Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Bruce Richmond on 25 Feb 2007 10:31 On Feb 21, 8:20 pm, "Justin" <n...(a)spam.com> wrote: > : <xeton2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > : > Oh stop whining you big baby. If these RLC are so faulty, then why have i > : > NEVER been nabbed by one?? In any city i lived in?? Just obey the law and > : > don't run red lights and you won't have any problem. > > In rec.motorcycles Tim Kreitz <timkre...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > : What an uninformed Yes Man for Big Brother you are. Here are just a > : few articles on the dangers and problems these types of surveillance > : systems create: > > While everything you say is correct, Tim, it doesn't really contradict > what xeton2 is saying. You're both right in your own ways. In this country they are supposed to prove your guilt to convict you. Considering the consequences (fine, points, higher insurence rates, loss of license) it is not unreasonable to expect proof that the equipment did not malfunction. This is particularly true where there is no practical way for the accused to prove thad it may occasionally malfunction. > And in any case, it may be that there will be an initial increase as > people learn that the system exists and then a decrease as they realize > that punishment is unavoidable. Much like a dog learning how an electric > fence works. Or it may be that the timing of the lights have been altered to increase revenue resulting in conditions being less safe. It is my understanding that these systems are somtimes installed and maintained by private companies that get a portion of the revenue generated. There have been cases where the duration of the yellow has been shortened to increase the likelyhood of the red being violated. The more drivers learn of the short yellow the greater the chances they will get rear when they respond quickly to the yellow. That problem will not go away. If anything the unavoidable punishment makes it more likely. The shorter yellow obviously could result in more accidents even without the RLC. Even without the RLC the reasons behind the timing of lights is often suspect. For many years there was a traffic light at a rural intersection in the town where I lived. It was set up so that the main road would normally have the green light and the cross road the red. There were sensors to detect cars coming from either direction on the main road and for cars stopped on the cross road. The main road had a speed limit of 50 mph. The intersection was in an open area that allowed you to see traffic at least 1/8 mile in any direction. The state set the lights so that when a car was detected on the main road the light woud go from green to yellow and then red before you coud reach it. It didn't matter if it was 2 AM and there hadn't been a car through the intersection for a half hour, it would change the light forcing you to stop even though nothing was coming on the cross road. The cops would often sit a little ways back on the cross road late at night with their lights off, waiting for someone to run the red or speed up over the limit to beat the timing. I'm sure this was all done in the interest of safety ;) Bruce
From: Citizen Bob on 25 Feb 2007 10:49 On 25 Feb 2007 07:31:30 -0800, "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >In this country they are supposed to prove your guilt to convict you. Then take the matter to the jury and see if they consent to be governed by shakedown scams. If they do, then pay the costs and move away. Consider it a warning that you should not live there if you value your freedom. -- "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson
From: Steve Furbish on 25 Feb 2007 13:41 On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:12:28 -0500, BTR1701 wrote: > Yep. In Washington DC it was recently reported that the accident rate > along one stretch of New York Avenue where a speed camera has been > operating has increased since the camera was installed, not decreased. Who reported it? When were the cameras installed? Does a study exists that eliminates all other potential causes for a perceived increase in accidents? > The reason? Because all the commuters who drive the route daily know > about the camera and routinely hit their brakes as soon as they get to > that stretch of road. And the other drivers who don't know about the > camera are suddenly caught by surprise as traffic speed drops 20 MPH and > accidents ensue. Sounds long in the speculation arena a little iffy in the logic department? Using that reasoning any type of distraction that caused unexpected braking would be responsible for an uptick in the accident rate. The mere presence of a marked police cruiser or of approaching another pre-existing accident scene should also automatically result in an increased collision rate. Don't DC drivers look to see what's in front of them? > Faced with the almost indisputable evidence that the camera is making > things more dangerous for drivers and not less, the Washington DC > government, not surprisingly, chose to do nothing and leave the camera > in place. Why? Because the camera generates millions of dollars in > revenue per year for the city and that's the *real* reason it's there. > All the talk about "safety" and "concern for children" is nothing but > flowery rhetoric design to mask a crass money-grab. Almost indisputable, but not quite. Even in my quiet little community we have rush hour issues where traffic speeds often drop to as much as 20 MPH below the norm. Most drivers cope with these issues rather routinely. It seems like something as simple as an advanced warning sign could reduce or eliminate the perceived increased danger caused by a speed camera if that's really the issue? > Another problem with the cameras (at least the way they are operated in > Washington DC) is that you don't get your ticket in the mail until about > a month after the violation occurs. Unlike being pulled over by an > actual cop, where the mitigating factors are fresh in your mind (there > are a few situations where speeding is legally justified), you now have > to think back over 30 days just to try and remember why you were on that > road in the first place. I wouldn't go as far as to say "legally justified". There aren't any universal affirmative defenses to speeding that I've experienced, however I have seen folks successfully argue mitigating circumstances such as medical emergency or some other competing harms claim like fleeing a domestic violence situation. > Also, by delaying the delivery of the ticket for a month or more, the > state knows that the driver probably doesn't even realize there's a > camera there and if it's a route they travel regularly, they could > conceivably end up being ticketed 60 to 70 times before the first one > even shows up in the mailbox. This leads to massive revenue windfalls > for the government and at the same time can effectively bankrupt a > person when thousands of dollars in fines suddenly drop into their > mailbox all at once. So you are implying that aggressive speed enforcement does impact driver behaviors and force a slower legally compliant speed. I guess that also suggests that the 85th percentile method of determining legitmate speed limits could be rigged to support slower limits as eventually everyone driving over the existing posted limit would either be suspended or broke from paying all of those speed camera tickets? > Bottom line: the state will tolerate a lot but the minute you start to > threaten their revenue stream, they'll come down on you like the wrath > of god. Personally, I have a strong dislike for camera traffic enforcement. It's inherently unfair and does not give the drive who in a given instance is caught speeding or running a light even the opportunity to explain circumstances or make notes for a future defense in court. OTOH, any driver who actually gets 60 or 70 tickets before learning of the first one has an issue with following the traffic laws and loses much of the sympathy I might otherwise feel for them (just as repeat violators caught in the more traditional sense do). The real bottom line is that you control whether the state gets that revenue from your wallet by doing something as simple as obeying the law. I realize that traffic law concerns are small potatoes to you federal law enforcement types, but if you're going to crusade perhaps you should at least acknowledge that some of the blame for the state's apparent success at revenue gathering by means of traffic cams lies squarely on the shoulders of those who choose to violate perfectly valid statutory law. Steve
From: Steve Furbish on 25 Feb 2007 13:58 On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:37:07 -0500, BTR1701 wrote: > In article <12tu29fgut51q4d(a)corp.supernews.com>, > "Robert Bolton" <robertboltondrop(a)gci.net> wrote: >> 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. > > I've never heard of such a thing. A complete stop is all that is > required. Probably something the cop made up on the spot to justify his > stop. Always refreshing to see one of our federal LEO bros. give the benefit of a doubt to the local cop. Having been a police supervisor for nearly 21 years I have indeed heard of such a thing. No reflection on Mr. Bolton, I suspect he may be trying to be entirely honest about this, but I have seen ticket respondents make similar claims about things allegedly told them by police officers at traffic stops. Sometimes the cop said exactly what's been claimed and other times there is lots gets lost in the retelling. Cruiser cameras and those small personal digital voice recorders (legal in my state) that record with single party consent have shown me that often times the conversations are more a misunderstanding than "something the cop made up on the spot to justify his stop". For example - a cop stopping an alleged violator issues a citation for failure to stop at a stop sign. The violator protests that they did slow down and look for traffic (oddly, out here it's often called a California stop) and only rolled through at the slowest possible speed. The cop offers a suggestion that to avoid future citations the violator might try remaining stopped for a full 3 seconds before proceeding from a stop sign. In the mind of the violator this somehow translates to "the law requires you not to move for 3 seconds". Not exactly as sinister as your presumption, but just as likely to have happened (and I've personally handled complaints against officers where it has happened that way). Steve
From: Mike Tantillo on 25 Feb 2007 14:35
On Feb 25, 10:31 am, "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 8:20 pm, "Justin" <n...(a)spam.com> wrote: > > > : <xeton2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > : > Oh stop whining you big baby. If these RLC are so faulty, then why have i > > : > NEVER been nabbed by one?? In any city i lived in?? Just obey the law and > > : > don't run red lights and you won't have any problem. > > > In rec.motorcycles Tim Kreitz <timkre...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > : What an uninformed Yes Man for Big Brother you are. Here are just a > > : few articles on the dangers and problems these types of surveillance > > : systems create: > > > While everything you say is correct, Tim, it doesn't really contradict > > what xeton2 is saying. You're both right in your own ways. > > In this country they are supposed to prove your guilt to convict you. > Considering the consequences (fine, points, higher insurence rates, > loss of license) it is not unreasonable to expect proof that the > equipment did not malfunction. This is particularly true where there > is no practical way for the accused to prove thad it may occasionally > malfunction. > > > And in any case, it may be that there will be an initial increase as > > people learn that the system exists and then a decrease as they realize > > that punishment is unavoidable. Much like a dog learning how an electric > > fence works. > > Or it may be that the timing of the lights have been altered to > increase revenue resulting in conditions being less safe. It is my > understanding that these systems are somtimes installed and maintained > by private companies that get a portion of the revenue generated. > There have been cases where the duration of the yellow has been > shortened to increase the likelyhood of the red being violated. The > more drivers learn of the short yellow the greater the chances they > will get rear when they respond quickly to the yellow. That problem > will not go away. If anything the unavoidable punishment makes it > more likely. The shorter yellow obviously could result in more > accidents even without the RLC. > > Even without the RLC the reasons behind the timing of lights is often > suspect. For many years there was a traffic light at a rural > intersection in the town where I lived. It was set up so that the > main road would normally have the green light and the cross road the > red. There were sensors to detect cars coming from either direction > on the main road and for cars stopped on the cross road. The main > road had a speed limit of 50 mph. The intersection was in an open > area that allowed you to see traffic at least 1/8 mile in any > direction. > > The state set the lights so that when a car was detected on the main > road the light woud go from green to yellow and then red before you > coud reach it. It didn't matter if it was 2 AM and there hadn't been > a car through the intersection for a half hour, it would change the > light forcing you to stop even though nothing was coming on the cross > road. The cops would often sit a little ways back on the cross road > late at night with their lights off, waiting for someone to run the > red or speed up over the limit to beat the timing. I'm sure this was > all done in the interest of safety ;) Add to the list of offenses the cops could be watching for: crossing the double yellow line into the oncoming lane to drive around the detector and prevent the light from turning red > > Bruce |