Leave it to teenagers to find a new game with Red light Cameras

[Melrose]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

I like this radar camera game better.

Santa impersonators wrap radar cameras in Tempe

 

[yg17]

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 f**ked 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.]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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/statistic...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/statistic...asualtiesgbar/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]

Don't make me move this to the PRSI forum!!!!

 

[william sire]

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

The next application on your iPhone

 

[IJ Reilly]

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]

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]

Correctamudo!!

 

[EricNau]

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]

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).