Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Ben Kaufman on 22 Feb 2007 09:52 On 21 Feb 2007 21:50:18 -0800, "k_flynn(a)lycos.com" <k_flynn(a)lycos.com> wrote: >On Feb 21, 6:57 pm, Calgary ><actualrider_remove_the_obvio...(a)telus.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:37:16 -0800, "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? >> >> How about the direction of the car. > >To answer both: The second photo. The first one shows the vehicle >behind the intersection line when the light has turned red. The second >is shot after the car has proceeded through sufficiently to show that >it was going straight, not making a ROR. The photos are time-stamped >to show the proper sequence. Whoa, that would be an awful lot of data to sift through at the end of the day. Ben
From: Ben Kaufman on 22 Feb 2007 10:01 On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:09:43 -0800, Scott en Aztl�n <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Doc" <docsavage20(a)yahoo.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > >>The issue of red-light cams has come up in Florida. An article in >>today's paper doesn't seem to indicate that there's any method to >>prove that the light was actually red when the car went through the >>intersection - such as a second photo showing your vehicle in the >>intersection and the light. > >Some do: > >http://video.tinypic.com/player.php?v=11bj6vn That's cool. It will even delay giving a green light for the other traffic when it believes that a violation may be about to occur. Ben
From: Mike Tantillo on 22 Feb 2007 10:07 On Feb 21, 8:37 pm, "brink" <b...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote in message > > news:1172106334.593707.145730(a)s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > Doc wrote: > >> The issue of red-light cams has come up in Florida. An article in > >> today's paper doesn't seem to indicate that there's any method to > >> prove that the light was actually red when the car went through the > >> intersection - such as a second photo showing your vehicle in the > >> intersection and the light. > > >> In states where these systems are in place, do they include any such > >> evidence to verify the red light or is it simply assumed that the > >> system is perfect, that the photo of your plate was taken properly and > >> that of course you were in violation? > > > Yes, they do, the ones I have seen. Do you have a link to the article > > you referenced? I'd like to read it. > > 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? > Speed. As others have mentioned, the camera snaps a series of pictures of your car. In order for the citation to be upheld, it needs to snap a pic of the car behind the stop bar with a red light, and also in front of the stop bar with a red light. The camera has to know exactly when to snap the pictures in order to ensure that the pictures are taken with the car in the right place. In order to do that, the camera brain needs to know the vehicle's speed. There are double detector loops at the intersection, and the camera uses the two loops to determine the cars speed (using the difference in time between when one loop is activated and when the next one is activated). If you pull onto the loops at 5MPH, chances are you are stopping and not going to roll through the light. If you cross the loops at 35 MPH, chances are you are not going to stop before you are in the intersection. So the camera has a threshold speed, above which it triggers, and below which, you do not get photographed. If you do get photographed, the camera determines when you will be in the intersection, and therefore when to take the second picture, based on the speed. So to answer the original question, the camera does not take your picture if you make a legal right turn on red because you came to a full stop behind the stop bar before making that turn, right? If you illegally roll through at 5 MPH, you still probably won't get your picture taken. But if you totally disregard the requirement to stop, and drive over those loops at 30 MPH, you will get a ticket (and deserve it IMO). Also, if you are a law enforcement vehicle, and you are legally going through on a red, you should be going slow enough to ensure that all cross traffic sees you and has stopped, and therefore also won't trigger the camera. Same applies if you are "pushed" into the intersection on red by a police cruiser with its blue lights behind you (pushed by the force of law and the requirement to let them pass, not physically pushed). > brink
From: k_flynn on 22 Feb 2007 10:53 On Feb 22, 7:52 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb 2007 21:50:18 -0800, "k_fl...(a)lycos.com" <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Feb 21, 6:57 pm, Calgary > ><actualrider_remove_the_obvio...(a)telus.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:37:16 -0800, "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? > > >> How about the direction of the car. > > >To answer both: The second photo. The first one shows the vehicle > >behind the intersection line when the light has turned red. The second > >is shot after the car has proceeded through sufficiently to show that > >it was going straight, not making a ROR. The photos are time-stamped > >to show the proper sequence. > > Whoa, that would be an awful lot of data to sift through at the end of the day. You're kidding, right? It's not much data at all. There's no sifting at the end of the day. It's generated at the time, and it's two photos. My $100 digital camera time-stamps everything I shoot too.
From: k_flynn on 22 Feb 2007 10:55
On Feb 22, 8:07 am, "Mike Tantillo" <mjtanti...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 8:37 pm, "brink" <b...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote in message > > >news:1172106334.593707.145730(a)s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > > Doc wrote: > > >> The issue of red-light cams has come up in Florida. An article in > > >> today's paper doesn't seem to indicate that there's any method to > > >> prove that the light was actually red when the car went through the > > >> intersection - such as a second photo showing your vehicle in the > > >> intersection and the light. > > > >> In states where these systems are in place, do they include any such > > >> evidence to verify the red light or is it simply assumed that the > > >> system is perfect, that the photo of your plate was taken properly and > > >> that of course you were in violation? > > > > Yes, they do, the ones I have seen. Do you have a link to the article > > > you referenced? I'd like to read it. > > > 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? > > Speed. As others have mentioned, the camera snaps a series of > pictures of your car. In order for the citation to be upheld, it > needs to snap a pic of the car behind the stop bar with a red light, > and also in front of the stop bar with a red light. The camera has to > know exactly when to snap the pictures in order to ensure that the > pictures are taken with the car in the right place. In order to do > that, the camera brain needs to know the vehicle's speed. > > There are double detector loops at the intersection, and the camera > uses the two loops to determine the cars speed (using the difference > in time between when one loop is activated and when the next one is > activated). If you pull onto the loops at 5MPH, chances are you are > stopping and not going to roll through the light. If you cross the > loops at 35 MPH, chances are you are not going to stop before you are > in the intersection. So the camera has a threshold speed, above which > it triggers, and below which, you do not get photographed. If you do > get photographed, the camera determines when you will be in the > intersection, and therefore when to take the second picture, based on > the speed. > > So to answer the original question, the camera does not take your > picture if you make a legal right turn on red because you came to a > full stop behind the stop bar before making that turn, right? If you > illegally roll through at 5 MPH, you still probably won't get your > picture taken. But if you totally disregard the requirement to stop, > and drive over those loops at 30 MPH, you will get a ticket (and > deserve it IMO). Also, if you are a law enforcement vehicle, and you > are legally going through on a red, you should be going slow enough to > ensure that all cross traffic sees you and has stopped, and therefore > also won't trigger the camera. Same applies if you are "pushed" into > the intersection on red by a police cruiser with its blue lights > behind you (pushed by the force of law and the requirement to let them > pass, not physically pushed). Does that mean that if I stop on red, but then violate the red light and go through the intersection because I see a gap in cross traffic, I won't be detected? |