Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Brent P on 11 Mar 2007 13:58 In article <ifadnST-vIsZr2nYnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> I have actually never seen it codified in law as a priviledge. Please >> point me to the relevant code. 'Driving is a priviledge' seems to be what >> government says it is, but the actual code doesn't appear to back that >> up. Hard to have case law on that, now isn't it? > In my state it's under: > http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/29-a/title29-Asec1251.html The word priviledge doesn't even occur in that text. Try again. > Note that a license to operate a vehicle is "required" the secretary of > state determines if an applicant is a proper person to receive a > license. Further study shows that a license can be suspended or revoked > for any number of causes (unlike an actual right). You can lose a lot of rights under a number of causes... what do you think jail is? >> A true 'priviledge' can be taken away at _WHIM_. It's just another lie we >> are told. > A true privilege is a grant of license by a licensing authority and can > usually only be revoked for cause. 'revoked for cause'. That's true of any right, even those in the bill of rights, as occurs when someone is put in prison. >> Driving falls under admendment 9. > It may apply <not likely> if and when you successfully argue a case for > it in front of SCOTUS. But I wouldn't go holding my breath. It's as clear as day it applies. But you'd rather do as your masters say than think for yourself. They say it's a priviledge so that's what you believe, when even as written the law says no such thing.
From: Brent P on 11 Mar 2007 14:02 In article <o7ydnaR6D8vjsGnYnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <1173511719.732686.223820(a)n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> >>> I believe it when there's hard evidence. I don't believe it when it's >>> supposition and innuendo. >> >> Government documents, news stories, TV interviews.... all the same >> 'supposition and innuendo' that says RLCs are about the money. > Money is the compelling issue for every politician I've ever known of. Yet, you won't accept that as being the usual motiivation. > That doesn't mean that all fines raised by RLCs are invalid by default. When one actually finds out that RLCs decrease safety and aren't as effective as fixing the intersection's problem, the RLCs aren't a proper safety device. > Some drivers just run red lights anytime they approach one that's close. Yet, fixing an intersection's problems has far better performance reducing red light running than taking pictures of those who do. >>> Well, you say it's about money when folks claim it's about safety. >> The news stories I post in the 'it's about the revenue' line are ones where >> the government office holder quite clearly states it's about the money. > Everyone has their own perspective. Local politicians see revenue > potential in every action they undertake. That does not negate the fact > that there is real danger when someone runs a light. An RLC does not change the danger of that. It only takes a picture of it. An RLC is not as effective as fixing the intersection in cutting down red light running. And lastly, RLCs increase the number of rear end collisions at the intersections where they are used in study after study. Doesn't sound safe to me. See http://www.motorists.org and http://www.thenewspaper.com/ Both have sections on RLCs.
From: Brent P on 11 Mar 2007 15:00 In article <pLadnXG3mO_l3WnYnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <9Padnb8MXr41m2_YnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: >> >>> Sounds like something that needs to be addressed at the local level. You >>> know, like I suggested earlier? >> >> Would your political masters listen to someone who cannot vote for them? > > I get the impression that very few people would willingly listen to you > Brent? Lame. >>> Actually I see it as a case of a whiner who probably knows full well >>> that he can avoid the problem (or at least do something politically to >>> right it), but who gets more pleasure complaining about it to strangers >>> on the internet. But that's just me. >> The old... 'you shouldn't even talk about it on usenet' routine. Oh, >> trust me, I've brought this sort of thing up to local office holders, >> police departments, newspapers.... It's practically cut and paste from >> the usenet posts! > I'm sure you have. Yet you accuse me of 'doing nothing'. > Just remember, the squeaky wheel may get the grease > but the wheel with a constantly annoying whine just gets labeled a kook. Isn't that special... nice usenet BS, find an insult for doing something and not doing something. >>> Again, for the really really slow to catch on here - normal is not >>> necessarily what Brent P or Nate does. Legal is not running red lights. >>> Some people seem to manage not to get those tickets? Perhaps you just >>> need some refresher training? >> >> Well you certainly need to be wacked upside the head with a clue stick. >> Then again, being a cop is one of those jobs where they weed out the >> people too smart for it. > Or in your case, not quite bright enough? When you get your masters degree in engineering then you can talk.
From: Bruce Richmond on 11 Mar 2007 16:14 On Mar 11, 12:41 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Bruce Richmond wrote: > > On Mar 9, 4:54 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > >> Knowing "the lights around here" adds variables to the mix that you're > >> going to have to consider when you decide how fast to approach a stale > >> green. There's no doubt that a light should be timed so that vehicles > >> approaching at the legal posted speed limit can react and stop for a > >> light that changes as they approach. The problem is that especially long > >> yellows are every bit as dangerous as those that are too short since > >> they tend to condition the locals to try and beat the red and avoid the > >> long waits. > > >> Steve > > > That is not an excuse to shorten the yellow. There should be enought > > time to get through the light without slamming brakes. Anything less > > is stacking the deck and not in the interest of safety. > > I don't see where we appear to disagree? Average practice is 3-6 seconds > depending on the legal approach speeds. > > Steve What we disagree on is whether those times are always set on the basis of safety. For a light in a 50 mph zone a 6 second yellow should be about right. Shorten it to 5 and you will likely have a few run the red because they didn't expect the light to change so soon. Set it for 4 seconds and there will be quite a few that run it. At 3 seconds most anyone that didn't know the light will end up running it because you would have to hit the brakes hard to avoid doing so. It is definitely not in the intrest of safety to have drivers slamming on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket. IMHO the feds should provide a specific time for yellows based on speed limit to be used as a guide. It would then be up to anyone setting the time different from the standard to justify why they are doing so. Another thing I have noticed is that some lights go from red to green for the cross traffic at the same time that the yellow goes to red, while other lights have reds all around for a few seconds before changing to green. I can see where the second set up could be used for added safety when the yellow has been shortened to enhance revenue. Bruce
From: Brent P on 11 Mar 2007 17:07
In article <1173644067.446485.9280(a)c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Bruce Richmond wrote: > IMHO the feds should provide a specific time for yellows based on > speed limit to be used as a guide. It would then be up to anyone > setting the time different from the standard to justify why they are > doing so. Not only does the guide exist, following it is codified into law in a many if not most states in the USA. It's called the MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices) and is online free to anyone who wants to read it. However, it is designed to be followed entirely, not just pieces here and there. For instance, taking a road where the speed of traffic is 50mph and putting up a 35mph speed limit sign to get a shorter yellow is not acceptable. The speed limit needs to be set according to the manual as well. |