PDA

View Full Version : Leave it to teenagers to find a new game with Red light Cameras


Rodimus Prime
Dec 23, 2008, 11:03 PM
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081222-dont-like-speed-cameras-use-them-to-punk-your-enemies.html

I have to give them credit for this new game. I hate those cameras since they are not installed for public safety but to make money.

dukebound85
Dec 23, 2008, 11:05 PM
i hate them too

however, when they issue the ticket, do they not match the plate to the vehicle?

XnavxeMiyyep
Dec 23, 2008, 11:07 PM
"This game is very disturbing," the parent told the newspaper. "Especially since unsuspecting parents will also be victimized through receipt of unwarranted photo speed tickets

This is what happens anyway!

Glad they're bringing awareness to this issue.

sushi
Dec 23, 2008, 11:11 PM
however, when they issue the ticket, do they not match the plate to the vehicle?
I would think that they would.

Maybe not based upon the way the article is written.

notjustjay
Dec 24, 2008, 12:16 AM
In my city the fine is $200. :eek: Definitely enough to make me think twice about running a yellow, especially the one time I thought I made it but looked back to see two bright flashes. I waited for weeks to deal with the ticket, but it never came. A friend of mine, who is with the fire department, says that only some of the cameras actually have film in them, and they are rotated around randomly.

robanga
Dec 24, 2008, 12:20 AM
Like them or not, they save lives. The deaths from intersection crashes decline in cities that have them

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/may/11/yes-red-light-cameras-help/

and yes they make the city some $$$ , in some places the companies that maintain them make a percentage on every ticket :)

william sire
Dec 24, 2008, 01:18 AM
This is not the way technology should be used. So I'm glad these kids are making a mockery of it.

.Andy
Dec 24, 2008, 01:28 AM
The article sounds like a complete beat up.

Mr. Giver '94
Dec 24, 2008, 01:47 AM
In my city the fine is $200. :eek: Definitely enough to make me think twice about running a yellow, especially the one time I thought I made it but looked back to see two bright flashes. I waited for weeks to deal with the ticket, but it never came. A friend of mine, who is with the fire department, says that only some of the cameras actually have film in them, and they are rotated around randomly.

In SoCal, the fine is set at a minimum of $438 :eek:

djellison
Dec 24, 2008, 04:21 AM
I hate those cameras since they are not installed for public safety but to make money.

In the UK. Simon Cowell pays more in income tax each year, than speed and saftey cameras generate.

Don't like the fine? Don't break the law by running red lights.

benthewraith
Dec 24, 2008, 07:17 AM
In the UK. Simon Cowell pays more in income tax each year, than speed and saftey cameras generate.

Don't like the fine? Don't break the law by running red lights.

Because however much Simon Cowell makes in income taxes is relevant to kids playing a game to protest/take advantage of a ****** system designed not for public safety but for profit? If they want to keep public safety, rake the laws for running red lights up substantially. Don't spy.

mkrishnan
Dec 24, 2008, 07:30 AM
Like them or not, they save lives. The deaths from intersection crashes decline in cities that have them

This is not the way technology should be used. So I'm glad these kids are making a mockery of it.

I agree. I detest it when technology is used to save lives.

Seriously, I got clipped by one of these things making a left turn on red (i.e. I took position of the intersection and then turned after yellow-light through traffic completed) when I first arrived in Chicago (which, AFAIK, is in complete compliance with the law). So far, I have not received a ticket (I have heard it can take six months for them to be issued) and mostly forgotten about it, but I am kind of annoyed by the fact that the system is so slow. If I were to need to contest the ticket, then I'd like to do it while I still vaguely remember the incident in question.

However, they do save lives and are worthwhile for a variety of other things the police do with them, so aside from the inefficiency with which they're used here, it's worth it.

Rodimus Prime
Dec 24, 2008, 07:38 AM
In the UK. Simon Cowell pays more in income tax each year, than speed and saftey cameras generate.

Don't like the fine? Don't break the law by running red lights.


Who says I run red lights. I normally hit the brakes for yellow but I hate the 2nd guessing myself when some one is on my bumper. I have gone through yellows to avoid being rear ended.

My biggest issue with it city say it is for safety and then they shorten the yellow lights to get more violators. That is when it crosses the line because then it clearly for money and not for safety.

.Andy
Dec 24, 2008, 07:41 AM
My biggest issue with it city say it is for safety and then they shorten the yellow lights to get more violators. That is when it crosses the line because then it clearly for money and not for safety.
Do they really do this? Cameras aside that would be really dangerous for both cars and pedestrians and cyclists crossing at the intersection.

Rodimus Prime
Dec 24, 2008, 07:43 AM
Do they really do this? Cameras aside that would be really dangerous for both cars and pedestrians and cyclists crossing at the intersection.


yep. Houston did it. Lubbock I believe did it during its short time with the cameras . I suspect Dallas has done it as well.

I know Houston did it and got caught by the paper and really did not say anything to defend itself and just swept it under the rug.

Other cities i know have done it.

edit.

I stand correct Dallas and Lubbock BOTH shorten their yellow lights.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

.Andy
Dec 24, 2008, 07:44 AM
yep. Houston did it. Lubbock I believe did it during its short time with the cameras . I suspect Dallas has done it as well.

I know Houston did it and got caught by the paper and really did not say anything to defend itself and just swept it under the rug.

Other cities i know have done it.
What bastards. That really is putting lives at risk.

mkrishnan
Dec 24, 2008, 08:22 AM
What bastards. That really is putting lives at risk.

Yes, that's a completely different matter. They should be rightly ashamed. :rolleyes:

Abstract
Dec 24, 2008, 08:51 AM
Actually, if speed cameras and red-light cameras are there to actually increase safety for all drivers and pedestrians, they either have to be ALL over our city, or not at all. When they had them in Toronto, they were sparsely laid out. There were very few of those cameras, and IMO, this doesn't work. People know where the camera is and slow down, while the only people who pay the fine are speeders who aren't familiar with the area.

If you ever drive in a place like Taipei, where cameras seem to be everywhere in some parts of the city, everyone drives within the limit because they have to.


My point: Either go all out and litter the city with speed cameras, or don't bother putting them up. Otherwise, they generate a lot of revenue without making the streets any safer.

mkrishnan
Dec 24, 2008, 08:56 AM
My point: Either go all out and litter the city with speed cameras, or don't bother putting them up. Otherwise, they generate a lot of revenue without making the streets any safer.

I'm not completely up on this, but ... don't most cities have "problem" intersections that have higher rates of red light runners than most other intersections (and/or have higher rates of accidents related to them, perhaps because they have more pedestrians or more traffic overall, even if the red light running rate is similar)? If so, wouldn't it make sense to oversample these locations?

Mr. Durden
Dec 24, 2008, 10:32 AM
Thats funny that the teenagers would actually not only think of this idea but to go about the time and effort to actually do it. They get an A for the extra effort in my book.

For a while my buddy and i didnt have front license plates on our cars and there was one of the mobile speeding setups that they park on side of the road and it tells you your speed as you drive by (not sure if those take a picture or not)... we would take turns racing down the street to see who could get the highest number (I won. 96.). Not as clever as these kids, but somehow its fun to take something and twist its use into something completely opposite.

weeeee! 35 going on 17.

IJ Reilly
Dec 24, 2008, 10:32 AM
Most of the people who truly hate red-light cameras are the people who run red lights.

Still, there's a few problems with them. The first is cities shortening yellow times. This should not be allowed. The second is that the installation of the cameras is typically not paid for by municipalities, but by the companies that make them. They get a rake-off on the tickets issued. This obvious conflict of interest should also not be allowed. The third is when someone gets their picture taken because they thought the car behind them wasn't going to stop and kept going to avoid a potential rear-end collision. In this case, the cameras are too objective to determine if a willful violation has occurred.

dmr727
Dec 24, 2008, 10:35 AM
we would take turns racing down the street to see who could get the highest number (I won. 96.). Not as clever as these

I've always been curious about what happens when you reach triple digits. Never had the guts to try, though! :)

leekohler
Dec 24, 2008, 10:35 AM
Go teens! I love this. It's about time people exposed these goofy things for what the are- completely wrong.

robanga
Dec 24, 2008, 10:36 AM
Having lived for years in Phoenix, where the city streets are massive four lane roads and people drive on them at freeway speeds, I can tell you having the red light cameras has saved a lot of people. You see some nasty intersection collisions there.

Some misguided soul ( or idiot if you prefer) always think that yellow means speed up no matter if they are 1/4 of a block from the light. They think the 45 seconds they will gain from not stopping is somehow worth it.

There was one particularly bad intersection on the west side of the city that actually saw the loss of life cut by 2/3 over the course of a year. Imagine that a single intersection where let's say 7-10 people died per year. One of the car insurance companies publishes a list every year of the most dangerous intersections and on the top 10, Phoenix had three, one of which was right outside my neighborhood.

Mr. Durden
Dec 24, 2008, 10:45 AM
I've always been curious about what happens when you reach triple digits. Never had the guts to try, though! :)

Haha. Thats exactly what we were trying to do, but alas, the road just wasnt long enough. Or our cars werent fast enough...

Im guessing that triple digits triggers some sort of self destruct mechanism in which the blast also takes out the speeding vehicle. You know, in the interest of public safety. :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly
Dec 24, 2008, 10:53 AM
Haha. Thats exactly what we were trying to do, but alas, the road just wasnt long enough. Or our cars werent fast enough...

Im guessing that triple digits triggers some sort of self destruct mechanism in which the blast also takes out the speeding vehicle. You know, in the interest of public safety. :rolleyes:

It should result in an immediate removal of your driving privileges.

Mr. Durden
Dec 24, 2008, 11:00 AM
It should result in an immediate removal of your driving privileges.

Not likely. This is not communist Russia.

OutThere
Dec 24, 2008, 11:05 AM
Some misguided soul ( or idiot if you prefer) always think that yellow means speed up no matter if they are 1/4 of a block from the light. They think the 45 seconds they will gain from not stopping is somehow worth it.

Where I'm from we call that "new jersey style" driving. :p

IJ Reilly
Dec 24, 2008, 11:14 AM
Not likely. This is not communist Russia.

Congratulations, you win today's nonsense post prize.

Where I'm from we call that "new jersey style" driving. :p

Hey, I learned to drive in New Jersey. It's definitely a different driving scene than California where I now live, but I've got to tell you, I never saw as many red light runners in New Jersey as I do here.

Mr. Durden
Dec 24, 2008, 11:28 AM
Congratulations, you win today's nonsense post prize.

Lighten up. Its the holidays. And by the way, that post did make sense. This ISN'T cummunist russia, and a person will NEVER lose their license for getting a single speeding ticket in that situation. So you, sir (or miss) are clearly not making any sense at all. Use your mind. Or at least make an effort to do so.

Thank you, and that is all. I consider this case closed, and I accept your apology.

dmr727
Dec 24, 2008, 11:32 AM
and a person will NEVER lose their license for getting a single speeding ticket in that situation.

To be fair to IJ, he's probably thinking that going a buck-o-five in a 35mph zone will get you a lot more than a speeding ticket. ;)

Mr. Durden
Dec 24, 2008, 11:43 AM
To be fair to IJ, he's probably thinking that going a buck-o-five in a 35mph zone will get you a lot more than a speeding ticket. ;)

True. Im sure it would. And rightfully so. And... I'll bet you wouldnt lose your license over it. By the way, Im just having fun with him. Slow day at work and nothing to do. You know what they say about idle hands...

steviem
Dec 24, 2008, 11:46 AM
Doing over 100mph in a 30mph zone (which is where these speed indicator signs seem to be) should be enough to be banned from driving.

However, I agree, speed and red light cameras don't replace Patrol cars, as Police Officers have discretion. Cameras do not.

robanga
Dec 24, 2008, 11:48 AM
True. Im sure it would. And rightfully so. And... I'll bet you wouldnt lose your license over it. By the way, Im just having fun with him. Slow day at work and nothing to do. You know what they say about idle hands...

Actually in many if not most states, your license would be suspended for speeding that much over the limit, they would also tack on reckless driving in many states. The length of the suspension would either be per a standard table or left up to the discretion of a judge. If you had multiple offenses you could lose the privilege, the same as drunk driving.

Melrose
Dec 24, 2008, 11:50 AM
Throw the book at the speeders - break the law, pay. Simple.

As always there is a problem inherent in the system, as it seems.. stupid kids.

bobfitz14
Dec 24, 2008, 11:56 AM
Some cities have been caught shortening their yellow light times in order to catch more people running red lights (and therefore generate more revenue)...

i guess i'm not the only one that notices that..f**kers.

calculus
Dec 24, 2008, 12:01 PM
Not as clever as these kids

Or indeed just 'not clever'...

PlaceofDis
Dec 24, 2008, 12:01 PM
so there are more and more of these popping up all over Chicago.
i've gotten it once due to slow moving traffic and being behind a truck.
as of right now the city only puts them in at the 'problematic' intersections, and in some cases i can understand. they do not record speed, but only redlight violations.

cant say that i completely agree with them. but when i see people running led lights all over the place i feel less bad about it really.

robanga
Dec 24, 2008, 12:02 PM
i guess i'm not the only one that notices that..f**kers.

The yellow was meant for a warning to clear the intersection, every sixteen year old is taught that. If they are making it impossible to safely stop at the speed limit that is an issue.

But herein lies the issue, people think that going the speed limit is somehow
" caving in to the man"

bobfitz14
Dec 24, 2008, 12:08 PM
The yellow was meant for a warning to clear the intersection, every sixteen year old is taught that. If they are making it impossible to safely stop at the speed limit that is an issue.

But herein lies the issue, people think that going the speed limit is somehow
" caving in to the man"

i realize the yellow means warning, and it is dumb that they are making the warning shorter just to rake in a much needed cash.

IJ Reilly
Dec 24, 2008, 12:08 PM
Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. That's one of the first things you're supposed to learn about driving. To be allowed to carry that piece of plastic in your wallet which permits you to share the road with everybody else, you agree to at least try to abide by the rules. If you show by your behavior that you aren't interested in keeping up your side of the bargain, then you've voluntarily surrendered that privilege. It's not really a complicated deal.

Mr. Durden
Dec 24, 2008, 12:11 PM
Actually in many if not most states, your license would be suspended for speeding that much over the limit, they would also tack on reckless driving in many states. The length of the suspension would either be per a standard table or left up to the discretion of a judge. If you had multiple offenses you could lose the privilege, the same as drunk driving.

I've gotten a ticket for 107 in a 65. Just a giant fine. No suspension. Mandatory court date though.

My friend (the same one in my story) got a ticket for drag racing (even though he wasnt. he just happened to be going really fast right next to someone else who was going really fast). He was going well over 100 in a 65 zone. Huge fine. No suspension. Mandatory court date. Perhaps being in a 65 zone makes a difference...?

And for the record. That was some time ago. I've matured greatly since then (hard to believe, I know) and now It angers me to see people drive quite so recklessly. I would certainly not condone that type of activity.

Those signs/radar thingees are posted in lots of different speed zones. I think the only place I've never seen them are in 65 and 75 zones.

madoka
Dec 24, 2008, 12:49 PM
There is an article by Patrick Bedard of Car and Driver explaining how these things do NOT improve safety. In fact, they often worsen it.

A nearby city (El Monte, IIRC), found that not only weren't they improving safety, the only ones making any money were the camera-operators. So they shelled out a bunch of money to have the cameras removed.

Edit:

Found the article:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/patrick_bedard/fish_stories_from_the_operators_of_traffic_scameras_column

mkrishnan
Dec 24, 2008, 12:50 PM
There is an article by Patrick Bernard of Car and Driver explaining how these things do NOT improve safety.

A nearby city (El Monte, IIRC), found that not only weren't they improving safety, the only ones making any money were the camera-operators. So they shelled out a bunch of money to have the cameras removed.

So provide a link.

madoka
Dec 24, 2008, 12:58 PM
So provide a link.

Here's a couple of links to El Monte removing the cameras:

http://speedtrapahead.org/wordpress/2008/10/28/california-city-dumps-red-light-camera-program/

http://www.ridelust.com/more-on-red-light-cameras-another-city-gets-rid-of-them-because-they-dont-work/

Big-TDI-Guy
Dec 24, 2008, 12:59 PM
I remember when stop-light cameras were put into Boston, and all the commotion it caused. I have not noticed much of a change - at all, in the years since.

I'm all for safe driving, and enforcement of the law - but I feel this is NOT the way to be going.

Hope these kids get their monies worth of fun, and force people to re-think this big brother system.

Moof1904
Dec 24, 2008, 02:41 PM
Many years ago when I got my license, the rule for yellow light timing was one second of yellow light for each 10 mph of speed limit, rounded up. That meant that a 45 mph road had a five second yellow. In the years since, as red light cams have increased in popularity, the municipalities have shortened the yellow light duration to as little as half of what they were in some cases. In an attempt to make more money for their coffers, they endanger everyone's lives by making intersections more dangerous. Yes people run red lights. But studies have shown that returning the yellow light durations to what they used to be before the money grabbing reduced red light violations by as much or more than the cameras do.

Don't believe the lie that it's about safety. As with many speed limits, it's more about revenue than safety.

I think the only thing these kids are doing wrong is not punking some local judges and legislators with this prank.

djellison
Dec 24, 2008, 03:24 PM
The first is cities shortening yellow times. This should not be allowed.

Agreed. Infact, they should be lengthened. That's out of order.

But they work. There is a really dangerous junction not far from here - camera went up, not a single accident since.

synth3tik
Dec 24, 2008, 03:33 PM
The stop light cameras in Minneapolis were decommissioned because they were ruled "unconstitutional". Complete BS if you ask me. I was ok with those cameras. After all if people knew how to drive they would not have been put up in the first place. Of course the cameras are put in place to make money, along with helping in public safety. What city or state does not need money?

Quite frankly, since the stop light cameras were shut off I have been crossing one particular intersection 5-6 times when a car runs the red.

People hate stop light cameras because they invade their privacy.
People like traffic cameras because they can see traffic conditions. :rolleyes:

Silly peoples..

AppleMatt
Dec 24, 2008, 03:35 PM
Speeding is another of those areas where a lot of people have a lot of strong opinions backed by little fact and strong resolve.

It is actually the cause of very, very few accidents. However, the state needs a way of keeping people slow because most of them cannot read the road, don't understand physics and have no training in what to do when it goes wrong (a big failing in my opinion). Therefore, it's better people make the mistakes whilst going slower so the mess is smaller. It's the mistakes, not the speed.

I'm not posting number or links, look up crash figures and then look up meta analysis of camera data. You'll be very surprised. There are a few districts in the UK that don't fine for careless driving after a crash (in the UK, a crash is careless) but offer extra diver training. They ha an excellent success rate - unlike punishment.

AppleMatt

Melrose
Dec 24, 2008, 04:12 PM
The yellow was meant for a warning to clear the intersection, every sixteen year old is taught that. If they are making it impossible to safely stop at the speed limit that is an issue.

But herein lies the issue, people think that going the speed limit is somehow
" caving in to the man"

I've noticed more and more it seems drivers are blitzing through yellow lights just like greens - they have time to stop, and just keep cruising through. Half the time, it's red by the time they get under the light. They should tighten up a little bit. Shortening the timing is bad, but they should be more strict with enforcing.

2jaded2care
Dec 24, 2008, 08:17 PM
Hopefully the pranksters "get their money's worth" out of their efforts.

And hopefully some victim's lawyer is able to tag a prankster with misdemeanor identity theft, and a term of not more than 18 months, and/or a fine of not more than $5000.

DZ/015
Dec 24, 2008, 09:45 PM
In regards to what the teens are doing, it is stupid and can result in some serious penalties if they are caught. That being said, if I were a teen today I would probably be doing it. Cheap fun.

As for the cameras, I'd rather see them all removed. Too much of a Big Brotherly feel to them. Catch me if you can, but don't use a camera.

IJ Reilly
Dec 24, 2008, 11:30 PM
It is actually the cause of very, very few accidents. However, the state needs a way of keeping people slow because most of them cannot read the road, don't understand physics and have no training in what to do when it goes wrong (a big failing in my opinion). Therefore, it's better people make the mistakes whilst going slower so the mess is smaller. It's the mistakes, not the speed.

Got any data to back that up?

djellison
Dec 25, 2008, 05:42 AM
It is actually the cause of very, very few accidents.

It is, however, especially in urban areas, inherently dangerous - not only to yourself, but to innocent bystanders.

I'm a complete speed freak. Land speed records, F1 racing, the works.

But I'm not so stupid as to think speed limits are a bad thing, nor that enforcing them with cameras is a breach of anyones freedom or liberty.

Catch me if you can, but don't use a camera is possibly the most stupid thing I've ever heard. How about "Catch me if you can for Murder, but don't use forensics" or "Catch me if you can for fraud, but don't use a paper trail". Cameras are a low cost, reliable means of busting people for breaking the law. Police officers on speeding duty cost a lot more, are more dangerous when chasing, and too subjective.

They put signs up warning you they're there. They paint them bright yellow. They put a list of them on the internet. They even publish lists of where they're going to have temporary speed cameras on the web and local newspapers. If you get caught for speeding - who's fault is it.

Doug

william sire
Dec 25, 2008, 10:59 AM
Like them or not, they save lives. The deaths from intersection crashes decline in cities that have themThis is not the way technology should be used. So I'm glad these kids are making a mockery of it.I agree. I detest it when technology is used to save lives.

Actually mkrishnan though you make a good point that is not my argument. This I seriously doubt is about saving lives but rather control. There is no way to ensure that 100% of people are in compliance with the the speed regulations. (AS proven by this article) But that is the reason those speed radar cameras were set up. I would like to know how many people died in accidents on this street prior to the speed cameras being installed, and how many people complained about drivers speeding.

There have been other traffic studies in parts of the US (Mid western states Arizona, Utah and Nevada come to mind as well as Virginia and West Virginia which is where I am from) that proved by changing the structure of the roads to accommodate the increased population and allow greater speeds for more traffic resulted far better in reducing vehicle accidents.

To compare the two is obviously not the issue here. I however detest control issues. I don't believe anyone has the right, even the long arm of the law, to force a population into 100% compliance unless it is regulated to specific cases.

That was my issue, I am not against saving lives.

robanga
Dec 25, 2008, 11:17 AM
Actually mkrishnan though you make a good point that is not my argument. This I seriously doubt is about saving lives but rather control. There is no way to ensure that 100% of people are in compliance with the the speed regulations. (AS proven by this article) But that is the reason those speed radar cameras were set up. I would like to know how many people died in accidents on this street prior to the speed cameras being installed, and how many people complained about drivers speeding.

There have been other traffic studies in parts of the US (Mid western states Arizona, Utah and Nevada come to mind as well as Virginia and West Virginia which is where I am from) that proved by changing the structure of the roads to accommodate the increased population and allow greater speeds for more traffic resulted far better in reducing vehicle accidents.

To compare the two is obviously not the issue here. I however detest control issues. I don't believe anyone has the right, even the long arm of the law, to force a population into 100% compliance unless it is regulated to specific cases.

That was my issue, I am not against saving lives.

You seem to be for saving lives but on your terms.
There have been numerous studies that prove that cameras save lives. Google comes up with several. Red Light cameras more than speed one's however. But living in a city like phoenix where speeding is really bad precisely because the roads are so good and "structured", you see some horrible accidents because of speed,

Actually I would be for technology that forces 100% compliance, if it could be fairly implemented. Actually using cheap GPS and cellular towers you could stop all speeding, I'd be fore that. Except for the cities would lose $$$ millions in revenue from tickets.

Sun Baked
Dec 25, 2008, 01:44 PM
I like this radar camera game better.

Santa impersonators wrap radar cameras in Tempe (http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepagetopstory/stories/tempe-local-news-122308-santas-wrap-cameras.1e8af89.html)

http://www.azfamily.com/sharedcontent/newslink/thumbnail/azfamily/0852/santa_1046-t240.jpg

yg17
Dec 25, 2008, 02:04 PM
Speeding is another of those areas where a lot of people have a lot of strong opinions backed by little fact and strong resolve.

It is actually the cause of very, very few accidents. However, the state needs a way of keeping people slow because most of them cannot read the road, don't understand physics and have no training in what to do when it goes wrong (a big failing in my opinion). Therefore, it's better people make the mistakes whilst going slower so the mess is smaller. It's the mistakes, not the speed.

I'm not posting number or links, look up crash figures and then look up meta analysis of camera data. You'll be very surprised. There are a few districts in the UK that don't fine for careless driving after a crash (in the UK, a crash is careless) but offer extra diver training. They ha an excellent success rate - unlike punishment.

AppleMatt

I think the entire concept of speed limits is flawed. I was recently nailed on a highway, 77 in a 60. I know someone's thinking "OMG, 17 over! You're wreckless!!!" This was early on a Saturday morning, like 9 AM, so there was absolutely no one on the road except me. I was in the left lane, so it's not like I had to worry about traffic merging into my lane from side streets. And it was bright and sunny and not a drop of water on the road. The only thing I could've crashed into was the concrete median, and I'm pretty sure that if I crashed into the median at 60 or 77, I'd be ******** either way.

Speed limits need to be arbritary and based on conditions, not fixed. Obviously, I'm not going to go 77 on a highway in traffic, or when it's pouring down rain or snow. But I don't think that in my situation, my speed was dangerous

Phil A.
Dec 25, 2008, 03:12 PM
To be fair to IJ, he's probably thinking that going a buck-o-five in a 35mph zone will get you a lot more than a speeding ticket. ;)

Here in the UK, it would get you an instant ban (as does any speed that is more than 30mph over the speed limit), and that far over would probably also result in a custodial sentence for dangerous driving.

IJ Reilly
Dec 25, 2008, 03:49 PM
I think the entire concept of speed limits is flawed. I was recently nailed on a highway, 77 in a 60. I know someone's thinking "OMG, 17 over! You're wreckless!!!

I don't know if you are "wreckless," but I'm pretty sure "reckless" covers most speeding.

Here in the UK, it would get you an instant ban (as does any speed that is more than 30mph over the speed limit), and that far over would probably also result in a custodial sentence for dangerous driving.

That would never go here. In this country, deliberately disobeying traffic laws is just this side of a Constitutional right.

ReanimationLP
Dec 25, 2008, 04:57 PM
I love this state.

We cheapen out on cameras, send indications without matching anything, then kids figure out how to trick it.

Go Go MD! :rolleyes:

I havent heard of this happening in Anne Arundel County, but it is humorous to hear that our neighboring county is having a bit of difficulty due to some smartassed kids.

EricNau
Dec 25, 2008, 05:00 PM
These cameras also take a picture of the car and driver, correct? (They do in California.)

If that's the case, it shouldn't be hard to contest (and possibly find the actual perpetrator).

william sire
Dec 26, 2008, 09:37 AM
Speeding is another of those areas where a lot of people have a lot of strong opinions backed by little fact and strong resolve.

It is actually the cause of very, very few accidents. However, the state needs a way of keeping people slow because most of them cannot read the road, don't understand physics and have no training in what to do when it goes wrong (a big failing in my opinion). AppleMatt

You are almost on the bulls eye and are headed in the right direction with this. It is differentials in speed, not speed itself that is the cause of accidents. You can witness this yourself if you just watch traffic. You will see what is called an accordion effect. When you see that you'll see a lot of brake lights, near misses. This is caused by one driver in the right lane driving at 55mph while another driver behind that one driving at 60mph and the driver, whom like to travel in the left lane (which is an error in itself) driving driving at 50mph, and so on and so on.

There is a great deal to be learned in an advanced driving class. It also helps that I have been driving professionally for 15 years. So I'm on the road 8 to 10 hours a day. Personally I believe the advanced drivers class I went to should be called "basic" and it should be required. It was only a week long and two hours a day. But after coming out I talked to police in charge of monitoring traffic and there answer or everything was "slow people down," more tickets.

Requiring drivers have advanced education and training is, to me, a far more suitable answer than these cameras set up for this purpose.

iJohnHenry
Dec 26, 2008, 09:52 AM
If this observation has already been made, I apologise. Not going to read 60+ posts right now. ;)

I am happy to see the the U.S., and others, are moving to the French system of Guilty, Until Proven Innocent. :rolleyes:

Everyone better start keeping a log of where your car(s) was and when. Ticketing a vehicle, and not the driver, in flat-out insane.

Perhaps have GPS's record your movements, to offer as evidence in traffic court??

Big-TDI-Guy
Dec 26, 2008, 10:35 AM
Perhaps have GPS's record your movements, to offer as evidence in traffic court??

Onstar is now standard on over 30 GM vehicles. ;)

IJ Reilly
Dec 26, 2008, 10:57 AM
Requiring drivers have advanced education and training is, to me, a far more suitable answer than these cameras set up for this purpose.

It's one thing to require training, but would it be required for drivers to actually pass testing after the training? I had a "driver's ed" class in high school, but I don't think even this is done much anymore.

If prospective drivers were exposed to even 1/10 the minimum requirements of a private pilot's license, not to mention the level of enforcement, probably half or more of the people driving today would not be behind the wheel.

AppleMatt
Dec 26, 2008, 11:28 AM
Big long post

I'm not sure why you quoted me, because your post had almost no relavence to what I said? I stated facts about speeding. What I didn't say was 'I love to speed, I'm a piston head, look here's a youtube video of me standing on a motor bike at 100mph'. I'm not arguing with your opinins, I just don't want you enforcing your views onto how you believe I am.

Got any data to back that up?

Did you not read my post? I stated why I conciously did not post links. My views evolved by actively researching into the topic, not accepting what I hear. If you aren't prepared to do this, if you aren't prepared to put your pride on the line, you aren't really interested in the truth. Regardless, how about from statistics (not opinions): The Department for Transports' Annual 'Road Casualties Great Britain' Report.

2006: "exceeding the speed limit as a factor in 12 per cent of fatal road accidents and 5 per cent of all road accidents."
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain2006

2007: "Failed to look properly was the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 35 per cent of all accidents. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 33 per cent of fatal accidents."
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071

Seeing as speeding causes so few (relative to other causes) deaths, I think we should be focusing on the number one cause first, then the number two, then three. If you (not you personally, anyone reading this) want to jump on me for that, go right ahead - and continue in your ignorant bliss that you are driving 'safely' at 29mph in a 30.

An excellent resource you should read is a book called 'Mind Driving' by, I believe, Stephen Hayley (you'll have to check the author). It's a very basic introduction but it does touch on a number of wider issues around the mentality of driving and accidents. My final 'back up' would be the fact that Germany, for example, have higher speed limits and fewer fatalities. Futher information, although to be used with caution:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/
http://pistonheads.co.uk/speed/default.asp?storyId=13668

I think the entire concept of speed limits is flawed...Speed limits need to be arbritary and based on conditions, not fixed. Obviously, I'm not going to go 77 on a highway in traffic, or when it's pouring down rain or snow. But I don't think that in my situation, my speed was dangerous

Whilst I don't know the facts of your case, you do highlight a good point. You can drive safely above the limit and unsafely far below it.

What's unfortunate is the number of people driving appaulingly but who take pride in their moral stance of 'I never speed', as if that automatically qualifies them as a good, safe and conciencious driver. Acting with good intentions is no excuse, as far as I'm concerned.

You are almost on the bulls eye and are headed in the right direction with this. It is differentials in speed, not speed itself that is the cause of accidents. You can witness this yourself if you just watch traffic. You will see what is called an accordion effect. When you see that you'll see a lot of brake lights, near misses. This is caused by one driver in the right lane driving at 55mph while another driver behind that one driving at 60mph and the driver, whom like to travel in the left lane (which is an error in itself) driving driving at 50mph, and so on and so on.

There is a great deal to be learned in an advanced driving class. It also helps that I have been driving professionally for 15 years. So I'm on the road 8 to 10 hours a day. Personally I believe the advanced drivers class I went to should be called "basic" and it should be required. It was only a week long and two hours a day. But after coming out I talked to police in charge of monitoring traffic and there answer or everything was "slow people down," more tickets.

Requiring drivers have advanced education and training is, to me, a far more suitable answer than these cameras set up for this purpose.

This post proves my point about mindset quite well - rather than take a passive view, someone who has thought and been educated in the subject goes against strong, but too common opinions. He hasn't stated speeding is good, nor that we shouldn't have cameras. What he's done is re-focus onto the real causal issues of accidents across the whole country.

My point is not speed cameras don't work or we should all speed. My point is we should think about what causes accidents and think about what is safe driving. Being 'in the right' isn't always right. As speeding is the (I believe) seventh causes of accidents, I think we should tackle the bigger causes. It just so happens, these cannot be tackled by cameras but need education. That's not a vote winner. Saying 'we reduced casulties along this 30 ft stretch of road from 7 per year to 2 with a bright yellow camera' is a vote winner. It does nothing for the thousands upon thousands of people dying on the miles of road elsewhere in the country, but that's ok, we won't mention that, we'll bury it in the (above linked) reports. If cameras work to solve a particular problem on a particular part of a road, so be it; install them.

AppleMatt
(not on my Mac so excuse poor spelling)

iJohnHenry
Dec 26, 2008, 11:31 AM
Don't make me move this to the PRSI forum!!!! http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/a11.gif








http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif

william sire
Dec 26, 2008, 11:42 AM
Perhaps have GPS's record your movements, to offer as evidence in traffic court??

The next application on your iPhone

IJ Reilly
Dec 26, 2008, 12:07 PM
Did you not read my post? I stated why I conciously did not post links. My views evolved by actively researching into the topic, not accepting what I hear. If you aren't prepared to do this, if you aren't prepared to put your pride on the line, you aren't really interested in the truth. Regardless, how about from statistics (not opinions): The Department for Transports' Annual 'Road Casualties Great Britain' Report.

The Earth is a cube. Really. Everybody tells me otherwise, but that's what I believe anyway.

Speeding can be eliminated as the cause of virtually all accidents. Do you know how? Easy -- eliminate all speed limits. That's right, if it's not a citable offense, it's not a cause. That's just one way to screw around with the statistics to derive a friendly conclusion.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E2DE133FF93BA25754C0A96F958260

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-07-22-4011663683_x.htm

http://www.consumersunion.org/other/speedlimits/speed031500a3.htm

Ah, that old devil physics. It's so hard to get around.

Antares
Dec 26, 2008, 12:14 PM
I am opposed to red light cameras (or any other traffic cameras) on a fundamental level.
1. It doesn't matter who is driving the car. The person who owns the car, gets the ticket.
2. There are some lights that have poor placement (like double lights) that can easily be blocked by large vehicles. A cop wouldn't give a ticket, a red light camera would. This would be difficult to prove when contesting the ticket by mail or court but a cop would agree, on the spot, and not give you a ticket.
3. Red light cameras give tickets for turning on red....for not coming to a complete stop...even when you do stop. A cop wouldn't ticket you. This would be impossible to prove when contesting by mail or at court.
4. Red light cameras give tickets for turning on red when it's a "no turn on red" intersection....even if all such signs are obscured/blocked/covered up. A cop wouldn't give you a ticket...a red light camera would. This would be nearly impossible to prove when contesting by mail or at court.

People who run red lights, on purpose, should get tickets. People who make turns on red without stopping at all, should get a ticket. However, red light cameras give tickets both to people who deserve them and those who do not. And they are extremely difficult to contest....especially when the tickets come weeks or months after the incident...and it is too late to gather evidence to prove your case.

Red light/traffic cameras do nothing for safety. The people who run lights will still run them (either by those who are not paying attention or those who don't want to get stuck at the light and purposely run through). No. Red light cameras are put in place, by cities, as a revenue source and not for safety reasons. They give tickets to people who don't deserve them/shouldn't get them....in addition to giving them to people who do.

william sire
Dec 26, 2008, 12:51 PM
Correctamudo!!

EricNau
Dec 26, 2008, 02:39 PM
1. It doesn't matter who is driving the car. The person who owns the car, gets the ticket.
You are not responsible for paying the ticket if you were not the driver. The cameras take a photo of the driver, so this is easy enough to contest without going to court.

2. There are some lights that have poor placement (like double lights) that can easily be blocked by large vehicles. A cop wouldn't give a ticket, a red light camera would. This would be difficult to prove when contesting the ticket by mail or court but a cop would agree, on the spot, and not give you a ticket.
Then you shouldn't be following the vehicle in front of you that closely; it's absolutely no excuse. Besides, photo-protected intersections are usually larger intersections that would be more likely to have visible lights.

3. Red light cameras give tickets for turning on red....for not coming to a complete stop...even when you do stop. A cop wouldn't ticket you. This would be impossible to prove when contesting by mail or at court.
How can you stop but not stop? You either stop or you don't; the latter deserves a ticket.

4. Red light cameras give tickets for turning on red when it's a "no turn on red" intersection....even if all such signs are obscured/blocked/covered up. A cop wouldn't give you a ticket...a red light camera would. This would be nearly impossible to prove when contesting by mail or at court.
Photo-protected intersections aren't likely to have obscured signs.

Antares
Dec 26, 2008, 04:49 PM
You are not responsible for paying the ticket if you were not the driver. The cameras take a photo of the driver, so this is easy enough to contest without going to court.
That's not the point. You still have the hassle. And it's still on you since you're the registered owner of the car.

Then you shouldn't be following the vehicle in front of you that closely; it's absolutely no excuse. Besides, photo-protected intersections are usually larger intersections that would be more likely to have visible lights.
Nope. Not in Chicago. Chicago is a different beast that puts them on small intersections. Often in hidden locations without any sort of signs or warnings. They are often put in spots where the place you're actually supposed to stop can be confusing.

This example was a freeway underpass. I was in my own lane with no cars in front of me. The vehicle I was referring to was next to me. The first light was on the left of the truck. There was a second light at the actual intersection (in the middle, up top, where street signals normally are...and visible to anyone). That second light had those lines on the ground showing where to stop before the intersection....which is what I went up to and stopped at. Unbeknownst to me, I was supposed to stop at the first light (which was hidden from view by the truck until I was already past it). That first stop was only two car lengths before the second stop.

....this was a street that I had never driven down.

How can you stop but not stop? You either stop or you don't; the latter deserves a ticket.
Nope. I'm talking about "stop" versus "not stopping at all" versus "complete stop" versus "absolute stop." There are people who lightly tap their breaks, which is not stopping. There are people who don't break at all, which is not stopping. These two things should rightfully be ticketed. I'm talking about "not stopping for a long enough amount of time" which is absolutely ridiculus.... No cars around. No pedestrians. Me stopping...but not for long enough. Cops don't ticket this.

Photo-protected intersections aren't likely to have obscured signs.

Again, doesn't apply to Chicago. Have you seen some of our intersections? Also, after a snow, signs are often completely covered in snow so you can't read them....which is a pain if it's a place you don't regularly drive or have never driven.

My example is January 1st. New Year's day. 9:11 AM. Apparently, there was a sign that said No Turn on Red, 9 AM to 6 PM. The picture even showed the sign covered in snow (I know this from driving on that street at later dates). I was at my firend's place for New Year's and spent the night there since I was drinking heavily. The thing is, if I left after the party and drunk drove, I wouldn't have gotten a ticket at that red light (since there wouldn't have been any restrictions at that time).

EricNau
Dec 26, 2008, 04:55 PM
Nope. Not in Chicago...
That's unfortunate then. In California, all protected intersections are clearly marked, and based on my personal experience, fair.

As with many things, I guess implementation makes a huge difference to the fairness of a situation.

AppleMatt
Dec 26, 2008, 06:29 PM
The Earth is a cube. Really. Everybody tells me otherwise, but that's what I believe anyway.

Speeding can be eliminated as the cause of virtually all accidents. Do you know how? Easy -- eliminate all speed limits. That's right, if it's not a citable offense, it's not a cause. That's just one way to screw around with the statistics to derive a friendly conclusion.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E2DE133FF93BA25754C0A96F958260

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-07-22-4011663683_x.htm

http://www.consumersunion.org/other/speedlimits/speed031500a3.htm

Ah, that old devil physics. It's so hard to get around.

How do you reconcile these snide remarks with the two verified datasets I provided you with? 1) They contain every single recorded crash in the UK and 2) Unlike your assertion that I am 'eliminating the cause by fiddling statistics', it does quite the opposite: it devotes a whole section to speeding as the cause of accidents. In 2006 it returned...6%. I'm certianly not fiddling the numbers, and it would be counter intuititive as a government body for them to either.

Instead of addressing the points made, you are using that good old trick of re-phrasing what I said, and then refuting that re-phrasal. Easily done, but complete twoddle.

I know you did not bother to counter the facts which I presented you with, but I'll address your quick google search anyway:
1) Interesting newspaper article, I am sorry for the victims. Unfortunately it goes no-where to refute my point that speed is not the primary cause of accidents. Certainly speed makes the mess bigger, but I've already said this. Therefore, I see no point in you including this as you're refuting a point which I have not made? My stance is: let's focus on the biggest cause of accidents first. Morally, how can you justify taking any other view?
2) Anecdotes from various people in another newspaper article; 'maybe the credit crunch means less people are on the roads etc etc'. Not interested.
3) Did you even read this, or was it the most official looking result? It certainly had a promising title didn't it. The content, however, clearly states: "These results do not convey the impact of the speed limit increase on traffic fatalities. Rather, the study relates interstate deaths to non-interstate deaths". Irrelevent, and unbelievable you would include this.

In reply, let's have facts, and please drop this image you have of me as someone going at 150mph through a 20 with two fingers up to the law. The fact is, speed is not (by far) the leading cause of accidents. Hence, people can drive very dangerously far below the speed limit, avoiding every camera and getting a nice warm feeling of moral superiority.

AppleMatt

djellison
Dec 26, 2008, 06:48 PM
Hence, people can drive very dangerously far below the speed limit, avoiding every camera and getting a nice warm feeling of moral superiority.

A warm feeling that can last to the point when they get pulled over for driving without due care and attention.
:rolleyes:

AppleMatt
Dec 26, 2008, 07:05 PM
A warm feeling that can last to the point when they get pulled over for driving without due care and attention.
:rolleyes:

Well, no actually. On the facts I presented it would be dangerous driving, although due to the difficulty in proving this without an accident the fallback would be careless driving.

Assuming, that is, someone saw them at the very point they did it.

I am not as stupid as to think we shouldn't have limits or cameras, but I worry about those who do not question it. Let's tackle the number one cause of fatalites first. And, it may surprise you, but I've not ever had a speeding ticket, nor charged with any driving offence, nor been in an at-fault accident. Stupid I am.

AppleMatt

IJ Reilly
Dec 26, 2008, 10:04 PM
In reply, let's have facts, and please drop this image you have of me as someone going at 150mph through a 20 with two fingers up to the law. The fact is, speed is not (by far) the leading cause of accidents. Hence, people can drive very dangerously far below the speed limit, avoiding every camera and getting a nice warm feeling of moral superiority.

In reply, I have no image of you whatsoever. Sorry about that.

You should read the last article I linked, or at least the introduction and the conclusions. It explains the statistical links between increased speed and fatalities in as much detail as you are likely to find. We had a nice opportunity to measure this effect when the national 55 speed limit was abandoned a few years ago. More speed, more deaths. The physics of this being so completely basic, I wonder how anyone could have questioned the relationship, but there you go.

juanster
Dec 26, 2008, 10:12 PM
Actually, if speed cameras and red-light cameras are there to actually increase safety for all drivers and pedestrians, they either have to be ALL over our city, or not at all. When they had them in Toronto, they were sparsely laid out. There were very few of those cameras, and IMO, this doesn't work. People know where the camera is and slow down, while the only people who pay the fine are speeders who aren't familiar with the area.



yup i remember this, just slow down in the SE corner of vp and lawrence and then on the SW corner of warden and lawrence and you are good to go...

Aea
Dec 26, 2008, 10:34 PM
I have no problem with the idea in general, I have an issue with local governments tweaking the system for greater gain. If you think that shortening yellow times was unfair, one intersection near me on a turn had a split second green for about a week. I kid you not, the arrow would turn green, then half a second later it would be a yellow, this would allow for maybe two people to legally turn, the turn pocket contained space for about ten vehicles (two laner). I think that there needs to be a law to enforce a minimum timing on both yellow lights and turn lanes. 1 Second per 10 MPH for yellows, 5 Seconds per Vehicle (adjusted for number of turn lanes) for every vehicle that fits in a turn pocket for green arrows. Of course, you wouldn't be able to rake in so much money on cameras.

Oh, and for congested city streets, sync the bloody lights. In downtown Denver near the Colfax/Speer intersection the lights are fifty feet apart in some areas, way too easy to get stuck behind somebody, and don't give me the "keep your distance line," there's no room to keep distance, and no way to gauge if you will fit. This is only reasonable when traffic is moving so slow that you stop at intersections and then wait until there's a space.

I never have gotten a ticket either from an officer or from a camera, but then again I drive much more conservatively then I legally should have to (to the dismay of many drivers that decide to tailgate me) then I would if my city didn't have to resolve to such dirty tricks to make some revenue.

CalBoy
Dec 27, 2008, 12:44 AM
These teenagers are drawing attention to a very important problem with these cameras (in this particular area).

On a more fundamental level, I have problems with these cameras because they are so absolute in nature. There's less room for error, and most officers are willing to look the other way for minor speeding or even the occasional driver who just barely runs a red.

Beyond that, the more troubling part of these cameras is that companies profit off of them. That creates a very bad incentive for cities, since they have an outside group that can pressure them to put up these cameras.

I would prefer it if people actually had to have more drivers ed (if you're under 18 in California, it's 30 hours of classroom training followed by 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training-this should be standard for all drivers).

AppleMatt
Dec 27, 2008, 06:43 AM
In reply, I have no image of you whatsoever. Sorry about that.

You should read the last article I linked, or at least the introduction and the conclusions. It explains the statistical links between increased speed and fatalities in as much detail as you are likely to find. We had a nice opportunity to measure this effect when the national 55 speed limit was abandoned a few years ago. More speed, more deaths. The physics of this being so completely basic, I wonder how anyone could have questioned the relationship, but there you go.

?

Well it looks like we crossed wires as this is not something I have refuted: On the contrary, throughout my posts I have explicitely stated that, when people do crash, the faster they are going the bigger the mess. My point was, eliminate the main causes of crashes and the contributary factor of speed starts to become largely irrelevent; if 100 people die because of driving through a red light (or dodgy corner etc. etc.), and 150 die due to doing the same whilst speeding, let's tackle the red light problem and eliminate both figures - tackle what's killing the most people.

You, I believe, are looking at causality incorrectly (which, ironically, should be part of your scientific method). A link between increased speed and fatalities? No doubt, but causality? No. Slowing people down won't stop them crashing and killing people there are wider (proven) causal issues at play - last year, the prevailing issue was 'failing to look' (above dataset).

I'm not sure how to make my point any clearer (or 'completely basic') for you, arrogant but ultimately unqualified statements such as 'physics' aren't aiding the discussion and your latest post indicates that the issue you have is not relavent to my point, so I think we should leave it at that.

AppleMatt

IJ Reilly
Dec 27, 2008, 11:12 AM
You are attempting to argue me into a corner of your choosing. That's not going to happen. I have not for example ever argued "main causes" vs. "contributory causes." This is your argument, not mine. I have neither made that argument nor responded to it.

The physics of driving is completely germane to this discussion. Not only does speed increase kinetic energy and thus the ability to produce damage and injury, it also dramatically increases stopping distances and reduces reaction times. These are very important causalities in car accidents, almost too obvious to mention. Your argument that slowing people down won't "stop them crashing and killing people" is obviously absurd, a straw-man. Nobody is making this argument aside from yourself.

AppleMatt
Dec 27, 2008, 11:26 AM
Yep ok. I'm happy to let people read the thread and make up their own minds.

AppleMatt

branjosef
Jan 11, 2009, 03:18 AM
I like how they refer to it as a "game" when in fact its a way of causing harm to someone they want to get back at or victimize. Why is it a game?

Sayer
Jan 11, 2009, 07:28 AM
Funny how one of the most liberal states has people whining about rights and due process regarding red-light cameras.

Sorry, bub, the supreme court is on government's side and says red light cameras are not a violation of your due process rights.

Laws are great as long as they don't hassle you, eh? Kinda like how the consumer protection group is targeting thrift stores with safety laws and suddenly its invasive to tell people how to run their businesses.

SMDrew
Jan 11, 2009, 11:46 AM
Sorry, bub, the supreme court is on government's side and says red light cameras are not a violation of your due process rights.


http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=104241

"...according to federal judges in other parts of the country, those cameras are legal because of the relatively small fine they impose."

Yup, my government at work :rolleyes: The original claim is that the accused is denied the constitutional right to face their accuser. There is no person triggering the camera, and the camera manufacturers will not allow a member of the general public to have a look at how they work. Ergo, a malfunctioning camera can falsely trigger thousands of dollars of fines, and the ticketed drivers would have very little recourse.

theBB
Jan 11, 2009, 11:48 AM
Yep ok. I'm happy to let people read the thread and make up their own minds.
Dude, it is fairly simple. Everybody makes mistakes or gets distracted momentarily while driving. If you are at a high speed, you will have a lot less time to react to or correct that mistake. You can say, the cause was the distraction or the mistake, but that does not change the fact that you have better chances of avoiding a collusion if you are driving at a lower speed. It is basically an everyday cost-benefit analysis. You may save time by going faster
on almost everyday, but increase your chances of getting into an accident for that one time when the stars are not aligned for you.

theBB
Jan 11, 2009, 11:54 AM
3. Red light cameras give tickets for turning on red....
In California, the intersections with red light cameras are well marked, so I don't have the same problem as you do. However, I have seen one flash and snap pictures for cars that take a right turn on red, even though it is legally allowed. I doubt that they check whether the car came to a full-stop. I think the cameras get triggered whenever a car crosses a line in the intersection during a red light. I don't know whether the system then decides not to issue a ticket for right turns, so I decide not to take a chance when I see a red light camera and I only make a right turn on green. That is the only part of red light cameras that I dislike.

IJ Reilly
Jan 11, 2009, 12:01 PM
A right turn on a red is allowed only after coming to a full stop (at least in California). Presumably red light cameras which are working properly don't snap drivers who are making legal right turns on a red. I've never seen it happen anyway.

theBB
Jan 11, 2009, 12:01 PM
There is an article by Patrick Bedard of Car and Driver explaining how these things do NOT improve safety. In fact, they often worsen it.

I think there was a research project from University of Maryland, that showed the number of accidents increased in intersections with red light cameras. As the drivers slammed on the brakes to avoid getting their pictures taken when the light turns red, more rear end collisions started taking place. Of course, the rear end ones may not be as deadly as high speed side-impact collisions.

theBB
Jan 11, 2009, 12:13 PM
A right turn on a red is allowed only after coming to a full stop (at least in California). Presumably red light cameras which are working properly don't snap drivers who are making legal right turns on a red. I've never seen it happen anyway.
It must be very difficult to design such a camera. In any case, I have observed this happening quite a few times at one intersection, so I stopped taking any chances. As I've said, they may not be issuing fines for right turns even if a picture is taken, but I don't know that for sure. If I get that fine in the mail, how can I prove that it was a malfunction and that I stopped long enough?

For straight through red light violations, I strongly support cameras (assuming they are well made.) However, I gotta say red light violations are very rare around where I live, unless it is the "reached the intersection on yellow, but turned red by the time the car left it" type. I have never seen such a "slight" violation cause a collusion.

IJ Reilly
Jan 11, 2009, 12:26 PM
It must be very difficult to design such a camera. In any case, I have observed this happening quite a few times at one intersection, so I stopped taking any chances. As I've said, they may not be issuing fines for right turns even if a picture is taken, but I don't know that for sure. If I get that fine in the mail, how can I prove that it was a malfunction and that I stopped long enough?

I don't trust the things myself either, but I also can't see changing the way I drive (legally, to the best of my ability) out of fear of being ticketed for a non-violation. My problem with the camera controlled intersections is the same as with non-camera controlled intersection -- that I stop for the red but the guy behind me jams on the accelerator to beat it. Not sure if cameras reduce or increase this situation.

For straight through red light violations, I strongly support cameras (assuming they are well made.) However, I gotta say red light violations are very rare around where I live, unless it is the "reached the intersection on yellow, but turned red by the time the car left it" type. I have never seen such a "slight" violation cause a collusion.

Red light running is rampant in my area, even worse in LA. I can hardly believe the number of people who blow right through red lights in LA. I just dread driving in the city.

AppleMatt
Jan 11, 2009, 12:27 PM
Dude, it is fairly simple. Everybody makes mistakes or gets distracted momentarily while driving. If you are at a high speed, you will have a lot less time to react to or correct that mistake. You can say, the cause was the distraction or the mistake, but that does not change the fact that you have better chances of avoiding a collusion if you are driving at a lower speed. It is basically an everyday cost-benefit analysis. You may save time by going faster
on almost everyday, but increase your chances of getting into an accident for that one time when the stars are not aligned for you.

Yep. I have at no point refuted any of that, and I certainly haven't factored in distraction (a valid point) or saving time. This is what I said in my last post...

Well it looks like we crossed wires as this is not something I have refuted: On the contrary, throughout my posts I have explicitely stated that, when people do crash, the faster they are going the bigger the mess. My point was, eliminate the main causes of crashes and the contributary factor of speed starts to become largely irrelevent; if 100 people die because of driving through a red light (or dodgy corner etc. etc.), and 150 die due to doing the same whilst speeding, let's tackle the red light problem and eliminate both figures - tackle what's killing the most people.

My point was, and remains, that the figures show there are far bigger causes of death than speeding (a previous post I made linked to the annual UK figures...35% caused by failing to look, 5% by speeding). Therefore tackle these first. My point wasn't 'lets all speed because it's harmless' :rolleyes:.

I clearly haven’t stated it clearly enough for xx people to think otherwise, but I literally am at a loss as to how else to describe it - I thought the extensive data I provided would be proof enough.

AppleMatt
edit: corrected 6% to 5%.

Mr. lax
Jan 11, 2009, 01:44 PM
In my city, the cameras also catch people that speed through greens. They measure the speed you're traveling, and whether or not the light is green. Its a double whammy.

keekl
Jan 11, 2009, 01:49 PM
I got nailed by one of those on MacArthur Blvd in DC~guess what, I'm more careful now, so maybe there is some benefit...:rolleyes: