Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Timberwoof on 23 Feb 2007 01:12 In article <v01tt29dc4oipd83s6r4b76ppf76tc5i29(a)4ax.com>, Calgary <actualrider_remove_the_obvious_(a)telus.net> wrote: > On 22 Feb 2007 22:03:17 -0800, "k_flynn(a)lycos.com" <k_flynn(a)lycos.com> > wrote: > > > > >As I said, the lack of a front plate doesn't preclude having a camera > >that takes the driver's picture. It simply requires the second camera, > >which many such installations do have even in states that do have > >front plates. > > I would be interested in knowing which states employ the technology > that way. Can you identify a few? In the US, it seems to be in the hands of the municipalities. San Francisco has such cameras at some intersections downtown. -- Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "Like this cup," the master daid, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you anything unless you first empty your cup?"
From: k_flynn on 23 Feb 2007 01:28 On Feb 22, 11:06 pm, Calgary <actualrider_remove_the_obvio...(a)telus.net> wrote: > On 22 Feb 2007 22:03:17 -0800, "k_fl...(a)lycos.com" <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> > wrote: > > > > >As I said, the lack of a front plate doesn't preclude having a camera > >that takes the driver's picture. It simply requires the second camera, > >which many such installations do have even in states that do have > >front plates. > > I would be interested in knowing which states employ the technology > that way. Can you identify a few? Google is your friend. Start with this one, Fremont CA. http://www.ci.fremont.ca.us/Community/Traffic/RedLightPhotoEnforcement.htm Then go to Poway CA. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050317/news_1mi17pred.html Then read this one: http://www.siliconimaging.com/red_light_cameras.htm I assumed most installations consisted on two cameras per approach, to shoot both front and rear. I don't know that this is true, but the ones I've seen had two cameras per approach.
From: Calgary on 23 Feb 2007 01:35 On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:12:59 -0800, Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam(a)infernosoft.com> wrote: > >> >As I said, the lack of a front plate doesn't preclude having a camera >> >that takes the driver's picture. It simply requires the second camera, >> >which many such installations do have even in states that do have >> >front plates. >> >> I would be interested in knowing which states employ the technology >> that way. Can you identify a few? > >In the US, it seems to be in the hands of the municipalities. San >Francisco has such cameras at some intersections downtown. I am not sure they are used that way TW. Here is an excerpt from the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic: http://www.sfgov.org/site/livablestreets_index.asp?id=14440#report ________________________________________________________ TECHNOLOGY Since California law requires a "clear photograph of a vehicle's license plate and the driver of the vehicle"(8), cameras must photograph vehicles from the front. Cameras rotate among specially made housings at each monitored intersection approach. Motorists cannot easily distinguish which housings contain cameras and which do not. Camera poles stand several feet back from the traffic signal equipment and typically view no more than four lanes of approach traffic. Inductive loops placed just outside the intersection trigger cameras. Each enforced approach lane contains two successive loops, allowing the enforcement system to calculate the speed of passing vehicles. In San Francisco the vehicle speed must be greater than 24 kilometers per hour (15 miles per hour) to trigger a photograph. Cameras only receive power when the signal is red. Therefore, they can only take photographs when the vehicle is illegally entering the intersection on the red signal. Violators receive a grace period: cameras will not photograph vehicles entering the intersection until after the signal has been red for 0.3 seconds. The camera first photographs the vehicle as it illegally enters the intersection. The camera takes a second photograph when the vehicle is in the center of the intersection, allowing for a clear photo of the driver. The timing of the second photograph depends on the speed of the vehicle and the width of the intersection: the faster the vehicle, the shorter the time between the first and second photographs. _________________________________________________________ Clearly they are using cameras taking pictures from the front so they can capture the driver and the plate in the same frame. Now this site may be dated, but it does illustrate the initial years using the red light cameras required only the picture from the front. Unless there was a change in the laws since then I can see no reason why they would go to the added expense of adding second cameras. -- 24 hours in a day & 24 beer in a case Coincidence? I think not
From: Calgary on 23 Feb 2007 01:38 On 22 Feb 2007 22:28:58 -0800, "k_flynn(a)lycos.com" <k_flynn(a)lycos.com> wrote: >On Feb 22, 11:06 pm, Calgary ><actualrider_remove_the_obvio...(a)telus.net> wrote: >> On 22 Feb 2007 22:03:17 -0800, "k_fl...(a)lycos.com" <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >As I said, the lack of a front plate doesn't preclude having a camera >> >that takes the driver's picture. It simply requires the second camera, >> >which many such installations do have even in states that do have >> >front plates. >> >> I would be interested in knowing which states employ the technology >> that way. Can you identify a few? > >Google is your friend. > >Start with this one, Fremont CA. > >http://www.ci.fremont.ca.us/Community/Traffic/RedLightPhotoEnforcement.htm > >Then go to Poway CA. > >http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050317/news_1mi17pred.html > >Then read this one: > >http://www.siliconimaging.com/red_light_cameras.htm > >I assumed most installations consisted on two cameras per approach, to >shoot both front and rear. I don't know that this is true, but the >ones I've seen had two cameras per approach. Interesting. Thanks for the links. -- 24 hours in a day & 24 beer in a case Coincidence? I think not
From: Robert Bolton on 23 Feb 2007 10:33
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam(a)infernosoft.com> wrote in message news:timberwoof.spam-CC3B0A.19165222022007(a)nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net... > In article <a7fst2dme170na4gi4626le5nv9rkdksb6(a)4ax.com>, > Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:27:35 -0600, in misc.transport.road >> russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in >> <cp-dnXY58LIqYUDYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>: >> >In article <544b92F1uv9lgU4(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >brink <brink(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? >> > >> >Ticket 'em all and don't bother to sort them out. If too many people >> >complain, a "no right turn on red" sign solves the problem. >> >> I was given a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign. I have no idea >> whether the judge in the city court had seen his docket or not, but in >> his introduction he noted that people don't stop for stop signs and >> that >> he wasn't going to believe anyone about stopping. At least it was an >> actual cop that ticketed me. > > Well, that sounds like an appeal right there: My father, a German, > taught me to drive, so I'm pretty anal about stopping for stop signs. > (It also gets people to stop tailgating me.) Being found guilty because > the judge assumes that everybody is guilty of that offense strikes me as > injustice. > 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. Given a 3 second rule, I believe the judge is correct in saying no one stops at a stop light....unless they need to make a call on their cell phone perhaps. Robert |