Traffic Cameras

[ArcCentral]

These cameras will increase dramatically, as your GMan looks for ways to generate more revenue. Their hands will be in your pocket for the forseeable future. Get used to it, or cut em off at the pass. In other words - If you don't get active, and make a stand, your gonna get rolled.

The village of Schaumburg, Ill., installed a camera at Woodfield Mall last November to film cars that were running red lights, then used the footage to issue citations. Results were astonishing. The town issued $1 million in fines in just three months.

But drivers caught by the unforgiving enforcement -- which mainly snared those who didn't come to a full stop before turning right on red -- exploded in anger. Many vowed to stop shopping at the mall unless the camera was turned off.
The village stopped monitoring right turns at the intersection in January.

Rest of story in link.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811365190053401.html

 

[mental_avenger]

Ok, let’s see if I got this straight. When the drivers don’t see any police cars around, they choose to break the law, and then get angry when they get caught. Is that correct? And it appears that you agree that people shouldn’t have to obey the traffic laws if there isn’t a visible marked police car nearby. I have actually seen people look around for a police car (it is obvious) and then blow through red lights, stop signs and other illegal maneuvers.

The two worst accidents I have been in were both caused by people who deliberately ran a red left arrow. The first one totaled my van, tore up my left knee, and badly injured my daughter. The second one did $25,000 damage to my car and tore my shoulder. In both cases the drivers didn’t see any police cars, and in both cases they thought they could get away with running the red light. In both cases they were wrong.

IMO there is no excuse for violating any of the traffic laws. They are there for a reason, and are designed to help traffic move efficiently as possible with safety. The key word here is safety. If the law says come to a complete stop before turning right at a red light, that is what each driver should do. Every time. If they choose to violate that law, they have no cause to get angry if they are caught. I think there should be cameras at every red light and every stop sign, and anyone who violates either should be slapped with a hefty fine.

One of the most flagrant is the left turn at a wide intersection, where the left turn drivers will zoom out as soon as the light turns green and cut across in front of oncoming traffic, often barely making it.

Bottom line, I don’t see where any of those people in the article have any legitimate complaint. They broke the law, they were caught, it is 100% their own fault. Suck it up and pay the fine.

 

[drwayne]

I agree with your reasoning as far as it goes MA. But, there is a "but"

A number of cities who have gone to these sort of systems have subsequently found that
they were violating the law by doing things like making the yellow light illegally short
to increase the fine money collected.

Wayne

 

[ArcCentral]

Ok, let’s see if I got this straight. When the drivers don’t see any police cars around, they choose to break the law, and then get angry when they get caught. Is that correct? And it appears that you agree that people shouldn’t have to obey the traffic laws if there isn’t a visible marked police car nearby. I have actually seen people look around for a police car (it is obvious) and then blow through red lights, stop signs and other illegal maneuvers.

The two worst accidents I have been in were both caused by people who deliberately ran a red left arrow. The first one totaled my van, tore up my left knee, and badly injured my daughter. The second one did $25,000 damage to my car and tore my shoulder. In both cases the drivers didn’t see any police cars, and in both cases they thought they could get away with running the red light. In both cases they were wrong.

IMO there is no excuse for violating any of the traffic laws. They are there for a reason, and are designed to help traffic move efficiently as possible with safety. The key word here is safety. If the law says come to a complete stop before turning right at a red light, that is what each driver should do. Every time. If they choose to violate that law, they have no cause to get angry if they are caught. I think there should be cameras at every red light and every stop sign, and anyone who violates either should be slapped with a hefty fine.

One of the most flagrant is the left turn at a wide intersection, where the left turn drivers will zoom out as soon as the light turns green and cut across in front of oncoming traffic, often barely making it.

Bottom line, I don’t see where any of those people in the article have any legitimate complaint. They broke the law, they were caught, it is 100% their own fault. Suck it up and pay the fine.

MA - You are a perfect example of someone asking to get raped.
Higher taxes? No problem, lemmy bend over.
More tickets to raise revenue? No problem, my backside is yours for your pleasure.
Take peoples assets because they may have sold drugs? No problem, If you can rape me, why not someone else.

And the law used to be that you couldn't make a turn at all on a red light. They changed that law because it was assinine., just as it is assinine to pass out tickets for making a slow rolling stop on a right turn. Adults are more than capable of making a right turn safely, while spinning their wheels. These cameras are for revenue purposes only, and for no other reason. It's that simple, and you will get your wish, there will be more cameras next year, and the year after. Sooner or later, they are going to reem your ass, but thats OK, because you asked for it. :mrgreen:

 

[R1]

The yellow light should stay on long enough, and where I live I once saw the yellow light flicker rapidly. I don't know if it was meant to do that or if it was a malfunction, but it actually had a good effect on me of being much more prepared to stop. It is no longer doing that, but I wonder if all yellow lights should be like that?


The ticketed drivers apparently are considering threats that the mall does not want, so corporate america may have something to with the mess now.

 

[vogon13]

I point out, driving is a privilege, not a right, and reasonable costing means of reigning in the lame ass drivers should be a no brainer.

Minimizing enforcement costs while maintaining order (and minimizing chaos) should be OBVIOUS good governance.




Frelling tards . . . . . .






.

 

[mental_avenger]

I agree with your reasoning as far as it goes MA. But, there is a "but"

A number of cities who have gone to these sort of systems have subsequently found that
they were violating the law by doing things like making the yellow light illegally short
to increase the fine money collected.
Wayne

It would be interesting to see what “illegally short” consists of. AFAIK, most States don’t specify criteria like that, it is left up to local municipalities. It also depends upon the other laws concerning traffic lights. In Wyoming and California, if you enter an intersection on a yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, then you are legally allowed to proceed through the intersection. In those cases, a relatively short yellow light would only trap those drivers who speed up and try to make it through when they see a yellow light, instead of slowing down and stopping.

 

[BoJangles2]

The length of the yellow light is for a reason, to give drivers time to slow down and inversely if you are travelling at the required speed and cannot slow safely for the change, shortening the yellow is absurd. And will do nothing more than raise revenue and create accidents.

As for having to fully come to a stop before turning right, well… I’d like to see the statistics on this sort of accident.

 

[mental_avenger]

As for having to fully come to a stop before turning right, well… I’d like to see the statistics on this sort of accident.

Red means stop. Solid red light, flashing red light, same thing, STOP. End of story.

 

[BoJangles2]

Be that as it may. If you’re legally allowed to turn into oncoming traffic on a red light, is a symbolic stop really saving lives, is more my point. I’d like to see that stats on symbolic stops.

 

[oklahoman]

I think that it ought to be illegal for the government to have cameras monitoring the public, if the cameras have computers looking at them.

Computer capabilities are doubling every year and camera capabilities are increasing dramatically as well. According to a documentary I saw 2 years ago, they can already do facial recognition and optical character recognition and even recognize people by their gaits.

Soon, and I mean real soon, it will be possible for computers to basically produce records of where everyone has been every second of their lives after the computers are activated. I am certain the police or some crooked politician will be able to input names, and get a list of crimes, and a list of people you have been meeting with, whether you took too much time off work, etc.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

My home town (Show Low Az) City Council has voted to get Photo Radar & they came right out & said it was for revenue. At least they were honest. If it results in a drop in Tourism, the major source of income in the White Mountains of Az, I'll bet they say the expected profits didn't pan out & get rid of it. When they voted for it they sited another local town called Star Valley & their success in turning a profit with their Photo Radar setup. Star Valley is a little different, as they don't have a single stop light or sign on their Main Street, & they're just a spot on the map that you'd miss if you blinked as you drive through. They're population is just a couple hundred, ours is probably up to 15,000 in just Show Low & nearing 100,000 for the overall area. The City Council is after the pass through drivers in their attempt to make a buck but they'll get locals too & that might create a backlash. Only time will tell if their plan works out.

 

[rubicondsrv]

I think that it ought to be illegal for the government to have cameras monitoring the public, if the cameras have computers looking at them.

Computer capabilities are doubling every year and camera capabilities are increasing dramatically as well. According to a documentary I saw 2 years ago, they can already do facial recognition and optical character recognition and even recognize people by their gaits.

Soon, and I mean real soon, it will be possible for computers to basically produce records of where everyone has been every second of their lives after the computers are activated. I am certain the police or some crooked politician will be able to input names, and get a list of crimes, and a list of people you have been meeting with, whether you took too much time off work, etc.

A MASER will be quite effective in removing problem cameras.

 

[mental_avenger]

My home town (Show Low Az) City Council has voted to get Photo Radar & they came right out & said it was for revenue. At least they were honest.

While some communities may be using such devices for revenue, IMO most do so to stop drivers from running red lights and stop signs. Revenue would be a side benefit in any case, because it is almost certainly a lot less expensive to have a camera up 24 hours a day at an intersection than to hire police officers to watch that particular intersection 24 hours a day. The “revenue” would be in the form of cost effectiveness. In the end it would save the city a lot of money.

It is troubling that so many people are against having these cameras at intersections. If you have ever been T-boned by someone running a red light you might change your mind. I can tell you from experience that it is not a pleasant way to spend the next few months recovering, not to mention the continued difficulties 20 years later.

More than once I have seen people talking on cell phones blow right through a red light as if it wasn’t even there. One time it was right in front of me. I had already pulled out almost a full car length into the intersection when a pickup with a cell phone talker shot past my front bumper. If I see a vehicle run a red light I WILL report them to the police.

Bottom line, if you don’t run red lights, you have nothing to worry about from the traffic cameras. And maybe, just maybe, one of them may save your life just by people knowing it is there.

 

[drwayne]

"If you have ever been T-boned by someone running a red light you might change your mind."

Actually, my wife was T-boned about 10 years ago and is still paying for it. The guy who ran the
red light didn't just arrive late - he ran right through the middle of it. I doubt the chance of a ticket
would have changed this, as he was:

(1) Drunk
(2) Driving with a suspended licence
(3) Had no insurance
(4) The car wasn't his
(5) The car itself wasn't licenced.

As far as we could ever see - he never suffered a legal or financial consequence for his actions.
By state law, he is not supposed to get a licence until he makes restitution, but that has never
happened.

I have no problem by the way with traffic laws such as this being enforced. I merely point out
that when the $ get involved, bad things can happen. In Louisiana some years ago, they had
to do away with revenue sharing on drug forfeiture because so many local municpalities were
doing things that were beyond the pale - up to and including the planting of drugs - because
the "money was so good, and did so much good for the cities"

Doing a little research on traffic cameras, and I have seen stories of local police departments
issuing theit own extra-legal "tickets" for cases where the person driving the car can not
be identified. In some jurisdictions, if you can't ID the driver clearly, a ticket can not be
issued. Police departments have taken to sending notices that look like tickets, but specifically
instruct that the recipients are NOT to contact the courts. They are known is some circles
as phishing tickets.

Wayne

*edited to add content on extra-legal tickets, and to change some wording that could
be considered confrontational - hint: don't write something when you are about to go to
a meeting.

 

[abq_farside]

Here in Albuquerque, we have had the red light/speed camera for 4-5 years now. Initially there was a huge amount of outcry over them, mainly due to the fines from being caught by them (something like: $300 1st, $500 2nd, etc). Then the state decided to try to take some of that extra revenue from the city and the fines came down to something reasonable like $80 per incident.

I have no problem with them - don't run a red light or speed through the intersection - it seems pretty simple to me.

 

[drwayne]

Here in Albuquerque, we have had the red light/speed camera for 4-5 years now. Initially there was a huge amount of outcry over them, mainly due to the fines from being caught by them (something like: $300 1st, $500 2nd, etc). Then the state decided to try to take some of that extra revenue from the city and the fines came down to something reasonable like $80 per incident.

I have no problem with them - don't run a red light or speed through the intersection - it seems pretty simple to me.

Neither do I. I am trying to teach my son, in advance of him starting to drive that you ALWAYS stop at the
stop sign, even if it is in the middle of nowhere, and you are sure no one is coming. And that you come to
a complete stop, and look both ways. If you always do things like that right, then you maximize your chances
of getting home safe.

I forgot to say in my previous post, I have also gone over a couple of hoods on my bike because people
"sort-of" stopped, "sort-of" looked at an intersection.

Wayne

 

[MasterComposter]

One of the great fringe benefits of the red-light cameras is that sometimes you hear a story about someone getting the ticket mailed to their house, and when the wife opens the mail, the photo in the ticket not only shows that her husband ran a red light, but that he was getting a BJ from some bimbo at the same time.

 

[MasterComposter]

I don't have anything problem with red-light cameras. They've been in a nearby city for several years. As a practical matter, many people were challenging the tickets and most were getting out of them, so I don't realy know how effective it was.

In my town they occaisionally do a speeding ticket program on certain streets, and I think the way they do it is pretty effective, at least for awhile. They put up a radar that shows you your speed as you drive by. That stays up for a week. Then after a week, they leave that up and they post a cop for a week who give tickets to anyone still blazing past the radar sign. Then they take away the sign and a cop monitors the street for a couple more weeks. They do this whole routine about once a year.

 

[ArcCentral]

The purpose of the thread, was to take note, that this is only the beginning of new taxes. They will start with what they can get away with, and work their way to more agregious taxes over time. There will be little or no reduction in government employees. Their going to expect you to take on the burden, lest you do something about it. Seems you would rather discuss inconsequential BS, than pay through the nose. So be it ... you will be owned. Now bow to your master.

 

[mental_avenger]

Traffic violation fines are not taxes, so how does this thread relate to new taxes? If no one violated any traffic laws, there would be no fines.

 

[MasterComposter]

The purpose of the thread, was to take note, that this is only the beginning of new taxes. They will start with what they can get away with, and work their way to more agregious taxes over time. There will be little or no reduction in government employees. Their going to expect you to take on the burden, lest you do something about it. Seems you would rather discuss inconsequential BS, than pay through the nose. So be it ... you will be owned. Now bow to your master.

Well, yeah, when I have a choice between discussing inconsequential BS and paying through the nose, I choose the inconsequential BS...

 

[MasterComposter]

Jeez... The world is ending when I find myself agreeing with MA...

There's nothing wrong with enforcing the traffic laws, and red-light running is a dangerous problem. I don't agree it is all about revenue, and these communities can work that out for themselves --- if they don't want this thing, they've already shown they can get rid of it. And FINES are not TAXES.

 

[drwayne]

"There's nothing wrong with enforcing the traffic laws, and red-light running is a dangerous problem."

Similar reasoning was applied to drug forfeiture laws back in the 80's and 90's, where local authorities
got to keep the proceeds from what they seized. Nothing wrong with that, right. Why should someone
charged with being a low-life drug dealer have any reason to complain, right?

Here's the kicker. In a huge majority to the cases, charges were NEVER filed. It was a scam run
by the law. See a car / truck / camper that you think is worth a lot. Pull them over for for a non-existent
traffic offense. Proclaim to have found drugs* Seize the car/truck/camper. Tell the "offender" that
if they have a choice, leave their stuff behind, or go to jail right now. In Louisiana, it was essentially an
institution along the I-10 corridor for years.

When money and law enforcement get intermixed at the motivation level, bad things can happen.

Interesting article from ars techica a couple of weeks ago:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... eficit.ars

Wayne

*One of the popular ways to claim to have found drugs was to test money for drug residue. Unfortunately,
most moeny tested that way will apparently test positive.

 

[drwayne]

Jeez... The world is ending when I find myself agreeing with MA...

I am not disagreeing with him either, just pointing out that the fact that an objective, in this case
keeping drivers safe, however noble, does not absolve us as citizens from being vigilant in HOW
that objective is met.

Wayne