Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: RJ on 12 Mar 2007 15:28 Steve Furbish <sfurbish(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Not the same thing. My argument was simply that traffic violations > should not require jury trials as such would be a colossal waste of tax > dollars and they are, in fact, civil in nature. The colossal expense is exactly why there should be jury trials. The cost of running the court trials should be subtracted from the revenue the government entity gets for the fine.
From: RJ on 12 Mar 2007 15:28 Steve Furbish <sfurbish(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > I dispute that there is a > widespread problem (intentionally avoiding the word conspiracy) with > RLCs Your assertion flies in the face of the facts.
From: Brent P on 12 Mar 2007 16:58 In article <csCdnTbex99IPGjYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> 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. > I guess I figured with your massive intellect and keen grasp of the > English language you would realize that requiring a license in and of > itself suggest privilege over right. License can be revoked whereas > rights cannot. Do you have a right to privacy in prison? Free speach? against search and siezure? Right to vote? What rights are those that can't be taken away 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? > I think jail is confinement following conviction of a crime and after > due process as proscribed in law. I don't think jail is something a > secretary of state (or his motor vehicle division) can autonomously > impose upon you because you have an expressed right under the US > Constitution to a jury trial when you are accused of a crime. What has to happen before one has a DL taken away? What at least is masked as 'due process of law'. >>> 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. > My "masters" apparently seem to make a lot more sense than those voices > in your own head do... When you have no rational argument go for the kook angle.
From: k_flynn on 12 Mar 2007 17:03 Steve Furbish wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > In article <o7ydnaR6D8vjsGnYnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > >> 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. That's precisely why you should oppose the use of RLCs *ahead of* sensible engineering and design fixes to problem intersections. *Safety first* for those who are not intentional red light runners, as you note then you can concentrate on enforcement against "those for which [proper design and signaling] doesn't" solve the problem. If you can reduce red light running 95 percent first by proper signal timing and good intersection design, why on earth would you reject that and opt instead for poor design and unsafe hazardous signal timing for the sake of a RLC installation? That makes no sense. > >> 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. But you miss the most obvious deterrent to violations -- properly timed signals, which reduce the inadvertent violations. An improperly timed signal *induces* violations. > > 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? How does one explain all of the rear > end collisions that occur it none RLC intersections? People stopping short regardless of camera enforcement or not. Some drivers *do* try to stop short for badly timed signals whether there's a camera or not because most people *want* to opbey the law and drive safely. Concentrate on the intentional violators. But you don't refute that rear-end collisions do increase at RLC sites merely by pointing out that some also happen to occur at non-RLC sites. That's not evidence of anything. > 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. None of that refutes the data that rear-end collisions *increase* at RLC intersections. Pointing out that read enders also happen elsewhere for other reasons is not refutation of the point. > > Doesn't sound safe to me. > > And it never will because this is your cause to champion. Your methods would *institutionalize* unsafe practices. Your suggestions are hazardous on their face. > > Steve
From: Bill Walker on 12 Mar 2007 17:14
"N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1173724162.754542.92190(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > 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 Those red light cameras are the biggest fraud that has been perpetrated on the driving public.. Safety has nothing to do with the installation of the damned things.. Those intersections with high volumes of traffic and the high incidence of red light runners are indicators that stricter traffic enforce- ment is warranted.. not some kind of camera for revenue enhancement.. One of the municipals' finest.. on foot manning that intersection and direct- ing traffic, in the old fashioned way.. is the safest means to control the red light runners.. During the highest density of traffic, nothing is more discour- aging to the red light runner, than to see a uniformed officer actually per- forming and directing the traffic.. Of course.. backup in the form of a couple of motorcops might be called for.. One thing is for sure.. the argument for this kind of remedy might encroach on the coffee and donuts breaks, but the public would be getting their money's worth from law enforcement.. With all due respect for professional and conscientious law enforcement officers everywhere.. some of the lazy slobs who wear the badge are a drain on the publics' good will to the good ones.. Bill Walker Irving, Tx. > > |