PDA

View Full Version : Police chief denounces 'cowardly' iPhone users monitoring ...


MacBytes
Jul 14, 2009, 08:10 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Police chief denounces 'cowardly' iPhone users monitoring speed traps (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090714091014)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

GoCubsGo
Jul 14, 2009, 08:14 AM
Of course Lanier is going to defend the use of speed traps (which are illegal where I come from) and speed cameras. Frankly I don't condone reckless driving but I have a heavy foot myself and it would be nice to not get popped. I am well aware it is best for me and the safety of others but frankly I'm not going to BS people and say I never speed.

Now that I know of this app I'm going to check it out. I think it will be interesting to see if they can actually outlaw this. My guess is they'll get Apple to take it down and it will wind up in the jailbreak scene.

Lanier is a completely ***** though with the way she is bitching and moaning about this app.

southernpaws
Jul 14, 2009, 08:29 AM
i cant find the app on the app store. help?

Tadow
Jul 14, 2009, 08:46 AM
Trapster

Unspoken Demise
Jul 14, 2009, 08:49 AM
The new technology streams to i-Phones and global positioning system devices, sounding off an alarm as drivers approach speed or red-light cameras.

i-Phone. :p

Anyways, looks like Ive got a new App to download.
Thanks for the tip Lanier! :D

windywoo
Jul 14, 2009, 08:59 AM
Its alright for iPhone users to speed because they are cool.

Lordedmond
Jul 14, 2009, 09:04 AM
have they only just found out about this


Tom Tom and Garmin have had speed camera overlays for years

most in built sat navs also are able to have speed camera overlay as POI ( points of Interest )


the hand held ones are also able to calculate your speed and warn you as well

GoCubsGo
Jul 14, 2009, 09:06 AM
Trapster

Is this correct?

zerostar
Jul 14, 2009, 09:20 AM
Is this correct?

I use NMobile... is that the one they are talking about?

MisterMe
Jul 14, 2009, 09:42 AM
Its alright for iPhone users to speed because they are cool.Nonsense. Is it OK for newspapers to publish the locations of speed traps, but it is not OK to notify iPhone owners? The newspapers get the information from official State surveys. Is it OK to for the State to spend taxpayer money conducting these surveys, but it not OK to share it with the taxpayers who own iPhones? The Governor just signed legislation into law that removes the financial incentive for local governments to setup speed traps. Do you believe that the incentive should be restored for drivers who own iPhones?

windywoo
Jul 14, 2009, 09:50 AM
A newspaper won't bleep the location of a speedtrap when you come close, and I hope you don't have the newspaper open reading it as you drive.

Of course this list is available and you can just check your route and see if there is a speedtrap there, but that does require extra effort on your part and won't be as accurate.

What this app is doing is making it easier to get away with speeding, are you going to tell me that's a good thing?

sammich
Jul 14, 2009, 09:56 AM
Well, it's apparently Australian to flash oncoming traffic with your headlights if you see a mobile speed camera set up.

It's only happened to me once. At first I was confused and annoyed at the driver with his flashing lights, but lo and behold about 15 seconds of driving and I could see the cruiser down the main straight.

I find it very hard to stay under the speed limit, it's just so boring...

BUT running red lights is a completely different thing, I would never consider it, even when there is no traffic in the early hours of the morning. Luckily for me, EVERY red light and fixed speed camera is sign posted for 1km before it.

Does this work for Australia?

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 14, 2009, 09:57 AM
I cannot believe they had the NERVE to use the word "cowardly" when in fact the use of cameras instead of human beings to catch speeders is the height of cowardice. Avoiding technology that's sole purpose is to increase revenue for a city isn't cowardice...it's just plain smart. It would be the height of stupidity to go speeding through a camera zone and any alert device that will STOP you from speeding through that zone is going to help save lives. Arguing that you should be ALLOWED to speed through that zone (so they can ticket you and make money) is like saying speeding itself should be condoned, which can cost lives. Here, the MOTIVE is MONEY so of course they WANT you to speed in those areas or else they won't make money. But that contradicts their claims about safety since they can only collect the money if your speeding in the first place. Radar detectors and other alert devices remind you to slow down BEFORE you enter an area where it could be dangerous to go fast. Trying to ban those devices is a good indication that the city/state wants your money and little else. It has NOTHING to do with wanting drivers to slow down. In fact, they are COUNTING on you speeding to make that money. The insurance companies love it when you speed also since they get to jack up your rates, thus screwing you from both ends.

NinjaHERO
Jul 14, 2009, 10:00 AM
Yet again demonstrating that the police department cares more about making money than fighting crime. I got an idea for them, quite wasting time writing speeding tickets and start patrolling the darn streets and catch some of these criminals who get away with so much.

JCastro
Jul 14, 2009, 10:01 AM
Sounds like she is more worried about loosing $29 million this year than she is in controlling speed and reckless driving. The only reinforces the speed control in those designated areas. If I know there are cameras on a certain stretch of road, either from personal experience, from an app or from some other source, I will drive accordingly. Either way the problem is solved.

JonB3Z
Jul 14, 2009, 10:14 AM
Arguing that you should be ALLOWED to speed through that zone (so they can ticket you and make money) is like saying speeding itself should be condoned, which can cost lives. ... It has NOTHING to do with wanting drivers to slow down.

Nonsense. It has everything to do with wanting drivers to slow down. If drivers can't be sure where the speed devices are, they have to drive more slowly everywhere. Conversely, if they know where the speed devices aren't they'll feel free to go at autobahn speeds through those areas, endangering everyone.

And what on earth could be the justification for needing to know about traffic-light cameras? Your inherent "right" to run red lights?

I'm saddened but not surprised by the number of people who try to justify breaking the law just because they want to. Selfishness reigns supreme.

If you think speed limits serve no purpose, ask your legislative representatives to ban them. Otherwise, follow the law -- or take your medicine when you get caught not doing so.

mkrishnan
Jul 14, 2009, 10:21 AM
And what on earth could be the justification for needing to know about traffic-light cameras? Your inherent "right" to run red lights?

The IIHS provides some pretty (at least on the surface) compelling data for red light cams...

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html

Cameras have been shown to substantially reduce red light violations. Institute evaluations in Fairfax, Virginia, and Oxnard, California, showed that camera enforcement reduced red light running violations by about 40 percent.3,7 In addition to reducing red light running at camera-equipped sites, violation reductions in both communities carried over to signalized intersections not equipped with red light cameras, indicating community-wide changes in driver behavior. An Institute evaluation of red light cameras in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that after red light violations were reduced by 36 percent following increased yellow signal timing, the addition of red light cameras further reduced red light violations by 96 percent.8

In addition to reducing red light violations, cameras have been shown to reduce intersection crashes. In Oxnard, California, significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent.9 Front-into-side collisions the crash type most closely associated with red light running were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent. An Institute review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce red light violations by 40-50 percent and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent.10

Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe than rear-end crashes, research has shown there is a positive aggregate benefit. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities.11 The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million over 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of approximately $39,000 per site year. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The Cochrane Collaboration (an international organization that conducts systematic reviews of the scientific literature on public health issues) reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light camera effectiveness in Australia, Singapore, and the United States.12 Using techniques of meta-analysis, the authors estimated a 16 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right-angle crashes. The review did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end crashes.

I do always find it suspicious, though, when a governmental or law enforcement agent makes a claim that a practice saves lives without offering any data. What's the data on speeding cameras?

xerenthar
Jul 14, 2009, 10:23 AM
speeding laws should be abolished

red light cameras are moneymaking graft devices - they increase accidents, they are mainly used to make money from those rolling through a right on red.

MisterMe
Jul 14, 2009, 11:15 AM
A newspaper won't bleep the location of a speedtrap when you come close, and I hope you don't have the newspaper open reading it as you drive.So your object is to the speed of the warning? Earth to windywoo: The general trend in technology is for things to get faster. This app allows speed trap warnings to join the trend.

BTW, people read lots of things while they drive--including newspapers.

... app is doing is making it easier to get away with speeding, are you going to tell me that's a good thing?Not at all. As others have said before me, speed trap warnings help drivers to avoid speeding.

windywoo
Jul 14, 2009, 11:20 AM
If the government are making money from these cameras doesn't that show that they work? If people weren't speeding and breaking the law they wouldn't be making money. If you want them to take away the cameras, stop speeding and there will be no need for them. Would the cameras be more acceptable if there were no fines, just jail sentences?

In fact this is ingenious, making money from people breaking the law.

windywoo
Jul 14, 2009, 11:23 AM
So your object is to the speed of the warning? Earth to windywoo: The general trend in technology is for things to get faster. This app allows speed trap warnings to join the trend.

BTW, people read lots of things while they drive--including newspapers.

Not at all. As others have said before me, speed trap warnings help drivers to avoid speeding.

What this app does is allow the driver to know the exact location, no guesswork, enabling them to speed until they reach the camera, slow down when they reach it and then speed up again when they pass. That doesn't sound to me like it helps them avoid speeding.

Who the **** reads while they drive? One eye on the road one eye on the book?

And here is the police' point in a nutshell, if you aren't speeding and not breaking the law, why would you want to know the location of the cameras?

dukebound85
Jul 14, 2009, 11:29 AM
"I think that's the whole point of this program," she told The Examiner. "It's designed to circumvent law enforcement -- law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives."

riiiiight

save lives or to generate revenue.......its the latter:cool:

dont kid yourself

danpass
Jul 14, 2009, 11:35 AM
Sounds like she is more worried about loosing $29 million this year than she is in controlling speed and reckless driving. The only reinforces the speed control in those designated areas. If I know there are cameras on a certain stretch of road, either from personal experience, from an app or from some other source, I will drive accordingly. Either way the problem is solved.

That's exactly what it is. Anyone who says different is deceived actually.

If it was about speed enforcement, reckless driving etc then there would be a patrol car nice and visible on the side of the road.


From what I've read and heard from officers, genuine speeders are easy to catch.





Its similar to red light cameras. Once fewer and fewer people started running red lights the township began bitching about the loss of revenue (instead of touting the fact that fewer people are running red lights).

OWNED!

nagromme
Jul 14, 2009, 12:51 PM
Anything that stops the guy from killing me is a plus in my view. I'd just as soon the guy didn't have any warning.

People "want to speed." That selfishness doesn't impress me much. I want lots of things.

MisterMe
Jul 14, 2009, 01:18 PM
...

Who the **** reads while they drive? One eye on the road one eye on the book?

...Precisely. You don't get out much, do you?

windywoo
Jul 14, 2009, 01:37 PM
Precisely. You don't get out much, do you?

Mate where I live thats called careless driving and if the police spot you, you're nicked. So actually I do get out and I don't see anyone reading while they drive.

xerenthar
Jul 14, 2009, 01:40 PM
personally, i text, play UnblockMe, and read forums when I drive, so Trapster won't help that much!

danpass
Jul 14, 2009, 02:03 PM
Anything that stops the guy from killing me is a plus in my view. I'd just as soon the guy didn't have any warning.

People "want to speed." That selfishness doesn't impress me much. I want lots of things.

But it doesn't stop them from speeding, it simply takes a picture and mails a ticket. That's long after the fact ;)

MisterMe
Jul 14, 2009, 06:39 PM
Mate where I live thats called careless driving and if the police spot you, you're nicked. So actually I do get out and I don't see anyone reading while they drive.So you don't get out much!

Fireproof!
Jul 14, 2009, 08:39 PM
That's exactly what it is. Anyone who says different is deceived actually.

If it was about speed enforcement, reckless driving etc then there would be a patrol car nice and visible on the side of the road.


From what I've read and heard from officers, genuine speeders are easy to catch.





Its similar to red light cameras. Once fewer and fewer people started running red lights the township began bitching about the loss of revenue (instead of touting the fact that fewer people are running red lights).

OWNED!

Add to the fact that there have been reports suggesting in many locations, they actually reduced the duration of the "yellow" light when they put in the red light cameras. That has nothing to do with safety. It's all about catching people off guard so they are upon a red light sooner than they expected. Ca-ching - another ticket!

tempusfugit
Jul 14, 2009, 11:08 PM
power to the people. don't trust a cop as far as you can throw 'em.

Sdashiki
Jul 15, 2009, 09:03 AM
So when a municipality says their speed traps and red light cameras work do they mean:

They have reduced the # of accidents and speeders.

OR

They have made a hefty amount of money.


Either one is a good possibility, but honestly, only one is any reason to do it. And its basically been proven to not be effective.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 15, 2009, 01:29 PM
Nonsense. It has everything to do with wanting drivers to slow down. If drivers can't be sure where the speed devices are, they have to drive more slowly everywhere. Conversely, if they know where the speed devices aren't they'll feel free to go at autobahn speeds through those areas, endangering everyone.

And what on earth could be the justification for needing to know about traffic-light cameras? Your inherent "right" to run red lights?

I'm saddened but not surprised by the number of people who try to justify breaking the law just because they want to. Selfishness reigns supreme.

If you think speed limits serve no purpose, ask your legislative representatives to ban them. Otherwise, follow the law -- or take your medicine when you get caught not doing so.

I don't run red lights, bub. The fact you think I do based on my right to give my opinion just shows how FAR you are off the mark. But other drivers DO run them and I'd rather they NOT run them by getting a warning BEFORE the violation than a ticket mailed a week AFTER the violation. You cannot bring the dead back to life AFTER the fact, but you can avoid the fatality BEFORE the accident if there is a warning.

As for this idea that you have no right to know where cameras are, etc., your logic is beyond flawed. If you don't know a camera exists, you are NOT going to slow down "just in case". That is simply 100% INCONSISTENT WITH REALITY. Do you even drive? Do you observe anything on the road? People drive like maniacs when they don't know what's going on. IF they know ahead of time a camera is there or radar gun is near, they WILL slow down to avoid a ticket. That is the ONLY reason people like that will slow down. You may consider it a sad fact of life, but I'd rather they slow down or stop because they're aware cameras are there (and thus obey the law which can save MY life) than NOT know about the camera and speed through the intersection on a red light and hit MY car and injure or even kill me. Them getting a ticket AFTER the fact doesn't PREVENT ANYTHING because *IF* they got a ticket, then that means they ALREADY DID SPEED THROUGH THE INTERSECTION and thus put OUR lives in jeopardy. If they were warned of the cameras, they would slow down or stop and NOT break the law and not put our lives in jeopardy.

The ONLY reason traffic cameras reduce accidents in intersections in cities is because the citizens ARE aware they are there. It's that knowledge they will get ticketed that prevents the accidents. But the argument made by the government here is that this software that warns outsiders about the same cameras people living there already know about and thus helps prevent accidents in those intersections is BAD. It's bad because they don't get the money from the offenders. The software PREVENTS the violation by warning drivers about the intersection. Without it, the ignorant person might run the light. That software could save your life. Too bad if it costs the city a ticket. They claim they want to PREVENT violations and thus they have no leg to stand on.

After all, what good is a ticket AFTER the fact for safety purposes when it comes to red light cameras? The damage was already done. The warning system discussed in this thread PREVENTS the violation of the law. That's REAL prevention, not BS LIES from corrupt government officials who want the MONEY such equipment generates. And that's the real problem here. There is a conflict of interests in the law enforcement department. They talk about "safety" and "prevention" but their system works AFTER the violation, not before the violation whereas the very software they're arguing AGAINST *PREVENTS* the violation by warning you about the intersection. Thus, I'm FAR SAFER if someone has that system in their car (because they WILL slow down to avoid a ticket) than someone without that knowledge since they will inevitably do whatever they're going to do and no ticket after the fact will bring the person they killed by running a red light back to life. Sorry, but your logic is flawed (potentially fatally so).

On a technical turn, do you think a camera is going to be able to tell the difference between a legal turn on red (i.e. you're out in the intersection waiting to turn left on green, but have to wait until oncoming traffic stops...which often DOES run the red light or leave you stuck in a solid yellow until past when it does turn red. In that case, you are IN the intersection and are legally allowed to continue your turn to the left. This is driver's education 101.

Likewise, no machine can properly judge, interpret and enforce the law in a given situation. You have a right to face your accuser in court. How do you face a machine in court? How do you ask it questions? How can you POSSIBLY have a fair trial if you know you didn't run a red light (or it changed just after you passed it or they shortened the length of that light to less than a second for monetary gain). How does a speed trap camera know if you are accelerating past the speed limit to avoid a collision? A police officer can make that determination. A machine cannot think. It can only follow limited situational programming and this takes the authority out of law enforcement's hands just as mandatory sentencing takes it out of the judge's hands. IF they are going to use cameras, they need to take and record VIDEO of the situation before and after the vehicle enters and leave the area so that a court CAN examine the evidence. A snapshot camera just to get the license plate data is not acceptable, IMO. A still picture cannot be cross-examined or challenged except on the basis it's flawed from the start.

rwilliams
Jul 15, 2009, 01:47 PM
personally, i text, play UnblockMe, and read forums when I drive, so Trapster won't help that much!

I sure hope I'm never on the same road as you. :cool:

windywoo
Jul 15, 2009, 01:52 PM
Magnus your point about tickets after the fact is senseless. Why does any authority hand out fines or any sort of punishment for a breach of their rules? Are you going to say that putting someone in prison after they commit a crime is pointless?

danpass
Jul 15, 2009, 01:57 PM
personally, i text, play UnblockMe, and read forums when I drive, so Trapster won't help that much!

Slacker.

I do all that AND one armed pushups, talk on the phone and read email

and that was when I had a manual transmission. Now I'm using an automatic so I've been able to add sit ups and breaking NSA ciphers to my driving repertoire.


:D





.

danpass
Jul 15, 2009, 01:59 PM
Magnus your point about tickets after the fact is senseless. Why does any authority hand out fines or any sort of punishment for a breach of their rules? Are you going to say that putting someone in prison after they commit a crime is pointless?

The rules are known beforehand.

uberamd
Jul 15, 2009, 02:08 PM
The attitude so many people have towards speeding is disturbing to be honest. I love when someone blows past me 20+ over the speed limit on my way to work, and when we get to a red light I am right behind the person. What's the difference? He had to sit there and wait longer than me? He risked a $100+ fine to get to that red light before me? I don't get it.

danpass
Jul 15, 2009, 02:17 PM
...

Sdashiki
Jul 15, 2009, 02:22 PM
The attitude so many people have towards speeding is disturbing to be honest. I love when someone blows past me 20+ over the speed limit on my way to work, and when we get to a red light I am right behind the person. What's the difference? He had to sit there and wait longer than me? He risked a $100+ fine to get to that red light before me? I don't get it.

Because that isnt always the case.

Sometimes I take backwards shortcuts to avoid a light I just saw turn red. But sometimes that doesnt make it any shorter because of the flow of traffic at that very moment.

Youre referring to the same type of thing. Speeding just to wait longer is a very narrow view of your "law-abiding" foot.

uberamd
Jul 15, 2009, 03:07 PM
Because that isnt always the case.

Sometimes I take backwards shortcuts to avoid a light I just saw turn red. But sometimes that doesnt make it any shorter because of the flow of traffic at that very moment.

Youre referring to the same type of thing. Speeding just to wait longer is a very narrow view of your "law-abiding" foot.

I'm talking straight freeway, same path taken, same light, etc. I see a car blow past me, and I am behind that same person. What's the difference? They risked $100+, I didn't.

And to me thats what it boils down to. If getting to your destination a few minutes earlier is worth a potential $100+ fine and getting slowed down because you are pulled over on the side of the road, then so be it. But I just don't understand it. Thats just me.

windywoo
Jul 15, 2009, 03:57 PM
The rules are known beforehand.

Aren't there speed limit signs on your roads? Isn't there a written part of your driving test?

danpass
Jul 15, 2009, 10:30 PM
Aren't there speed limit signs on your roads? Isn't there a written part of your driving test?

Yes and clearly posted. The thread topic addresses hidden cameras and unposted signage for red light cameras (at least I've never seen a sign for them)

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 16, 2009, 12:14 PM
Magnus your point about tickets after the fact is senseless. Why does any authority hand out fines or any sort of punishment for a breach of their rules? Are you going to say that putting someone in prison after they commit a crime is pointless?

Senseless? The ONLY "prevention" involved with red light cameras is if their presence acts as a deterrent to a potential speeder. Anything else is just collecting revenue and has NOTHING to do with PREVENTING the actual crime. But my point is how can you have a deterrent effect if the state seeks to prevent you from KNOWING about the red light cameras??? Imagine someone from Iowa running a red light in Washington D.C. that kills someone in the process. They get arrested after the fact, which may or may not be helped by the camera (not everyone hits and runs, after all). But the person is still dead. Nothing will change that. Now IF that person had this software that alerted them to that camera, they probably would have been more careful, not run the light and the person in question would still be alive. The only thing gained in the former case is revenue, which is canceled out by having the tax payer shell out through their nose to keep this person in prison for an untold number of years. What is gained in the latter is priceless. Here, we have the government arguing the software is bad (it costs them revenue), but life is priceless and no stealth camera helps preserve that because unless you know it's there, it's not a deterrent. Learning it's there after you may have killed someone is not as good as preventing that from happening in the first place. That is my point and no amount of crying from the peanut gallery will change it because my argument is not about the cameras being there, but the city trying to HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THERE in order to generate money. By wanting to generate money AND *HIDE* the presence of the cameras (their desire for this is expressed by wanting to ban this software), they want people to run the light. They are actually encouraging people to run red lights and that is just downright evil placing money before people's lives.

As I already said in a previous post, the REASON these lights have decreased accidents is because people eventually know/learn they are there. At least the locals learn this and this is the source of the deterrent statistics over time. The cameras generally aren't invisible and if you get a ticket, you learn about their presence sooner or later. But by letting you run that first light, they are putting lives in danger. If they advertised the city uses cameras, they might PREVENT someone from running them in a first place. My point is there is a conflict of interests between wanting cameras as a revenue generator and wanting them as a deterrent because the former REQUIRES someone to break the law whereas the latter tries to prevent that from happening (which saves lives but generates not revenue). You, however, call this obvious logic "senseless". :rolleyes:

Punishing after the fact is about revenge (Some call it justice even though our justice system incarcerates, not rehabilitates. Making someone else suffer will not bring a loved one back). Laws that deter crime on the other hand save everyone from suffering in the first place.

uberamd
Jul 16, 2009, 12:19 PM
Senseless? The ONLY "prevention" involved with red light cameras is if their presence acts as a deterrent to a potential speeder. Anything else is just collecting revenue and has NOTHING to do with PREVENTING the actual crime. But my point is how can you have a deterrent effect if the state seeks to prevent you from KNOWING about the red light cameras??? Imagine someone from Iowa running a red light in Washington D.C. that kills someone in the process. They get arrested after the fact, which may or may not be helped by the camera (not everyone hits and runs, after all). But the person is still dead. Nothing will change that. Now IF that person had this software that alerted them to that camera, they probably would have been more careful, not run the light and the person in question would still be alive. The only thing gained in the former case is revenue, which is canceled out by having the tax payer shell out through their nose to keep this person in prison for an untold number of years. What is gained in the latter is priceless. Here, we have the government arguing the software is bad (it costs them revenue), but life is priceless and no stealth camera helps preserve that because unless you know it's there, it's not a deterrent. Learning it's there after you may have killed someone is not as good as preventing that from happening in the first place. That is my point and no amount of crying from the peanut gallery will change it because my argument is not about the cameras being there, but the city trying to HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THERE in order to generate money. By wanting to generate money AND *HIDE* the presence of the cameras (their desire for this is expressed by wanting to ban this software), they want people to run the light. They are actually encouraging people to run red lights and that is just downright evil placing money before people's lives.

As I already said in a previous post, the REASON these lights have decreased accidents is because people eventually know/learn they are there. At least the locals learn this and this is the source of the deterrent statistics over time. The cameras generally aren't invisible and if you get a ticket, you learn about their presence sooner or later. But by letting you run that first light, they are putting lives in danger. If they advertised the city uses cameras, they might PREVENT someone from running them in a first place. My point is there is a conflict of interests between wanting cameras as a revenue generator and wanting them as a deterrent because the former REQUIRES someone to break the law whereas the latter tries to prevent that from happening (which saves lives but generates not revenue). You, however, call this obvious logic "senseless". :rolleyes:

Punishing after the fact is about revenge (Some call it justice even though our justice system incarcerates, not rehabilitates. Making someone else suffer will not bring a loved one back). Laws that deter crime on the other hand save everyone from suffering in the first place.

There is a line from the movie Liar Liar that sums this all up best: "Quit breaking the law @$$hole!" Follow the LARGE signs with LARGE numbers and the gauge in front of your face, and you will be fine.

People who complain about getting caught speeding are dumb. You pass a sign every mile saying how fast you can go, and there is a gauge in your face saying how fast you are going. If you can't learn to follow those simple directions, get off the road.

Wayazo
Jul 16, 2009, 12:27 PM
If I understand the app, it locates traffic cams and check points. Aren't these normally placed in areas of high traffic violations and accidents? If you're aware of a "trap" and you avoid it or slow down or come to a complete stop at an intersection, seems like the two technologies are working in unison with law enforcement to prevent accidents. If LE knows people are dodging DUI check points, let's not kid ourselves. They'll place cars on alternate routes. I've also seen where some agencies actually announce where they will be running radar or setting up checkpoints. So what's the dif? Outlawing the tech serves no purpose. I use iPhone Maps & Traffic reports to help me find ways around rush hour traffic and backed up metered on ramps. Beats jumping in the commuter lane solo and risking a $100+ ticket just to get to work on time.

Of course Lanier is going to defend the use of speed traps (which are illegal where I come from) and speed cameras. Frankly I don't condone reckless driving but I have a heavy foot myself and it would be nice to not get popped. I am well aware it is best for me and the safety of others but frankly I'm not going to BS people and say I never speed.

Now that I know of this app I'm going to check it out. I think it will be interesting to see if they can actually outlaw this. My guess is they'll get Apple to take it down and it will wind up in the jailbreak scene.

Lanier is a completely ***** though with the way she is bitching and moaning about this app.

danpass
Jul 16, 2009, 12:29 PM
I downloaded Trapster last night (not that I'll use it much since I'm not much of a speeder).

But that program is rather well thought out.



Had to make sure I got it before it got pulled or banned for whatever 'random' reason :D

curly14
Jul 16, 2009, 01:44 PM
I find this app to be very helpful just another tool to be aware of your surroundings lets face it no one likes to get a speeding ticket no more then the other guy. It allows you to maybe rethink about your speed or find those pesky little cops hiding in low places. State law requires to post sobriety check points in the news paper and considering the % of people that read the paper it makes sense to have this app at you finger tips. Remember though the app is only as good as people report their findings. Push notifications just started to come out last week which was nice but I have not seen any in the last few days anyone else notice this

Plus i've seen worst then driving and reading the paper while driving:D

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 17, 2009, 12:41 AM
There is a line from the movie Liar Liar that sums this all up best: "Quit breaking the law @$$hole!" Follow the LARGE signs with LARGE numbers and the gauge in front of your face, and you will be fine.

People who complain about getting caught speeding are dumb. You pass a sign every mile saying how fast you can go, and there is a gauge in your face saying how fast you are going. If you can't learn to follow those simple directions, get off the road.

You seem to be clueless. You quote my post, which was not about speeding, but red light cameras and accident prevention by combining cameras with the software instead of trying to outlaw them and then proceed to go on and on about speeding and how stupid I apparently am for not being able to read my speedometer. That has exactly nothing to do with my post. BTW, I've had exactly one speeding ticket in 18 years of driving and caused no accidents. So don't lecture me about how to drive.

quagmire
Jul 17, 2009, 01:59 AM
I don't complain about being caught. I do think speed limits can be raised a bit though. Everyone can go 40 MPH safely on roads that have 30 MPH speed limits in my area. I might be wrong, but I believe I read that ever since they raised the speed limit from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, there have been less accidents on I-95. It's not speed that kills, it is the driver that kills. Having morons in the left lane going 55 MPH when most people in the left lane are going 70 MPH causing the traffic behind the slow mover who should be in the right lane to pass him and return to the left lane. Which can cause the slow driver to panic and hit the brakes because the passer went back in the lane fast which startled the driver.

I always say Americans will have no idea how to drive if they go on the Autobahn. They will cruise in the left lane and be rear ended by a Lambo going 180+ MPH because of there not understanding that the left lane is the passing lane and slow traffic needs to be in the right lane....... And that Americans will interpret flash to pass as road rage when simply the Lambo driver is telling him to get out of the way because he is coming up on his butt quickly......


/rant.

And more on topic, I agree with red light cameras if only they keep the timing, etc the same on the light. If they have it go off as you are in the intersection as it turns red or have a shorter yellow, or if the car crosses the crosswalk, but still is stopped then I will cry foul. Speeding cameras I am against 100%. It is better and safer to have traffic going at a uniform 40 MPH then having them go 40 MPH see the camera and having everyone slam on their brakes to prevent getting a ticket........

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 18, 2009, 11:35 AM
I always say Americans will have no idea how to drive if they go on the Autobahn. They will cruise in the left lane and be rear ended by a Lambo going 180+ MPH because of there not understanding that the left lane is the passing lane and slow traffic needs to be in the right lane....... And that Americans will interpret flash to pass as road rage when simply the Lambo driver is telling him to get out of the way because he is coming up on his butt quickly......


The left lane is for passing in America also. The problem is many Americans are ignorant about driving laws or don't care or think they have some obligation to try and stop speeding (like some vigilante cop wannabe). I've seen a car drive along side another car in the left lane, purposely matching its speed to block traffic behind from being able to pass. That is 100% ILLEGAL (not to mention stupid since it will inevitably cause road rage), but like the anti-abortion people who seem to think that murdering abortion doctors is OK even if it is illegal and even if murder is wrong, they feel justified in trying to FORCE their beliefs on others because they think God is on their side. Of course, everyone thinks God is on their side because everyone thinks they're right about everything and everyone else is an idiot so around in circles the arguments, fights and wars go....


And more on topic, I agree with red light cameras if only they keep the timing, etc the same on the light. If they have it go off as you are in the intersection as it turns red or have a shorter yellow, or if the car crosses the crosswalk, but still is stopped then I will cry foul.


There should be a standard timing in a given country so that things like yellow light changes are predictable not a matter of guessing. This is even more important if cameras are going to be used. And I would want cameras to be MOTION VIDEO cameras. You cannot judge things like "left turn on red" (perfectly valid if you were already in the intersection when it was green and have to wait until the traffic stops from the other direction to complete your turn) with a still camera. It just doesn't work.


Speeding cameras I am against 100%. It is better and safer to have traffic going at a uniform 40 MPH then having them go 40 MPH see the camera and having everyone slam on their brakes to prevent getting a ticket........

Driving schools generally teach that it's dangerous to NOT go with the flow of traffic. In Ohio, they FINALLY changed the freeway speeding laws to allow semi-trucks to go 65MPH just like the cars because it was the zig-zagging caused by those trucks going 55mph that created a lot of accidents. It's marginally more dangerous for a heavy truck to go the extra 10MPH, but being in one direction only, it's more dangerous to have traffic go at uneven flow rates. The trouble is what if the flow of traffic is 75 or 80MPH? That's pretty typical in Pennsylvania on I-80 because it goes across vast distances of wilderness. Worse yet, the big trucks play leap frog with their speeds due to the massive number of hills on that road across the length of the state. If you do not go 85+, you WILL be playing leap-frong with those big rigs and that is 10x more dangerous IMO than going over the speed limit (which is only 65MPH). Trucks are downright scary on that road and yes they are the ones creating the situation by teeter-totting between 45 and 85MPH up/down those hills. They think they're justified because they need the momentum to conserve on fuel, etc. or even risk going slower up the other end, etc., but it doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous for the other vehicles on the road. Unfortunately, there is no "truck" lane on most of that road and even if there was, many rigs leap frog each other anyway (depending on loads) when there IS one, which forces you into the far left lane to avoid the problem which means you are now once again in the FAST lane.

Driving/Speeding laws are never as clear cut as some people want to make them out to be and what is 'safe' can vary depending on conditions. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I've NEVER caused an accident in 18 years or driving (I've had a drunk rear-end me once and a lady smash my car to pieces running a long dead red light before, though) and I currently own a WRX. Some people seem to think power creates dangerous situations, but the truth is if anything, the extra power gives me leverage to avoid dangerous situations. For example, someone that's "scared" might STOP on a short free-way on-ramp where you HAVE to match the traffic speed or you could be in an accident. I hate this. It used to happen to me all the time when I was going to college. People do stupid things. Now at least, I can punch up to 55 or 65mph in 4-5 seconds, which makes it easier to merge if I'm forced to stop by someone like that. Of course, you do tend to get annoyed by the people that take 2 minutes to get up to 65mph on long on-ramps. I sometimes wonder if those minimum speed limits of 40mph aren't WAY TOO LOW for 65mph zones. Uneven traffic flow is dangerous. Cars with poor acceleration and braking are also dangerous (the car as opposed to the driver who cannot perform beyond his car's capabilities).

quagmire
Jul 18, 2009, 12:02 PM
The left lane is for passing in America also. The problem is many Americans are ignorant about driving laws or don't care or think they have some obligation to try and stop speeding (like some vigilante cop wannabe). I've seen a car drive along side another car in the left lane, purposely matching its speed to block traffic behind from being able to pass. That is 100% ILLEGAL (not to mention stupid since it will inevitably cause road rage), but like the anti-abortion people who seem to think that murdering abortion doctors is OK even if it is illegal and even if murder is wrong, they feel justified in trying to FORCE their beliefs on others because they think God is on their side. Of course, everyone thinks God is on their side because everyone thinks they're right about everything and everyone else is an idiot so around in circles the arguments, fights and wars go....

I have had that happen on so many occasions....... On a 4 lane road two cars will be in the left and right lane going the same speed going right next to each other or following closely enough to where I can not safely change lanes.

I also experienced a wannabee cop. Another 4 lane road everyone was going 40 MPH which was the speed limit in the left lane. The right lane was perfectly open with no traffic at all in it. So I go in the right lane to pass because like I said traffic and road conditions could easily handle 50 MPH and a guy in a Lexus SC sees me do this and pulls into the right lane and matches with the lead car blocking me from passing. The road eventually reached a 4 way stop where the right lane turned into a turning lane and the left turned into the going straight lane. Ironically, the SC guy floors it to get past the car I wanted to pass so he could go straight.....

On local 4 lane roads it is my observance people will stay in the lane where the turn/exit they will be leaving the road. So if their destination requires a left turn, despite it being 1 mile away or 10 miles away, they will sit in the left lane because they will eventually be turning left.......

Back to the Autobahn example, if a car in the left lane forces a person behind him to pass in the right lane, guess who gets the ticket? The person causing the other person to pass in the right lane.......

And I also find it ironic there is a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic, but when you go the flow of traffic( be it 80 MPH or whatever) that defense doesn't work when you get pulled over for going 80........ So it is a lose-lose. Pulled over for impeding the flow or get pulled over for speeding despite everyone else going 80 MPH.......

It is so easy to say deal with it getting caught if you get caught speeding and that you shouldn't be breaking the law....... But, reality says differently. Often time the people going the speed limit causes accidents because while you are being a good person going 30 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, everyone else wants to go 40 MPH. Who is the person now causing the safety hazard? The slower driver....... Nothing wrong with going the speed limit, but please if you notice a line of cars starting to form behind you, pull over and be kind enough for the traffic that wants to go faster pass. Not only are you being considerate, but you're making it safer for everyone.

I also agree with the people taking forever to get up to freeway speeds on the on ramp. And I love people who STOP on the on ramp because they don't have a clean area to merge onto despite the merging lane being long as hell to get up to speed and have a considerate driver let you merge in( well they will have to once the lane ends :D ). I seriously don't think our drivers edu. is enough. All they teach you is how to handle the car( or at least mine did which was a cop run drivers ed which used real cops to teach us) and test if you can parallel park, K Turn and back up....... The rest depends on who is teach you( parents most of the time). So having idiot drivers teaching others to drive is certainly not going to improve drivers on the road...... And on the written all they ask is what does this road sign mean, etc. Not road etiquette.