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 11 Mar 2007 17:28 On Mar 11, 10:25 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > In article <1173511719.732686.223...(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. > That doesn't mean that all fines raised by RLCs are invalid by default. > Some drivers just run red lights anytime they approach one that's close. And that is precisely why your position is wrong. You argue against proper safe timing of yellow phases before use of RLCs; proper timing should come first, then the number of RLRs would be negligible. IMO, have at them but time the signals properly first. Better to prevent an accident than to photograph it.
From: k_flynn on 11 Mar 2007 17:33 On Mar 11, 10:47 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > In article <aM-dnbbSl6AgZWzYnZ2dnUVZ_vTin...(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > >> Brent P wrote: > >>> In article <TOmdnUnIktYUnXLYnZ2dnUVZ_q3in...(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > >>>> Brent P wrote: > > >>>>> Driving is, given it is now the common form of travel on the roads, a > >>>>> right. Not an inalienable right as it requires some simple regulation so > >>>>> people don't trip over each other as did horses and carriages, but part > >>>>> of the right to travel none the less. > >>>> Your saying so does not make it so. Of course you DO have the right to > >>>> make the assertion otherwise. > >>> The Bill of Rights does. > >> WADR apparently not or else someone should have made some caselaw by now > >> with their successful challenge to EVERY state's contention that it is a > >> privilege. > > > 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 Uh, the word "privilege" does not appear anywhere in your cite, > 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). That does not make it a privilege. > > 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. You need to look up what "privilege" actually means. A driver's license is earned by testing objective standards and is not a special right or immunity enjoyed by only a few.
From: Bruce Richmond on 11 Mar 2007 20:52 On Mar 11, 3:51 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: > Bruce Richmond wrote: > > 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. > > That's already been done, within the MUTCD and ITE guidelines. > > Getting jurisdictions to follow them is another problem, however. The > feds seem to have no issue threatening states with loss of funding if > they don't pass mandatory .08% BAC maximums for DUI, mandatory seatbelt > laws, 55 MPH national maximum speed limits, etc... but do they use that > power to force jurisdictions to simply do the right thing and follow > rules that actually make sense? Hell no, because yellow light timing > isn't a high-visibility, hot-button issue (but with the proliferation of > RLC's, it should be.) I'm not in favor of the feds thretening to withold funds from states that don't fall in line with their guidelines. They do that because they don't have the athority to write state laws themselves. When they use that form of persuasion it is in effect overriding states rights. Having the guidelines certainly helps though and puts pressure on those who set the state/local standards to justify any deviation from the guidelines. > > 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. > > It makes things safer everywhere, not just where the yellow is > artificially shortened. But excusing a short yellow because they've > left an all-red clearance interval is short-sighted. > > nate Hard to argue against it being safer, but many places got along fine without it. Most people have sense enough to look and see whether the cross traffic has cleard before proceeding on the green. I can see having reds all around for a couple of seconds to be sure the drone that never looks doesn't get creamed by someone running a "pink" light, but some of the lights around here hold the all around reds for up to 10 seconds. That's nuts and ticks me off when it's 2 AM and there isn't another car in sight. Bruce > -- > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Bruce Richmond on 11 Mar 2007 20:57 On Mar 11, 4:07 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1173644067.446485.9...(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. Thanks for the info on the MUTCD. Got some reading to do now :)
From: N8N on 12 Mar 2007 14:29
On Mar 12, 1:03 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > In article <o7ydnaR6D8vjsGnYnZ2dnUVZ_tunn...(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > >> Brent P wrote: > >>> In article <1173511719.732686.223...(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. > > I don't accept that as the sole and universal motivation. Even when there's compelling evidence that that is the case? > > > >> 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. > > Your argument would sound more convincing were you arguing for both. I > am as suspicious of your true concerns as you are of my motivations. Why do you say that? i'm not Brent, but I too have serious reservations about RLCs. Mostly because the public has been "trained" to believe that any intersection with a RLC probably has a short yellow, thus they will panic stop if they have to to stop before the intersection. This can't help but have a safety-negative effect. > > >> 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. > > Twenty eight years to this very day I've been in civilian law > enforcement and during that time I've discovered that "fixing the > intersection" does indeed work for the majority of folks, but strong > enforcement has it's place among those for which it doesn't. Agreed 100%. The question is whether RLC's are the right tool for the job. IMHO they aren't, mostly because of the effect I noted above. Had they been properly implemented from the very beginning I would not object to them so strenuously, but when most of the existing RLC installations have been done *in place of* not *subsequent to* applying engineering solutions, I have no choice but to oppose them. > > >>> 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. > > Same could be said of a cop sitting there watching and writing the > tickets. The danger is reduced when the offender gets to the point where > it's not worth taking the chance of getting caught. There is a deterrent > effect in prosecuting violators whether we personally like the means or > not. With a police officer there is a much more immediate cause/effect scenario. A cop will also likely be able to take into account conditions (ice on roadway, approaching emergency vehicle from behind, etc.) that a RLC will not. But again, nothing replaces implementing proper engineering solutions *first* and *then* step up enforcement if the problem remains. > > > 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. > > Really? In study after study huh? Yes, in study after study. Did you follow the link I posted earlier to the Armey report? > How does one explain all of the rear > end collisions that occur it none RLC intersections? How does one explain the marked *increase* in rear-enders at RLC intersections? > Rear end collisions > happen at intersections because drivers aren't paying attention to the > tasks associated with driving. Today's driver is distracted by so many > different stimuli (cell phones being among the worst) that it's almost > always a combination of factors that cause each single accident. > They additionally happen at RLC intersections because those who are aware of the RLC will panic stop on yellow no matter how close to the intersection they may be, and those following may not be expecting same. This doesn't happen nearly as often at non-RLC intersections. > > Doesn't sound safe to me. > > And it never will because this is your cause to champion. An increase in collisions doesn't sound particularly safe, to anyone. nate |