Slashdot Mirror
Traffic Cameras in D.C.
Kappelmeister writes "The Washington Post has an article about red-light-running and speeding cameras all over D.C. that have issued over half a million citations to date. (Police send you a ticket and photographic proof up to a month after the fact.) Though the cameras successfully reduce dangerous driving and boost the city's revenue, a lot of wrongful citations fall through the cracks and give some that guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling. Once again, how far is too far?" I came across this much more informative investigation of D.C.'s traffic cameras a few weeks ago. It's heavy on facts and figures, and hammers home the observation that an extra second of yellow light is at least as good at promoting good behavior, but much less lucrative for the local government and the contracting firm.
They went down to the intersection with had the most red-light running. As they were interviewing a couple people who said that the camera was faulty, and that there really was a flaw with the camera system, they caught 3 people run the red light.
It was just amusing that an independent camera placed there for a few minutes during rush hour caught the same people.
...surely, once drivers become used to the 'new' length of yellow they will jump the lights as frequently as they do now. Will they keep increasing the length indefinately?
Green doesn't mean go, it means "go, if the way is clear"...
1984 is right around the corner?
[hehehe just kidding, I figured I might as well post the first bad reference to 1984...]
Down with privacy up with publicness... Oh wait WHO GIVES A SHIFT!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
these things are all over Arizona (state which leads the nation in 'red light fatalities') and while its great that it cuts down on some of those folks that dont drive well, it also means that if I enter an intersection while it is green, but grandpa is doing 4 mph, I can still get ticketed.
That actually happened twice withen three days, and now I get to not only pay the ticket, but also take _2_ mandatory 8 hour classes.
FUN!
I don't know about the US, but here in Ireland a yellow light means 'stop unless it's dangerous to do so'. If that's the case across the pond, then I don't see how an extra second can make a difference.
Of course, 90% of Irish drivers think a yellow light (or 'amber' in the vernacular) means 'speed up' and every colour light means 'feel free to park in the cycle lane'.
I think that every time I were to receive a ticket for this from one of these cameras, I would contest it in court. There is no proof that you were driving the car at the time, so why should you receive points against your record for the crime, not to mention the cost of the ticket and the rise in your insurance costs?
There's something vaguely satisfying about thinking that those 5 people who just tailgated you through that yellow got ticketed.
I read the internet for the articles.
Wanking is also protected speech. HTH.
In Norway its a sport to Run the Traffic Cameras run, with hidden numbers an cut out Photos of local polices or politisions.. Go GO GO
and the camera only takes "still-shots" (not video), wouldn't the picture show just a long blur of your car stretching from the beginning of the intersection to out of the camera's range?
$cat
I liked this complaint though: If you trust someone to drive your car, you can probably trust them to pay you for the ticket. Also, no points are assessed to your license because of a camera-captured ticket, so in the end you'd have no reason to complain.
I can't remember which state it was (might even have been here in California) but in the past year or so, one state's courts found use of such cameras to catch redlight runners unlawful, because using the evidence to issue a fine presumed guilt without proper legal procedures. Maybe someone else can recall or unearth the details.
Not to mention that they were found to be considerably less than accurate.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
For running a red light in North Carolina.
I live in Texas. I've never BEEN to North Carolina. Accuracy? What's that?
I live about 15 minutes from D.C. north in Maryland and we have the same traffic cameras. Same up all over baltimore city. My father works as a Fleet Manager for a contracting company that rents out trucks to do city work for Baltimore city. They get about 10 of those traffic citations a day.
My father tells me there are only 2 ways to win a case in court contesting the citation. One, you have convince the judge that the license plate on the vechicle in the picture isn't yours, or isn't clear enough to establish 100% that it is indeed your license plate.
Or two, you have to prove the yellow light you were photographed at wasn't 4 seconds. State law mandates that the yellow lights must be at least 4 seconds long, so if the yellow light was say 3, the light was malfunctioning and you weren't at fault. This of course means you have to go out there with a video camera and get the light being yellow for less than 4 seconds.
Down near DC they don't seem to use flash photography, I think they use actual video cameras, all the cameras around my place are the security camera style ones. Up in Baltimore City they're flash style, and you can tell when you've gotten caught because they produce a large flash. They also look a little like bird houses on a poll next to the intersection.
Thats about all I know personally about these, I don't care for them that much, but ever since they put them in, I carefully pick and chose which yellow lights I'm going to try and go through.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
I fucking hate speeders. Once such a bastard blasted past me on a highway going at least twice the speed I was going (60 mph). I called the police on my cellphone and, what you know, the guy got stopped a few miles after that. Served him right.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that speeding kills and, no matter how they would like to believe otherwise, they're only average or below the average drivers?
Apparently, a lot of police cars and other emergency vehicles have been ticketed while they were speeding to answer 911 calls. Although human oversight is supposed to screen out these citations, a lot of cops, firefighters and EMTs found themselves receiving tickets in the line of duty, and the city's appeal process was so complex they couldn't go through the effort to fight them off. The end result is that many of these cops, firefighters and EMTs have been driving the speed limit (usually 25mph) to their calls. It is disgusting that these cameras are now directly endangering peoples' lives.
I used to live near DC, I travel there often still. Given how quite a bit of the city is still a craphole, I can't imagine this money going to any positive use. The DC city council even wanted to assess points to speeders' driving records. However, congressman Dick Armey personally interceded and put a stop to this (because of his privacy concerns). He also wanted to begin congressional hearings into the constitutionality of traffic light cameras in general.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Melbourne in Australia caught onto this lucrative traffic violation market years ago. There have been a number of investigations in Melbourne (sorry I don't know any URLs to any of them, I saw them all on TV) which described how speed cameras were installed around the city to raise revenue and get the state back in the black. Well it is in the black again, and revenue is always increasing, in fact they lowered the speed limit across the state by 10Km/h, which helped more people get speeding fines. Radio reports on major commercial stations always give reports of where speed cameras have been detected to help drivers avoid fines. The one thing that really reduces speeding though is just to have a police vehicle in the area. Speed cameras don't deter speeding, they just cath people off gaurd. A police presence on the other hands reminds people to check their speedos, and they slow down.
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
Yes we live in a free country and you are allowed to exercise your freedom until it starts to impinge on the freedoms of others. Now, I would say your freedom to run a red light unless you get caught by a physical police officer impinges on my right to walk across the street without being killed.
This is not a freedom or privacy issue, it's a public safety issue. If your worried about getting tickets because someone else ran a red light in your car, be more careful about who you lend your car out to. Or maybe we should go for a more technical solution and do away with car registrations and me your license a transponder you put on your windshield so if a violation is committed in your car the correct person will be charged.
Over here in Belgium, we have had unmanned speeding camera's for a couple of years now. They look like some fancy birdhouses and are positioned on stratagic locations (as in: 5 meters before red lights)
...
:)
I don't know how this has had an impact on speeding. Fact is, those camera's aren't always turned on. They mostly act as a preventive measure.
My personal experience with those camera's is that after a while, you know where they are situated. Most of the time they're on express roads (mostly 70-90kph, +/- 40-55mph). All I do is slow down when approaching one, pass it at "legal" speed and then speed up.
I don't really see the privacy issues on this one
Just my 0.02
In the US legal system one has the right to confront the witness against them and question them. If I get a traffic ticket from a police officer, take it to court an supeona the cop and the cop does not show up, I will get the case dismissed every time.
In the case of a traffic ticket from a camera, can't you simply contest it in court and since there are no witnesses against you, no one that you can supeona and question, get it dismissed?
does a fucking machine count as a witness these days?
if so, i suppose i better watch out to make sure my computer isn't watching me.
________
Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
We've had red light cameras and photo radar in Edmonton, Alberta for several years. I find that it doesn't help the speeding issue at all, since everyone who likes going over the limit has either a radar detector or listens to the traffic reports on the radio (they always announce where the speed traps are). If the media stopped announcing where the traps were, maybe it'd be more effective. I've also noticed that the police uses it more at the end of the month, when they haven't reached their ticket quota. I think that they should be using it more consistently.
As for the red light cameras, one huge problem I can think of is the issue of getting stuck in an intersection as the light's changing. Sometimes it happens, and because the ticket is issued by a machine and not an officer, it's pretty hard to appeal the ticket. They also don't seem to place them at the right intersections; all the intersections with a camera are marked, and I've just seem people speed through different intersections.
There apparently several ways around the cameras, such as placing this sheet of plastic covering (sorry, don't know what it's made from) over the plate so that when the camera flashes, the plastic reflects the flash back to the camera and makes the photo useless. I'm not sure how well this works, but I've seen a good percentage (about 30-35%) of the vehicles here that have them. I'm not quite sure what the Edmonton Police Service is doing about them, but I'm pretty sure they're not legal.
Conclusion: this would be so much more effective at stopping red-light burners and speeders if this was implemented more effectively (stop the media from divulging the locations of the cameras, don't mark the intersections, put the cameras in more intersections, make it illegal to get around the cameras)
Anyways, these are the two (Canadian) cents from a person who's lived in a town with this kind of technlogy for several years. My advice for D.C. and any other place that wants to implement this kind of technology: learn from Edmonton's mistakes.
~ Firecaster ~
About ten years ago Ontario tried photo radar. It was so massively unpopular it was a major reason the provincial government was defeated at election time. It was immediately repealed by the sucessor government.
However, hidden cameras are not too hidden in korea, cops must put a sign some saying there is a camera nearby (about 50 ft in front of the camera) by some law or something.
They responded by mailing him back a picture of some handcuffs.
You're in a public area, there's no difference between a cop looking at you through a camera or just standing there. You know the rules of the road, you're just bitching that you got caught.
UK had these cameras for years now. Funnily enough, they mostly don't have any film inside and just scare you by flashing at you.
I've been told that, if you can prove, that it has been positioned where it would bring the country a lot of money, but wouldn't save lives, you can get rid of it
There are many ways around it. You can simply wrap your number plates in shiny plastic, so the flash would bounce off them, or you can buy more sophisticad devices that flash back at the camera.
a lot of wrongful citations fall through the cracks and give some that guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling.
Ever been to traffic court? It's always been that way. Unless you can somehow prove that the officer was wrong, misguided, you are guilty.
Last time I went to traffic court I checked it out. The only people that went free were the defendants who's accusing officer did not show up ( like me :) Even cases where both the officer and the accused did not show up, the accused was found guilty
I believe it is that way if the case isn't a criminal case or something. not a lawyer.
PS. Want to increase the odds of your accusing officer not showing up? Then (a) ask for the trial at the last possible time, we have 2 weeks to do so, (b) Schedule the case as late has they'll let you, (c) When the date comes up,ask for continuance, ie. reschedule. Here we have 1 continuance (d) reschedule as late as you can again. The point is to put as much time between the time of the infraction and the court date. There's no guarantee, but it works
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
They have this in my area (RTP, NC) too. It's fairly well known that unless you're actually innocent, you can't get out of it.
You need to prove that you weren't driving, it wasn't actually your car, etc.
One nice thing about the system is that if you're caught with the cameras, it's not treated like a moving violation. You don't get any points on your record and your insurance isn't impacted.
The system doesn't bother me. It only catches guilty people, it's less fallible than the police, and it provides more money to the local gov. (I like our local gov). And most importantly, it makes the street safer. Let's not forget that running red lights kills people. Punishing the guys that do that is a good thing.
Vanguard
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Normally there is a grey zone on which you can "play", since 2 or 3 years, here in Montreal and the areas, there are at least twice as much polices on the roads that there used to be. They've found out that it was a great source of revenues especially when the gov. wants to find ways to cut out budgets. Ok, I am all for fining the guilty people and all, but this gets annoying when you get a speeding ticket at 120 in a 100 zone (Km/h, 1 mile = 1.6 Km) I mean, 20 years ago that limit was okay, the cars weren't as safe and all, but today, in 2002, driving at 100 is painfully slow especially when you have 2000 miles to travel. Before you wouldn't get a ticket at that speed, unless the cop really had a quota to fill, but you'd get one at 130-140 obviously.
There was that grey zone where the cops could use their judgment, today everything must be black or white, you have to be a role model citizen or else you're a terrorist, you have to buy everything that you watch or look at all the advertizing or else you are stealing, you have to buy a computer with windows and office shipped on it else you are the reason why the economy will crash, etc, etc, if then else, bla bla. This is getting very out of hand, and people shouldn't tolerate cameras like that. Some polices strongly disagree with this because it also replaces the agents that would be doing that watch, so less effectives, less power, etc etc.
I mean, it's okay to put such a system to MONITOR (aka RESEARCH PURPOSE) people's habbit and see how many % are speeding up and comming out with a way to slow down the traffic, it's okay to put such a system on places that abuses are being made and notify the people that there is such of a system in place, it's okay to put it where a lot of accidents are happening, but EVERYWHERE? heck, this is very unsecuring. They want 0 or 1 from us, but when THEY have to give US what they OWE us (tax return, interests, misjudgment and all) we have to WAIT or FIGHT our way to justice and it's clearly not 0s and 1s. Having a gray zone in both ways balances the for and against of this system.
While I am not for those breaking the law and I can hear the people already replying "well roll at the speed that the law permits and you won't have a problem" I'll say; let these cameras there, and there's nothing that will stop them to use them or install new ones to monitor people all over the place, there is no way that this will sort out bad guys from good guys in a 100% fashion, and I am not for "50 is the limit, you were rolling at 51 because you sneezed and pressed the accelerator a bit more, here's your 70$ fine", this is blattant abuse. Of course those of you who never got abusive tickets are probably thinking like I used to think before, but the day you'll get crossed in a technology error or bug, you'll change idea pretty quickly I can be sure.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
In Dublin, Ireland some of the crosswalks had countdown-style clocks. Although jaywalking was pretty bad all over the city, wherever these clocks appeared everybody waited for the right time to cross... I think it helped people realize that they weren't stopping for quite as long is it felt because they could see the 20-30 seconds tick away before their eyes.
Maybe people would be less likely to run the red lights if they knew how long they were waiting...
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
is that they are no longer set to keep traffic moving but, in fact, set to keep traffic stopped. This is a theory that a stopped car can't get into an accident (seriously!). Drivers know this, at least subconsciously, and are more apt to run yellow/red lights because they will surely be stopped at the next one anyway.
It's my own belief that the best way to stop drivers from running traffic lights is to synchronize them by speed so that drivers know that if they don't stop they will get out of synch and be stopped at the next one. But if they stop they will get back in synch and can make it through the rest (albeit at a slower speed).
This is also an excellent way to enforce speed limits. Set the lights on a main thoroughfare to be all green if a driver maintains 29mph in a 35mph zone and you will find far fewer drivers going 40.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
They tried this here in Ontario, Canada. But once they figured out that they were giving the wrong people tickets they cancelled the program. The same thing is likely to happen in Washington.
--Alan P. Laudicina--
We have them over here as well. Our national pasttime seems to be to wreck them, so they're now starting to put up cameras to watch the speeding cameras.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
A few (several) years ago there was an experiment with placing cameras along rural highways in Pennsylvania to catch speeders. Within two weeks nearly all of them were destroyed, shot full of holes , or just plain gone.
The local news coverage did a great job of explaining exactly how they worked and the general areas they were located.
It didn't take long to decide that something like this won't last in an unpopulated area.
The cameras in DC may last a little longer with so many witnesses around and some city folks aren't as "passionate" about their rights as some good ol' boys from PA with a 12 pack and a hunting rifle.
The red-light cameras appear to have saved lives in the city, where a total of 17 people were killed in red-light-running accidents in 1997 and 1998, compared with five in 2000 and 2001. It is too soon to assess the impact of speed cameras in the city, where a total of 63 people died in speed-related crashes in 2000 and 2001.
I know, those damned statistics. But can somebody give me ONE GOOD ARGUMENT AGAINST those camera's?
The folks at epic, electronic privacy information center have a link on their website to ovservingsurveillance.org, a web site that has a map of "big brother" camera installations in DC watching people.
donfedeI was riding with a friend in DC when we came upon one of these signals. They had big signs ahead of the intersection saying something to the effect of "CAMERAS IN USE." Wouldn't you know it, the light went to yellow as we were coming up to the intersection and my friend did the some thing we all do - we gauge our speed, our distance to the white line, and decide "yea or nay" as to whether or not we want to perform "heroic" braking. Well, because I had read about these signals not that long ago, I paid special attention to the length of the yellow and, whereas I can't give you a time down to the tenths of a second, I can tell you that it was VERY short - I'd say between 1.5 and 2 seconds, compared to the usual 4 to 5. The light was red by the time we went through the intersection; I don't know how much time after the light goes red where they send tickets, but I wouldn't be surprised if my friend got one. If so, though, it will have been because in addition to setting up the cameras, they jiggered the light timing so as to make violators out of normal, adequately careful drivers.
Unfortunately, there are few if any laws covering traffic signal timing. So, if you live where these things are used, I suggest two paths that you can follow. One, see if you can get a city ordinance passed specifying a minimum yellow light time. Two, find out who's in charge of setting these systems up, find the next highest elected official, and tell them that you want this practice stopped or you will do what you can to have him/her removed from office. If you're told to pound sand (and you will be), follow through.
Time to practice some "sousveillance." First, using a video camera, capture the timing of the rigged signals and capture the timing of several normal, untampered-with signals. Extract timing data from the tape, tabulate it, and send it to your local news outlets (if possible, send it directly to reporters who have covered similar stories in the past). Make sure that the reporter goes after the elected official you spoke to.
Practice more sousveillance. Try to capture the license plate numbers of city vehicles and, if at all possible, the license plate numbers of the car or cars driven by aforementioned elected officials. Then, stake out intersections where those cars routinely pass and videotape the cars running red lights. If you really want to blow the lid off the scam, see if you can tape them running the rigged lights. If you can show that the city officials don't get tickets, well...
There's an article on HowStuffWorks that shows how the Red-light traffic cameras work.
There was a safety study done I believe in Mesa AZ that shows it was safer to add more time to the yellow then use these red light runner cameras. Just not as profitable for the city or the company contracted to run the program.
So.. several people will have to DIE and sue successfully before Mesa does the right and safe thing and increase the yellow.
Try and get a copy of the contract I'll bet you $$$ that you can't. The company running the equipment (red light cameras and photo radar get the VAST majority of the take.
Here in AZ it has become a sport to ignore those mailed tickets, it's too damned expensive for the cities using traffic cameras to follow up every one with a hand delivered summons(?).
Guess just the sheep send in the money!
Your darn right I'm posting Anonymously the Photo Radar companies make the record industry look like Boy Scouts (appologisies toi the Boy Scouts)
we poor residents of Canberra (capital of Australia) live in constant fear of the Orwellian Department of Urban Services, which have a fleet of people-movers equipped with radars and cameras, etc. These guys (referred to by locals as Pigs in Taragos, Taragos being the model of people mover) have managed to get hiding down to a fine art.
What drives me nuts is that hiding doesn't slow people down. They get the ticket a month later. Say the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving at 60mph over the limit, etc... he/she would still be driving round for another month. It happened in Australia, where an 18-y-o learner driver wiped himself and some other poor couple out, and his parents got a speeding ticket a month or so later.
I think red light cameras are a great idea, and IMO should be fitted to every set of traffic lights possible/feasible. But speed cameras don't have the desired effect. The don't stop dangerous driving (well, not for at least a month) but locals who know the area well just slow down for the speed cameras and then speed back up again.
Put cops out with radar guns, or just leave the poor motorists alone.
-- james
Up here in the National Capital Region (aka Ottawa/Hull), we had those cameras on traffic lights for a few months two years ago. Turns out they caused too much trouble because of the lack of a human witness. At first some poor fools just cleched their fist and paid up, but more and more people started fighting the photo tickets.
I remember a big issue was when the car was being driven by someone other than the owner, thus rendering the photo evidence useless and groundless. They'd send the ticket to the car owner's address, when in a normal situation the fault would reside on whomever was driving at the time.
Anyways, it only made things worse. After the 6 or 8 month trial, more and more people were just flooring through red lights, since they had gotten used to fighting the tickets without resistance. Today, if you just barely wing it as it changes to red, you're almost guaranteed to have 2-3 idiots right up your ass just begging for a nice juicy fender-bender. Traffic laws are effectively making things worse these days, especially with the police's awful reputation.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
My favorite: "My main objection is that tickets are continuing to be issued before I have an opportunity to adjust my speed based on the first ticket," said Miriam Balutis of Arlington, who was cited for four camera-captured violations in one week -- but did not receive any tickets for a month. This "strongly suggests that deterrence is not the goal of this program."
Is it a monetary incentive for the cities? Probably, but so what? If you are caught speeding or running a red light, you did the crime, stop whining about it. As for the "Balutis Judicial System", using this logic, I should be able to rob banks until I am convicted on the first one. Further, you cannot hold any of the robberies between the first and when I was arrested against me. I did not have time to "adjust my behavior based on the arrest."
Then we have the "police were not there" group. Following their logic we should prevent the introduction of video taped evidence of the robbery because the police were not there to actually witness the event. Where do they find people with such a poor grasp of logic and how do they always manage to get press?
Technology is going to be misused, but this is not such a case. The people who are getting caught are guilty, even by their own admission.
If they wish to make the argument, it was not them, or the machine was incorrect, etc. that would be fine. But "it's not fair?" Give me a break.
These lights are just trying to help the American public drive correctly - cause 99% of the time they are too stupid to do it themselves.
I drive a motorcycle and am in contant terror that some idiot tailgating me in a SUV, talking on their cell and eating a McBiscuit is gonna just plow over me trying to get through the yellow light.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THE RUSH ASSHOLE!!!
Now I gotta go watch Falling Down again...
Its funny how you'all seem to find the laws/technology when all you really need todo is drive safely. e.g. don't go through a yellow because you can, only if you need to [e.g. you're doing 80km/h and are say 100m away when it changes].
I mean if they have a photo of you parked at a yellow at the stop light they can't exactly win a case of that if they mistakenly give you a ticket.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
There are many ways around it. You can simply wrap your number plates in shiny plastic, so the flash would bounce off them, or you can buy more sophisticad devices that flash back at the camera.
Be very careful doing this!
A standard speeding / red light ticket is only £40 ( ~US$60) and three points.
Getting nicked for "Conspiricy to pervert the cause of justice" is not funny. You will get screwed. (Ask a few of the regulars on uk.rec.motorcycles!)
Speeking of which, the forward facing cammeras are becoming very popular now. Great for us bikers as there is no numberplate on the front of the bike. Most of us now consider it our duty to go past these flat out with a didget raised at the cammera :-)
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
In the UK, we're getting more and more speed cameras. Various studies have shown that they do reduce accidents and fatalities when placed near accident blackspots.
The main criticism here seems to be the risk of mistakes being made. The cameras here measure your speed versus radar, and if you're over the limit they take two exposures in quick succession. There are markings on the road, so your speed can then be determined accurately. If you want to appeal then you can check the photo for yourself.
I'm of the opinion that no-one has the right to speed and the government is well within their rights to enforce speed limits in this way. I don't think the arguments used against interception of internet traffic can be applied here - those who are innocent do not lose out in any way.
john
For the last three years I've lived in northern VA where they have red light cameras placed strategically. I don't know anyone personally who's gotten a citation from one of them. Around here we don't have those last five cars in a string running the light like where I used to live. People often even slow down for a yellow. It's nice to be able to know that when the light turns green, you're clear to go and don't have to worry as much about running into that one last car....
I read a few weeks ago that New York City's request for more of these cameras (they currently have 50 in manhattan, IIRC) was denied by some court. So what they did while appealing the ruling was they setup tons of fake, nonfunctioning cameras. So you don't know which is the real camera and which is the fake. I guess it's one way to keep people honest that's somewhat less evil than the cameras-everywhere initiatives that are currently underway in NYC.
rooooar
Step 1. Cover your license plate
Step 2. Get some friends
Step 3. Have you friends stand in the intersection mooning the camera.
Step 4. Drive through the red light.
We did this, at 2 A.M. one night and much to our surpise we made front page of the local paper
So, if I go to protest an automated ticket, what will happen? Will the judge simply look at the printout and the photo and say, "No, the system's perfect. You're guilty. Pay up."
There's a new Tom Cruise movie comming out where he's a cop in D.C. sometime in the future. Apparently, they've figured out a way to see things that haven't happened yet, and arrest people before they commit the crime. "The system is perfect."
This is a scary step in that direction.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
It really all depends on the purpose of putting up the cameras. Red-light cameras have been used in Singapore for over a decade, there hasn't been much of a complaint. The purpose of the red-light cameras are to act as a deterrant, not to generate revenue. And it works. The important thing, of course is to make the cameras really obvious (anyone can see them), and if that's not enough, there are signs about 50m before the junction warning motorists that there is a red light camera at the upcoming junction. Also, these cameras are not put up in places because of high traffic, but rather in places with lower traffic but where complaints of motorists running the red light is high, e.g. a traffic junction crossing a main road and a seldomly used road where motorists often thing it doesn't matter as there are few vehicles coming from the side road. Or traffic lights not at a junction but for pedestrian crossing. I believe these cameras have improved safety a lot, and it's probably well worth the effort.
Last week it was announced that several of these cameras would be bought and installed at major intersections. Where will all the money go from the camera fines? Straight to the police budget, so their comfortable overtime levels can be continued while the rest of the city suffers. It is worth noting that driving here is a blood sport with little or no regard for any laws let alone yellow lights. These cameras are gonna generate a hell of a lot of money.
Not that all this overtime they are putting in is helping matters... Ours is a pretty crime infested city, with one of the highest murder rates per capita of any city in the U.S. Many major property crimes such as breakins are not investigated with any degree of vigilance. Most of my friends that have had contact with the police report that they have been treated shabbily, as if they had robbed a bank or something. This is not an exaggeration - the conduct of the police here has become legendary for its disdain of civil rights. Their first question if you take issue with their version of things is "Do you want to go to jail?"
Looks like they just found a way to make things even worse...
Just for the record, this is nothing new nor is it something to worry too much about.
I'd have to dig around my text books for the proper term, but crimes can be placed in two categories. Most offenses are handled "normally" - people are innocent till proven guilty, etc.
There are a class of brimes where you are basically guilty on the spot (if so charged). Every one I can think of is car-related - parking tickets, driving under the influence, speeding, etc. In each one of these cases, proof is relatively easy to come by. If your car goes through a red and there is a picture of your car and a red light, this seems enough for me.
You can always appeal your verdict-by-mail but this tends to be rather difficult since they have a photo of the car, red light and driver (sometimes).
In Ontario a few years ago, we had photo radar on a few major highways - you speed, you get fined. There were quite a few angry people, everything from "tax grab" to "abuse of power" to "trusting unreliable technology" was being reported.
Now that photo radar is gone, the reporting is "everyone wants it back".
While many people just learn to avoid the camera'ed intersections, this is a perfectly legal and moral mechanism to improve road safety.
Now, without jerking a knee so hard it falls off, can some one please explain to me why these cameras are such a bad thing? Really, I want to know. The three arguments that I have seen thus far are as follows:
/. would be complaining that it is a waste of money.
(1) The cameras are an invasion of privacy.
I am unwilling to accept this argument. Is it an invasion of privacy when a cop sits behind a billboard with a radar gun looking for speeders? Are security cameras in the local Kwik-e-Mart an invasion of privacy? Hell, when you get your driver's licsence, they want to know your height, weight, age, eye color, and a whole slew of other information about you. Is that invasive? I certainly don't feel I need to tell people how much I weigh. The cameras are in public places. If they used tax dollars to put a cop at every one of these intersections to catch people who are speeding or running red lights, instead of complaining that it is an invasion of privacy, I'll bet anything people on
(2) The cameras are inaccurate.
This could be a problem. It is really the only argument that I buy. However, can police officers not also be inaccurate? mean? nasty? in a bad mood? How many people do you suppose get pulled over for speeding when they are within just a couple of miles of the speed limit, but the cop thinks they are going faster than they are or is just in a bad mood? Sure, you can try to contest such tickets, but you will generally loose. It is your word against the police officers, and who do you think a judge is going to believe. In the end, I don't think that the cameras are any worse than a cop on a bad day.
(3) The cameras are nothing more than a money making scheme.
I can't accept that at all. Certainly, they make money for the city, and for the corporation that reviews the photos, and I could understand how one could accuse a mayor or other city official of doing nothing but making money off of the cameras, but it would seem from the Washington Post article that the cameras are well liked by everyone in the enforcement business, from the lowly cop on patrol to those in power. Yes, it makes some money, but it also serves the function of keeping people safe. Drugs like Aspirin make a lot of money too. Is that a bad thing? In my opinion, no.
I am sorry to rant, but I really do not understand what is so wrong with delegating much of the grunt work of law enforcement to machines. This should allow police officers to focus on things that many would consider to be more important, like citing drunk drivers and solving crimes like homicide and rape. The system does not seem to be trampling any freedoms, and it is freeing up the police to get on to other things. What is so wrong with that?
Rhapsody in Numbers
I don't know how surprising this is considering I've had to live with this for the past seven years. You get pretty used to the traffic light cameras after awhile. You even become able to spot them from about 40 yards away. This gives you adequate time to decide wheather you really want to run that yellow light or not. The real challenge where I live is that every city has a different kind of traffic light camera. You have to get used to recognizing all of them. Basically the policy here is is that if you enter the intersection while the light is still yellow, even if it turns red while you're in the middle of the road, you wont get a ticket. This is not to say the cameras don't make mistakes. I've driven through many intersections where the cameras are flashing out of control on a green light. Never have I received a ticket because of this though. The really concern with photo radar is the road side traffic cameras. Mobile cameras in the back of Blazers ready to snap you on your way to and from work. One camera equiped SUV will move to four to five different locations a day. While traffic light cameras in my city are portable, they usually don't move them often.
Here in Alberta, Canada, you don't get points for these types of tickets. I think. Correct me if I am wrong.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
... if you get an arizona photo radar ticket in the mail, it will include a paper for you to sign & a SASE (self-addressed stamped envelope) for you to return it in, acknowledging that you received the ticket. If you don't return the acknowledgment, you don't have to appear at court, and they can't do jack, unless they want to serve the ticket in another (more expensive) manner. Of course, they'll bill you for the personal service, but I don't believe they do that (send out sherriff to serve photoradar tickets) all too often..
http://freedom.house.gov/auto/cases/azappeal.asp - arizona appeals court on the issue
http://www.photobuster.com/beatem2.htm
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
My problem with these cameras is not that they prevent red light runners; Yellow means stop. If you're still not stopped when the light turns read then you were doing something wrong.
My problem is how the contracts with the providers of these systems (Siemens, most notably, because the provide the initial equipment for free) include payments for all tickets issued by the systems-- regardless of whether the ticket was accurate or not.
This creates a situation where it's to the company's advantage to have a high "false positive" rate, rather than to produce the most accurate system possible.
Now, if they were _fined_ for false positives an amount larger than they would get for the ticket in the first place, then viva la automatic ticketing system!
-James
Initially they did slap the owner with the actual ticket involving demerits, etc, but those were all thrown out of court.
San Diego had its red light cameras shut down when some attorneys established in a civil lawsuit that Lockheed Martin had deliberately misplaced the sensors, causing many drivers to be ticketed unfairly. LM got around $70 per ticket, so they had a large incentive to make sure as many were issued as possible. (How'd you like to have cops get a percentage of every ticket or fine they wrote?) This business was so profitable for LM that they installed and maintained the cameras at their expense in return for their cut. The city and other governmental agencies got the rest of the $271 tickets, so they were ecstatic. San Diego got millions of dollars a year from these devices before they were shut off.
The trial brought out many other interesting revelations. For example, each ticket was supposed to be issued by a sworn police officer, who had to review the 'evidence' and sign off on it. Turns out that a spate of tickets were issued when the officer was on vacation. Testimony revealed that the officer frequently just signed a bunch of blank forms and let LM fill them in. Another interesting aspect is that LM fiercely resisted having their hardware and software examined by the plaintiffs. In fact, they threatened the law firm with a suit if they persisted in pressing for discovery of those items. People who have fought their red light tickets in court and who wanted the design details and calibration records for the camera that photographed them were routinely refused this information, even though it's vital to a defense. Another interesting fact revealed at trial was that the cameras were NOT placed at 'the most dangerous intersections' as the city had been contending all along, but at intersections whose yellow light intervals were revealed to be set far shorter than state guidelines. As has been discussed here in other posts, the yellow light duration is a major factor in whether a light will be run or not.
These cameras, at least as operated in San Diego, are a scam. They ticket innocent people, are unexaminable for a defense, and are just a way for the city to rake in big money.
Here's the web site operated by the attorneys who got these cameras shut down: Red Light Lawyers
It started as a test project, but after a couple hundred 'success stories' we've got those big mysterious grey boxes at certain key intersections. I haven't been nabbed by one yet, they really do seem to catch the red-light-runners only - as long as you enter the intersection while the lights are green or yellow you're fine.. I've had a yellows turn red on me just a few times and was not nailed with a ticket. I think the initial hype around the test project made drivers keenly aware of this technology, but since then the devices have sunken in to obscurity; a lot of people I know aren't even aware of them.. I can't say that I feel this is some kind of invasion of privacy, rather, it does strike me as an acceptable means of catching those nutters that blaze through red lights when they think no one is looking..
Those cameras while a total pain in the ass
but they work.
they are probably the most effective ways of reducing speed *everyone* slows down for them,
getting fined 80 quid (£80) a time soon bangs the message home, yeah you can contest them in court but that works out more expensive and they have all the proof they need , sure you can say it wasnt you driving, but then you have to inform the police who was, if you don't they fine the registered owner of the vehicle by default
we even have whole websites dedicated to them there are even in-car systems that link up to GPS giving you the locations of speed traps, a whole industry seems to of sprung up around them.
Apparently they cause more pollution in towns though, as when drivers learn where they are they accelerate in-between each camera and brake just before the trap, the acceleration to brake method wastes a lot of fuel which is just kicked out the exhaust pipe as unburnt gas, this pollution effect of traffic calming has also been observed with speed humps as people do the same accelerate-brake method in order to speed up the particlar street.
Its amusing that the rest of the world seems to be starting this failsafe method of traffic enforcement
Big brother is truly here
A judge in Hawaii recently ruled that traffic tickets issued from traffic cameras are unconstitutional.
n ews-139403920020411-160413.html
http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/hon/news/stories/
I live in SF, California, and the lawyer friends that I've spoken to regarding these tickets all told me that the judges here will cancel all tickets that are challenged. So if you get one of these around here, challenge the ticket and the judge will tear it up for you!
The link is now dead, but here's the story:
7 .h tm
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20011129-1334523
"Cops get speeding tickets from cameras"
Washington Times
November 29, 2001
Some D.C. police officers say they are slowing their response to emergencies because photo-radar cameras are ticketing them for speeding on Code One calls, and they are being forced to pay the fines.
At least three D.C. police officers told The Washington Times they were caught by the cameras and ticketed while on official police business. They said they and other officers have been forced to pay the fines, and are now on edge about speeding to a crime scene and running red lights in emergencies. Like area motorists, they have little chance of getting a reprieve from the D.C. Bureau of Traffic Adjudication without evidence to present in their defense.
"Officers are getting crazy tickets, in their cars on duty from the speed and red-light cameras," said Sgt. Gerald G. Neill Jr., chairman of the Metropolitan Police Department's union labor committee. "A lot of them have actually had to pay the fines," he said.
Some officers have paid so many tickets that they are no longer speeding or running red lights to get to their dispatched calls even in emergency situations, Sgt. Neill said.
"The threat of the flash is in their heads, but more so the $100 to $200 fines," Sgt. Neill said.
One detective, with 12 years on the force and currently working in the Fifth District, said he was flashed by the cameras once for speeding and once for running a red light -- all on dispatched calls. Two other officers said they also have received tickets while on emergency calls.
"I got two speeding tickets and one red-light ticket," said a detective who did not wish to be named. But he said he didn't remember to fill out a 775 form -- a log sheet used to keep track of officers using police vehicles. Without the form to back up his statement in traffic adjudication, he was forced to pay the fines.
D.C. police Lt. Patrick Burke, director of traffic safety, said the 775 form cannot be used as evidence to fight the tickets. He said the form is used only to track officers driving cars registered to the D.C. police so the citation can be issued to the right person.
"I empathize with the officers because I, too, have run lights and had to speed on emergency calls," Lt. Burke said.
He said the codes are in place to keep officers from breaking traffic laws. The only time an officer is allowed to run a red light or to speed is on Code One emergencies, which include robberies in progress, reports of gunfire, or any violent crimes committed on the street or in a residence, Lt. Burke said.
He added that undercover officers, who have to run red lights or have sped to keep up with a suspect, also are exempted from the citations.
"Sometimes you get an emergency call of a person in trouble and you fly to the scene. You don't have time to worry about filling out that form," the detective said.
But officers told The Times they are being fined for speeding on Code One calls.
Sgt. Neill said he had spoken with Executive Assistant Chief Terrance W. Gainer about how the situation.
"Chief Gainer said the department would be able to keep track of the emergency call logs and find out whether or not officers driving the cars were on Code One calls when the tickets were issued," Sgt. Neill said. "But then we found out that wasn't the case."
D.C. police spokesman Kevin P. Morison said officers should have no fear of getting speed or red-light camera tickets while on official business. He said tickets are not issued in cases where D.C. police aren't sure who was driving the car at the time it was the caught by the cameras.
"We can tell from the pictures -- we see in color -- whether or not a car has the sirens on. If they are, those tickets are thrown out during the review process," Mr. Morison said.
He said a "handful of tickets" has been given to officers erroneously.
He urged that officers who feel a ticket was issued to them in error to report it and not just pay the fine.
"If an officer pays the ticket without alerting us, he has to know that is an admission of guilt," Mr. Morison said.
He said the enforcement applies to all city government agencies.
There have been no complaints thus far from the D.C. Fire Department and Emergency Medical Service personnel about getting tickets while on official business, said Lisa Bass, D.C. Fire and EMS spokeswoman.
That does not include other police agencies in the city such as the U.S. Park Police, FBI or any other federal police force.
The U.S. Park Police, FBI, and U.S. Capitol Police did not return calls from The Washington Times yesterday inquiring whether their officers are getting photo-radar and speed camera tickets.
Since the automated traffic program began Aug. 6, the District's cameras have generated 75,575 tickets and more than $1.4 million, with 20,625 motorists paying the fines. An estimated $848,000 in fines went to the city's general fund, and almost $600,000 went to Affiliated Computer Services Inc. (ACS) -- the company that maintains and operates the devices.
Tickets are checked for errors by D.C. police officers and ACS employees before they are mailed, Mr. Morison said.
Sounds like one.
Do you have any references?
Not of the DC cameras but of a similar system in Germany.
When I received a ticket for my wife's vehicle running a red light, I was pretty upset with her. It was a brand new red sports car and she was obviously driving recklessly. The ticket arrived with a 500DM fine (about $350 at the time) and did not include a copy of the picture.
I was livid so I called the telephone number on the ticket and spoke with the clerk. She verified the license plates and the type of vehicle. Sending out a copy of the picture would have cost an extra 30DM so I asked her to describe the driver.
Sure enough, it was me behind the wheel and I was taking it in for a service that day. Damn.
Bottom Line: The cameras work. I deserved the ticket and it always reminded me to drive more carefully. Very few mistakes. They even use them in Germany to measure following distance and speeds on the Autobahn and send out ENORMOUS tickets.
Given that you offer no evidence other than your own opinion, your declaration of 'bullshit' applys more to your own statements. In point of fact, something similar happened in San Diego (click), where the police union denounced red light cameras when five on-duty cops received citations. You're the one who's full of it, not the original poster. Not to mention that anyone who can't make his point without lapsing into profanity is probably too ill-informed to be rendering opinions to begin with.
yeah, in alexandria the red light cameras have been around for a while. they've worked quite well. red light running has gone down. along the potomac on the GW Memorial Parkway, the speeding cameras have been set up just north of Reagan National Airport. i don't know how they work because i never speed around that area. too many cops. in terms of getting out of it, my dad's friend got busted by one of the cameras. a couple years before that i'd done a science fair project on the yellow lights in the DC area. No, they're not all 4 seconds long. most are around 3.75. one must also realize that you must allow at least a quarter second of perception time and a quarter second of reaction time before the brakes are applied. that is also assuming that you're watching the light just as it turns. so in the best case scenario, you'll have 3.5 seconds. in most cars you cannot stop if you're on a road going 35+ mph. it's not physically possible. then, of course, one must also factor in road conditions and amount of passenger/cargo weight in the car. i mean, these yellow lights don't offer enough time for most cars to stop. and then, even if they try to make it through, they get caught running it. i gave my dad's friend a copy of the project and he took it to court. he presented it for fifteen minutes and was let off the hook, no questions asked. it's not the cameras that are at fault, it is the traffic lights that do not allow enough time.
-"Hey, Baby. It's not a rash, it's textured love."
In case no one has posted this previously:
g e. html
NMA LAUNCHES $10,000 TICKET CAMERA CHALLENGE
(An open letter to all communities in Virginia and Maryland and Washington DC that employ red light ticket cameras)
The National Motorists Association is wagering $10,000 to prove that our engineering approach can cut red light violations better than any ticket camera installation.
We have spent more than a year exposing the unethical exploitation associated with the use of red light ticket cameras. For example, we know that counterproductive government policies and government actions have largely created the increase in red light violations. This is not speculation, vague suspicion, or an educated guess. This is fact.
The use of ticket cameras to reward incompetent (if not outright devious) public agencies for failing to meet their professional responsibilities is a travesty that demands correction. Proper signal timing, better signal design, and improved intersections are the real answers to the red-light-violation problem.
The apparent increase in red light violations is largely the result of a 20-year pattern of deliberately changing the standards for the timing of yellow lights. This is an engineering problem, not an enforcement issue. There is ample and convincing evidence, right in Northern Virginia, that increasing the yellow light duration dramatically and permanently reduces red light violations. Despite this evidence, these ticket camera cities are permitting unsafe and dangerous conditions to persist, while profiting from preventable red-light violations.
A more cynical perspective might suggest that this two-decade process of shortening yellow lights was done deliberately to create a "red light running crisis" and thereby foster public acceptance of ticket cameras.
Our claims have been met with feeble excuses that try to ignore the hard evidence that proves the "epidemic of red light running" is the product of poor traffic engineering policies. This is not a law enforcement problem.
Today we say to the communities that employ ticket cameras, "Let's put traffic engineering solutions to the test." Here's our challenge.
Show us any red light ticket camera intersection that still has high numbers of red light violations (there are plenty to choose from) and we will guarantee a MINIMUM of a 50 percent reduction in red light violations through the application of engineering solutions.
If our recommendations fail to meet our minimum goal of a 50 percent reduction in red light violations, we will pay the community $10,000 to be used on any traffic safety program or project it chooses. But, if we prove the validity of our contentions, the community will employ our engineering based recommendations at other troublesome intersections, and scrap its ticket camera program. What do you have to lose, other than your ticket camera revenue?
James J. Baxter
President
National Motorists Association
http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/challen
Photo radar in Alberta, particularly in Edmonton, is ridiculous and has been for a long time. What's even more ridiculous is that, with $12 Million in extra revenue, the Edmonton Police are out in the public asking for more revenue for their damned helicopter. This is the same police agency that wanted to build a $4 Million dollar dog kennel for 24 police dogs (yes, $4 million). For a dog kennel. Absolutely ridiculous.
The Edmonton Police (dis)Service is one of the worst and most inept police agencies in the entire world. But the bottom line is this - NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY SHOULD *EVER* BE REVENUE DEPENDENT ON THE VIOLATION OF LAW OF ITS CITIZENS. That's what's happening in Edmonton, and that's what's happening in DC obviously.
Is TEMPORARILY effective, until motorists get used to it and the same problems start all over again. Cameras are continuously effective.
Gregor
This sort of camera cop is evolving in atlanta and metro areas. This has been in development since before the 1996 olympics (much wasn't operational during the olympics but was promised for the olympics - actually traffic was wonderful during the 96 olympics so it turned out to not be so needed then in just helping to report traffic conditions).
......... everyone passing you up, or damn well trying to...
The draw back in using such a system is that you don't see cops pulling people over, blue flashing lights and all that generally cause everyone to slow down. Instead you will just end up generating more income for the city(s) governments with a less improvement in driving safety. But I suppose maintance of those cameras and such related expences needs that increased income...
There was even some talk of creating a second HOV like lane for those who would pay a monthly fee to drive in it....... then traffic comes to a stop, like that lane wouldn't (dream on).
For how bad traffic "sucks" around atlanta
But hey, now we got cameras that help warn those watching TV (know any vehicles with a TV that the Driver can watch?) and radio reporters not in helicopters... (Quick take a hand off the steering wheel and eyes off the road to make a cell phone call to notify the news media of an accide... screech....crash)
BTW, when traffic is not stop and go on I285, it's generally moving around 80mph (that's as much as 25mph over the speed limit....) and generally somewhat unsafe to be driving the speed limit or lower boundry of it [40mph].
The city officials must be drulling over the idea of traffic cop cameras...
They removed all the "slower traffic keep right" signs. Nobody paid attention to them anyway.
What would make a big improvement in traffic flow is to reduce the number of pickup trucks on the road (and similiar type vehicles). As some TV commercial for pickup trucks communicates....something about seeing changing scenery
Or maybe they just need to hire a bunch of people to drive around in pickup trucks and the like...
I came across this much more informative investigation of D.C.'s traffic cameras a few weeks ago. It's heavy on facts and figures, and hammers home the observation that an extra second of yellow light is at least as good at promoting good behavior, but much less lucrative for the local government and the contracting firm.
Adding an extra second of yellow light only promotes ""good behavior" because people have an extra second to run the yellow light. The key is that you aren't changing their bad behavior (the yellow light if there for people who don't have time to stop, not to speed up and rush the light which is what this is catching 99% of the time), you are just making their bad bahavior within the law. Behavior does not become "good" because it's within the law. Good behavior consists of stopping at a yellow light at all times unless you cannot stop safely.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Here in Colorado they tried to implement a system called "Photo-Red" to catch red light runners. Unfortunately, the red light runners here managed to prevent the system from going in by saying it was a violation of their right to privacy while in their own car (since the car is their "property").
Look, if I have to watch you pick your nose while you're in your car, then you have no privacy. Not like the windows on your car come with curtains. And people who run red lights and kill someone else should be shot.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
No government should ever base its revenue stream on the violation of the law by its citizens. This point cannot be reasonably be argued by anyone with any sense of deceny or justice.
If driving is a right, and not a privilege, then explain to me how it is reasonable for me to make a decent living in 2002 without a car.
At last, we have a solution to the real problem plaguing our legal system: cute girls who cry when they pulled over and thus get away with speeding, running red lights, and occasionally murder.
I wish they'd get those speeding cameras here in my state. Maybe then when millions of people start getting tickets for breaking the speed limit there'll be enough support to actually start putting reasonable speed limits in place.
Then maybe we can get the cops to focus on people failing to keep right except to pass.
A wide open left lane for rich people who can afford to pay the speeding tickets - now there's something I'd like to see.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
As I seem to remember, there's been ample use of traffic cameras in London for speeding and the like.
However, there is also a 'ring' of traffic cameras on the major roads leading in and out of London reading the license plate of (deally) as many cars as possible. These are subsequently OCR'd and checked against a police database. If a flagged veichle is registered, the police is notified and 'appropriate' measures taken.
As far as I remember, there hasn't been any particular debate about this in the UK... or maybe that was before my time...
Would anyone from the UK care to add a bit more info on this?
-
Almst all stated have a document stored at the "Department of Highways/Paths/Roadways" that list recommended yellow-light times vs speed. Usually they are quite conservitive: here in Washington State the WADOT recommends 7 seconds for a 35 MPH zone. Of courss, light arn't set this way. Video tape the light in question, bring document and present in court. You win!
Oh, and supoenna the cop just to make his life miserable. Especially if he's a motorcycle cop. If if the cop is a chick - maby you could strike up a conversation about hand-cuffs afterwards.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
in Brazil the cameras on traffic lights and photo-radars are spread all over the cities and interstates - infested describes it very well. You guys know of any counteract to these pest ( besides vandalizing - not uncommon ) ? www.hackertronics.com ??? Maybe a Anti-Radar website? http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Dropzone/6760/in tern.html
They helped a lot reducing accidents (24% in the first year?) BUT everybody has a bad feeling about how the "citation businnes" is handled.
Guilt until proven innocent//Are you sure they
have all the radars calibrated?//The
contractors must show results, right?????//
The money they get from it ( a LOT ) is not improving the quality of the roads, or the traffic, or the police, or anything, so they
say it is all about safety and education ( yeah, right, how many tickets/day?)
( if you understand portuguese, see the site of the contractor that manages the radars in the city of Sao Paulo)
Dersa
They have some "mobile" units that are placed randomly everyday! but they are kind enough to give a list of the "fixed" ones:
( The site of Sao Paulo state traffic authority )
DER-SP
Jose T Oliveira Jr.
This really isn't a violation of anyones rights. I know in our country it is innocent until proven guilty through a court of law. But why do most people, when they get pulled over by an officer of the law for speeding or what have you, pay the fine. You didn't go to court. You could have but you didn't.
I think these cameras are a great idea. It keeps honest people from risking lives. A yellow light doens't mean slam your foot on the gas. A yellow light means slow down and get ready to stop, unless it is too dangerous to slow down. Which is understandable in some situations but if you are going the speed limit it shouldn't be a problem.
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
"Even though I'm waiting on a ticket myself, I support it," Thorpe said. "It's good for the city's revenue, and it's supposed to save lives. It may be somewhat inconvenient, but then again, it also makes you a cautious driver." 1. Its good for the city's revenue if they are making money from it, it will not go away easily. this is our capitol, where they are supposed to know a little about our constitution. these are the people you trust. 2. It's supposed to save lives i think that the real issue here is cars. cars cause more casualties than cameras, so we should make them ILLEGAL 3. May be somewhat inconvenient what really may be somewhat inconvenient is when they set up a camera in your bathroom, so they can be sure you are not reading any anti-gov't literature. This is the same guy that would tell the police it is ok to search his car, "for the good of the public". Give me a break. These people really piss me off.
DISCLAIMER:
I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.
I live in NJ. People here go until they see red. Period. This is the only place where I feel I need to look both ways before going through a recently green light.
Extending the yellow would have the same effect as extending green. That's all.
<rant>As for rear-ending... I'm originally from another a state where people stop when they see yellow (imagine!), and I visit frequently. Hence, I'm not in the habit and I don't want to get into the habit of running orange lights. So, I stop when I see yellow and have time... A good way to get the finger in Jersey and maybe "BMW" stamped onto the back of my Toyota . I've gotten pretty good at hopping the curb to get out of the way. And the worse part is that NJ has no-fault insurance! If those bastards hit me, my insurance company pays for my damages and my premiums go up!</rant>
No government agency should be revenue dependent from the violations of the law by its citizens. Period.
I live in DC and on 2 occasions, in the same place, have been caught speeding by one of those camera's. Both times I was going about 40 in a 25 zone. The problem is that the road is not one in which 25mph should be the speed. If I travel at 25, or even 30 at some points, people start whipping around me, honking horns, or tailgating. It is a heavily driven route, and even appears to be a road in which the limit should be at least 35 to the uninformed. Now maybe the problem is that there really is a speeding problem on this road, but that is more likely due to the too slow limit put there, not overly aggressive drivers.
Of couse if the police catch doing >160 you'll have bigger problems than a red-light citation.
...don't forget, it is a dictatorship. Your opinion is as good as the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge there...
After all, the automobile killed more people than wars (including those against drugs and/or terrorism)!
Link is here....
And here's the text...
Red light camera tickets have temporarily been suspended throughout Sacramento county. On Tuesday, Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully announced the break, which will remain in place until the system can be reviewed.
The hiatus in the use of the devices was called because of a possible timing discrepancy in the cameras. Under current law, drivers are given 0.20 of a second after a traffic signal turns red before the camera takes a picture.
Some questions have arisen about whether or not the cameras are actually set correctly to provide the delay. The manual for the cameras specifies that delays of more than 0.15 of a second but less than 0.20 can be rounded to the higher number, meaning that some motorists may have been cited while still within the allowable limit.
The questions about the timing of when the photos will cause hundreds of red light violations to be dismissed. This is the second time there has been a mass dismissal of red light cases. In 1999, it was ruled that drivers were not properly notified of the existence of the cameras, forcing more than a thousand tickets to be thrown out.
I work for a company that provides this "service" (through a sister company) for many municipalities in the US, so my opinion may be influenced.
I am against this, unless, the "gotcha" line is well painted in the intersection and well labeled. It is wrong to have some "hidden" line in the intersection. Many people who are going through the light do not know when they are into the ticket zone. Many people assume it is the white "stop here" line...in many cases it isn't. Some places that do this have adjusted their "gotcha" line so it is far into the intersection as a way to boost tickets. People assume that since they are "in" the intersection before the light turns red, they are ok. The practice of a hidden "gotcha" line is wrong, and unethical. Other than that, I don't have a major problem with the system, as long as it is well marked ("this is a red light camera intersection"), and has a very visible "gotcha" line.
I am posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
So what happens when i opt to take the camera to court over the fine? Something tells me it won't show.
Here in Europe you get the photo and if it is not you driving the car the ticket will be null and void.
Um... Europe = a set of countries which different laws.
In Germany, for example, you do NOT get to see the photo unless you appeal.
If it's not you on the image and you don't tell them who it is, they'll actually send cops to your home who want to see you in person. Sometimes, they ring your neighbor's doorbell as well and ask them if they know that guy on the picture. Then they'll check for other people who live in your home and get the pictures from the German dept that issues national IDs and compare them to the radar photo.
If they're still unable to track down who drove the car, they let it go at first. But if that happens several times, they'll force you to write logs about who drove the car at what times.
Had that stuff happen to me once back when I lived in Germany. It's amazing how much work they put into it.
Quote: Likewise, Retting's studies show that of drivers classified as "red light runners," 80 percent enter an intersection less than a second after a yellow signal has turned red.
So, let me get this straight... you get fined if you enter an intersection which you have no way of avoiding (response time takes a hefty chunk of that 1 second... past that you can't stop). Basically, the only way to avoid hitting the red light flag at the other end of the intersection is to actually SPEED UP. How is an encouragement of speeding up increasing safety?
Just wait until they couple this price gouging with the photo radar system to ensure that if you speed up, they will catch you too.
Obviously not. That's ridiculous for them to do that kind of search for a damn traffic ticket.
These things are endemic in the UK, both lights and speed cameras. Some consequences and quirks:
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I am all for punishing those who drive recklessly, but when you punish competent, well meaning people in the process, you lose your moral high ground.
but in practice the cameras are set up to snap a picture of both your front license and your face. Since the state knows what you look like via your Drivers License, they can do a quick double check that the person driving the car looks like the person the car is registered to, and a ticket is on it's way to you in the mail. You could contest it, but you'll look like an ass in front of the judge when you do. Although in support of your point, I don't think Colorado at least charges points against your license for photo radar tickets. I believe it's purely a revenue enhancer.
I don't know how well it worked, but a guy I used to work with had his wife register his car, and visa versa. So if a photo radar ever snapped a picture, the driver of the car wouldn't even be the same sex as the registered owner. In theory, this should have kept either of them from getting tickets. Like I said, I don't know how well it worked. I don't think he made a habit of running red lights to try it out.
The standard CALTRANS yellow light timings aren't that long, though; the shortest is 3.1 seconds. These increase with speed, but not by much. As one of the original articles points out, an extra second of yellow will cut red light violations down substantially.
a friend of mine got this idea from somewhere, but i though it was a great (legal) act of civil disobediance.
said buddy got a ticket in the mail from the state of california. the ticket, which had been for $26 (or something like that), was mailed to him along with three pictures. one picture was of his car, another of his license plate, and a third of him at the wheel.
Friend grabbed his digital camera and his wallet. He laid out $26 in crisp american lardols on the table, snapped a picture, printed and mailed it back with the ticket.
He received a call from a DOT rep who laughingly told him that he was still responsible for the ticket. He went to court, fought it, and had the ticket waived by a judge who was also laughing.
social distortion rocks (and i don't mean the band)..
It's truly disappointing that these devices are being used to rake in cash in the name of public safety, especially when the same input data could be used to make the interesections work "better", e.g. minimize the possibility that a car will run a yellow, decrease or increase (to prevent speeding) the stop time at intersections.
We need to finally be beyond the era where a driver has to wait at an empty intersection at 3AM for a light to change.
The problem is that a camera has perpetual memory and with optical regognition, it would also allow profiling; letting the government track where I am at any given time. This latter more subtle aspects are what I'm worried about. A cop behind a banner doesn't have these abilities, and they are an invasion of my privacy.
I don't think works very well. I saw my picture get snapped about 4 months ago and I never got the ticket.
I like things that are sweet and not things that are lame. --
We have some interesting new ones over here in the UK now - they take note of license plates as you drive down the road, and if they see a license plate further on but sooner than it could possibly have arrived there if it was obeying the limit then it notes your plate down and takes a photo.
:) ).
So you can do 30mph in the 30mph camera zone, do 50 to the next camera, slow down to 30 again and whallop you'll get hammered.
Presumably it's the technology that TrafficMaster licensed from the police, now that it's been refined and its reliable they are using it to enforce the limits in a much more "reliable" way than assuming people will be good and obey the speed limit when they aren't being watched.
We have tons of the red-light cameras here in London and large quantities of speed cameras.
I don't have a problem with them personally, as someone else has said on the thread - yellow means stop unless it is dangerous to do so. Yellow doesn't mean you can still go, it's as good as Red. I still see lots of people using the rule:
Green means go.
Yellow means go.
Red means go if you think you can.
Lights and speed limits are there for safety folks, and while I would disagree with agencies from manipulating the lights in order to encourage higher "failings", fact is, if there is always a minimum yellow period then you've got no excuse, sorry, if that light is yellow then you are obligated to stop, immediately, no questions and no arguments, unless it is unsafe to do so.
I don't see Tailgating as a valid excuse either, my wifes solution to tailgaters is to speed up to put some distance between them - she hasn't yet twigged that this just means that they'll speed up themselves. The proper solution is to slow down so that you can drive within your normal tolerances given the distance between you and the vehicle behind - if that means you're doing 5mph because they're bumpering you, tough, they'll soon get annoyed and burn rubber past you (which becomes even more satisfying if they then nab themselves a speeding ticket from the camera moments later down the road
Matt.
==== Dear Diary ==========
http://www.deardiary.net - Put your thoughts online, Visit my diary, http://neutronic.d
We have had them in the Greater Vancouver area for the past three years now and they have done an extremely good job on catching those who run the red lights.
One such place near my place (88th and King George Highway) has seen accident reductions and it has been classified as a "high risk" zone by ICBC. They have also been proven to be helpful in other parts of the King George Highway and in parts of Vancouver.
In most cases, they come via mail and you can just claim you never got the ticket (just like ol' jury duty). Yet in other cases I have heard of, the RCMP/Municipal Police will actually come to your door with the ticket.
The system does actually work pretty decent and nobody has really attacked it.
Photo Radar however...
I do this apparently amazing and rather unheard of thing when I come to red light: I stop. I know, it may be a little hard for some people to understand, but I actually put forth the courtesy to stop at a light that is red and, thus, means "stop". Of course, the number of people that I saw run the red light outside my office window for the last four years leads me to believe most other people don't think this way.
C'mon, really. Don't think you could just leave 2 minutes earlier and not speed through every yellow/red light you come to? Pedestrians, people on bikes, and people who do actually follow a couple of the laws our fine government have come up with would appreciate it. And you know what? This way I don't have to worry about little cameras on poles, as I know they don't apply to me (unlike the fools who think red lights don't apply to them).
Posted from the wireless couch.
Green == Go
Red == Stop
Yellow == Go Faster!
And most importantly, it makes the street safer.
Yes, sir. Red light runners here in San Francisco are terrible - people get run down constantly. There are a few of these downtown, and while I initially disliked them for the usual kneejerk reasons (privacy, just a moneymaking scam, etc.) I'm pretty much for them now. If you're in such a hurry that you have to kill someone to get there, a little traffic ticket is probably the least of your troubles.
I, for one, think they should go even further and install Severe Tire Damage spikes in the crosswalks that pop up when the light turns red. Couple weeks of idiots trashing their wheels, and your problem is totally solved...
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the speed cameras (NOT the red light cameras) located in DC. For those unfamiliar with how speed cameras are implemented in DC: They (Metro PD) take about two dozen slick-top unmarked (usually black) Crown Vics specially equipped with a front radar and flash camera, to one of about 60 designated areas throughout the district (a full list of zones can be found on MPD's site at "http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/traffic/speedlocation_map . htm").
These cars (with cop inside) are usually parallel parked next to the curb just like other vehicles or sometimes on the sidewalk (either way it is usually very hard to see them until you've just passed them) and if you pass them doing over the speeding "threshold" (the speed limit in DC is 25mph unless otherwise posted) you see a nice flash and get a ticket in the mail (no points).
You might want to check out their handy FAQ at "http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/traffic/speedfaq.shtm" (it has a link to the DC Code that supposedly allows for automated traffic enforcement).
They also have some statistics ("http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/traffic/speedresults_tex t.shtm") touting the effectiveness of these cameras.
What I don't understand is if speeding is such a danger to district residents then why doesn't the cop in the speed camera car actually pull the person over and act as a deterent to further speeding for atleast that moment? On a sunny day you can't see the flash and would probably continue speeding down the road further endangering lives. Well one might say it's better the car stay put and catch more speeders. But then, what if one of those cars ticketed but didn't know it goes on to plow down an old lady crossing the street a block away? Is it to the greater good of society that more speeders were fined at the cost of someone's life?
Anyways, I quote their site:
"Please contact the MPDC to recommend a photo radar location."
The e-mail address is pburke@mpdc.org for the HTML challenged. Why not everyone let them know exactly where they can put those damn cameras.
In other areas I have seen the cameras and we have them in San Francisco too. They are becomming more and more popular across the nation as well. What are our alternatives when people have stopped obeying trafic rules?
Each day on my way to work, I see people driving over teh speed limit. Not 5 or 10 miles over but 20 miles or more. If the limit is 65 anmd I am doing 70-75, people are passing me at 80 to 100 at least! They switch lanes without using turn signals. When I get home and am crossing the street in the cross walk, people will swerve to miss me and other pedestrians but WONT slow down. People run stop signs and I have seen people speed up at stop signs cause they see cars coming up to the intersection and they refuse to slow. So what would you recommend society as a whole do to protect people?
A picture is worth a 1000 words. The only flaw in the cameras is WHO is driving the car. If you can prove that you were not driving the car then you can get off the ticket. Of course you will be required to tell who was driving the car. This can get messy when a kid takes out the parents car and the parents get the ticket. But it is nothing compared to what car rentals are doing with GPS and tracking where you take the car and how fast you go in it too.
Banks have been using cameras for getting bank robbers for years so why should this be any different? Its not like someone is using a sattelite imaging system to see who you are screwing in your bedroom .. yet....
Only 'flamers' flame!
German Autbahns rule. I wish it would be regulated everywhere in Europe as in Germany. ;-)
You haven't lived until you're driving 200kmh in the fast lane and see a Ferrari at 280kmh in your rear-mirror with flashing headlights to signal to get out of the way.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Dear God. We just got our traffic cams removed here in Hawai'i. I'd think DC will have an easier time getting their cams removed too. If not, I do believe this was also tried in Texas, where I think a judge basically said that you can't be held accountable for something you won't remember. The thought behind this being that your pic was taken on say last month. You'd get the letter a month or so after the incident and go to court, they'd ask do you remember what you did that day and you'd probably forgot said day completely. Sorry, that I don't have a url to point you guys too. How'd we get rid of the cams? Ironically, the cams caused more traffic and more accidents.
The yellow light should be on long enough to allow people who can't stop in time to get through safely. If the yellow lights are properly timed and kept that way, then I would think better of the camera's. As it is, I have been to many intersections where I am positive that if I slammed on the breaks (going a little faster (5mph) than the speed limit, I will admit), I would have ended up in the intersection, yet when I went through, the light had turned red before I had passed the white line.
.. to build am EM gun to knock these things out from a safe distance. The gun would have to fire a narrow enough beam to not kill the electronics in any passing cars/busses, and have sufficient range to aviod potential monitoring devices.
As far as I know, The person driving the vehicle gets ticketed, not the person who necessarily owns the car. I really want to know if they issue the ticket based on the numbers on the license plate that match up to the owner, or a photograph of the person driving. There is a wide range of factors that could distort the image of the driver that could make it impossible ot identify the driver. Frankly, I don't see how this method could possibly work justly.
The government is doing the speed camera policy and calling it a "safety measurment" while it is more or less only good for the country's financial benefit - we feel it is kind of an extra tax above all we already pay to drive a car.
The war on speed has also had its escalations, both in Germany and here in Holland, people start shooting the police officer who's doing a mobile Multi-Nova speed surveillance.
In Holland, somebody found a deserted Multi-Nova radar, who was flashed, and tried to remove the foto film. The speed officer drove a car against his leg which had to be amputated - a big price for a small mistake... The next thing is that the guy who's enforcing the speed camera policy, wants to take away our weapons, and forbid the usage of a radar detector, although this is legally impossible in our country.
The latest and most humane method of frustrating this policy in Holland is to go to the court for every fine received. The courts are up to their heads in work, such that the processing of the fine takes to long and is disposed even before it is tried. The web-site encourages people to go to court, and over 2001, 58% was disposed in the appeals court.
Bizar technology?
The home of eternal gridlock anyhow, was one of the earlier adopters of these. I walk 2 blocks from the subway, to work every day. And I see at least 1-2 redlight runners a day, at Mission and Spear. At least.
As a pedestrian, I'm all for every kind of enforcement imaginable.
Tho one of my biggest peeves, is bus drivers. Those clowns need to be racking up points just like non-city employees.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
They could have been place closed to dangerous intersections instead which would have been more useful... basically, the previous government here used it to raise a crapload of money and not use it for traffic saftey and there was a huge public outcry. The goverment was then voted out and the program was discontinued.
We still however have redlight cameras, which make much more sense and the public seem to agree... for the most part they work pretty well out here.
You can get more info regarding how to fight photo radar tickets and other information at the BC Safety by Education Not Speed Enforcement site.
A few weeks before the judicial decision was made that you are talking about the cameras were already being shut down due to a different lawsuit (one, which I might add, did not cost taxpayers a ton of money and actually was reached in a timely fashion).
You see, as is the case with many of these camera systems, the company owning and operating the cameras was making money based on how many tickets were brought in. Based on the complete monolpoly of control over the cameras that the company had (as you point out, even the government couldn't look at how they worked), and the conflict of interest generated by increased revenue coming in only with increased infractions, the contract that LM had with the city of San Diego was ruled illegal.
The real crime was committed by the city government, who decided that all tickets which had already been issued were to be paid, EVEN THOUGH they were legally deemed illegal in TWO seperate suits.
These cameras do not increase safety, or driver responsibility or anything like that -- they just make money for the police and the gov't. And really, that's all ANY traffic fines are for. I don't think there's a police station anywhere that actually writes traffic tickets with the intention of making the road safer -- if their goal was to make the road safer, when they set up a radar trap don't you think they should make their cars visible, so everyone and their brother would slow down to the posted speed limit? Nope -- they hide, so they can catch evil speeders going just as fast as everyone else on the road!
These cameras.. awful. Yellow lights often aren't as long as they need to be. The problem is, when you're driving and coming up to a light.. sometimes it turns yellow when you're close to it, and there's absolutely no chance that you can stop at that light. It's supposed to give you time to get through the intersection from that point before it turns red, but a lot of lights don't. I don't know if the 4-second-yellow light thing is a national thing or not, but I'm almost certain there's lights around that are less. Actually, there's a light here in Florence on Wood Ave. that you can't see the color on it from more than ~20ft away. It's totally awesome.
Also, these things really can't improve safety. Already, they mainly only catch people who get caught not being able to stop for the light. Missing the light by less than a second is bullshit, because if you'd stopped, your car probably would've rolled to a stop halfway into the intersection -- which is also illegal. It's the people who enter the intersection when it's yellow, and it turns red when they're in the middle of the intersection, that are getting screwed.. and THAT is just accidental, not running a redlight, not dangerous and killing people.
Traffic tickets are just for money, not safety. If you look over the laws on the book for any state, and especially how they're inforced, it's not hard to discover that traffic laws are designed solely to make it easier to write more tickets for more money. There's very little actual thought to safety put into them.
You people whine too much. It's like saying "the traffic camera doesn't bend the rules like a cop can. Boo hoo hoo hoo!". Sure, a cop has let me off when I deserved a ticket, where a traffic camera would not have, but it doesn't mean that I didn't deserve the ticket.
If you get nabbed by a traffic camera and *really* didn't deserve the ticket because you *weren't* breaking the traffic law in quesiton, then take it to court and argue your case. Otherwise, swallow your pride, choke back the tears, and pay the fine you deserve to be given for breaking the law.
The cameras have been installed in my neighborhood, and I've noticed a marked change in people's driving behavior, *especially* at red lights. I'd rather that a few kinks be ironed out in the traffic camera ticket system than to have even just *one* t-bone collision fatality. Period.
The obvious solution is to minimize the probability that the driver will arrive on yellow. I.e. give the right synchronization to the damn lights.
In the region where I commute, the first cars (and the entire pack altogether) systematically see yellow in the distance and catch red very near the next light, such that the waiting time is maximized. The lights are synchronized but the purpose is to make the traffic as bad as possible. The temptation to jump the lights and to get out of the vicious circle is so strong that usually the first several cars in the pack speed with more than 20 miles/hour over the limit and run the red lights. If you jump a light you are free to go for miles without stopping.
They should see which lights are typically jumped and worry about fixing the traffic instead of fining. This should bring much more benefit in the long run.
They don't work. Statistically, they have *absolutely no effect* on the numbers of killed or seriously injured in regions that are rolling them out. It's purely revenue generation.
Last year the number of accidents dropped by around 30% and the cameras were acclaimed as a massive success to all. Unfortunately this year the accident rate is up 100% and they are now saying oh yes we have peaks and troughs in the accident rates but of course the cameras are working.
It's clear that any effect on road safety that the cameras have is negligible.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
After months of screaming from the people, the Legislature backed off and the governor repealed the "VanScam" or "Talivan" program in Hawaii. The "van" reference was to the white Nissan vans that the van cam company parked on the freeways at blind spots to trap motorists. Judges were throwing the tickets out of court because there was the "guilty until proven innocent" angle, plus the fact that the private contractor running the program was getting $27 per ticket, regardless of whether it stuck in court or not. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin has a couple of stories about the demise of the hated program: http://starbulletin.com/2002/04/10/news/index1.htm l and http://starbulletin.com/2002/04/11/news/index1.htm l
Contest every ticket on every conceivable angle!
Aloha!
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Those who forget the past are doomed
You better hope they don't come up with the idea of rearward facing cameras. I saw a pic in finnish car magazine of a biker covering his rearplate with his foot. Looked like a sure way to get killed.
Begging for modpoints since '03
You need a motorbike. 190+mph more like.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Safety is a result of human behavior. You can assist that behavior with better traffic patterns, light timing, etc., but you can't dictate it.
If the light turns yellow, slow and stop. You'll never get a red light ticket this way. If you can't physically stop while going the speed limit, you should be able to make a VERY convincing case in court and you'll never pay a fine.
If it's the case that you simply don't feel that the speed limit is fast enough, GET THE LIMIT CHANGED. Your opinion about the law isn't the issue. The letter of the law is. Stop whining.
But you have to be doing more than 150mph[1].
The cameras have to take 2 pictures. If you're going above 150 they only catch you on a single frame, which isn't enough to prosecute.
[1] Yes, I've tested this and yes, I still have my license.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
While emergency vehicles are supposed to be exempt from paying fines, even ambulance drivers and fire trucks get tickets. (The Washington Times recently reported that a raft of tickets earned by D.C. police has actually slowed their response time on calls.)
Try to tell us one more time this is about public saftey. I dare you.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Sept 2001, page 13, Red Lights, loot, and the law.
I am convinced that when a for-profit business is in charge of law enforcement, the results are inevitably anti-citizen.
That maybe the reason cameras aren't placed at the most accident prone lights is because POLICE officers are placed there instead a good portion of the time? I drive in Maine quite a bit, and my little town occasionally uses auto ticketers. They are sometimes placed on a few different roads around town, places where the speed zone seems lower maybe than it ought to be. The places where there are likely major accidents, though, are usually staffed by police officers!
Jack
Read jack phelps dot net
It makes for an interesting story. In 1998, the state legislature was trying to pass this law, and I went up there and spoke against them (all the orwellian stuff...blah blah blah.) I, and a few others, in speaking against the bill, had a pretty good effect, and so the bill was amended to
a.) put a really, really big sign indicating that the intersection has the thingies
b.) let your first red light ticket be a freebie
It was the second that was the stroke of genius. See, most people are not going to run the red light more than twice...and the damn cameras are so expensive, that a good part of the ticket revenue was going to pay for them. So without a collectible fine on the first ticket, there was a guarantee that little revenue was going to come in.
Suddenly, we were able to get everyone to say that not enough money is coming in and then we were able to say "then clearly, this is not about safety now is it?" Then the camera makers said that if the bill was passed, Ohio would not see a single camera because there's no money to be made to pay for them. The bill passed the house almost barely, and the senate wasn't even gonna pick up the albatross.
In the end, a few brave jurisdictions, like dayton and toledo, put them in anyway, because ohio cities are empowered to do whatever they want if the state hasnt prohibited them from doing so. It still is not a great situation for the cities, because they should have state law to guide them. Oh well.
SYNCHRONIZE THE LIGHTS!
This is a huge problem in the area I drive in DC (Constitution.) To make matters worse, there's a stop light every 10 feet. This causes a major slinky effect with the traffic, leading to blocked intersections and people running yellow lights any chance they get. I don't understand why they haven't sychronized the lights yet, ESPECIALLY during rush hour. I guess it isn't as profitable as cameras.
The reality of free software.
What you do is you find out who your politician/whoever is in charge. Get plates made up with his car's license number and you run a few sets of cameras with those plates on a vehicle.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
This is nothing new. Traffic cameras just like this have been in operation since 1996 in Scottsdale Arizona.
Simple.
I regularly max out my bike. That's close to 200mph.
Unless slashdot is heaven, I'm still alive.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I have read many of the replies and must say that the people who replied complaining are just not seeing the picture.
When one of your children is killed by someone who decides to run a redlight, how many days will you regret.
I can understand after reading a lot of your comments that most people are unsatisfied with other drivers and the generic traffic problems.
So how do you make this better?
Allow people to continue to disobey traffic laws?
Allow Yellow to mean speed up before it turns red?
Make the redlight conditional?
I don't know what the answer is but one thing is for sure that control is needed. Without control we will have more accidents and more accidents means more people injured.
I am tired people justifing that running a redlight to save 45 seconds in arriving at there destination, is worth the error of causing injury or even death. If we all drove with this in mind maybe the world would be a safer place to drive.
This goes for everyone Europe and the USA. BTW in Europe we drive far worse than the USA, that is the reason why countries have been using these photographing techniques for years because they don't have the cash to put policecar on every corner.
Glad to see the states has caught on.
Nothing that a 12 gauge shotgun wouldn't take care of. Afraid of getting too close? Use a 308. (Make sure there are no houses behind the target).
Let's not forget that running red lights kills people
Hitting people kills people.
And they don't place them near accident blackspots they place them for maximum revenue generation.
The accident rate is up 100% this year. Oh no, that's just a statistical anomaly, nothing to do with the cameras. Yet when the rate goes down it's the cameras making the roads safer.
Bullshit. The evidence is that the cameras have bugger all effect on accident rates. Weather, driver inattention, lack of observation, mobile phones, drinking, eating, driving without glasses, changing the radio station and just utter utter stupidity are what cause accidents.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
About two years ago I moved from Auckland, New Zealand to southern New Hampshire. I'm still appalled by typical driving behaviour here. Speeding, red light running and not stopping at stop signs is VERY MUCH more noticeable than at home in NZ.
I don't consider myself a particularly slow driver or someone who always has to painfully follow the letter of the law but my morning commute to work usually goes like this:
Between my house and the highway: limit 35, no lights. I do just over 40. There is a queue of impatient drivers behind me when I get to the onramp. Several will squeeze past me near the top of the ramp to get onto the highway in front of me.
Two lane highway at 55 and then 50 not really a problem because its too busy to go much faster.
Limit becomes 40 about a mile before a light controlled intersection. Car in front of me carries on with no speed change. I slow down to about 48 (still fast enough for a speed camera fine in NZ). Traffic builds up behind me, drivers probably wondering why I am going so slow.
Road becomes four lane, limit still 40, the drivers behind me, fuming with frustration by now, finally get their chance and pass me doing about 55 towards the intersection often resulting in several running the first few seconds of red light. The trip continues with more of the same.
Stop signs and right turn on red light are routinely treated the same as a yield (ie just slow down and look) by everyone, including police cars. Someone ran into the back of me because I actually stopped before turning right on a red. His first question was 'Why did you stop?'.
I guess my frustration is mainly about the rather wide and undefined 'allowed margin of error' on speed limits, offical or otherwise that the cops won't book you for. I never know whether to go with the flow or be a pain to others and slow down to at least somewhere near the speed limit. The speed limits should either by enforced or if they are unreasonably slow then they should be raised.
Off topic somewhat but I was stopped by a cop for having a brake light out. No problem with that but then he expressed concern that I was driving in bare feet! He was about to say more about this when I interrupted and asked if it was illegal and he said he didn't know. I've since learned that there are no laws in NH (and most other states) about driving in bare feet. NH doesn't even require adults to wear seat belts so why he should have an interest in my feet is still a mystery.
Ross
These things were an invasion of privacy, until I saw some stupid Yuppie soccer mom with an Excusion full of kids run a red in Pasadena and almost take out a crosswalk full of kids walking home.
If you're not doing anthing wrong you won't be affected plain and simple. If you insist on trying to take unfair advantage of the system you'll get caught. Seems reasonable enough to me, get over it. You can still move somewhere else if you really don't like it.
use Signature::Witty;
The only people who I could see protesting the cameras are people who like to go over the speed limit and speed up to see if they can make it through the yellow. Personally I slow down at a traffic light, even if it's green I still slow down a bit. It's not a privacy issue at all. Changing the length of the yellow so they can catch more people, that's just stupid and makes the intersection more dangerous.
Here in Europe we have these for years.
-- bmp System Support - Vienna, Austria
In B.C. (Canada), we went throught the automated enforcement cash grab for a number of years until the new "Liberal" gov't shut it down last year.
There was a group formed during the height of the craziness called Safety by Education Not Speed Enforcement (SENSE). They are an advocacy group and have gathered a lot of information and resources for those who wish to fight this thing at the political level.
They also have suggestions on strategies for dealing with any ticket you receive. Keep in mind that their suggestions specifically deal with BC law, but they can probably be used as a starting point and adapted for use in other jurisdictions.
One example: if you get a ticket in the mail and you know it is you and that you probably were speeding, don't pay it right away. In BC (and I suspect most US jurisdictions) a mailed citation is not enforcable. Therefore in order to convict you in absentia, they must first serve you personally. Sending out a process server costs them money and cuts down on their profit margin. In the BC situation, if you were not home the first time and they had to send out the server again, they ended making loss on the ticket, even if you did eventually pay it. They also have tips for arguing your case if do decide fight your ticket in court.
Usual disclaimers: IANAL, nor have I ever played one on TV; YMMV; void where prohibitted.
Trickster Coyote
I'm just a figment of your imagination.
Ideology is for ideots.
Here, when the light turns red that means that only 2 more cars are allowed through the intersection.
Another interesting aspect is that LM fiercely resisted having their hardware and software examined by the plaintiffs... People who have fought their red light tickets in court and who wanted the design details and calibration records for the camera that photographed them were routinely refused this information
Hm, that's becoming a familiar story today...
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
1. The speed limit is too high for the quality of drivers here (most can't even use a turn signal) or see above the steering wheel. 2. The roads are built very poorly by people who have little or no idea about inseria, roads "lean" the wrong way around corners or have level changes on the apex of a corner. 3. Red means stop. If you don't stop, and many don't here, then you are risking your life and the lives of others coming the other way and should be prosecuted to the hilt. 4. Driving tests are weak, if you can get to the DMV alive, you passed. This is wrong. 5. Driving is not a right, it's something you earn as a privelidge. 6. 50% of people have no insurance. Introduce a compulsory two year re-test, get the red light jumpers off the road and prosecute people who don't signal. Traffic calm busy areas and increase the speed limit on open desert highways. Above all, some common sense would seem to fit the need.
Everyone will just start slamming their brakes at such intersections REGARDLESS of whether it is called for. If you get rear-ended it is almost always the other guys fault regardless of the situation anyway. Will they blame the increase in rearenders on their lights......no. I'll just make a bumper sticker that says "I brake HARD for camera lights." Fair warning for anybody who has to drive behind me.
They have those camera's here in Medford, OR. I have no problem with them for a simple reason. It DOES make a lot of people not run them. As it iis now (because they aren't up yet), people run red lights like crazy. Where the cams are, people are definately stopping now. Someone could get killed at some of these intersections for crossing the street when the light turns red..
One of the factors that needs to be included in yellow time duration is clearance time. This actualy increases with lowered speed limits, which DC is also working on enforcement for. Here in Texas, the yellow times of typically 4 seconds for 3 lane (each way, both) roads is most definitely NOT taking into account the clearance time.
And "go if the way is clear" for green is BS! Total BS! Absolute utter CRAPOLA! If everyone did that, the roadways would be gridlock with every car coming to a stop to make sure the intersection is totally clear before proceeding. If the traffic is running fast, that's not a problem, but during rush hour, that kind of stupidity can turn a 30 minute commute into a 2 hour commute. Clearing the tail on an interesection would take 1/20 the time as would be experienced if everyone stopped at every green during those slow commutes to do what you suggest. I'm glad as hell that 99.999% of motorists do NOT do anything as assinine as that.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
People who run red lights risk my life, and yours, not just their own
I agree completely. The number of people protesting actual *punishment* for running red lights here on Slashdot is disgusting. This is something that's easily avoidable (yes, you may have to going back to not accelerating when you see a yellow light), potentially fatal, and has a picture to allow human review if necessary.
So far this is the best solution to the problem. I say apply it until something better (like computer-driven cars) can be widely deployed.
This isn't a freedom issue or a tech issue. This isn't a "should music copy protection be allowed?" question, where the consequences aren't that awful one way or the other. This is about preventing people from committing a potentially fatal crime.
May we never see th
Bus or bicycle are both options I've seen used. I suppose if you lived in a city, subway would also be an option.
You can also reduce pollution and traffic congestion by doing so.
May we never see th
The camera is for people who intentionally entered an intersection, not those that were leaving it on a red light, and at a specific speed or greater. READ THE ARTICLE.
The lights make absolutely no distinction of the rest of your driving behavior leading up to the incident.
Well, I don't know where you are from, but here on the planet earth, where the rules of physics are pretty consistent we use this...
Kinetic energy = 1/2mv2
IF YOU SLOW THE HELL DOWN, AND WERE DRIVING APPROPRIATELY, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT LANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION. You could actually not have to endanger someone to go around town. I know, its shocking, but true.
I don't even think that the "maximize revenue" argument is even remotely valid. Property taxes maximize revenue. This may be slightly profitable, but I would argue that this is still a fine. A fine against jackasses that have to match this criteria:
1. HAS TO ENTER THE INTERSECTION AFTER IT IS RED.
2. HAS TO BE GOING HIGHER THAN A SPECIFIC SPEED.
In other words, if you slammed your brakes to stop and wouldn't just sail through the intersection anyway? NO FINE. You're in the intersection on the yellow and getting out? NO FINE. You go through a redlight in the middle of the night at a really slow speed? NO FINE. Someone on a three member board questions it? NO FINE.
Sounds fair to me.
I have witnessed several redlight child killings in my history as a photojournalist.
It keeps my speed down.
I've been driving for many years without a ticket for a moving violation or a serious accident. It is not that difficult to obey the law and drive safely. Most of the problem is people's attitude towards driving. The road is not a race track, traffic signals and signs are not friendly suggestions. Driving like a jerk does not make you into a real man/woman.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
...about photo-radar, and which can be extended to traffic cameras:
People who speed will usually acknowledge that their activity is unsafe, but that statistically they stand a very minor increased risk of serious accident. The police obviously disagree, and set up photo radar. The speeder's picture is taken, and then what happens?
They mail the picture (and ticket) to the speeder's residence!
Doesn't that pretty much imply that the speeder made it home safely to receive the ticket?
I'm not going to get into a flame war with anyone over the various aspects of whether or not to stop/go at yellow or red lights... But I will say this much - fight the cameras with everything you've got.
1) It's not me. I'm sorry, but I don't know who that could be driving my car. It's not me. They can't prove that it is you.
2) The camera is not calibrated properly. Please provide me with the calibration records. Oh you refuse? Sorry, then you can't prove that the camera is accurate, and since you can't prove it is accurate, I'm going to assume it's inaccurate.
3) Put a fresnel lens on your license plate - you can see it from dead on (say if a cop is behind you), but not from some goofy angle... It'd be even better if it had a hologram saying "FUCK OFF PICTURE READERS" or something that could be seen when photographed...
4) Rip the cameras out, spray the lenses with WD-40, scratch the lenses, put bags over them, put up GIANT signs saying "DANGER: TRAFFIC CAMERA AHEAD", repoint them at trees... By the way - there's a web site in the netherlands where they have pictures of what people have done to the cameras... Pretty funny.
5) Just don't pay. They sent it in the mail, you never got it. Let them have you served. Then go to court, say you never got the notification until you were served, and you want a continuance to prepare... Get a long date. Then go to court, and plead innocent because it's not you, the thing is inaccurate, etc.
6) Screw with the sensors...
7) Four words: Slingshots and ice cubes
8) Paint new lines in the intersection...
9) Find out what kind of film they use, what light wavelength it is most receptive to, and install one on your car right by the license plates - Volia! Overexposed pictures...
10) If you get rear-ended at one of these lights - SUE EVERYONE. SUE THE STATE AGENCY THAT DECIDED TO PUT THE DAMN THINGS IN, SUE THE PEOPLE WHO INSTALLED IT, SUE THE CONTRACTOR THAT RUNS THEM, SUE THE PEOPLE WHO SET THE TIMING ON THE LIGHTS, SUE THE FOOL WHO CRASHED INTO YOU. Make certain that the news media hears about it every day.
11) Deluge your congresscritter with complaints. Might be good for something... what I don't know, but maybe...
I almost missed him.
Many drivers break the law in frustration at overloaded roads, peak hour confusion, impatience etc. I catch a train, read the paper, a novel, etc, and get to work much less stressed than when I used to drive.
Ask yourself this question many times, and ask yourself what can be done to rectify this problem.
Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?
Same here in the USA but many morons think that
they passed the written test because they weren't
denied their driving license. You don't have to
have all the answers to be awarded your driving
license and in most places they don't tell you
which questions you missed.
We have a multiple choice on this and one of the
answers is speed up to go thru. There was a
special show on TV a few years back where they
tested people on the written test and over 70%
of the population answered that.
I think that you should not be allowed your
license unless you get 100% on the written test.
The questions are so stupid that you have to
be a moron not to know the answers.
Red-light cameras and speed cameras have been in Australia for years now and they've generated a new way to express your opinion of the state police.
Get a few mates onto the back seat of your car, cover the number plate, then get your mates on the back seat to moon through the rear window while you drive through a red light! Great fun!
Not surprisingly, no city has yet taken them up on the offer. You decide why.
They take a large cut of the proceeds from those cameras just like they do in SD. When I lived in Woodbridge, VA (a few miles south of DC). I watched a furor about it on Fox news. Thank God I live in Texas now. They have a law against these damn things.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Here in Australia, they just send you a tix and say you can come drive 2hrs to our headquarters to see the pix, or send us $25 and we'll mail it to you.
Talk about unfair.
He makes two good points in that complaint:
1 - it was his son driving. "Ah, ok, never mind then. So long as it's only your relatives breaking the law. Let us know the next time your son wants to endanger everyone so we won't bother you."
2 - I love that last line. "It was less than a second after it turned red!" (and presumably, less than 3 or 4 or 5 seconds after the light turned yellow?). Sort of an "I only slightly broke the law...". "I only shot him less than twice...". "I only stole less than $1000..."
Hawaii, the Aloha state, the state with some of the most friendly and courteous drivers, initiated a pilot red-light and automatic speed detection program in 2000.
According to this article, public outcry about parts of the program led to the law being repealed. We should probably keep an eye on how this turns out because it will probably set a precedent for the rest of the country.
The local police where I live (Perth, Western Australia) have a trailer which they often have on display at public events like car shows and fairs etc. It features a photographic display of dozens of incidents which they have caught on speed and red-light cameras.
After a bit of a net-search the best link I could find to show the sorts of photos they had was
here
Unfortunatly I couldn't find the whole collection but the photo at the bottom of this page illustrates the sort of thing which happens. They actually had about 8 different incidents photographed at this very same intersection (near Perth Airport) including a guy being knocked off his motorbike and being thrown across the bonnet of the car. For some reason this intersection seems to attract accidents.
It really is fascinating (if a little morbid!) to see exactly how bad the results of running red lights can be.
If you don't pay in time, the whole thing goes to a police-judge, who determines the fine.
Nah, this is not the eastern block where the cop is the judge is the jury and you can always contest the police courts verdict and ask for a real court with a real judge determining your guilt, which is also the first time where you get to see your fotos.
Fotos? Yes, right: They take your picture from the back and the front and you'll have to be wearing a mickey-mouse mask to lie your way out.
Of course, if you don't pay the initial fine and have the whole thing go to court it gets mighty expensive, plus you risk your license for a month or more if you've done something exceedingly dumb - like running the light after it turned red for over a second. Yakking away on a cell phone will turn you in for the added bonus contest.
Facsist police state? Well, people here don't quite see it that way. If you run a light you're endangering lifes and if you're so fucking dumb to believe that you can lie your way out, then you deserve the full treatment of the law.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
We have had speed cameras for years. But typical Australia (taking things one step too far), Canberra (the capital) have installed speed cameras in red light cameras, so when you floor the car to get through the amber, you get booked.
... :(
In Melbourne, the state government have placed permanent speed cameras on most of the major freeways and changed the driving laws so if you are caught doing 3kph (1.8mph) over the speed limit you are fined!
And the icing on the cake? Australian Standards for car speedometers state that they must be within a 10% margin of error. So in a 60kph zone you could be doing bang on 60 (so the car says), and you are actually doing 65kph.
Other countries have it lucky
I visited Poland a few months ago and their traffic lights are better than ours. Instead of our simple Green, Yellow, Red they have:
Red Yellow - light will become green, get ready
Green - go (just like us)
Green Yellow - light is about to go yellow
Yellow - stop if you can safely (just like us)
Red - stop (just like us)
I don't think Red Yellow is a good idea for us. Yeah, let's encourage MORE people to drag race!
However, the Green Yellow is a great idea. It provides the benefits of an extra long yellow, without the possibility of being ambiguous when not all lights are timed the same.
In the US, I find myself using the WALK/DONT WALK light for pedestrians to gauge how much longer a green light far ahead is going to stay green. Then I can decide if I should be slowing down or speeding up to make sure I don't end up in the uncertainty zone.
Not all stop lights have the pedestrian signals. Or, some have a pedestrian light that always stays DONT WALK unless a real pedestrian hits the button to activate it, which is no use for judging how long the green will remain. Or sometimes they just aren't easy to see from the road.
Protest by driving extra slow,snarl traffic,ruin tourism ect...organize ,fight back
Traffic cameras have come and gone rather quickly here. They were introduced on a trial run starting in December of last year and went live with actual citations in early January. The program is now dead. Legislators moved to repeal the program, and Governor Cayetano basically terminated the program by the end of April.
The program was incredibly unpopular, or it was unpopular with incredibly vocal people. People cited things like invasion of privacy to how this was all just a money-making scheme by the government to proof of guilt. It even got the point where the ACLU stepped in because the company running the program was allowed access to people's SS#'s. Now that's a no-no.
The program was basically implemented as poorly as possible. ACS, the company that was contracted, and the State DOT basically went about it a very unpopular fashion. In addition, they never bothered to change the law. The basic speed law in Hawaii (and most places) indicates that you must identify the driver of the vehicle. That's incredibly difficult and is virtually impossible at night, if you're going to be taking pictures from the side of the road. In addition, the company and the DOT made a lot of PR errors along the way, and the program basically died.
Oh well. Now we can get back to that debate about speed and fatality rates. Where's all that Montana data, anyway? And isn't this thing U-shaped? You are actually safer if you are travelling 5-10 mph faster than everyone else because faster drivers are usually paying more attention to the road.
Where the wind blows, the tumbleweed goes.
welcome to civilisation. ;-) in germany we have red-light and speeding cams for years (>>20!!). the town communities are calculating their year income in advance by anticipating a certain amount from this budget item. cameras here are sophisticated and advanced, there's nearly no chance to appeal the ticket. running a red light suspends normally your driving license for a month btw. you get used to (means you know the location of) the fixed cameras. the evil ones e.g. are the portable $50000 cams in the back of an unsuspiciously looking wagon with tinted windows parking in a row of other cars at the curb side.
that's all reality here since i can think of - which is at least 25 years. the penalties are not that high compared to the US or other european countries (well, don't want to speak about the severe penalties in the land of the free for DWI, that's even more dramatic). i don't understand the fuzz about feeling the privacy concerned. i lived for some time in the US and generally speaking, there's definitely more gerneral surveillance cams compared to any other country in the world.
Or they must have pretty full on flashes
we have blinking green before yellow. Very useful if you see blinking green from the distance you will slow down without emergency braking. Also if you enter intersection during yellow light you have the right to leave it when lights turn red.
Completely true. This is a scam to net the gov't more money. If they were truly concerned with safety, how about increasing the yellow light time by a second or two? Most people do not want to run red lights...it's a good way to get killed. But they also don't want to brake like a maniac when the signal turns yellow...if they are close enough they continue driving. Especially if the road is a little icy or wet. That's what the yellow light is for. Make the yellow long enough to be a reasonable time to stop, and more people will stop.
Constitutionally Correct
I don't know what kind of results this thing produces, but I'd be certain that it does automatic tickets.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
it's like that in hungary as well. the reason they do that is because over there most people drive stick, and it warms of the green light so people can shift into first and go when it does turn.
Grab yourself a proper frequency counter and find out what frequency the radar leaves the camera at. Using Doppler's forumlae figure out what frequency is necessary to cause a reading of 98 MPH or 69 MPH (or some similarly improbable number less than 100). Find/tune a magnetron to the frequency you have calculated. Park a car or rent an apartment close enough to the camera and point said magnetron at the camera. The camera likely uses unmodulated radar and will be incapable of distinguishing the source of the microwave radiation/reflected waves causing the camera to take lots of pictures of "nothing" going 98 MPH or cars that obviously couldn't be doing 98 MPH.
The hilarity in this is that if it worked you would likely see the camera serviced many times and even replaced several times. I wonder if they'd figure it out and then try to determine the source of the microwave radiation. The downside is a potential visit from the FCC but I imagine the camera is a Part 15 device and as long as you can show you are not maliciously interfering with it you can probably beat the rap. How to explain your pointing a magnetron out the window of your house is your business. Don't use more than a few milliwatts or else you may find cancer or unusual warmness to be a side effect.
In the city limits of Chicago, you learn a trick while driving, which is to count to three after _your_ light turns green, just to avoid getting hit.
In the suburbs, the rules are a little different. There, you go a little sooner than three, but still have to watch it. In some of the larger intersections, where traffic is eight lanes across, the interesection itself is so large that lights are set for there to a brief period of "four-way red".
The article cited jammed film. Why aren't they using digital cameras?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
If the LCDs malfunctioned, that could take a lot of explaining!
"Excuse me, Sir? Are you aware your numberplate is flickering on and off? We'd like a word with you, Sir..."
You could even have it spell out interesting phrases as you went past cameras. If this became common, they'd have to put up video cameras covering the approach to the speed cameras, and have them automatically preserve the video footage if the speed cameras triggered... and you'd be in real trouble...
Oh, and I suppose they'd need another video camera facing forwards from the speed camera, to catch motorcycles. And another one to watch it all to make sure it doesn't get vandalised ;)
Sen vord is thrall and thocht is fre,
Keip veill thy tonge I conseill the.
I drive a 30 year old, 3.5k lb truck with drum brakes. Even had 'highway speeds' of 55 I have never had trouble slowing down to stop when the light turned yellow. For all the brains slashdot people claim to have you think they could take in the situation of an intersection and stop at it in 4 seconds...
Hear hear... E-town is going insane... I couldn't believe it when they were actually announcing a "revenue"(!!!) Their job isn't to make money... their job is to protect, to save lives, all that jazz...
Damn Bob Layton and the st00pid fscking helicopter
^_^x