this is ridiculous!


PDA






redranger1
February 17, 2006, 12:29 AM
i was watchin the news tonight and columbia, mo is considering getting some of those cameras that take a picture of yer car when you run a red light so they can send the owner of the car a ticket in the mail. they admited that they cannot take pictures of the driver so it is the the person that the car is registered to that gets the ticket whether they was driving or not. i dont know bout you fellas but this isnt right! so whats next? the cops come arrest you because a gun that you loaned to a buddy was used in a crime and the gun is registered to you so you must be guilty??? this is a dangerous president if you ask me. not to mention a violation of rights. what happened to innocent until prooven guilty? :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "this is ridiculous!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Meplat
February 17, 2006, 12:41 AM
i was watchin the news tonight and columbia, mo is considering getting some of those cameras that take a picture of yer car when you run a red light so they can send the owner of the car a ticket in the mail. they admited that they cannot take pictures of the driver so it is the the person that the car is registered to that gets the ticket whether they was driving or not. i dont know bout you fellas but this isnt right! so whats next? the cops come arrest you because a gun that you loaned to a buddy was used in a crime and the gun is registered to you so you must be guilty??? this is a dangerous president if you ask me. not to mention a violation of rights. what happened to innocent until prooven guilty? :fire:

Dunno, but if a car registered to you gets a parking ticket, you get to pay the fine. Loaned my lumpheaded little brother one once, he racked up a bevy of parking tickets, never told me. I got to pay them. HE got to pay ME. :)

BTW...they do this in England as matter of course now. The kids have a new past time. They climb on their crotch rockets, hang a cloth over the plates, and since they wear full face tinted helmets, they can't get them there either. They blast past the lights over and over again, til they drive the cameras buggy or run it out of film.

UWstudent
February 17, 2006, 12:51 AM
they've been doing it in lakewood WA for years..

the ticket does not cause your insurance rates to rise and you can get the ticket removed by saying you weren't driving the vehicle.

Rob1035
February 17, 2006, 12:52 AM
Charlotte has had the scameras for a while now as well

Infidel
February 17, 2006, 12:58 AM
I agree that it is ridiculous. Instead of cameras for red light runners, they should use flame throwers or phasers set to vaporize. I hate red light runners.

.... this is a dangerous president if you ask me.
I agree, but the alternatives in the last two election cycles were even worse.

Taurus 66
February 17, 2006, 01:23 AM
so whats next? the cops come arrest you because a gun that you loaned to a buddy was used in a crime and the gun is registered to you so you must be guilty???

Don't loan out your guns to anyone, buddy or not! They got money like you and can get their own stuff if they want. What's more important, your friendship or freedom?

gunsmith
February 17, 2006, 01:29 AM
...you know they time those lights differently then regular lights, don't you?
it increases their revenue . those cameras also increase rear end collisions.
I say ..take em out with your 10/22...even a high powered air rifle would work.

3rdpig
February 17, 2006, 01:40 AM
...you know they time those lights differently then regular lights, don't you?
it increases their revenue . those cameras also increase rear end collisions.
I say ..take em out with your 10/22...even a high powered air rifle would work.

You know what those things cost? Go to jail for destruction of .gov property, have to pay them back for damages and probably lose all your guns and your right to buy any more in the future? With all the traffic shootings the cops take that kind of stuff deadly seriously. I hope you're going to lead the way here. Let us know from your jail cell how it goes.

Red light runners are a real problem in my city, I forget what the numbers are but they cause a lot of death and injury. It's not possible or practical to post a traffic cop at every red light, cameras are the only answer to control it.

Crosshair
February 17, 2006, 01:40 AM
There is a good reason these things are in bulletproof housings.

Can'thavenuthingood
February 17, 2006, 02:07 AM
Orange county Grand jury investigation into Red Light Camera's (RLC's) didn't really find positive results. City of Westminster raised the medians and accidents dropped 24%.
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/redlight.pdf

Lots of traffic safety studies here. Seems that extending the length of the yellow light resolves many intersection conflicts. Longer yellow allows cars to finish clearing the intersection. Shorter yellows create early greens and lotsa revenues.
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_intro_redlight.htm

Seems to me Fresno had issues with the short yellows. The contractor shortened the time of yellow and increased revenues to the city. The contractor was paid on a commission basis of collected revenues.

If I have that incorrectly thought out, somebody jump in and correct. My memory is good, its just short.

Vick

corrected backward pasting.

gometika
February 17, 2006, 03:07 AM
Same exact thing happened here in San Diego, **********. At first, a few years ago, when they installed the cameras, the yellow lights operated the way they've been operating, the duration and all for a few months. Then after a few months the yellow lights didn't last as long as they used to and a lot of drivers (who've gotten to the yellow light duration before) were getting their licences taken by the cameras and getting tickets thru the mail. Consumer groups took the city and private company responsible for the cameras to court, long months of hearing, finally it was found out somebody or bodies admitted the duration for the yellow lights were made to become shorter and shorter so as to increase revenue=profits for the company and city.

So the big picture actually is that those cameras are really for $$$$$. All the big hoopla about the SAFETY that it'll provide is just a facade to cover the real intentions of politicians. Cities and state govts are in a bind on where to generate more income and they will try to get it everywhere and anywhere they can under the guise of legality and authority.

Beware America on whom you vote for public office, they could be the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Do they want that job to serve the public or do they want it for the public to serve them?

RFM
February 17, 2006, 05:10 AM
I don't mind cameras in public that much, just as long as they stay out of my house. If a friend of mine borrows my car and I end up paying for a ticket that wasn't my fault, I'm sure any friend of mine would just reimburse me.

Please, don't judge all red light runners too harshly. After all, I've run some red lights in my day. Usually because I was about to poop my pants :eek:

redranger1
February 17, 2006, 12:28 PM
I don't mind cameras in public that much, just as long as they stay out of my house. If a friend of mine borrows my car and I end up paying for a ticket that wasn't my fault, I'm sure any friend of mine would just reimburse me.

Please, don't judge all red light runners too harshly. After all, I've run some red lights in my day. Usually because I was about to poop my pants :eek:


then poop yer pants pal. its fella like you who think thay can race a red light that has caused this problem and many accidents to the innocent.

and welcome to thr.

Lucky
February 17, 2006, 01:10 PM
I agree that it is ridiculous. Instead of cameras for red light runners, they should use flame throwers or phasers set to vaporize. I hate red light runners.


I agree, but the alternatives in the last two election cycles were even worse.

http://blog.empas.com/kwangaetow/2332547_347x432.jpg

But in reality it's the slippery sloope. When they started putting cameras in England I doubt they proposed to cover everything at once, probably just intersections and stuff. Then you add a few more, and a few more, until you have every single street watched by cameras.

I'd support anyone who chooses to fight the cameras - but I'd suggest that you will get more done if you just start a petition, than if you shoot them.

Kramer Krazy
February 17, 2006, 02:05 PM
Red-light runners are so bad in the South (especially South Carolina), that they put a several-second delay between the one light running red and the other light turning green. There seems to be very little enforcement, and because of all the accidents, they just make these delays longer (I've seen them up to 3-4 secdonds). Matter of fact, the yellow lights seem a bit longer, too, as a trip a few years ago to through New York proved....

A buddy of mine and I were riding our Harleys up the east coast, into Canada, around Lake Erie, and back home. We got forced by heavy traffic to take the tunnel to Manhatten from the Intersate, and pulled over to find a route to get back on track. When we started back on our way, we came upon a light that just turned yellow, so......naturally, we knew we had enough time to make it through the light because of the short distance we had to cover. I be a :cuss: ......that yellow was only about two seconds long and the other light immediately turned green as we were right in the middle of the intersection. :banghead: From that point on during this trip, we stopped for the yellow lights.

XD_fan
February 17, 2006, 03:38 PM
Its all about the revenue. I read an article on their use in the Phoenix area. The accident rate at some of the lights with cameras actually went up. Sorry, but I don't have a reference.

Years ago when I lived in LA for a while I was leaving from the job site in Pasadena I was a pretty bizarre incident due to this silly things. The car next to me was a Beemer and the guy in it was putting on a Bozo the Clown wig and Big Red rubber nose. I was watching him and rolled the window to ask what he was doing. Seems he was running late and knew he'd get a camera ticket or two. And yes, he was a lawyer. :neener:

redbearde
February 17, 2006, 03:45 PM
They've done it across NC for a few years now. When revenue stops flowing as quick, they reduce the yellow light time.

Go to eBay. Search for "photo" and "license plate" and "cover" or some variation thereof. Purchase one if you're really concerned about it.

Apply the plastic cover to your license plate. Strictly speaking, this might be illegal if your point is to obscure your plate, but I've been pulled over a few times since I got one, and the cops haven't squawked about it yet (from directly behind, it's perfectly legible - from an angle...not quite so). And if they do, well, a $20 cover is cheaper than the photo ticket.

a plate with MWMWMWMW or YVYVVYVY is fairly unreadable from any distance over a few yards.

=)

Good luck with your driving.

gunsmith
February 17, 2006, 04:01 PM
some cities have "traps" long strecthes of road with stop signs ...then finally a red light, you treat it like a stop sign because you just went thru 50 of them.

in Reno they don't time the lights, it's really aggravating and hard on your breaks.

anal retentive controlling leads to open rebellion, those stupid cameras never increase safety..cause more accidents then they stop, and are "timed" to legally rob people....

I went thru a red light in SF, CA after coming to a complete stop and looking both ways, a cop stopped me and asked why I did it and I told him "I didn't see any cops":evil:
I got away with a warning and made them laugh....

cops have discretion, those camara's are too big brother for me.

Tropical Z
February 17, 2006, 04:07 PM
So the big picture actually is that those cameras are really for $$$$$.
EXACTLY
These cameras are communism.Ill take my chances with getting a ticket for a filthy plate that cant be read before I let one of those rotten cameras get me!:cuss:

Thalinor
February 17, 2006, 04:13 PM
The way they work it here in CT is whoever the car is registered to gets the ticket, if they were not driving the car at the time of the ticket they tell them who was, and then that person gets the ticket. I remember reading some where that if they can't show the face of the person and you can't remember who was driving, then by law the ticket is null. Don't quote me on that but i think they have to show the drivers face unless you admit to the ticket or tell them who was driving and they then admit to the ticket.


Simple solution? Why not just avoid running red lights? I would save my breath for something that is more important like how our president has investments in oil and last quarter the oil companies made the highest profits in the history of oil companies... despite the "oil shortage". To me, that’s something to argue about.



Just my 2 copper

aufevermike
February 17, 2006, 04:17 PM
They tried that in Anchorage, Alaska...... It didn't last very long though:)

redranger1
February 17, 2006, 07:11 PM
Simple solution? Why not just avoid running red lights? I would save my breath for something that is more important like how our president has investments in oil and last quarter the oil companies made the highest profits in the history of oil companies... despite the "oil shortage". To me, thatís something to argue about.



Just my 2 copper

its not about trying to run red lights w/o gettin caught. its about the government assuming ones guilt just because one owns something that was misused illegally and not having any proof of who perpetrator is.

and last i checked it isnt illegal fer the president to own investments. and if you had a lick of sense youd understand why the oil companies made record profits. in fact ill educate you. oil companies sell thier fuel on certain percentage over what they have in it. there for as the amount of money invested in the product goes up so does the amount of profit. very simple ecomomics my friend. and i find it outrageous that the democrats and some republicans think they have a right to any more of that profit then they already take just because they do extra well. how arrogant and self rightious!

308win
February 17, 2006, 08:00 PM
this is a dangerous president if you ask me. not to mention a violation of rights. what happened to innocent until prooven guilty? :fire:
I am far from a Bush fan but I don't see how you can hang this on him or anyone other than the City fathers of Colombia. This is happening everywhere.

ArmedBear
February 17, 2006, 08:16 PM
Here's the problem. We had it here in San Diego.

They set up cameras and they changed the light timing so they'd catch a lot of people who did nothing wrong. A private contractor (Lockheed) did this.

There are a lot of variables and judgment calls involved in giving out a red light ticket, as a cop will tell you. Cameras don't see anything but your car. They don't see the kid in the road you were stopping to avoid, or the erratic driver who cut you off in the intersection.

Furthermore, the statistics say that, where cameras have been installed, there are fewer t-bone accidents from red light runners, but there are more rear-end accidents because people going through these intersections don't make judgments based on safety, just the camera. And that's when there ISN'T corruption like we had here.

In sum, this is a revenue-generating Big Brother scheme, not a public safety initiative.

gc70
February 17, 2006, 08:28 PM
Stop light cameras were installed selectively where I live, with the stated purpose of reducing wrecks and increasing safety. The first cameras went up at interesections with the largest number of accidents (the only statistic that might indicate people were running red lights). Soon, cameras went up at other intersections, but that stopped when the "return" on additional cameras got too low.

After the city ran out of lucrative intersections, they started a program of speeding cameras, because driving too fast causes accidents. That program will also plateau when it reaches the "profit point" of the cameras.

BTW, a private company provides the cameras, processes the film, and issues the tickets. The company keeps a majority of the revenues, but the city gets a lucrative slice of the action. I guess that I should be proud that someone came up with a private enterprise solution to law enforcement, but I'm not.

orionengnr
February 17, 2006, 09:14 PM
do a google on "Phantom Plate". They sell them on eBay and brag about how well they work, and have several "newspaper articles" substantiating the results.

Far more Google hits, though, say that they don't work...and show pics from different angles that show the license plate is still legible from an angle. I was thinking of trying it, but think I'll save the $30.

Hawkmoon
February 18, 2006, 12:51 AM
Red light runners are a real problem in my city, I forget what the numbers are but they cause a lot of death and injury. It's not possible or practical to post a traffic cop at every red light, cameras are the only answer to control it.
No, they are not the only answer. And they are a bad answer.

It was mentioned above that wherever these things are installed, they result in MORE accidents rather than fewer. That has been documented. And it was recently confirmed (don't remember where I read it, but I did) that the yellow intervals are DELIBERATELY made impossibly short to pay for the cameras.

These things aren't being installed to enhance traffic safety, they are being installed to enhance revenue stream.

Brother in Arms
February 18, 2006, 01:23 AM
Its all well and good and all to try to keep people from causing accidents. But this shows a distint distrust in the subje...I mean people of this country. If they put up cameras for red light runners, its just a matter of time before its cameras in public rest rooms to make sure people aren't (use your imagination here) The uk already has the problem. Not only is it a police state but your on candid camera all the time. We already have to many everywhere.

Its like tonight on inside edition, they had a guy point a laser pen at a plane and it said the Federal government used methods to find out who did it.

I wonder what these methods where? Makes me want to pick up the phone call someone I don't know and say AlKaeda, Osama binladin, IRA, PLO and things of that nature.

Im adding more tinfoil to my hat.

Brother in Arms

BigRobT
February 18, 2006, 01:25 AM
Minneapolis is bragging/ warning about the installation of these cameras. Having driven in Minneapolis since 1986, I will say that there are an extreme number of people that run the yellow lights, as well as the red lights. The one thing they DON'T address is the pedestrian that walks against the don't walk sign or even the red light. These people slow down an already fast paced traffic situation, frustrate drivers and have the ultimate protection of the law because, in Minnesota, pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way. I was always taught, you walk with the GREEN light and when the little hand comes on that says, "Don't Walk" you either hauled butt to get across or waited. I think Minnesota needs to rethink their pedestrian laws. If a pedestrian is in the wrong by being blatantly stupid, inconsiderate or just ignoring the traffic controls, there should be NO driver considered at "fault" in a Motor Vehicle vs Pedestrian crash.

redranger1
February 18, 2006, 11:37 AM
I am far from a Bush fan but I don't see how you can hang this on him or anyone other than the City fathers of Colombia. This is happening everywhere.


308win, i misspelled precedent. this is in no way bush's fault and im not blaming him. i mean PRECEDENT. :p

LSCurrier
February 18, 2006, 11:41 AM
Don't loan out your guns to anyone, buddy or not! They got money like you and can get their own stuff if they want.

Maybe they need to borrow guns because they don't have money and are looking to get some. :what:

Luke

XLMiguel
February 18, 2006, 12:18 PM
[QUOTE=ArmedBear]Furthermore, the statistics say that, where cameras have been installed, there are fewer t-bone accidents from red light runners, but there are more rear-end accidents because people going through these intersections don't make judgments based on safety, just the camera. And that's when there ISN'T corruption like we had here.QUOTE]

That was exactly the experience we had in N VA, but the great state of VA was saw fit to discontinue the program, though the safety Nazi's are still whining and moaning to bring them back, along with photo-radar. As someone astutely observed, 'safety is the excuse, revenue is the reason'.

This is a law-enforcement issue, and cameras don't enforce the law, and tickets with no consequence (i.e. "points") don't do much to modify behavior, it's just anouth road use tax.. :barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "this is ridiculous!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!