, that happens daily ..............
excuses, excuses ...
________________________
as I've said in a previous post. I have personally seen these things go off(you can see the flash) when people go through on green. probably about 1 in every 15 times I'm at the intersection where they are. and when they screw up it usually hits every car going through on green. you can sit there at your red light and watch the flash hit a whole string of cars as they go through their green).
the point is that there is no way to prove you didn't go through on red. the pic is of your car and the machine 'thinks' your light is red. you're screwed.
how would we know how often this happens. anytime it happens to someone, people just say he's lying to get out of the ticket.
it's very simular to the drug test, false positive issue. everybody blames the person who gets the false positive (or the bogus ticket) and says he's a liar. until it happens to them of course.
the problem is you have a system that can error and then an inocent person is punished for something he didn't do. a redlight ticket may be nothing to you but there are alot of people who it could bankrupt.
ther is no way you can prove your are inocent of most things. thats why our legal system puts the burden on the prosecution.
if these things have ever malfunctioned before. (and I've seen them do it) then they're not proof positive of a violation. 1 malfunction, ever, gives reasonable doubt to every other violation these things kick out.
let me ask you this. hypothetical-
you are working poor guy. 1 paycheck from being out on the streets. but you get up every day and do your portion. you pay your bills you obey the law.
then one day you get a letter with a ticket for $277 bucks saying you ran a red light 3 weeks ago.(that was the bail on the ticket I got 2 years ago when they said I ran a stop sign, so the price should be about the same/ thats about 2 weeks take home pay for a minimum wage worker 40 hrs a week.)
you know you didn't run the light. you are very careful, you always obey the law.
now what do you do.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the point is that there is no way to prove you didn't go through on red. the pic is of your car and the machine 'thinks' your light is red. you're screwed.
Every pic from a red light camera that I have seen shows the offender's car, and the traffic light. If you went through a green light, it would show up on the pic. The new systems that I have seem actually capture video of the offense, which would be even better.
-
the pics I've seen (the one they showed on the news) show the view from the front of the car. showing the driver. I've seen no light in the pic. how do they show a pic of a light that is facing the same way the camera is. I've seen no mirrors set up at these intersections.
I'm trying to picure a camera angle that would get the light, tag #, and drivers face. no luck
-
Well, you guys are about 10 years behind us Kiwis.
It started off like this. Safety improvements. Then the revenue gathering started. Then justification for using the money to improve safety on the roads.
Except someone figured out all traffic infringement fines go into the 'national pool' of funds. IE, money spent on roads etc does not qual money gathered from this stuff.
How does the US divie up its $$$$. Does every dollar earned from speeders go back into road improvements? I think you'll find it disappears into a big tax pool.
Originally posted by Eagler
more power to them
rather a speeder pay for road improvements than everyone who pays taxes
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Some red light camera studies: Apparently, elongating the "yellow" light has a good effect..
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/studies.html
Makes sense. The lights here in town are way too fast, IMHO.
Ever see a yellow light and then have the feeling that you're going too fast to stop without applying a lot of pressure and at the same time, you're going too slow to get through the interesection before it changes?
Happens all the time here. I wouldn't mind a longer light.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Well, you guys are about 10 years behind us Kiwis.
It started off like this. Safety improvements. Then the revenue gathering started. Then justification for using the money to improve safety on the roads.
Except someone figured out all traffic infringement fines go into the 'national pool' of funds. IE, money spent on roads etc does not qual money gathered from this stuff.
How does the US divie up its $$$$. Does every dollar earned from speeders go back into road improvements? I think you'll find it disappears into a big tax pool.
Yep it goes to pay salaries for more revenue collectors. This is how big government works, and is why we keep paying more and more for less and less from an increasingly bloated government. Amazing that so-called "conservatives" can't see it.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
you know you didn't run the light. you are very careful, you always obey the law.
now what do you do.
why, you hire a lawyer at $200 per hour , of course
-
The convervatives here have finally started bleating with the 3 ticket quote and the mandatory ticket talk within 5km/h.
All of a sudden this crowd has turned 180 now that everything is being so harshly enforced.
Originally posted by funkedup
Yep it goes to pay salaries for more revenue collectors. This is how big government works, and is why we keep paying more and more for less and less from an increasingly bloated government. Amazing that so-called "conservatives" can't see it.
-
We have these red light cameras in England, and I'm all for them. Driving around the London area, I would see people running red lights every day where no camera exists.
I don't know how the red light cameras work, but I have seen them work, and two pictures are taken at the moment the light turns red. For speed cameras, two pictures are taken at a predetermined interval (half a second), and the distance the car has travelled in that time is used to determine its speed. That's why there are markings on the road in front of the camera at one yard intervals.
It's much easier to run a red light in England than in America. When the light changes from green, we get a much shorter yellow light before we get the red. Also, the light does not change from red directly to green as in the US. We have a three second phase of red and yellow before the green. Trouble is, many people pull away the moment the first photon of yellow light meets their nearest retina. :rolleyes:
-
You are all missing the one key element in these red light cameras. The one big draw back to them is that the companys that produce the cameras are making almost all of the revenue from them. The State barely breaks even on the installation of these spendy units. So in a way its like someone like Bill Gates charging you money if you go through a red light.
I know the supposed intent of these cameras are for public safety, but lets face it government relies on our money. So for them to spend tax money on these cameras and not renew their expense is basically wasting our hard earned tax dollars!
I frankly think government is starting to get to powerful and yes intrusive into the publics lives. Its almost as ridiculos as getting a #@*#@*@ seatbelt ticket! Do you think that they care about your safety when they write you these ticket......Hell NO! They are just making a way to increase revenue. IMO if a person of legal age can vote, drink, and smoke cigarettes, Why cant he or she decide if they strap on a seatbelt or not? If they dont and get in an accident the only person hurt is themselves, so I say Government needs to stay out of some things.
If they want to make traffic lights safer then instead of wasting money on new technology, try lengthening the cycles between yellow to red and from one directions' red to the others green!
Whew I feel better now feel free to continue........:D
-
I thought it was to cover costs for when they scrape your brains off the road from not wearing a seatbelt?
Originally posted by bloodstain
I frankly think government is starting to get to powerful and yes intrusive into the publics lives. Its almost as ridiculos as getting a #@*#@*@ seatbelt ticket! Do you think that they care about your safety when they write you these ticket......Hell NO! They are just making a way to increase revenue. IMO if a person of legal age can vote, drink, and smoke cigarettes, Why cant he or she decide if they strap on a seatbelt or not? If they dont and get in an accident the only person hurt is themselves, so I say Government needs to stay out of some things.
-
Originally posted by bloodstain
You are all missing the one key element in these red light cameras. The one big draw back to them is that the companys that produce the cameras are making almost all of the revenue from them. The State barely breaks even on the installation of these spendy units. So in a way its like someone like Bill Gates charging you money if you go through a red light.
I know the supposed intent of these cameras are for public safety, but lets face it government relies on our money. So for them to spend tax money on these cameras and not renew their expense is basically wasting our hard earned tax dollars!
I frankly think government is starting to get to powerful and yes intrusive into the publics lives. Its almost as ridiculos as getting a #@*#@*@ seatbelt ticket! Do you think that they care about your safety when they write you these ticket......Hell NO! They are just making a way to increase revenue. IMO if a person of legal age can vote, drink, and smoke cigarettes, Why cant he or she decide if they strap on a seatbelt or not? If they dont and get in an accident the only person hurt is themselves, so I say Government needs to stay out of some things.
If they want to make traffic lights safer then instead of wasting money on new technology, try lengthening the cycles between yellow to red and from one directions' red to the others green!
Whew I feel better now feel free to continue........:D
dumbest post ever!
reasons:
(1) any city that uses these systems does not "barely break even" the City of Calgary made (profit) over a million dollars last year off red light and photo radar.
(2) related to point number 1, you arent making any sense. Red light cameras "barely break even" (which means they make money, even in your screwed up logic.)
(3) You want to lengthen yellow lights so you dont get caught. What do you hope to gain by this?
(4) Seat belts have been mandatory is cars since 1974 (i think.) Are the automakers involved in a consipiracy with the police and government?
Final point for this post: Seatbelts do kill people, my uncle was Ho'd in his 67 vette by a drunk driver, he died, his girlfriend who wasnt wearing her seatbelt was thrown out of the car and lived. But seatbelts have killed far fewer people than they have saved. I think i'll take my odds on wearing a seatbelt, and stopping at yellow lights.
Btw, those that dont have their headrest at ear level, do so now, esp. if you have a non extended cab truck.
-
1) any city that uses these systems does not "barely break even" the City of Calgary made (profit) over a million dollars last year off red light and photo radar.
#1 you are talking about CANADA, different government entirely! I know for a fact here in the USA,particularly Portland, OR it has been proven that the money from these ridiculos cameras goes mostly to the company's that make them! Not to the government , so back off ya canuck:p
3) You want to lengthen yellow lights so you dont get caught. What do you hope to gain by this?
#2 if you lenghten the light cycle then you wouldn't have to slam on the gas or brakes which in some cases actually causes a collision! If you are approaching an intersection at 40 mph and the light changes from yellow to red in less than 2 seconds do you think you will have time to safely stop, HELL NO! And let's say you do manage to slam on the brakes chances are the fellow behind you won't, then BAM accident. You see here in the states people drive fast and the whole point of the yellow lights being lengthend is a safety concern NOT to help people not get caught as you so moronicly stated!
(4) Seat belts have been mandatory is cars since 1974 (i think.) Are the automakers involved in a consipiracy with the police and government?
#3 yes a seatbelt is required by law to be installed in a vehicle, that doesn't mean you should have to be required by law to use it! Airbags are also implemented into the sterring wheels of new cars but you can elect to replace the steering wheel with one that is not so equiped. Also most new trucks have passenger side air bags that can be turned off for child safety, so do you think you should get a ticket if you turn off your airbags too?
-
A camera in the red light district ? Has that ever been a bad idea ?
-
I was in traffic school a few years ago (I was caught going 70mph in a 55mph are of the freeway) and a guy there had been nabbed by a red light camera. Initally he was going to fight it, but they showed him the photos. It clearly photed his lisence plate, and another camera clearly photoed him at the wheel.
Eagler,
About six years ago I was driving a delivery van and came within 2 seconds of getting taken out that way as well. Red light runners suck.
Personnally I think that a persons license should be permanently revoked if they get caught accelerating to beat a red light. Doing so demonstrates that the completely lack the understanding of what they are doing and how it can affect other people.
-
Hey firts ao all ..diddly all of you if you havent gotn a ticket...some day u will get urs..
First Ticket---
4am..im going to Golf tournemnt.... 2 Aholes come up behind me HAULING ASSS( I drive a Large Diesel Merceds)..I look up in my rear view mirro ..saying what the hell is this(thot it was cops going to accident or somthne...I look forward..im in left hand turning lane...Yellow light..I cannot safly stop...(I wasnt speeding as they have ameter on camera tht shows ur speed also.....BOOM CLICK FLASH FLASH...I get a pic in the mail 2 months later...I see my mouth open saying ..WTF!!!!(along with that u see 2 hondas haulln bellybutton next to me.)I fight it for 4 court apeerences..what a pain in the ass...$350..im fuked.
Second Ticket.....Im moving out of the intersection for an emergency vehicle to get thru...Clik Clik Flash Flash.....OH MY diddlyING GOD ..Are you kidding me.....well this happed last friday..so well se when i get ticket..
Yes I agree red light runners are bad peopl..i have had friends who were serosly injured form them..I live in a Busy city with many 1way streets and such...
But there has to be a btter way,,,,,
Im diddlying pissed off...
Love BiGB
xoxo
-
BGBMAW, jesus that really sucks. If that happend to me i'd probably never pull over for an emergency vehicle again.
I hate these damn "camera nazis" in the government that want to make it like London. The average American is on cameras enough each day.
-
Second Ticket.....Im moving out of the intersection for an emergency vehicle to get thru...Clik Clik Flash Flash.....OH MY diddlyING GOD ..Are you kidding me.....well this happed last friday..so well se when i get ticket..
In Australia, you'd get off no problem for that....
Tronsky
-
Second Ticket.....Im moving out of the intersection for an emergency vehicle to get thru...Clik Clik Flash Flash.....OH MY diddlyING GOD ..Are you kidding me.....well this happed last friday..so well se when i get ticket..
*******
another point, sometimes there are valid reasons why you break the trafic rules. they happen all the time, and you rarely think about it. if a cop pulls you over you know exactly why you where doing what you did.
if the camera snaps a pic and you don't notice the flash, then you just get the letter notifying you of the violation. most people just forget about little things like moving out of the way of emergency vehicles and the like.
so now what, do we have to keep a diary of every time, we have to swerve out of the way of something(illeagle lane change), or any of the other dozen things that aren't exactly by the book, but just dealing with everyday traffic. a live human cop can see what you are dealing with and 9 times out of 10 doesn't pull you over for it, and most of the times they do you can explain it if he didn't see. sometimes he lets you go sometimes you get 'tell it to the judge'. but with the camera you don't even get the benifit of knowing exactly what they are talking about
-
Originally posted by bloodstain
You are all missing the one key element in these red light cameras. The one big draw back to them is that the companys that produce the cameras are making almost all of the revenue from them. The State barely breaks even on the installation of these spendy units. So in a way its like someone like Bill Gates charging you money if you go through a red light.
Well I just saw a news report on this in the Netherlands,
and here it = app. 86 Million per year
-
You could use one of these:
(http://integrity.eburg.com/temp/anti-photo.gif)
(http://integrity.eburg.com/temp/protectoranimated.gif)
http://integrity.eburg.com/protector.html
Of course, they're probably illegal in a lot of states.
-
To the point about how you defend yourself if you get ticketed by a camera that malfunctions and photographs your car at a green light, simply bring the cops or the judge or whoever out to that intersection and take a sample.
To the point about not knowing whether to punch the gas or hit the brake, if there is a left turn lane, the solid line where that lane begins (well, around here anyways) is usually the length that it would take your car to travel, at the speed limit, from the time the lite turns yellow until it turns red. So, if you have passed the point where the left turn lane begins when the lite turns yellow, you will make it into the intersection before it turns red, assuming you are going the speed limit. Other than that I don't know, if it's that close and you get nailed, you can still probably make a case for yourself (unless you were speeding).
In Sacramento they have a lot of intersection cameras. They are all preceeded with white signs that have a picture of a stoplight and say "Photo Enforced". I was at one of those intersections a couple weeks ago at night. The cars on the opposite side of the intersection had the left green arrow, and as it went from orange to red, the last guy in line hesitated at first, then committed, then stopped just after he had crossed the line into the intersection. The camera flash went off, and as he reversed back behind the line, the flash went off again. I thought that was pretty funny. At first I thought he'd get two tickets, but then figured that having the second photo would actually prove he had stopped. The system is not going to be fool proof, no system ever is. But for now I see it as a good deterrant for red light runners.