Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: k_flynn on 23 Feb 2007 11:04 On Feb 23, 8:33 am, "Robert Bolton" <robertboltond...(a)gci.net> wrote: > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.s...(a)infernosoft.com> wrote in message > > news:timberwoof.spam-CC3B0A.19165222022007(a)nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net... > > > > > In article <a7fst2dme170na4gi4626le5nv9rkdk...(a)4ax.com>, > > Free Lunch <l...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:27:35 -0600, in misc.transport.road > >> russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in > >> <cp-dnXY58LIqYUDYnZ2dnUVZ_vCkn...(a)speakeasy.net>: > >> >In article <544b92F1uv9l...(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> >brink <b...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > >> >>While we're on the subject, I'd like to know how the RLC > >> >>differentiates > >> >>between legal movements against a red light (specifically right turns > >> >>on > >> >>red) from illegal movements. Anyone? > > >> >Ticket 'em all and don't bother to sort them out. If too many people > >> >complain, a "no right turn on red" sign solves the problem. > > >> I was given a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign. I have no idea > >> whether the judge in the city court had seen his docket or not, but in > >> his introduction he noted that people don't stop for stop signs and > >> that > >> he wasn't going to believe anyone about stopping. At least it was an > >> actual cop that ticketed me. > > > Well, that sounds like an appeal right there: My father, a German, > > taught me to drive, so I'm pretty anal about stopping for stop signs. > > (It also gets people to stop tailgating me.) Being found guilty because > > the judge assumes that everybody is guilty of that offense strikes me as > > injustice. > > I was given a ticket for running a red light by a Valencia California > policeman. I did stop, but the guy said the law requires that you not > move for 3 seconds. Given a 3 second rule, I believe the judge is correct > in saying no one stops at a stop light....unless they need to make a call > on their cell phone perhaps. Is there a citation for this three-second "rule?" I've never heard of it.
From: k_flynn on 23 Feb 2007 11:12 On Feb 22, 11:35 pm, Calgary <actualrider_remove_the_obvio...(a)telus.net> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:12:59 -0800, Timberwoof > > <timberwoof.s...(a)infernosoft.com> wrote: > > >> >As I said, the lack of a front plate doesn't preclude having a camera > >> >that takes the driver's picture. It simply requires the second camera, > >> >which many such installations do have even in states that do have > >> >front plates. > > >> I would be interested in knowing which states employ the technology > >> that way. Can you identify a few? > > >In the US, it seems to be in the hands of the municipalities. San > >Francisco has such cameras at some intersections downtown. > > I am not sure they are used that way TW. Here is an excerpt from the > San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic:http://www.sfgov.org/site/livablestreets_index.asp?id=14440#report > ________________________________________________________ > TECHNOLOGY > Since California law requires a "clear photograph of a vehicle's > license plate and the driver of the vehicle"(8), cameras must > photograph vehicles from the front. Cameras rotate among specially > made housings at each monitored intersection approach. Motorists > cannot easily distinguish which housings contain cameras and which do > not. Camera poles stand several feet back from the traffic signal > equipment and typically view no more than four lanes of approach > traffic. Inductive loops placed just outside the intersection trigger > cameras. Each enforced approach lane contains two successive loops, > allowing the enforcement system to calculate the speed of passing > vehicles. In San Francisco the vehicle speed must be greater than 24 > kilometers per hour (15 miles per hour) to trigger a photograph. > Cameras only receive power when the signal is red. Therefore, they can > only take photographs when the vehicle is illegally entering the > intersection on the red signal. Violators receive a grace period: > cameras will not photograph vehicles entering the intersection until > after the signal has been red for 0.3 seconds. The camera first > photographs the vehicle as it illegally enters the intersection. The > camera takes a second photograph when the vehicle is in the center of > the intersection, allowing for a clear photo of the driver. The timing > of the second photograph depends on the speed of the vehicle and the > width of the intersection: the faster the vehicle, the shorter the > time between the first and second photographs. > _________________________________________________________ > > Clearly they are using cameras taking pictures from the front so they > can capture the driver and the plate in the same frame. > > Now this site may be dated, but it does illustrate the initial years > using the red light cameras required only the picture from the front. > Unless there was a change in the laws since then I can see no reason > why they would go to the added expense of adding second cameras. Second cameras are often used, and their purpose is to show the light that the driver is facing. Numerous installations use two cameras.
From: Robert Bolton on 23 Feb 2007 11:44 <k_flynn(a)lycos.com> wrote in message news:1172246641.275604.125400(a)m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 23, 8:33 am, "Robert Bolton" <robertboltond...(a)gci.net> wrote: >> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.s...(a)infernosoft.com> wrote in message >> >> news:timberwoof.spam-CC3B0A.19165222022007(a)nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net... >> >> >> >> > In article <a7fst2dme170na4gi4626le5nv9rkdk...(a)4ax.com>, >> > Free Lunch <l...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:27:35 -0600, in misc.transport.road >> >> russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in >> >> <cp-dnXY58LIqYUDYnZ2dnUVZ_vCkn...(a)speakeasy.net>: >> >> >In article <544b92F1uv9l...(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> >brink <b...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >>While we're on the subject, I'd like to know how the RLC >> >> >>differentiates >> >> >>between legal movements against a red light (specifically right >> >> >>turns >> >> >>on >> >> >>red) from illegal movements. Anyone? >> >> >> >Ticket 'em all and don't bother to sort them out. If too many >> >> >people >> >> >complain, a "no right turn on red" sign solves the problem. >> >> >> I was given a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign. I have no idea >> >> whether the judge in the city court had seen his docket or not, but >> >> in >> >> his introduction he noted that people don't stop for stop signs and >> >> that >> >> he wasn't going to believe anyone about stopping. At least it was an >> >> actual cop that ticketed me. >> >> > Well, that sounds like an appeal right there: My father, a German, >> > taught me to drive, so I'm pretty anal about stopping for stop signs. >> > (It also gets people to stop tailgating me.) Being found guilty >> > because >> > the judge assumes that everybody is guilty of that offense strikes me >> > as >> > injustice. >> >> I was given a ticket for running a red light by a Valencia California >> policeman. I did stop, but the guy said the law requires that you not >> move for 3 seconds. Given a 3 second rule, I believe the judge is >> correct >> in saying no one stops at a stop light....unless they need to make a >> call >> on their cell phone perhaps. > > Is there a citation for this three-second "rule?" I've never heard of > it. > Beats me but that's what he told me. It would have been a waste of time digging into the matter and I was a visitor anyway. I sent them a check once I got home and chalked it up to experience. Robert
From: Tevors on 23 Feb 2007 11:43 In article <1172176595.513770.77190(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn(a)lycos.com <k_flynn(a)lycos.com> wrote: >tevors wrote: > >It is not illegal in NM to be in the intersection when the signal goes >from yellow to red, as long as you are clearing the intersection; Yep. > why >is the system set up to ticket those people? Don't know. Revenue? I only know of this happening at one intersection that has a particularly long path through it. I'll admit that my info is second hand. I have a friend, whom I trust, that tells me a very close friend of his was surprised to get 13 tickets in the mail (first one was $100, second one $200, following ones $250). Her claim was that all of those tickets came from that long intersection after legally entering on yellow or green. People here must be hearing similar stories because many are afraid to enter an intersection if the light is yellow, or even if it is green but been green for a while. I also notice more and more people taking the same back roads I take to avoid the camera'ed intersections. > Do you have a cite for >this practice? No. This is just information passed on to me from neighbors and co-workers. We've only had cameras in Albuquerque for a couple years now. It looks like the city is doing the same as others have already done -- shorten yellows, put cameras at more intersections, off-duty police immunity, etc. There have been court challenges, but the government always finds the government innocent. Go figure. Tevors
From: Tevors on 23 Feb 2007 11:53
In article <timberwoof.spam-C70261.13343022022007(a)nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam(a)infernosoft.com> wrote: > >Do these tickets cost points on your license? That will be even more >expensive. I've asked the same question, and I've also wondered about their relevance to insurance. Here, currently the answer is "no". They are currently considered non-moving, traffic violations. I am concerned, however, that at some future time the policies may change, and the records are there for governments and insurance companies to go through. Tevors |