Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/guy-gets-ticket-30-second_n_525091.html
One Word -- Awesome
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Guy Gets Ticket 30 Seconds After Parking, Writes Awesome Letter To Contest It
- Thread starter joro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/guy-gets-ticket-30-second_n_525091.html
One Word -- Awesome
That was great.
I recently got a ticket. I pulled into the spot and realized I had no change for the meter. No problem, Starbucks right there and a coffee would do me good. I see the meter maid, tell her I have no change and am running into Starbucks to get some and would be right back. She nods and I run in, get change and run back out.
The see you next Tuesday wrote me a ticket. A letter sent resulted in the fine being reduced from $55 to $40.
I recently got a ticket. I pulled into the spot and realized I had no change for the meter. No problem, Starbucks right there and a coffee would do me good. I see the meter maid, tell her I have no change and am running into Starbucks to get some and would be right back. She nods and I run in, get change and run back out.
The see you next Tuesday wrote me a ticket. A letter sent resulted in the fine being reduced from $55 to $40.
That took me a minute, but that's very clever
I got a ticket back in college for parking in a campus lot I didn't have a permit for. Fair enough, except this was during the summer when I was literally the only car in the entire parking lot. It's not like there was a lack of parking spaces that day and I was taking up a valuable spot for someone else
Minneapolis
Here in Minneapolis where snow is common, we have to deal with the "snow emergency routes".
At one point last winter myself and both room mates had our cars towed in the same week for parking on a snow emergency route, when there was no snow!
"Traffic Control" = Money making racket.
Just like red light cams.
Here in Minneapolis where snow is common, we have to deal with the "snow emergency routes".
At one point last winter myself and both room mates had our cars towed in the same week for parking on a snow emergency route, when there was no snow!
"Traffic Control" = Money making racket.
Just like red light cams.
hahaha.....30 seconds after he got off his car!!!!!
the ticket guy must have been waiting for him in a corner or something......
like those sneaky CHP officers....(hiding behind a tree or rock on the freeways)
the ticket guy must have been waiting for him in a corner or something......
like those sneaky CHP officers....(hiding behind a tree or rock on the freeways)
The see you next Tuesday wrote me a ticket. A letter sent resulted in the fine being reduced from $55 to $40.
What a friggin' ****. I swear, I don't understand how people like that sleep at night.
Fixed.
I support red light cams as long as they are set properly as that is a safety measure.
Speed cameras are the money grabbers because the chances of an accident goes up because everyone slows down before the camera and then speed back up. While breaking the law, it is still safer if all of traffic is going at the same speed rather then having people not pay attention and have traffic in front of them to slam on their brakes to slow down and get rear ended.
No, but to me it is common sense.
Traffic moving in a uniform fashion should at least decrease the chances of accidents. And following people approaching speed cameras, they do slam their brakes hard and if the driver behind them is distracted, it could cause an accident. While if the camera wasn't there, car ahead would have maintained its speed and chances of accident should be low. I know the changes in speed and people not paying attention contributes to traffic jams. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M
As long as drivers pay attention and don't exceed what the driving conditions call for, traffic moving at 40 MPH in a 30 zone should not decrease safety. Why is the Autobahn one of the safest roads in the world when they go a whole lot faster then we do? Because they know how to freaking drive. They know going 100 MPH requires their attention. They know to stay out of the left lane when they are not passing anyone. Speed doesn't kill. It's drivers who don't know how to freaking drive and think driving doesn't require their attention or don't follow basic road etiquette that kills.
I have maintained my position since going through getting my Private Pilots license, is that drivers ed should be like getting your Private Pilots license. It is too easy to go and get a drivers license. Where getting your Private Pilots license is a whole lot tougher because you really need to know how to fly and know your plane in order to pass. At least in my state, all I had to do is know some road signs and what type of drug alcohol is for the written exam and do basic driving maneuvers. That doesn't show I can safely drive a car on public roads.
You do know that some camera lights are deviously set extra-fast on yellow? People enter the intersection thinking they have the usual amount of time, the time generations of motorists have gotten used to, but the light is set to quickly change to red to catch even those who are paying attention and trying to drive lawfully. Ka-ching!
So, drivers, used to a pretty standard yellow interval, expect those in front of them to continue through the yellow, as God intended. Instead, the red light suddenly flashes, the drivers in front of them suddenly and unexpectedly slam on their brakes and so you get a chain-reaction effect all the way back down the lane.
These lights are marketed to cities as revenue collection devices, pure and simple. In fact, at least some companies would install the system for free in return for a piece of the action!
Also, the camera system has no effect on those who don't see the light or are drunk and cause all those nasty tragic intersection accidents. It only catches the marginal violator who isn't actually doing anything unsafe.
BTW, I haven't had a ticket in ages (knock, knock) so I am not responding out of spite.
If the red light cameras are set properly, I have no problem with them.
As posted above, speed cameras are the ones I have a problem with.
I'm pretty sure what you have here is a hypothesis. To move it into the realms of evidence it's in need of some accident figures pre-and post camera. Seeing as you were talking authoritatively I thought you might know of some studies.No, but to me it is common sense.
Again some good hypotheticals and reasons to get annoyed but not really any data to support what you're saying.
I've never got a ticket at either a red-light camera or a speed trap nor have I even remotely been close to having an accident at either due to the reasons mentioned. All the hypotheticals put forth so far would easily be avoided just keeping adequate distance between yourself and the car in front and/or approaching lights with caution.
A lot of Cities reduce the yellow timing of the lights.
In League City, TX they state required the city to refund a lot of the tickets because the yellow light was below the state legal limit. In Dallas Texas at one light they state required the city to refund ALL the tickets at one light because it was shown that at the camera intersection the yellow was a lot short than the other lights on the road that had the exact same traffic patterns (go down the road one light in either direction and the yellow was longer). Both of those I red in the paper when they state forced the refund.
In Lubbock Texas it was shown the city SHORTEN its yellow lights at cameras intersection.
Houston TX shorten their yellows after getting red light cameras.
This is just a short list of examples of what cities have done with Red light cameras that I know about. Cities abuse the cameras and do not use them to reduce wrecks but instead to bring in more money. Lubbock and Houston were the news. Both were below the TXDOT recommend length for yellow lights and it was noted that they were shorten after the cameras were installed.
This is just a few of the many example.
Key word there is set properly. I realize cities have abused the red light cameras.
I do not have links to any studies but do have what I remember reading in the paper.
After Lubbock and Houston both installed red light Cameras it was noted wrecks at traffic lights did increase by a large amounts. Now the number of deaths and serious injuries at the intersection did drop. The wreck increase was from people slamming on the brakes and people running into them. Caused lovely chain reaction. Deaths did decreases, Wrecks increased.
true if set properly.
I honestly am fine with red light cameras as long as they are put up not for bring in cash but really to reduce the danger at the intersections. Just I have yet to see that be the case. Instead it is in all about bring in the money.
It is my same view about speed traps that are set up for the money not to reduce speeds.
Take for example 2 cities. One is my home town one is the one right next to it.
In my home town in school zones the cops set their cars in plane sight in the turn lanes with their lights on. This is to make their presents very known and to STRONGLY encourage drivers to slow down and it works very well. They are making it clear that they want traffic to go slower to protect the kids and traffic goes a heck of a lot slower.
next town over in school zones the cops hide, use unmarked cars and do about everything they can to catch a speeder to bring in the money. Yes city 2 bring in more money but it is pretty clear they are running stings to bring in the cash compared to my home town which intent is to protect the kids.
Which perhaps (and I mean no offense!) isn't the best source Rodimus Prime! But as you point out I guess it should be assessed on a site-to-site basis. The local conditions could make a massive difference to the implementation of cameras for speeding or red lights. Data from one intersection/stretch of road might not extrapolate to others.
Which surely is the outcome that one is after. And the city gets some income from crappy drivers to boot.
Which is really just poor driving from those doing the rear-ending (not to mention the brake-slammers). Presumably in the US the rear car is culpable in such a collision?
I was in Chicago a few weekends ago. Paid for the parking, went in to eat and the restaurant was a little busy. We went a few minutes over but no biggie right? No, I come back and see two tickets. One at 2:59 and one at 3:00. Ridiculous.
That's the problem though: RLCs are almost never setup properly, esp. since their primary use (whether admitted or not) has -- and will always be -- revenue generation (just like almost all speed related infractions). Even if such a company/municipality tried to be above board and do things right (unlike shortening Yellows, etc.), the technology is much more complicated and fraught with "bugs" than you would think: for instance, there is a delay between when the lamp (or even LED!) is powered and the point at which it actually shines, this very slight delay actually becomes a real issue at speed, when the difference between a ticket and no ticket boils down to hundredths or even thousandths of a second -- IOW, you can actually be "guilty", even though you were totally innocent!
This is likely as well, but prolly not to the degree that RLC rear-enders have already been ABSOLUTELY proven to cause! There are of course a zillion other reasons not to have speed cameras...
Actually, a quick google will present you with enough overwhelming data to keep you reading for a whole week!
Yep. "Speed differential" is easily the root cause of most accidents on freeway/multiple-lane divided hwys. I even have on tape the LA Sheriff's Dept. talking about that exact topic, and how it was the biggest cause of accidents on our fwys -- amazing of them to admit that. IOW, that clueless slow driver in the fast lane is responsible for more tickets, accidents, and chaos than they will ever know.
100% quagmire. We are the worst, lowest skilled driving country in the world... I'll stop here 'cuz I could write a treatise on that!
Actually (not to keep piling on) but cities shortening Yellows is pretty old common knowledge (for car guys especially); in fact, I thought WE were the first here in CA! ;-) Even very conservative courts were forced to throw them out by the boatload.
Be careful with "I've never" and "would easily be avoided" when it comes to driving: one day you may find yourself in a situation of cascading events where simplistic theories will not suffice. For instance: what happens when someone dives into that "adequate distance" you left (usually the length of an 18-wheeler, right! ;-) and jams on the brakes just as you are doing a good "Driver's Ed" look over your other shoulder; you turn back quickly, but the other car is basically stopped two feet in front? Stuff like that happens all the time, and the more miles you drive, the more likely you will eventually run into such situations.
Yes. But not always. In fact, IIRC, the number of cases where the one in front is correctly blamed has increased (more lawyers/worse drivers/etc.).
Bottom line: all these money making stop-gap, fake "solutions" will never significantly reduce anything in this country. Actual driver training (which this country has NEVER officially had), and graduated/tiered licensing is the ONLY way things will ever change. (And sadly, that will probably never happen: it would mean millions of people would never be able to drive -- my dream world