BCM Community

Has any one received a ticket from a red light camera? I have them all over the city I live in and there is no way to get stopped or fully cross before red but I have never received a letter. Just wondering if the picture is taken before the bus gets through?

Depends on where you live and the definition of an intersection.I'm retired Phx.PD and the definition of an intersection is the extention of the curb lines.Once you cross that line before the light turns red,no ticket
   Don

Same here Ed and also we have found ourselfs sitting at a REDLIGHT more then once waiting and waiting for the light to change. Finally we would just turn right and find a place to turn around! Light sensors can't see us??? M&C

M&C, sensor lights are a different animal from photo enforcement.  Sensor lights adapt the signal timing based on the presence of vehicles at or near the intersection.  Photo enforcement involves a camera system aimed to catch a photo of license plates and drivers of vehicles in the intersection when the light turns red.  The owner of a vehicle found to be in violation gets mailed a ticket.  They can usually go online to see a photo of the driver.

But you bring up an interesting point about sensor lights.  I wonder if they use IR sensors that are looking for the heat source (i.e. front mounted radiator) and are blind to rear engine vehicles?

On the photo enforcement setups, they are human reviewed before a citation is issued.  Perhaps they make allowances for large vehicles.  Or maybe the reviewers aren't looking closely and just see "a bus" and move on to the next one.

Quote from: HighTechRedneck on July 13, 2010, 06:10:28 AM
I wonder if they use IR sensors that are looking for the heat source (i.e. front mounted radiator) and are blind to rear engine vehicles?

My understanding is that inductive loops are buried in the road surface, and they detact any metal above them.   Some bicyclists using carbon fiber bikes and CF wheels have reported that these inductive sensors don't trigger when they are above them, but they will when they ride their steel- or aluminum-framed bikes with aluminum wheels!   Bicyclists are experts in placing their wheels directly above the lines, whether they are circular or the more common two-line or three line pattern.   My personal experience is that some sensors are more sensitive than others, and some cities are better than others at maintaining consistent sensor levels.   A honking great bus should have no problem triggering the lights!   

John

San Diego claims their red light cameras are similar to the rest of CA and are constantly running, aka movie cameras.  The advice to me, if ticketed, "ask for the frames before I entered the intersection and after I leave the intersection".  As long as the vehicle has entered the intersection before red it is legal.  I did not ask if "entered" meant bumper, front axle, or complete vehicle.  Figured the distinction would come if I ever receive a red light ticket.

In the FWIW category, most of San Deigo's early red light tickets were thrown out because they lowered the yellow light time on stoplights with cameras.

Hope it helps.

Mike

Mike, here they refunded tickets also for shortening the yellow time. I was also told if you get a ticket, in court you have the right to face your accuser. Ask for the camera to appear in front of the judge. If that works I don't know. We have them on every light and I do my best but I know they turn red even sometimes before I start to cross but I have never received anything. I am not slamming my family 40ft to the front of the bus over a ticket. I do blow the air horns just to wake people up to see I am still coming. I am just curious if they even ticket buses anywhere with these cameras. FWIW I do not do this every light and I do try to stop but sometimes that is what leaves you in the middle. Just saying it has happend

The red light cameras have both still and video.  You do not have the right to face your accusor for it is civil and not criminal.  THat is how that duped the country into accepting these cash cows.  Yes I said it CASH COW.  The numbers are showing an increase of accidents as a result of the cameras.  They are on the way out but it still ticks me off to no end we as a country allowed them to go this far with it.

I hope that's not all that ticks you off Wal. We have given everything up. Tell me why we blame the Banks for the housing market going bust? My property taxes are 3x as much as my house payment. So the city can afford these cameras.

In most places they don't buy or own the cameras even.  They are owned, installed, maintained and operated by companies that get a very sizeable portion of every cite written as a result of the camera.  (iirc, Chattanooga's deal is the company gets either 50% or 60% of the citation)

Well, I guess I'm one of the few who support red light cameras.  Red light running is epidemic where I live and there have been some horrendous accidents because if them.  So, not only do I think there should be cameras at most major intersections, I think there should be fake cameras at every other intersection.

If the city makes a few dollars from them, it's fine with me as long as the funds are used for better law enforcement.  We just can't afford to have police at every intersection to catch red light runners.

I cannot understand the idea that accident rates go up where there are cameras.  The only explanation id that someone gets read ended because they actually stopped for a red light.  "Gee, officer, I thought he was going to run the light and I was going to follow him through it".

The yellow light timing should only be based on safe stopping distances at the posted speed.  It if is any shorter than that, it is indeed cause for complaint.

More than once, I have thought I was pushing my luck going through a yellow light when I should have stopped, only to find five more cars following me through.

The reason for potentially increased accidents with red light cameras is people slamming on brakes to stop instead of continuing on through yellow lights like in the past.  There must be some standard for yellow light timing based on the speed limit and average traffic volume.  Any city that doesn't time their yellow lights per standard should have every ticket thrown out.

The City of Minneapolis installed these at several intersections where the accident rates were very high.  The courts eventually ruled they violated state law as the owner of the car was cited and not the driver.  I think the whole 'I loaned my car to someone else' argument is silly as how many people really loan out their cars?  You would think those complaining the loudest never actually drove the car they owned.  (I suppose some parents own cars that belong to their kids.)  I can count on one hand the number of times I haven't been the driver of my car.

Is your wife's car in your name or is your car in her name?  I once got a citation in the mail for a bus I had sold 6 months earlier.

FWIW,

We have a combination of inductive loops and overhead optical sensors for the garage doors here in Big Transit.

The inductive loops can be set so fine, that a worker with steel toe boots walking onto the loop can be sensed.

Woe to the guy with the new kevlar toes....!!!

happy coaching!
buswarrior

Quote from: belfert on July 13, 2010, 05:42:34 PM...There must be some standard for yellow light timing based on the speed limit and average traffic volume...

1-Second/MPH on controlled-right-of-way.

This means that yellow should be 3.5 seconds if your speedlimit is 35MPH, 4.5 seconds if 45MPH.  Federal Standard, however a yellow may be lengthened if a special intercection design is used, and the time between the red and a green is variable based on traffic density on the right of way and the speeds (length of green is totally up to the light programmer - and I've seen some dumb times set, one I stop at every once in a while can have as short as a 5-second green).

Quote from: Len Silva on July 13, 2010, 02:55:06 PM...I cannot understand the idea that accident rates go up where there are cameras.  The only explanation is that someone gets read ended because they actually stopped for a red light.  "Gee, officer, I thought he was going to run the light and I was going to follow him through it"...

Reports support this, yes T-bone accidents are down, but rear-ender accidents are up.  Incidentally, cars are more survivable in head-on/rear-end crashes versus side-impact - so the fatalities are also down.  The simple answer to this is something that was once mentioned here a long time ago: 'Watch out for "stale" green lights'.  If it's been green for a while it will change.  If the pedestrian lights go from blinking "Don't Walk" to solid, it will change.

I was witness to an accident like this a few months ago in Santa Clara on my way to work – the car approaching the light slowed to a stop for a yellow/red – the guy behind her did not (BAM!!!).  Wasn’t even a camera at this intersection, the lady was just following the law and the guy didn’t expect her to.  Of course I had more than 2x the required distance behind him since I keep enough space in front of me…

Quote from: Iceni John on July 13, 2010, 08:04:18 AM

Quote from: HighTechRedneck on July 13, 2010, 06:10:28 AM
I wonder if they use IR sensors that are looking for the heat source (i.e. front mounted radiator) and are blind to rear engine vehicles?

My understanding is that inductive loops are buried in the road surface, and they detect any metal above them...

Most use inductive loops – cheap, reliable, weather does not affect as much as optical.  The style of loop affects the sensitivity (there are two popular styles, circle or figure-eight), most require a ferric (iron/steel) metal to trip – but they also have different Automatic Gain Controls to reject ambient noise, sometimes when set wrong they reject cars/trucks.  They work on the principal of open core transformers, by sending a radio frequency throught a coil, a second coil which is not "driven" is located in the driven coil pack.  The un-driven coild detects the radio frequency from the driven coil- but if a ferric object is in the coil's field, the effect is that the ferric object will delay the energy transfer from one coil to the next (as the energy must first saturate the ferric object), a simple timing circuit (phase detection) will detect the delay change.  There are some devices out there that will "listen" for the coil frequency and then broadcast a new signal that is way delayed (out of phase) of the driven coild signal so that the detector coil will not miss the object.  This kind of device is popular with motorcyclists.

Triggering of a red-light camera in CA requires that as the light turns from yellow to red, there are two loops right at the limit line which will calculate if your vehicle is going to enter the intersection due to the rate of speed you are progressing.  If you are going below this set rate (and thus will not enter the intersection), the camera won’t trigger.  If it triggers, it will take a series of pictures.  1. A picture indicating that you were not in the intersection when the light turned red (they use front tires for this in the case I’ve seen), 2. A picture indicating that you then subsequently entered the intersection with the light red (both the car and the light must be visible in the picture), and 3. A picture delayed after your entrance into the intersection to show that either you continued into the intersection or ran into someone (often these cameras catch the moment right after a T-bone).  Understand that there are often several angles of the single event, and the cameras they are using are multi-mega pixel (2+) so quality is usually not an issue.

The pictures are then sent to the management company to verify that they have good enough quality pictures to identify the vehicle, tag number, driver of the vehicle, and time sequence stamps before mailing you the ticket.  If you get one in the mail, you need to verify that you are the driver or not the driver (if you are not, you will be asked by the court to identify the driver in the picture as the registered/responsible party for the vehicle).

-T

P.S. Check out the cameras that they use in my city... (http://www.redflex.com/files/Red%20Fixed.pdf) -T

Yeah, what's wrong with having a big brother?

California specific, but interesting:
http://www.kusi.com/features/turko/Throw-Em-Out-98117044.html (http://www.kusi.com/features/turko/Throw-Em-Out-98117044.html)

All -

Lots more about this topic here:

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/ (http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/)


Some of you might even consider joining!

FWIW & HTH. . .

;)

I was in traffic court the other day.  A guy that was given a ticket for running a red by a patrolman got a hearing.  The cop [played a video of the guy going thru the intersection.  The light is on a 45 mph blvd.  The car was more than half thru the intersection and the light for the cop turned green so the others light MUST have turned red at that instant.  Judge pointed that out to the driver and said "it is clear that you didn't make the light.  GUILTY...$250.  

These people are out of control.  I got a ticket for my dog barking in the off leash dog park.  The City ord. says that excessive barking is defined as 15 minutes of barking that can be heard from the property line.  He was barking at a woman that had just slammed a canvas purse/bag over his head and then tried to stomp him.  She was unhinged because her dog would not obey her COME command and her dog continued to interact with mine and ignore her.  He barked his displeasure at her and I did also and left.  I had my day in court and that took an hour, two cops and four old hens and we watched the film of my interview three times.  The partr of the tape where the rookie said "he said she attacked his dog and that made the dog bark.  His whitness says that and the four women agree".  He was protesting beig told to give me a ticket.  The other officer's answer"I don't care about that.  Give him the ticket."  There is also a County ord that stipulates that a dog may not bite a person unless: The dog is part of the police canine force, or the dog is a guard dog on duty protecting proiperty   OR THE DOG IS BEING TORMENTED.  As I told the judge "is it ok for him to have bitten her but he is out of line for having barked at her?  She had knocked him to the ground, had tried to stomp him before he could regain his footing and then chased after him trying to kick him and this all the while screaming at him.  He only weighs 23 pounds and a kick could be fatal."   Judge said "GUILTY....a dog barking can be very annoying and you should have had your animal under control and made him stop barking". Had that officer given me a ticket for being pregnant the judge would have found me guilty and fined me.  The police force in this town has a union and a few years ago the city mayor and board, all conservatives, entered into a contract tha is curiously binding and the cop that tasered the lone demonstrator for having sign that said "stop spraying defoliant on XXXX St. and adjacent properties."  A whitness filmed the entire event and the cop ordered him to lay on the ground....he did.....he asked why he was being arrested....cop said "shut up".....other cop proceeded to cuff the demonstrator....demonstrator again said "why are you doing this?....cop said "stand clear and shot the perp after the secnd cop stood up....hand cuffs were on and the the at was laying face down on the concrete side walk....he shocked him three very long times and the gy was screaming his head off in agony.  They then jerked hi to his feet and marched him across the street to the Police station.  While this case was being reviewed for excessive force, they awarded that 22 year old rookie OFFICER OF THE YEAR.  His next move was to enter an apartment near the University on the report that unauthorized people had entered a vacant apartment.  He entered the bedroom and demanded that a Chinese Student that spoke only very poor English, part of the exchange program for our Chinese Studies Department, "stand up and lean against the wall".  The cop then grabbed the blanket covering the Chinaman and tried toi jerk it away. Te Chinaman held fast and the cop fell to the floor of balance. Regaining his footing he shot the perp cause "I thought I saw a gun and feared for my life".  Recordings proved he never yelled GUN!, as he supposed to do to warn the other officer.  Police review found that his conduct was exemplary and without fault.  I figure if he shoots three coeds and a pregnant woman they will give that cop a gold medal the size of a man hole cover and name him COP OF THE CENTURY.  Ever see Judge Dread?

John

The root of the problem IMO was the shift from keeping the peace to law enforcement. We've gone from attempting to maintain civility to micro managing everyone's daily lives.  I'm a firm believer we should have laws for criminal actions that impact others directly, not a morass of regulations.

If you run a red light on an empty street, have you really hurt anything? (Other than someone's sense of order)

Hey JohnEd,
If you think that is bad wait until the Black Panthers become Obama's SS Troops. They already started and were set free for intimidating people at the election poles. It will only get worse!
Tom Hamrick

Guys, can we get a little more grounded in reality here? Next you'll be claiming something about an oil spill in the gulf, we have to trust the elected officials in office, they know whats in our best interests or we wouldn't have elected them right?  As you all know we have the best government that the corporate world can buy us and we are not showing our appreciation for it in a proper way, there will always be small cells of individuals that fall outside the mainstream of corporate thought and they are being brought back into the protective fold as we speak.  Just trust relax, and enjoy the life thats provided for you at great expense I might add, I'll be back later, my meds are here now, have a good day.

So as not to drift to far off topic,  I do not believe that red light cameras are primarily for safety; they are for revenue.  The jurisdiction makes easy money, the provider makes easy money, and the insurance companies make easy money.  I would be very interested to see the results of a popular referendum on them.  Could such a system really be in keeping with the wishes of the majority.  Further, the court system, which is supposed to be independent, is undeniably in collusion with the executive.  It's sort of like the toll booths that merely pay for themselves-- everyone on the inside gets paid.

Appears folks all over don't like 'em:


http://photoradarscam.com/protest.php (http://photoradarscam.com/protest.php)

Well I had an early experience with camera traffic control! Back in the 90's I borrowed a friends rollback (yes Brian some people do have friends they trust!) to go to MO and pick up a mustang I'd bought off ebay.  So while I was using his rollback on a Sunday to go get my car I "accidentally" exceeded the speed limit through an area near St. Louis.
So about a month later my friend gets a ticket in the mail with a picture of the back of his truck passing a speed limit sign, and an imposed digital speed above the limit in big bright red #'s in the middle of the picture, and the time and date @ the bottom.
The quality of the picture was very poor, and to be quite honest the license plate was not legible at all. Also all that could be seen was the back of a dirty, dingy rollback, and a wrecked mustang on the back of it! It didn't show what brand of truck it was, or even the color of the cab, let alone who was driving it.
(I'm sure they did some serious enhancement of the picture to find out who in KY owned the truck)

But when he got the ticket he did not remember loaning the truck to me. So he looked up the date on a calendar and found it was on a Sunday. Neither his junk yard or body shop were open on Sundays. Although sometimes his tow trucks did do towing on Sundays if called. So he looked up his logs showing all of that weeks wrecker calls and none of them fell on that Sunday, let alone in the St. Louis area (175 miles away).
So he had his wife call the # (to some business in Atlanta, GA) provided with the ticket and "explain that there musta been some kind of mistake!"
She was told "MAM THE PICTURES DO NOT LIE AND IF YOUR HUSBAND'S BUSINESS'S TRUCK IS THE ONE BELONGING TO THE LICENSE PLATE ON THE TRUCK IN THE PICTURE, THEN HE MUST PAY THE TICKET!"
No matter what she said made a difference to the arrogant and rude lady on the other end of the phone.

Well my buddy being a cool, calm, collective and reasonable natured man such as myself took and laid out his towing logs, the picture, the ticket, and the exact amount of cash for the fine on his desk and took a picture of it. He then put his picture in an envelope along with a letter explaining that there was no way possible it was his truck that far from home on a day that they were closed and that there were no wrecker calls! (and mailed it to the same company in Atlanta that had sent him the ticket!)

About a week later he received an envelope from a town near St. Louis where the camera was located. In it was a letter explaining that while they thought his method of paying the ticket was cute, it was not the way they did things. And that if he didn't pay the ticket they would put out a bench warrant on him, and post a "BOLO" (be on the look out) for the license plate on his truck, or any other tow trucks/vehicles bearing the name of either of his businesses (since he was gracious enough to provide them with that info in his letter), and if stopped the vehicle would be impounded and the driver arrested. Also included was a picture of his picture next to a pair of hand cuffs on a jail cell door!

I happened to be "back in town and at his body shop talking to his wife when he came in from running to the post office and several other places ranting raving and screaming about that "damn St. Louis ticket" and throwing the envelope on his wife's desk.
So while she was looking it over I asked him what it was about. He opened a drawer and pulled out the first one they had gotten and showed to me,while explaining it.
He and his wife were dumb struck when I started howling laughing and as I looked at the picture!
I just pulled the $ for the fine out of my pocket and reminded him about borrowing the rollback to go pick up the mustang on the back of it!
His wife fell out on the floor laughing with me while he was not as amused about it at first, but he was laughing about it too before long.

SO I am glad to hear that they now do a better job of showing who is actually driving as companies (& individuals DO NOT always know WHO is operating a particular vehicle at all times!)
FWIW!
;D  BK  ;D

I just don't get the logic here.  Running a red light is against the law.  What is the difference between a camera catching illegal crossing of an intersection and a camera catching illegal crossing  of a border?  I presume most would support the use of the latter.

Quote from: Len Silva on July 14, 2010, 08:48:35 AM
I just don't get the logic here.  Running a red light is against the law.  What is the difference between a camera catching illegal crossing of an intersection and a camera catching illegal crossing  of a border?  I presume most would support the use of the latter.

Len, I paid my ticket! Even though it wasn't my neck on the line, my truck, or any proof it was me driving! ;)
;D  BK  ;D

BK,

That was not directed at you at all, we both posted at the same time.

I just don't get the objection to any tool that helps law enforcement do their job and makes the streets safer.

I think the biggest problem I have is they use it for revenue. They do not put cameras up in my neighborhood to catch thieves,rapest,pedophiles and such. They just use them for income. Infact the last time I called the courthouse it asked if I was calling to make a theft claim and to do it on line if it was less than $5000. I am all for rules and law but at what expense. I have only seen pictures of the tickets but they do not show the teenagers crossing the street in front is why you got stopped in the intersection or a car came out of the driveway at the gas station on the corner. Where do we say enough is enough. I personally believe the young cops we have today are on a power trip. I remember growing up and the cops were out taking care of business but also teaching our kids. Remember getting caught at the park with beer? They would make you pour it out. That hurt worse than than a spanking from dad. Now you go to jail and the parents get a what? A FINE for the city. Now at 40 I have been almost taken to jail for telling a 20yr I was done taking his harassment. Give me a ticket or let me go. I don't need the threats. I owe them nothing. Anyway this thread was not about most of this. I was more questioning has anyone received a ticket in their bus with these cameras. I seen one yes and allot of readers so I am guessing it is not a common thing for buses to get them.

Quote from: eddiepotts on July 14, 2010, 09:42:10 AM

I think the biggest problem I have is they use it for revenue. station on the corner.

I personally believe the young cops we have today are on a power trip. I remember growing up and the cops were out taking care of business but also teaching our kids.

It is a sad state of affairs when true conservatives, like some members here, can offer sincere advice to NEVER expect that a cop is there to HELP you.  They have a whole different agenda.  I am a slow learner but I sure have come to agree with them.

Len,

The function of a red light is to stop traffic.  The purpose of a red light is to promote the safe and expeditious flow of traffic.  I don't think that there is a single person here that would not agree that we need traffic lights. And the ones we have are in the correct location.  And that we actually need more. Generally speaking, of course.  We are in agreement and that should align us with law enforcement.  Most of us resent the traffic police because the purpose has been changed to "rev. source".  That puts the police and the GENERAL public at odds so the gen public does not support cops as they used to.  And it is that relationship that has spilled over into the entire scene and made us adversaries.  For protection, the cops get support from contracts and unpopular laws passed by law makers that impersonate conservatives with "law and order" rhetoric and "bear down on crime" crap and then sponsor "mandatory mins" as a fix for their failures.  Red Light enforcement isn't all that has gone sideways on us but it is clearly visible example.  Remember the "warning ticket" that you used to get once in awhile?

Len. I am not lecturing you by any means. ;D ;D  Really, it isn't directed AT you. :-X  We are of like mind on most things is my impression. 8)  Hope that isn't insulting. ???

John

I've not really been following this thread closely as it's a subject that's been done to death here - or at least, it's been done to death on the subject of speed cameras, but I don't think I've ever really heard anyone moaning about traffic light cameras before. Surely only a complete and utter idiot would drive through a red light and then complain that they'd been caught breaking the law. Fair enough if the cameras are so badly set up that they cannot accommodate reasonable behaviour (ie. an appropriate time delay before the camera activates depending upon the speed of the traffic passing it), but if the camera is being 'reasonable' (and that's the test for all laws, I think) then I'm really not sure you can complain - there are surely very, very few situations where it can be safe or responsible to drive through a red light rather than waiting 20 seconds or so for it to change to green.

Now, speed cameras are a different thing. Again - if they are operating 'reasonably' (ie, in a situation where it is dangerous to speed) then you've got no cause for complaint. The problem though is that speed cameras on the whole are not yet clever enough to be able to judge when they are being reasonable - most speed cameras are 'dumb', and keep doing the same thing whatever the time of day, weather conditions, amount of traffic etc. Some (mostly on motorways here) are actively controlled and linked in to the variable speed limits systems on such roads - but those ones are still quite rare.

And then you get average speed cameras, which are all over the place here now. As annoying as they are, the philosophy behind average speed cameras really does seem to be 'safety-based' rather than 'revenue-earning based', which I suppose you have to respect.

Jeremy

What I'd like to see is the green light begin to flash before it goes yellow.
If you're worried that will encourage some to speed up, include a traffic light camera & a speeding camera to deal with that abuse.

As for me, I would appreciate the extra warning so I can make fewer hard stops. Hard stops are abusive to equipment.

I'd rather abuse my equipment by choice, not necessity.  ;D

If the lights are timed properly, and you are at the speed limit, there is no reason for a hard stop.

Now, I have an idea that I think is of great value.  I have written to the Highway Department and the DOT with no response.  What do you guys think?

My idea is a distinctive line painted across the road at a specific distance form the stop line based on the speed limit and safe stopping distances.  The idea is that if you have crossed the line before the light turns yellow, you should be able to safely make it through the intersection before it turns red.  If you have not reached the line when the light turns yellow, you should be able to stop safely.

Quote from: Len Silva on July 14, 2010, 01:34:45 PM
If the lights are timed properly, and you are at the speed limit, there is no reason for a hard stop.

Now, I have an idea that I think is of great value.  I have written to the Highway Department and the DOT with no response.  What do you guys think?

My idea is a distinctive line painted across the road at a specific distance form the stop line based on the speed limit and safe stopping distances.  The idea is that if you have crossed the line before the light turns yellow, you should be able to safely make it through the intersection before it turns red.  If you have not reached the line when the light turns yellow, you should be able to stop safely.

In my car, there is never a problem, but have you ever pulled a 8000+# trailer? Sure you can stop that quick, but it places a lot of extra strain on the brakes to do so.
I like to transition between accelerator & brake - NOT toggle between mashing either to the floor.  ;D

I think the line that already exists is ignored with such frequency that any other lines will only confuse the idiots further.

Quote from: Busted Knuckle on July 14, 2010, 08:44:11 AM
Well I had an early experience with camera traffic control! Back in the 90's I borrowed a friends rollback (yes Brian some people do have friends they trust!) to go to MO and pick up a mustang I'd bought off

I agree that people do loan out vehicles and my father has used my vehicles a few times.  The way people were bitching and moaning about loaned out vehicles here locally you would have thought they never drove their own vehicle.  The reality is it was just an excuse to get out of a ticket and to shut down the red light cameras.  I just don't think that loaning out vehicles happens near as often as attorneys make it out to be.

I don't have an issue with red light cameras if government and the contractors don't do things on purpose to generate revenue.  Based on what I see every day they can make plenty of money within existing parameters.  I think the problem is eventually folks start obeying the law and the revenue generated goes down.  Government needs that revenue so they start changing things.

I would think it was reasonable if a video or sequenced camera activated once the light turned red and only vehicles that could be shown to enter the intersection after the light was already red could be cited.  None of this "hadn't cleared the intersection" stuff.  Yellows should be extended to avoid causing panic stops too.  Further, if it really safety oriented, than the cameras should be removed from any intersection where accidents increase.  Speed cameras are outrageous since many speed limits are set way below what is a safe speed.  I judge a safe speed by what the Highway Patrol drives since we all know that they would not drive at an unsafe speed.  Anyway, maybe if a speed camera was set at 10 mph above the posted limit it would be a little reasonable.  I-10 near us has a speed limit of 65mph.  That's reasonable for the bus.  It is not reasonable for a car.  I figure that it's a good speed limit for the right lane, and each lane to the left of that should be increased by at least 5 mph.  When you get to the extreme left lane, there should be a minimum speed of 70-75 mph.

Oh yeah, if there is not a clear picture of the driver's face, the ticket should be trash.  I'd call that "reasonable doubt", and it is not the citizen's job to supply an possible alternate guilty driver.  That's like saying, "A crime was committed and you are being charged with it, but if you can give us someone else, we will prosecute him instead of you."  Legal innocence does not depend on finding a substitute, it depends on lack of irrefutable evidence.

I think the lights are timed for my 18' truck. That's great and all but that idiot second car that you normally see come behind you through the yellow light is the other 22' of your bus. in my city we do not have public transportation so I am one of the only buses. The speed limit of 45 down main street is great for stopping my truck in a reasonable manner before a light turns red. When your in a bus your having to get the equivalent of two vehicles through the same light. I know all the do gooders that think the cameras are great do not pull over and call 911 when the fail to get their beast to stop or get it through before the light turns red to get the ticket your opinion makes them feel they deserve. How do you sleep at night knowing you got away with it and the rest of the world are paying penalties for it because of a camera that could not see all the details of a situation. You cant call it a fine because it is attached to the vehicle and not the driver. You can't go to jail for not paying but you can't get new registration for that vehicle until the penalty is paid. I am not talking about rush hour traffic, most of us drive slower in these conditions. But at midnight when we are pulling out the lights are triggered from someone coming off a side street. With that being said there is no timing of speed to make the lights it is just a split second change.

Quote from: eddiepotts on July 14, 2010, 02:58:57 PM
. . . . But at midnight when we are pulling out the lights are triggered from someone coming off a side street. With that being said there is no timing of speed to make the lights it is just a split second change.

BINGO!
That is where the flashing green comes in to alert the drivers of an impending signal change.
Those who would run the caution will have more time to speed up so they clear the intersection before opposing traffic enters.

That's my story & I'm sticking with it!

InLin Silva I have to disagree completely.  I have been a cop for 22 years and I can tell you without a doubt it is nothing but a revenue for cities.  Allow me to put a new twist here to explain.  Cities can buy manhole covers, power poles, traffic signs, stop signs ect.  Every  traffic control device can be purchased.  The only one they can't purchase is the red light cameras.  They have to rent them for a whole lot of money.  I have a problem with that, a big one.  If the cities could buy them fir a one time payment at a fair value and the monies recieved were used for social programs I would have no problems.  Take the money and put it to use for specificc purposes like feeding hungry children, helping mental illness facilities, what else can we name that is severely lacking.  Or should we give the money to the general fund of the city where it can spent on none of these items.  It is a cash cow and angers me to no end.

To be clear the police don't operate these cameras.  The only part my department has is verifying the red light violation.  Incidentally our sergeants are paid overtime to review these.  They si in the office for time and a half watching the videos.  That is $45 bucks an hour.  They love it because the get to collect on the rape of the citizen's pocket books.

The price of the fine is $75 bucks.  Take a day off work to fight the fineand it costs you more.  That is why it is a low fine.  Weeding those out that would fight the fine but don't for it is not worth it.

As far as accident prevention:  BS. It has been proven the red light cameras have the opposite effect.  Accidents numbers have grown in those intersections. 

As far as you reffering to us who do not like he red light scam as idiots.  Your right we are idiots for putting up with that crap for a minute.     

Quote from: Lin on July 14, 2010, 02:56:57 PM...I would think it was reasonable if a video or sequenced camera activated once the light turned red and only vehicles that could be shown to enter the intersection after the light was already red could be cited.  None of this "hadn't cleared the intersection" stuff...

In California, I have seen the "cleared the intersection" tickets successfully argued.  The law here is CVC 22526, and as stated in Section F of that code: "This section shall be known and may be cited as the
Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987".

Regarding Yellow lights under this code, section B states: "A driver of a vehicle which is making a turn at an intersection who is facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal shall not enter the intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side."

It is up to the officer's mood at the moment of ticket issue, but the spirit and intent of the law was to prevent people from sitting in an intersection once the light turns red - thereby blocking other traffic from moving through the intersection.  You may be able to fight a ticket under this code if you can prove in court that there was in fact sufficient space on the other side of the intersection for your vehicle, and that you were expeditiously moving towards it (albeit within the speed limit).

Further reading shows, Yellow lights are defined as: "Circular Yellow or Yellow Arrow:
21452.  (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter.
(b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the roadway."

Only under RED are you directed that entering the intersection as a motor vehicle is prohibited: "Circular Red or Red Arrow
21453.  (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).  (b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.  (c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.   (d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway. "

(Source for California Vehicle Code was CA DMV site: www.dmv.ca.gov (http://www.dmv.ca.gov), taken today: 7/14/2010)

Quote from: kyle4501 on July 14, 2010, 01:14:22 PM...What I'd like to see is the green light begin to flash before it goes yellow...

Quote from: Lin on July 14, 2010, 02:56:57 PM...Yellows should be extended to avoid causing panic stops too...

I believe in Europe, they double the time of the Yellow, and flash it for the last half of its duration before turning Red, indicating that your yellow time is almost up.

-T

How exactly do speed cameras work?  I know they have them all over in Britian.  If one is going 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone would I automatically get a ticket?

I've seen websites that show speed cameras destroyed by vandals.  There have to be some pretty angry folks out there to so some of the damage I have seen.

"It is up to the officer's mood at the moment of ticket issue, but the spirit and intent of the law was to prevent people from sitting in an intersection once the light turns red - thereby blocking other traffic from moving through the intersection.  You may be able to fight a ticket under this code if you can prove in court that there was in fact sufficient space on the other side of the intersection for your vehicle, and that you were expeditiously moving towards it (albeit within the speed limit)."

Therefore, since the camera cannot make a decision that the officer can, it is a flawed system, sort of scam for achieving summary convictions and revenue gain.  I would bet that the companies that sell the service and equipment do so on the basis of revenue projections rather than safely concerns.  Further, it should not be up to me to prove there was space on the other side of the intersection, but should be up to the accuser to prove there was not.  If an officer says so, it could have some significance.  The camera does not even try.



"I believe in Europe, they double the time of the Yellow, and flash it for the last half of its duration before turning Red, indicating that your yellow time is almost up."

There you go.  An attempt to make sense.

Quote from: belfert on July 14, 2010, 06:25:05 PM
How exactly do speed cameras work?  I know they have them all over in Britian.  If one is going 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone would I automatically get a ticket?

I've seen websites that show speed cameras destroyed by vandals.  There have to be some pretty angry folks out there to so some of the damage I have seen.

Brian the speed cameras are set up just like an officers radar gun. What ever the "pre-determined" unacceptable speed is, is programmed into it and it sets of the alarm on the radar and starts flashing what the speed of travel is and has an audible alarm in a patrol car, and triggers the camera to take the picture in a speed trap!

Gee whiz who'd thought that 75 in a 55 was too fast? It was late @ night with hardly any traffic! On a controlled access 4 lane hwy! ;)
;D  BK  ;D

Quote from: Lin on July 14, 2010, 07:02:05 PM
...Therefore, since the camera cannot make a decision that the officer can, it is a flawed system, sort of scam for achieving summary convictions and revenue gain...

But wait...  I think I just got misquoted (incorrect context)...  Regarding the above reply - I was referring to the CVC 22526 pertaining to "entering an intersection during a yellow and clearing the intersection before a red".  The Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987 gets misused often in CA, if the cop is in a b**chy mood - it should only be issued to cite drivers who are obstructing other rights of way through an intersection if the driver did not have enough space to get through the intersection when they entered an intersection during a yellow.  You've seen these bright people, their light is turning yellow so they jump in the intersection – then their light turns red, and yours turns green.  Only because they didn't have enough space to get out of the intersection – now you, the car next to you and all of the cars behind you get to wait while that "intellectual champ" gets to shrink down in their seat while those waiting eyes burn on them (horns-a-honkin)...

Quote from: Lin on July 14, 2010, 07:02:05 PM...Further, it should not be up to me to prove there was space on the other side of the intersection, but should be up to the accuser to prove there was not...

It is your (or your attorney's) responsibility to defend yourself, not the prosecution's, I was suggesting how you might do that.

Quote from: Lin on July 14, 2010, 07:02:05 PM...The camera does not even try...

Cameras don't issue tickets for not clearing an intersection before the light turned red – they issue based on the car entering after it turns red.  This is easy to prove with a sequence of images (video, or time stamped photos).

-Tim

Tim,

I know you were referring to the cops mood provoked abuse, but I nevertheless felt that at least the police can use discretion.  The camera reduces it to a black and white (or color) decision.

It is true that it is my job to defend myself but, if the quaint innocent-until-proven-guilty thingy applies, then it is the states job to prove there was no room rather than mine to prove their was.  They should have the burden of proof.

If the camera is set to take a picture of you entering the intersection after the light turns red, it is not the same as the camera taking a picture of you merely being in the intersection when the light turns red.

Quote from: belfert on July 14, 2010, 06:25:05 PM
How exactly do speed cameras work?  I know they have them all over in Britian.  If one is going 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone would I automatically get a ticket?

I've seen websites that show speed cameras destroyed by vandals.  There have to be some pretty angry folks out there to so some of the damage I have seen.

There isn't a set margin above the speed limit at which cameras are triggered - it varies from camera to camera - which is the sensible way of doing it if you think about it since using the same margin everywhere would merely become a de-facto change in the speed limit.

What is pre-set by the law is a 'margin for error' when applying speed limits, to accommodate inaccuracies in the target vehicle's speedometer; I'm pretty sure that this is 8% - I have heard of people setting their cruise control to include the extra 8% by using the (accurate) GPS speed shown by their sat nav system.

The fine is only a nominal amount, but the reason people get angry about speed cameras is because getting caught by one four times in a year means you lose your licence for a period, which can mean you lose your job and everything else that goes with it. Being caught can be embarrassing too; I was once caught by a camera whilst in a company car on company time, and had to explain exactly why I wasn't where I should have been that day...

People also often believe that they have been caught 'unfairly' by speed cameras, if for instance the camera was behind a tree or around a corner, or they were in an unfamiliar area and didn't know the speed limit - hardly a valid excuse of course, but that doesn't stop people feeling hard-done-by. The cameras used to be painted grey, but to reduce the 'unfairness' factor they are now painted bright yellow and have lots of warning signs telling you they are there before you reach them, with their locations programmed into sat nav systems etc. But all that means is that people naturally just slow down briefly whilst going past the cameras, then immediately speed up again - hence the increasing use of average speed cameras.

Jeremy

Quote from: Lin on July 14, 2010, 11:01:47 PM
It is true that it is my job to defend myself but, if the quaint innocent-until-proven-guilty thingy applies...

Constitutional protections are not 'quaint'.  :-\ They always apply, even if they are sometimes abused by people in authority.

Quote
If the camera is set to take a picture of you entering the intersection after the light turns red, it is not the same as the camera taking a picture of you merely being in the intersection when the light turns red.

'merely being in the intersection when the light turns red' is a (different, separate) crime as described by the aforementioned California state law. Do not enter intersections you cannot completely clear.

Lily

About two years ago, someone I am close to was hit by a red light runner.  They are now permanently disabled, cannot work, deeply in debt, and involved in multiple lawsuits.

So yes, I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who will run a light, whatever their silly excuse.

If it were up to me, I would replace red light cameras with spike strips that pop up into the road when the light turns red.

Quote from: Len Silva on July 15, 2010, 05:45:29 AM
About two years ago, someone I am close to was hit by a red light runner.  They are now permanently disabled, cannot work, deeply in debt, and involved in multiple lawsuits.

So yes, I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who will run a light, whatever their silly excuse.

If it were up to me, I would replace red light cameras with spike strips that pop up into the road when the light turns red.

Why not simply add a little more warning - longer yellow & flash before changing?
Also increase the fine & points for running the light! If there is plenty of time/ warning before the red, there is no excuse for not stopping. (Yes, reasons will still be abundant, but there is a distinct difference between a reason & excuse.)

Quote from: Len Silva on July 15, 2010, 05:45:29 AM
About two years ago, someone I am close to was hit by a red light runner.  They are now permanently disabled, cannot work, deeply in debt, and involved in multiple lawsuits.

So yes, I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who will run a light, whatever their silly excuse.

If it were up to me, I would replace red light cameras with spike strips that pop up into the road when the light turns red.

I can understand your feelings.  I am the same way about those who drive intoxicated, or even after "a couple drinks", for a similar reason.  When I was fresh out of high school a close friend was killed by a drunk driver.

But one thing I think bears distinction is the difference between still being in the intersection after it turns red and entering it after it is clearly red.  Both are a violation.  But only the latter leads to accidents unless the other driver jumps their green light or isn't paying attention.  And I would definitely have to say that there isn't anybody here, especially those that have driven a truck, bus or RV, that can honestly say they have never still been in an intersection after the light was red.

I was a passenger in a car several years ago. It was in the early am, and we were driving the posted speed limit. We had the green light and proceeded through the intersection. A car traveling at least 60 mph in a 30 posted zone hit us broadside. I was thrown out of the car, was not pretty. The cop told us he heard the collision several blocks away it was so loud. Red light camera or not, he would have run the light.

Some people just don't pay attention no matter what. Texting, drinking coffee, talking on the cell phone, you name it. You can put up cameras at each intersection and someone will always try to outrun the light. It's a fact of life.

Blinking amber lights seem to help, but even then, someone will try to ourrun it. Cameras will not stop the problem, only people driving properly will.

It's just another way for revenue, in my humble opinion.

I sure wish someone would solve this OP question, so we can talk buses! ;D

Paul

Most everyone here is a safe driver, we care about doing it right.  The biggest concern seems to be safely stopping when the light turns yellow.  It can be difficult to do the instantaneous computation of "how far am I from the stop line" and "how fast am I going"? It can get harder as we get older.

Now, as I understand it and as clearly explained for the new cameras coming to St Pete, you will only be charged if you cross the line after the light turns red.

So, while some of us might get caught and have to pay the price for miscalculating, we are not the ones that the cameras are there for.
From my observations, it is not those moments of indecision that we have to be concerned with, it is the flagrant drivers who think their time is more valuable than someone else's or too busy not driving to pay attention.

It is these folks we need the cameras for:

Look at the second video (Missouri) at 2:45

These are not people who misjudged the length of a caution light.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=red+light+running&aq=f (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=red+light+running&aq=f)

It occurs to me that the reason people going through red lights is apparently a big issue in the States - but not here - is that you use traffic lights far more than we do - where you have lights we very often have roundabouts, especially on faster roads. Obviously you can still have an accident on a roundabout, but at least 'everyone' has to slow down, and the situation where vehicles traveling at 60mph can meet vehicles traveling at 10mph cannot happen.

Just a thought

Jeremy

When I was in Belfast, it was my first real experience with roundabouts. At first I was trying to figure out which lane to be in to exit where I needed to. After a few days I liked them. You are correct, the traffic is much slower, but at least it's moving.

I did experience that MN I think, thought it was strange to see them in the States.

Good point Jeremy! 8)

They've put in a few roundabouts in Chattanooga in the last few years.

We call them 'traffic circles' around here (Spartanburg, SC) & we have one just down the street from work - there are collisions there all the time.  :o

If an idiot is gonna be selfish enough to run a red light, I think it is a stretch to think that same idiot would yield at a traffic circle. . .  ::)

One of the underlying problems is the false notion that driving is a right, not a privilege. At least in Europe there is a public transportation system available so the bad drivers can't use the excuse they 'have to drive to get to work'. . . .

Quote from: kyle4501 on July 15, 2010, 08:01:46 AM
One of the underlying problems is the false notion that driving is a right, not a privilege. At least in Europe there is a public transportation system available so the bad drivers can't use the excuse they 'have to drive to get to work'. . . .

Here they do have a pretty good city bus system but still grant "restricted licenses" to those who have had their license suspended.  But if they get caught driving anywhere other than their job or the grocery store nearest their home, it gets revoked and the term of their suspension extended.

I think that the cameras could be tuned to catch the true red light runners without netting the miscalculations and causing more accidents than they deter.  They would be set up that way if safety was the motivation.  They are not set that way because revenue is the motivation.  Since receiving a citation can affect your license and insurance rates, I find the practice to be predatory.  Having been in law enforcement, I am aware to how easy it is to use the law to further injustice.  I wonderful example is an incident where a cab driver I know was shot but able to drive himself to the hospital.  He did speed and did not wait for lights to change green if he saw it was safe to cross.  The police let him drive on when they realized he was injured, but they followed him to the hospital to give him the tickets.

Quote from: Len Silva on July 15, 2010, 06:39:02 AM
Most everyone here is a safe driver, we care about doing it right.  The biggest concern seems to be safely stopping when the light turns yellow.  It can be difficult to do the instantaneous computation of "how far am I from the stop line" and "how fast am I going"? It can get harder as we get older.

Now, as I understand it and as clearly explained for the new cameras coming to St Pete, you will only be charged if you cross the line after the light turns red.

So, while some of us might get caught and have to pay the price for miscalculating, we are not the ones that the cameras are there for.
From my observations, it is not those moments of indecision that we have to be concerned with, it is the flagrant drivers who think their time is more valuable than someone else's or too busy not driving to pay attention.

It is these folks we need the cameras for:

Look at the second video (Missouri) at 2:45

These are not people who misjudged the length of a caution light.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=red+light+running&aq=f (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=red+light+running&aq=f)

I would agree with you if the red light cameras reduced accidents, but they don't.  If the data proved it was stopping people from running the ligths and accidents were reduced then I would agree with you.  I am sorry your people were hurt, that is a shame.  I know of others that were hurt because of the red light cameras.  Accidents happen daily and people are getting hurt often.  I feel for them as well.  I feel for everyone getting hurt whether it was a red light runner or otherwise that caused the accident.  What gets me are the cities that put them up disguised as a way to avoid accidents from red light runners.  Now they all know is has not solved the red light runner problem and it creates another problem.  They still keep taking the money!!!!  If that aint a CASH COW I will kiss your foot.

So, I started digging a little.  Here is a very interesting piece
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/)

Saying that some localities are removing cameras because they were too effective and infractions, thus fines were down.  Incredible!

I take it all back.  Revenue IS more important than safety. At least in Dallas.  Let's encourage people to run the light so we can fine them.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

I just watch Fox news Houston. They reported on the red light cameras. Someone may be able to find the clip. They said that one lady ignored the fine and the city wrote her a letter that she would not be able to get her new registration until she paid. The only problem is they are county registrations so the city can not keep you from getting it. I will look for the clip later when I have more time.

Quote from: Len Silva on July 15, 2010, 05:45:29 AM
If it were up to me, I would replace red light cameras with spike strips that pop up into the road when the light turns red.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to think of something like that!   I was thinking more along the lines of a mega speed-bump, so if you choose to drive over it at speed you will trash your tires and wheels and suspension and scare yourself witless.   Maybe some dummy ones placed randomly at other intersections would also help.

Seriously though, why are the roads of this country so dangerous?   Is it because everyone thinks that driving is a right, or is it that driving is not taken seriously by most people?   Each month Americans manage to kill more of their fellow countrymen (and women, and children) than died in the entire 9/11 attacks, and this goes on month after month after grisly month.   There should be zero tolerance of driving with any measurable alcohol at all, and sanctions against those foolish enough to still do so should be much stricter than now.   Nobody needs to talk on a cellphone while driving, or worst of all to text someone.   I also feel that modern cars' must-have gadgets, such as navigation systems and needlessly-complicated controls (I-Drive, anyone?), contribute towards drivers being more distracted now than ever before.

I think the popularity of red-light cameras is a symptom of the much-wider problem that the legal system is seen primarily as a means of making money, and if justice ever happens to occur it is almost an incidental by-product.   Welcome to the Brave New World.

John

Quote from: kyle4501 on July 15, 2010, 08:01:46 AM...One of the underlying problems is the false notion that driving is a right, not a privilege...

I also think that as the automated cars get smarter (as of now they can park themselves, scream at you if you are departing a lane while being inattentive, and on some models they can brake for you if you're going to hit something), the "less-enabled" drivers will be less of a worry - but hopefully, that doesn't come at the expense of good drivers being allowed to have the controls.  I think of the movies "Demolition Man" (generally a terrible movie unless you like looking at Sandra Bullock ;), but it made good commentary on a potential automotive future for us), and i-Robot (specifically thinking of the lady's response to Will Smith's character using a gasoline powered motorcycle at freeways speeds...).  Once cars are enabled to drive themselves, a revoked license would only mean that you couldn't use the steering wheel, and "slow-down"/"go-faster" pedals - it wouldn't prevent you from carrying on your life.

Quote from: kyle4501 on July 15, 2010, 08:01:46 AM...At least in Europe there is a public transportation system available so the bad drivers can't use the excuse they 'have to drive to get to work...

I would have hoped that this would be the case here in the states, but it seems we have a culture issue here with respect to taking care of yourself, and "making your own way".  You are considered "poor" if you don't have your own car (and I think it's funny, because some poor people have nicer cars than some rich people I know...).

Quote from: Lin on July 15, 2010, 08:36:42 AM...Having been in law enforcement, I am aware to how easy it is to use the law to further injustice.  I wonderful example is an incident where a cab driver I know was shot but able to drive himself to the hospital.  He did speed and did not wait for lights to change green if he saw it was safe to cross.  The police let him drive on when they realized he was injured, but they followed him to the hospital to give him the tickets...

But he did speed, and did run lights, and he got tickets – because he broke laws and he got caught, camera or not.  One thing I like to remind people about technology and machines, is that it does not "self-create" – it is designed by people, installed by people, operated by people, and maintained by people, and finally governed by people.  Technology and machines do not yet have intentions, deceit, hatred, jealousy, or bigotry – their existence reflects the characteristics of the people who created it AND use it.

Just like a gun.  Guns are hated like Satan himself/herself, yet if you leave a gun unloaded on a table it won't actively seek out people to harm – it is the operator who is the bad guy, the one who puts bullets in it and then points it at a pregnant woman in a convenience store to get the woman's money.  What I can never wrap my head around is why many people allow themselves to think that the technology is the problem in a case like that, if the guy could have punched or stabbed the woman in the stomach to get her money, he would have.  The idea was in his mind that someone had something he wanted and he was going to take it whether they liked it or not.  PUNISH THAT!!!

I do like red light cameras, they enforce a law that is very black and white (at least in CA).

Did you enter the intersection after the light turned red?
Yes.
Here's your ticket, learn from this experience – pay more attention, or you're going to kill someone.

I feel the same way about average speed, when there is a posted speed-limit.  If you don't like the speed, you can get enough backing and they will have to change the speed limit through the correct channels which will at least set the expectations for the other drivers on the road for what you are going to do (we did that when we moved the 55MPH limit up to 65 and 70 in CA).

Did you go over the posted speed limit?
Yes.
Here's your ticket, learn from this experience – pay more attention and control your vehicle like you and everyone else are supposed to.

If you calm down, follow the rules, and make like a hole in the road - you'll probably never see the red/blue lights in the rear-window, unless their trying to pass you to catch up to the fool who didn't...

-Tim

Quote from: Iceni John on July 15, 2010, 03:48:06 PM

Quote from: Len Silva on July 15, 2010, 05:45:29 AMIf it were up to me, I would replace red light cameras with spike strips that pop up into the road when the light turns red

...I'm glad I'm not the only one to think of something like that!   I was thinking more along the lines of a mega speed-bump, so if you choose to drive over it at speed you will trash your tires and wheels and suspension and scare yourself witless.   Maybe some dummy ones placed randomly at other intersections would also help...

And the first injury/fatality due to that system would bankrupt the company that designed it and the city/county that installed it...  It would be better that the lights be coordinated well enough that a driver that runs a light would extend the wait for those who would have to enter the intersection after them.  This would require more money though – the system would have to be installed on top of the traffic controller's existing system, and that would likely require a lot more sensors built into the road to detect a red-light-runner in time to stop other greens...

From a money standpoint, what we have now is probably the best we can do without taking people off the roads (something law-makers and courts don't seem to want to do).

Quote from: Iceni John on July 15, 2010, 03:48:06 PM...Is it because everyone thinks that driving is a right...

I believe that the word "right" gets used too much in this country, and it's leading to a welfare state of mind with a really nasty sense of entitlement – I recall a news story where people were stating that "having a home was a right".  Are you kidding me?  A right?  But I thought you had to pay for it since it is a good or service...  and listen, I'm not saying that Habitat for humanity is B.S., because they at least acknowledge that they are giving a home to someone, and they require the future home-occupier to do some of the work.  If it was a right, it would come out with you at birth...

The wrong "R" word gets used all the time, often "right" can be replaced with "responsibility" and be more correct...

-T

Quote from: Tim Strommen on July 15, 2010, 04:12:43 PM

But he did speed, and did run lights, and he got tickets – because he broke laws and he got caught, camera or not.  One thing I like to remind people about technology and machines, is that it does not "self-create" – it is designed by people, installed by people, operated by people, and maintained by people, and finally governed by people.  Technology and machines do not yet have intentions, deceit, hatred, jealousy, or bigotry – their existence reflects the characteristics of the people who created it AND use it.

So then, these laws are absolute and a violator should be punished without regard for the circumstances?  Is it that you want this guy to learn his lesson, and the next time he is shot stop for all lights and travel the speed limit?  Isn't this notion a little clockwork orange.

Quote from: Tim Strommen on July 15, 2010, 04:12:43 PM

Quote from: Lin on July 15, 2010, 08:36:42 AM...Having been in law enforcement, I am aware to how easy it is to use the law to further injustice.  I wonderful example is an incident where a cab driver I know was shot but able to drive himself to the hospital.  He did speed and did not wait for lights to change green if he saw it was safe to cross.  The police let him drive on when they realized he was injured, but they followed him to the hospital to give him the tickets...

But he did speed, and did run lights, and he got tickets – because he broke laws and he got caught, camera or not.  One thing I like to

Don't you think law enforcement could give someone a break if they are speeding and running red lights because they are shot?  Maybe he didn't have a way to call for an ambulance.  The cops should have either escorted this guy to the hospital with lights and sirens or put him in their car for a trip to the hospital.

If I got a ticket in a situation like this I would certainly be taking it to court.

This happened here in Chattanooga.  Another shining example of what happens when officers become more obsessed with traffic laws and their own power over people than with doing what is right.

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/couple-992252-emergency-wife.html (http://www.newschannel9.com/news/couple-992252-emergency-wife.html)

Ultimately the police dropped the charges, but the husband did get arrested, spent a few hours in jail, had to put up $7500 bail and was suspended from his job until the charges were dropped.  The police officer involved was suspended with pay during the investigation but ultimately no punitive actions were taken.  The couple is considering filing a lawsuit.

Some feel that the guy that was shot shouldn't be ticketed for speeding & running red lights on his way to the hospital.

Does this exemption from personal responsibility also apply if he had caused a wreck or otherwise injured or killed someone during that trip?
If it were me, I'd be gratefull I wasn't delayed on the trip & then simply dealt with the consequences of MY actions later - if I was still around to worry about that.

Emergency vehicles have flashing lights & sirens to warn others - the common car does not.
I'm not saying to throw the book at him, but, his life is not more valuable than anyone else's nor is it more important than the safety of others.
(The cop in the Chattanooga example is clearely abusing his power as the hospital staff backed up the emergency & the credentials of the accused show he was not some crack head out for a joy ride. Interesting the minor details he included in his report that made him look like a victim, yet the major details that would justify the accused actions were left out. And the police wonder why they get no respect . . . .)

Yes, he should have been ticketed & then given his time in court to present his side of the story - isn't that what the courts are for (in theory anyways)?

If a 'life threatening' injury is license to disregard traffic control laws, who gets to determine what a 'life threatening' injury is?


Too bad it isn't all black & white, then it would be easy, those shades of grey make things difficult.

Quote from: Jeremy on July 15, 2010, 07:00:18 AM
It occurs to me that the reason people going through red lights is apparently a big issue in the States - but not here - is that you use traffic lights far more than we do - where you have lights we very often have roundabouts, especially on faster roads. Obviously you can still have an accident on a roundabout, but at least 'everyone' has to slow down, and the situation where vehicles traveling at 60mph can meet vehicles traveling at 10mph cannot happen.

Just a thought

Jeremy

Roundabouts are fast becoming popular here in the States. I have started seeing them everywhere in the last five years or so, and they sure confuse people at first :)

Lily

Quote from: kyle4501 on July 16, 2010, 06:06:01 AM
Emergency vehicles have flashing lights & sirens to warn others - the common car does not.

I was in Spain a few years ago (Andorra, actually), sitting in a traffic jam in heavy traffic. Suddenly everyone was moving to get out of the way of a car that was urgently trying to get through the traffic, obviously due to some emergency - except it wasn't a police or ambulance vehicle, just a private car that was sounding it's horn and flying some piece of red cloth through the window. The red flag was apparently a symbol that everyone understood and acted upon - and for that to be the case presumably the symbol was not generally abused or over-used by people who were simply 'in a hurry' rather than in a genuine emergency.

I must say that I find it outrageous that the Police anywhere would press speeding charges against someone rushing to hospital in the situation that has been described. It surely goes to the heart of the 'social contract' that needs to exist between the authorities and the public for society to work properly - if the Police are seen to be acting in such obviously injust ways they will surely soon lose the respect, goodwill and co-operation of the public - which is vital for everyone's sake. What, for example, would the world be coming to if one citizen refused to rush another citizen to hospital for fear of being prosecuted by the authorities?

Jeremy

Quote from: belfert on July 15, 2010, 07:45:16 PM

Quote from: Lin on July 15, 2010, 06:29:52 PM

Quote from: Tim Strommen on July 15, 2010, 04:12:43 PMBut he did speed, and did run lights, and he got tickets – because he broke laws and he got caught, camera or not.

So then, these laws are absolute and a violator should be punished without regard for the circumstances?  Is it that you want this guy to learn his lesson, and the next time he is shot stop for all lights and travel the speed limit?

Don't you think law enforcement could give someone a break if they are speeding and running red lights because they are shot?  Maybe he didn't have a way to call for an ambulance.  The cops should have either escorted this guy to the hospital with lights and sirens or put him in their car for a trip to the hospital.

Consideration of circumstance requires understanding of circumstance, and decisions made in real-time are never perfect.  In my opinion, based on the limited details you gave in your anecdote, the officer(s) acted correctly – he acted in concern for the individual who was injured by allowing the individual to continue to the hospital for care they were unable to provide.  However, once they arrived at the hospital and his life was no longer in danger they were also correct in citing him for the traffic violations that they had originally pulled him over for.  That was an enforcement action, but don't think that I am concrete on this – only because of the details given do I see it this way.

My opinion would be different if they pulled him over and then let him drive on and then cited him for all of the traffic violations AFTER being let go (these details are not in your anecdote) – in this case, the officers already had prior witnessed that this was how the gentleman was driving in his condition, it is reasonable for an officer to assume that if his condition has not changed before letting him go, so by letting him continue to drive without any warnings they would have implied condoning the style in which he drove and any subsequent ticket would have constituted entrapment.  BUT – if they instructed him that he should call an ambulance and he refused (it's the patient's right to decline medical assistance) then continued to drive to the hospital after being informed that his driving style was unacceptable – then tickets after the pull-over would not be entrapment (this is a case where a dash-cam and a wireless microphone would be required to kill your cabbie's case).

Quote from: belfert on July 15, 2010, 07:45:16 PM...If I got a ticket in a situation like this I would certainly be taking it to court...

To this I say "Good".  This is how the system is designed, and in your case it would probably be used correctly.

Quote from: Jeremy on July 16, 2010, 07:07:58 AM...What, for example, would the world be coming to if one citizen refused to rush another citizen to hospital for fear of being prosecuted by the authorities?...

We're there in CA already, the Good Samaritan law is more or less dead here for "Joe Average".  Due to this CA supreme court ruling (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S152360.PDF), they have very narrowly restricted what you can do without the fear of Civil Liability when helping someone.  Basically they ruled that only Emergency Medical Care may be administered without the fear of liability, and medical is very finely defined - you can try to give CPR, stop bleeding, help someone who is choking (and you need to be trained to do this prior to attempting) – but if you pull someone out of a burning car and injure them in the process, that is not medical so you will be liable.  Unfortunately, it is better in that case (for my family and their financial future), to let the person burn in their car than risk getting sued for helping – not that that is the way I want it to be as an Eagle Scout...  it goes against my upbringing.

-T

Don't you think that you can just as well be sued in California for not helping?

This is somewhat related to the topic at hand.  At least one person mentioned speed llimits set too low or artifically low.

How high is high enough on speed limits?  If you move from 55 MPH to 70 MPH it just means you'll have a bunch of folks going 75 to 80 MPH instead of 60 to 65 MPH.  There will always be drivers who think the speed limit is too low unless it is set obscenely high like 120 MPH or eliminated all together.  There are drivers who would run with the pedal to the floor if they could without getting in trouble.

The state of Minnesota had a standard that only 4 lane highways could have 65 or 70 MPH limits outside of urban areas.  Speed limits are generally lower within urban areas like the Minneapolis metro area.  In recent years they decided to allow some urban freeways and highways to have a 60 or 65 MPH limit.  They also allowed some rural 2 lane highways to have 60 MPH limits.  The catch was supposed to be increased enforcement of the limits.  The increased enforcement doesn't seem to have materialized, at least not past the first few weeks.

Out of interest, do American speed limits generally apply to all vehicles, or do different types of vehicle have different speed limits on the same road? In the UK the speed limit for cars is 60mph on single lane roads and 70mph on roads with two or more lanes. But the limit for buses and small trucks (7.5 tons or below) is 50 / 70, and the limit for larger trucks is 40 / 60. So on a single lane road (where by definition overtaking isn't easy), the law is creating a 20mph speed differential between a large truck theoretically doing 40mph, and cars theoretically doing 60mph. Fortunately I have yet to see a truck obeying the 40mph limit on an open road - and rightly so, as this is surely a case where a truck driver sticking rigidly to the law is far more likely to be creating potential for an accident than a truck driver who is using common sense and choosing a speed appropriate to the conditions.

Personally I would like to see speed limits rise everywhere other than in urban environments, as I believe the quality of people's driving and their level or concentration behind the wheel drop rapidly if the road is 'faster' than the speed limit. If the limit is too low it removes the driver's need to think - and that's always a bad thing. However, I suspect accident statistics would tell you that lower limits ultimately do save lives.

Jeremy

Some states have lower limits for trucks, vehicles with trailers, and even motorhomes.  Illinois famously had a 55 MPH limit for trucks, trailers, and motorhomes.  Cars and commercial buses had a 65 MPH limit.  Illinois just made the speed limit for all vehicles 65 MPH.  Ohio's speed limit signs along I80 look like mini billboards as there are so many different speed limits for different vehicle types.

A great many states do have the same speed limits for all vehicles.

Quote from: kyle4501 on July 16, 2010, 06:06:01 AM
Does this exemption from personal responsibility also apply if he had caused a wreck or otherwise injured or killed someone during that trip?

Did he actually cause a wreck or otherwise injure or kill someone?   You've just hit on my number one issue regarding our 'nanny state'.  We're punishing people for what 'might have happened' rather than dealing with what actually occurred. We're being regulated to idiocy. Where does it stop? At what point are we to be trusted to make judgment decisions?

Quote from: Lin on July 16, 2010, 03:33:57 PM
Don't you think that you can just as well be sued in California for not helping?

From the same Case law listed on my previous post, on PDF page 13 about half way down:

"...As we previously noted, the general rule is that 'one has no duty to come to the aid of another.' (Williams v. State of California, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 23.)..."

There is a ton of case law around this point in CA, and the federal civl rights "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness" don't include "and everyone will be obligated to help you if you get into trouble" - that's just life I guess... :P

-T

That would certainly apply to criminal law, but lawsuits can be about anything.  Anyway, by saying it is a "general rule" would seem to leave room for what could be argued to be exceptional.

Quote from: Jeremy on July 16, 2010, 04:48:26 PM
Out of interest, do American speed limits generally apply to all vehicles, or do different types of vehicle have different speed limits on the same road?

It varies by state. California has lower highway limits for trucks and buses, for example, but neighboring Arizona does not.

Lily

You have missed my point entirely & changed the subject in the process.
My point is that the traffic lights & speed limits are there to promote general safety & that someones 'emergency' does not place them above anyone else. It is a fact that speeding & running red lights increases your chances of a collision.

If you've already got one emergency, why in the world would you want to risk adding a few more just for the sake of a few minutes? As for me, if I decided a few minutes was worth the risk, then I would 'man up' & accept the ticket without fanfare. I'd then ask for mercy from the court. That is what I'm trying to endors here - write up the violations & discuss later in court after things have cooled down to decide what sticks & what is dismissed.

As for " punishing people for what 'might have happened' ", I was merely pointing out the existence of a double standard, & lets face it, driving while distracted about weather or not you're gonna make it there in time ain't the best recipe for success. I am curious how tolerant you'd be to 'personal emergency' violations if you were involved as secondary collateral damage?

There is a significant part of the population that proves every day that they can't / won't make reasonable 'judgment decisions' & it is those people that cause the idiotic regulation.

Quote from: it_mike on July 16, 2010, 08:38:00 PM
Did he actually cause a wreck or otherwise injure or kill someone?   You've just hit on my number one issue regarding our 'nanny state'.  We're punishing people for what 'might have happened' rather than dealing with what actually occurred. We're being regulated to idiocy. Where does it stop? At what point are we to be trusted to make judgment decisions?

Emergency vehicles don't normally blow through a light.  They come to nearly a full stop and do not continue until they are sure the traffic has seen them and has come to a stop.

As far as the police are concerned, they only enforce the law, not determine guilt or innocence.  If I were in that position, I would expect to get a ticket for running the light, then I would expect the judge to dismiss it.  It's not up to the cop.

The bottom line here is that yellow means caution, prepare to stop, not speed up and beat the light if you can, red means stop. if you are already in the intersection under the yellow most officers will let you go thru, I can't think of a single time we instructed anyone to stop and back up.  In michigan policy and procedure for emergency vehicles is to respond to an emergency at the fastest speed that can be safely done with the key word here being safe, no emergency vehicle is instructed to ignore red lights, but they are empowered to proceed thru them if it can be done safely, this is a touchy subject to me cause as a rookie officer back in the early 70's, I was the officer driving the car in a high speed chase where we were rammed by the car, my partner darryl Rantanen was killed in the wreck and I was laid up for a bunch of time doing foolish things like learning to walk again, stuff like that so it's entirely possible that I may be overly sensitive or cautious about this subject.  In my opinion if you get caught running a red light, pay the ticket and be glad you didn't get hit or hit anyone else.

.

There is a difference between "running a red light" and proceeding through one if it safe to do so.  Certainly, we can not expect a camera to understand that or an emergency need, but an officer can.  It is rather insulting to law enforcement to say they are too stupid to be expected to be capable of evaluating specific situations.  I'm sure everyone has sat at a completely deserted intersection in the middle of the night waiting for a light to change.  I would hope that anyone involved in an emergency, even one as minor as labor, would have the sense to cautiously move on.  I would also expect any police present to be able to differentiate between what is important and what amounts to a legal formality.  We are talking about traffic laws, not divine revelation!

Anyway, the incident I mentioned was in Chicago in the 1970's sometime between 2 and 4 in the morning.  The robber put the gun to the cabbies head and pulled the trigger.  It did not go off.  The victim then began to try to wrestle the gun out of the perp's hand.  It went off and the bullet went through his neck.  The assailant fled and he drove himself to the hospital.  One of Chicago's finest tried to pull him over but dropped back and just followed him when he saw the blood spurting from his neck.  Anyone that says they would have stopped at empty intersections for unnecessary lights or would have strictly observed the speed limit is pushing the borders of credibility.

This Horse has been beat enough. As always we have proved that we are as varied in our opinions as everyone else even if we are all busnuts. Lets put this one to bed. Thanks

I thought about replying to this thread...however some folks here might ban me FOREVER should I put down my thoughts!
But I will say this...4 years ago on a trip to Miami and back, (From Hickory, NC) I might see about 8 to 10 folks getting tickets, mostly for speeding...now it is more like 50 to 60.  Wonder if that is because of falling tax revenues because folks are out of work and aren't buying stuff like they did?  As the "Churchlady" would say..."Could it be"?!

Jack brought up an interesting point so I went digging lol, I hit the local state police post here in L'Anse and along with the luitenent, we dug up some stats, this past june, 56 warnings were issued for traffic infractions and 127 tickets were written, we could only go back 5 years on their computer but in june 2005 119 warnings were issued and 47 tickets written, patrol miles were simular but traffic patterns were listed as being heavier mainly I think due to economic conditions at that time being somewhat better. I think we all can agree that as sources of revenues dry up, fewer warnings will be given, bear in mind that a violation is still a violation and regardless on how we may feel about the law, it is still on the books and can be enforced, a warning is still a charitable act on the part of the officer.  In a perfect world we wouldn't have the laws to deal with but we live far from a perfect world and we still don't have the option of picking and choosing which laws apply to us or which ones we'll ignore and what circumstances allow us to ignore them.

Quote from: cody on July 18, 2010, 08:51:08 AM
we still don't have the option of picking and choosing which laws apply to us or which ones we'll ignore and what circumstances allow us to ignore them.

That derned Rosa Parks!

And that durned Charlie Manson

Here is the link for the news clip with the city sending out letters on registrations not being honored

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100715-groups-clash-over-red-light-cameras (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100715-groups-clash-over-red-light-cameras)

This is a must see on corruption in our law enforcement.

Laws should be enforced equitably without regard to revenues raised.  The same approximate number of tickets should be issued year after year regardless of how full or empty the government bank accounts are.

I believe it is unethical for towns and cities to use traffic tickets as major sources of revenue.  There are indian reservations that have zero tolerance for speeders.  31 MPH in a 30MPH zone and they give you a ticket.  They fund much of their government from these fines.

I've never had a traffic citation in 20 years of driving.  I tend to drive with the flow of traffic unless the speed is too high above the limit.  (I won't do 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone like on Chicago freeways.)  I don't hold up traffic by doing 55 MPH on a freeway, but I'm also not the guy flying by at 75 MPH.

At the academy we were given information differing by 2 instructors that comes to mind here, bear in mind that this was almost 40 years ago lol, one instructer told us to watch for the "odd duck"", thats the term he used for whoever wasn't following the flow, either faster or slower than the 'flow', the odd duck would be the most likely candidate for an accident and being so would make him the one most likely to draw a troopers attention, using that train of thought the flow traveling at 80 wouldn't draw any more attention than flowing at 60 unless the odd duck was doing something unusual.  The other instructor made the reference to a duck hunter, he was more rigid, he said as the flock goes by, pick the one you want, they are all vulnerable if they are traveling above the posted speed.

I have a friend who received a 'red light camera' ticket in the mail for the amount of $100.

He took a picture of a C note and sent it to the city clerk.

Where are the moderators this belongs in off topic

it is a bus topic. it has gone off and on but the question was and still is who has received a red light ticket

This has not been a bus topic since page one. It has drifted far far far from bus related.

Quote from: garhawk on July 18, 2010, 02:53:49 PM
I have a friend who received a 'red light camera' ticket in the mail for the amount of $100.

He took a picture of a C note and sent it to the city clerk.

I heard the city clerk then sent him a photograph of a pair of handcuffs LOL   Jack