Traffic Cameras

[oklahoman]

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.

As long as cops don't enforce selectively, get nosey, become authoritarian.

 

[Firefrorefiddle]

The town we live in is taking down the cameras because they are costing more to operate than the revenue they generate. I guess the city council wants more people to run red lights so they can write more tickets and make more money.

 

[Firefrorefiddle]

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.

I work for an airline. A few years ago we taxied into the gate in Sarasota and saw a sheriff's deputy waiting there with the gate agent on the jet bridge. Wonder what he wants, we're thinking. It turns out that he was there to meet and escort one of our passengers out to his car. It seems that the guy is on a "business" trip with his girlfriend, and his wife found out about it and showed up at the airport in a rage. The airport security made her leave, but now they are afraid that she's waiting somewhere outside possibly crazy mad enough to shoot him.

To make it worse for the guy, his girlfriend was apparently unaware that he was married, so now she's pissed and ready to beat the snot out of him.

Tough day for the guy.

 

[drwayne]

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.

As long as cops don't enforce selectively, get nosey, become authoritarian.

You could easily substitute an analogous statement about speeding there, and have it look like
a statement that no one could contest. Not counting of course those familiar with a practice,
once wide spread here in the south, called speed trapping.

Wayne

 

[MasterComposter]

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.

As long as cops don't enforce selectively, get nosey, become authoritarian.

You could easily substitute an analogous statement about speeding there, and have it look like
a statement that no one could contest. Not counting of course those familiar with a practice,
once wide spread here in the south, called speed trapping.

Wayne

Yeah, but the difference is that there is no such thing as red-light trapping --- it's either red or not, and the law is clear about what you have to do when it is red. Ther's not a lot of ambiguity. Didn't speed trapping have to do with posting a sudden decrease in speed limit for no other reaaon than to create a trap? For example, the limit is 60 for miles, and then drops to 25 for a stretch of perfectly wide open road for no reason other than to catch speeders. I don't see a good analogy for red-light traps unless maybe it is the short yellow light thing.

 

[yevaud]

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.

Here (Boston), the emphasis is on parking tickets. You cannot get a cop here for love or money, unless there's a robbery or shooting, yet the BTD is out in force each and every day.

If they want to dun you, they will find a way.

That being said, I agree with M_A, you signed a document stating you fully understand the law, when you received your license. Being stupid and playing little games is how accidents occur, and if one does due to your doing a rolling stop, whatever, it is YOUR fault.

 

[Firefrorefiddle]

Yeah, but the difference is that there is no such thing as red-light trapping --- it's either red or not, and the law is clear about what you have to do when it is red. Ther's not a lot of ambiguity. Didn't speed trapping have to do with posting a sudden decrease in speed limit for no other reaaon than to create a trap? For example, the limit is 60 for miles, and then drops to 25 for a stretch of perfectly wide open road for no reason other than to catch speeders. I don't see a good analogy for red-light traps unless maybe it is the short yellow light thing.

There are other ways, if the city really wants to trap people. For example, one commonly used trick is to paint the intersection stop lines further back than usual. A person unfamiliar with the intersection will inadvertantly roll slightly past it trying to see other traffic, the camera snaps a photo, and the city just generated 80 bucks for "running" the red light.

 

[SPACEINVADOR]

I think these cameras make drivers less safe. I think people that would easily make the yellow would tend to be frightened and slam their brakes on possibly sliding into the intersection or getting slammed from behind.

I think that there should be sensors in the road, or some type of detecting device that calculates the approach of a vehicle about to enter the intersection on a yellow. It could then calculate how long to keep the yellow light on for that vehicle to safely travel through the intersection. This would greatly reduce accidents, IMO.

 

[SPACEINVADOR]

And to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong), running a red light means, the light turned red "before" you entered into intersection. Is this correct?

We had a spot here in town where the speed limit went from 55>45>25mph in a very short distance. It was actually causing traffic to bottle neck. Cops would write tickets all day long for speeding and tail gating. The State Police here even have devices in their cars that measure the distance between cars. Anything less than two seconds, you get popped.

 

[mental_avenger]

I think these cameras make drivers less safe. I think people that would easily make the yellow would tend to be frightened and slam their brakes on possibly sliding into the intersection or getting slammed from behind.

Using that logic, having marked police cars might make drivers less safe because drivers might intend to run a light, change lanes, or some other maneuver, then unsafely abort when they spot a police car.

I think that there should be sensors in the road, or some type of detecting device that calculates the approach of a vehicle about to enter the intersection on a yellow. It could then calculate how long to keep the yellow light on for that vehicle to safely travel through the intersection. This would greatly reduce accidents, IMO.

On a busy road, such a device would keep the light yellow all day.

And to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong), running a red light means, the light turned red "before" you entered into intersection. Is this correct?

AFAIK, in most states, a vehicle can legally enter an intersection on a yellow light, even if it turns red after they enter. Entering the intersection means that the front bumper of the vehicle has crossed the last crosswalk line, or has crossed a line which is the continuation of the curb lines. At one time in some states, it was illegal to enter an intersection while the light was yellow. I don’t know if that is still true anywhere. Also, in some states it may be illegal to still be within the intersection when the light turns red. Maybe someone out there has information on that for their state.

In addition, there was a law (traffic code) in California that any vehicle that remained in the intersection, after the light turned red, unable to proceed due to traffic on the other side, could get a ticket. IOW, don’t enter the intersection even on a green light if there is not room on the other side of the intersection for your vehicle.

 

[drwayne]

Yes, MA, that is certainly a valid point, I started to say something along the lines of "Fortunately, for red lights, the case is quite a bit clearer, I hope"*, but I got sidetracked by work.

Yes, indeed, that is what a speed trap is. Like the drug seizure rackets, it worked as an effective extortion
racket run by the police and the local judiciary. Fines collected (mainly from "out of towners") went to pay
for services and to line the pockets of those involved.

Some years ago in a town near me, they got tripped up on a speed limit when they set it to 20 MPH, but state law would only let them set it that low under very specific conditions that the location didn't meet.

Wayne

*hopefully we never hear of some small town hiring someone to hack the images to create the impression
that someone did something they did not do.

Ironically, we are approaching a world in which we may not be able to believe what we see or hear. Unfortunately,
we are more inclined to believe it when it has a label like (drugs/speeding/fill in a bad thing), where the accusation, even if never leading to charges, or refuted - lingers more than the full facts.

 

[baulten]

I've ran one red light so far. It was because there was literally NO line painted. I could not find it. I ended up rolling through by accident. Luckily I didn't hurt anyone or get caught. The reason is that that light is ONLY there for a short portion of the year, and I don't think they paint down lines. If the city started ticketing with cameras, I can guarantee there would be a good number of people who had the same thing happen and would be very angry.

Not everyone who breaks the law does it knowingly, or purposely. But, I don't really mind cameras, as long as the intersection is clearly and reasonably marked. Speed traps I do mind.

 

[Firefrorefiddle]

I can't tell you how much safer I feel knowing that some little old lady was ticketed for rolling a stop sign.

 

[ArcCentral]

I consider these traffic cameras to be a tax. In most cases, certainly not all, these cameras are to boost revenue. So in keeping with the original post, here is another example of what we can look forward to across the country. Essentially they go after a minority to pull this crap off, like rich people, or smokers for instance, or people that make rolling stops on right turns. :mrgreen:
Make no mistake about it though, somewhere along the line, you will be one of those minorities, hence everybody is paying higher taxes, and you might be all for this, as it would seem your local and state governments are in hock. I personally would prefer to see them die to the levels that can actually be sustained, wouldn't you? One of the reasons governments don't cut back like they should is because they have suckers like us, to pay for their fiscal irresponsiblities

http://wcbstv.com/local/ny.state.budget.2.971103.html
No One Is Safe From NY's Wide Reaching Budget
Proposed $131.8B Tax-And-Spend Plan Has Critics Howling
Average Family Of 4 May Be Shelling Out $5,000 Additional Reporting




Unemployment In NY Reaches 7.8 Percent (3/26/2009)
Paterson Orders Nearly 9,000 State Layoffs (3/25/2009)
NY Budget Deficit Deepens By At Least $2 Billion (3/24/2009)
Tax Hikes For Rich Planned To Close NY Budget Gap (3/29/2009)
Get ready to pay up.

The budget crisis in New York is so dire lawmakers are planning tax hikes on some of life's necessities, as well as some simple pleasures.

From bottled water, to beer, cigars and electricity, the cost could be going up for all of these and more.

Governor David Paterson said the new state budget is shared sacrifice, but its a tough sell.

If you live in New York City and suburbs there is only one thing you can do in reaction to the new state budget – gasp.

"This is not a happy budget," Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, said.

No kidding. Critics said there are so many taxes and fee hikes the average family of four in our area can expect to shell out an additional $5,000 -- for now.

"I would like to tell you that this budget brings to an end our fiscal crisis, but I can't do that. That would be intellectually dishonest," Paterson said.

The budget puts an added income tax on households earning over $300,000 to raise $4 billion.

"The rich are going to do their fair share in trying to close this budget deficit and now all those that were yelling for them to do it need to do the same," Paterson said.

And they will.

The details of the new budget include:

* Essentially flat state school aid. Aid to public schools would increase about $1.1 billion, according to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and eliminate the $700 million cut Paterson had proposed in December. But that results in almost no increase for schools that have gotten bumps of billions of dollars from lawmakers pressured by school districts back home. School aid will total more than $21 billion, one of the highest per capita levels in the nation. But school advocates expected $1.5 billion more this year, even after Paterson's cut was restored, under a promise by the state following a court decision it lost for not providing a sound basic education for years.

"There are going to be layoffs of teachers and other educators," said Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education, a union-allied advocate for public schools. "There are going to be cutbacks of programs and kids in districts that are already underfunded, the problem is going to continue ... and that's a travesty of justice."

The last time school districts received far less state aid than expected local property taxes were subsequently increased by an average of 10 percent.

* About $3 billion of taxes and fees, from motor vehicle registration charges to public college tuition and other costs that would affect everyday life for most residents.

* No more tax rebate checks to residents, although the STAR exemption program and NYC STAR credit will continue to provide $3.3 billion in property tax relief.

* A bigger bottle bill. A nickel deposit would be required of bottled water, to go along with carbonated drinks. The state will get about $115 million of the unclaimed deposits, with bottlers keeping the rest under a last-minute deal worked out with lobbyists for the Coca-Cola Co.

* Taxing little cigars often called cigarillos at the same 46 percent rate applied to cigarettes, instead of the 37 percent rate now.

Meanwhile, Paterson had proposed more than $1 billion in cuts from health care in his mid-December budget to the Legislature. He sought to force more funding to be moved from traditional and expensive hospital care to more efficient community-based and preventive programs. The Legislature restored about 69 percent of funding to hospitals, 73 percent to pharmacies, 60 percent to home care programs and 43 percent to nursing homes.

The Legislature also restored:

* $340 million of critical funding to New York City, Silver said.

* Funding for teacher training centers and adult literacy and bilingual education programs.

* $125 million more to the State University of New York, for a total of $2.5 billion in funding; and $86 million more to the City University of New York, for a new total of $1.4 billion.

* $49 million in cuts to community colleges.

* Almost $50 million to the Tuition Assistance Program, which provides financial aid to college students.

The Legislature also created a $50 billion program to provide low-interest loans to residents attending college and rejected a proposal for a gas tax.

New Yorkers can't even begin to fathom what they've been hit with.

"You know it's a really difficult situation. There are no clear solutions. It just seems to tax too much," said Upper West Side resident Jamie Kalfus.

Critics, like Senate Minorty Leader Dean Skelos, R-Long Island, slammed the Legislature for secretly negotiating a $10 billion increase in spending at a time of fiscal crisis.

"These numbers are absolutely staggering, and the height of irresponsibility on the part of the Democrat leadership in this state," said Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos (R-L.I.). "The public should be outraged."

But Gov. Paterson vigorously defended the secret negotiations.

"Nobody wants to publicly, other than governors, who are charged to do it, put their issues on the table. That's part of what negotiations are about," Paterson said.

By the way, Paterson has a $20 million budget for his staff and half a million dollars budgeted for travel.