Red light camera

[eddiepotts]

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.

[Iceni John]

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

[Tim Strommen]

...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.

...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...).

...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

[Tim Strommen]

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...

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).

...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

[Lin]

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.

[belfert]

...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.

[HighTechRedneck]

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

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.

[kyle4501]

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.

[lily]

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

[Jeremy]

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

[Tim Strommen]

But 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).

...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.

...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, 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

[Lin]

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

[belfert]

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.

[Jeremy]

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

[belfert]

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.