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.
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.
Leave it to teenagers to find a new game with Red light Cameras
- Thread starter Rodimus Prime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As with many things, I guess implementation makes a huge difference to the fairness of a situation.
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
A warm feeling that can last to the point when they get pulled over for driving without due care and attention.
A warm feeling that can last to the point when they get pulled over for driving without due care and attention.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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).
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).
?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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'
.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%.
