Slashdot Mirror
Police Objecting to Tickets From Red-Light Cameras
caffiend666 writes "According to a Dallas Morning News article, any 'Dallas police officer in a marked squad car who is captured on the city's cameras running a red light will have to pay the $75 fine if the incident doesn't comply with state law ... Many police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit.' Is this a case for or against governments relying on un-biased automated systems? Or, should anyone be able to control who is recorded on camera and who is held accountable?"
Period. They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest. And if that is the case, then the law ought to be amended. There should not be a double-standard.
...it's just a case of those in power thinking they're above the law.
On the one hand, I'm glad that cops will be forced to obey the law, and not think they are above it. There are cops in my town who park in the fire lane all day.
On the other hand, I really detest red light cameras. They basically operate on the "guilty until proven innocent" principle, sometimes they get you on yellow. Most of the time, they are designed for profit (I've heard companies that manufacture these are often paid per conviction, thus increasing incentive for abuse), not public safety.
Where I live, the traffic cameras are not placed at the most dangerous intersections, but at the ones they think will generate the most revenue for the city. Gines are more than $350 per offense, and go as a point (4 in a year can mean suspension) on your license.
I think my hatred of these red light cameras outweigh my delight about the police getting their ironic comeuppance. I think they should be banned.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
..yup..
Red-light cameras don't take into account that there are good reasons to run through red lights. Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time. What if there is rain or snow on the ground? You might also run a red light if someone is following too closely to you and you don't want to get rear-ended when you slam on the brakes.
At least if a human cop sees you run a red light for a reason, you can explain that to him and he can let you go. The cameras are unforgiving. They are totally biased, because they assume if the camera catches you, you are in the wrong. That's not always the case.
They don't signal.
They don't follow street laws
They tailgate people at night to "nudge" people into doing wrong.
So it's caught on camera you say? So they object you say?
Go figure. Hey while your at it meter-maids, grow a backbone and give them a ticket for illegally parking going for coffee.
Bah
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
At least that's the theory. If their transgressions are covered by rights afforded to them to help them do their job, they can have the ticket waived, but otherwise they're just like you and me, not gods of the streets.
All these cameras are just there so we don't fall behind in the world wide surveillance competition. Wait, you're not unpatriotic are you?
Gentlemen, we must not allow a CCTV gap!
I think that cops SHOULD be held accountable for running a red light if they're on patrol, or just driving back to the precinct. The upholders of the law should be held to the law as well.
That said, there are numerous acceptable reasons for a cop to run a red light. A few I can think of off the top of my head...
-An officer is on his way to stop or going to the scene of a 911 call.
-A suspect car runs a red light as well, and in order to continue, pursuit, the cop must also run the red light.
At this point, technology is still in earlier stages, but...
-You could make a filter with police car license plates, and forward them to the appropriate precinct.
-If not possible, human verification and forwarding.
Wow, paranoid any? Do you really think a police officer would see your opinion, somehow get a subpoena for slashdot to get your IP, somehow get another subpoena to get your contact information from your ISP, all while hoping you live in their jurisdiction, just if they happen to pull you over they will recognize that you are the "red light camera supporter?" Get a life.
Why run the red light when the officer could just flash the sensor with their beam thing and turn the light green?
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Why don't you get an account using a nickname, so no-one knows who you really are?
Beaverton is already fighting one of its police officers about this very thing.
. ssf?/base/metro_west_news/117471759957650.xml&coll =7
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index
Here's one I can support: the mayor, city councilmen, and traffic engineers who supported the red light cameras in the first place shall pay a $2000 fine if photographed running a red light. Then we'll see how fast those fucking cameras get taken down.
The law makes exceptions for emergencies, hot pursuits, etc. Those are the only times when an officer should be running a red light. If they break the law, they can pay the price like other citizens.
Minnesota's highest court recently struck down the use of these cameras, as practiced in the Twin Cities, because the ticket automatically charged the owner of the car, without concern for whether they were actually driving or not when the picture was taken.
Red Light Cameras
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
So, what are the odds that any police officer that pulls you over reads /. in the first place?
How about reading this specific article?
And reading your comment?
And they remember your username and what you said?
And are able to connect that comment to you when they pull you over?
Do you intend on adding your vehicle make, model, and license plate number to your post, as well as the time and location of some minor offense you're going to commit?
I'm glad this happened. I know police who routinely drive recklessly with no emergency. I know of one cop who died doing this. They really should try to set a good example for the rest of us. I've asked cops about enforcing traffic laws where other cops are concerned and they have always told me that they don't do it b/c they might need his or his department to back him up.
The automated system doesn't have to think about such, and if there were an emergency the required put others at higher risk with that kind of driving then the cop can get it overturned in traffic court just like the rest of us.
Don't worry, your crimethink has been detected and registered (hint: it's doubleplus ungood). There is no cause for alarm if you're approached by some soldiers from Miniluv. They only want to help your Ingsoc education.
Let's all sing a round of "Oceania 'Tis for Thee", shall we?
The police (like the rest of the government) must follow the laws like the rest of the citizens. This may seem like a radical concept, given today's elected leaders, but some of us have been fans of it since it was first put into practice in the 13th century.
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
I used a similar argument for going 108 in a 70. The sheriff was not amused.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
XXX#######
If I hear a suspicious noise at night, I don't want a cop to stop and wait for every light to turn green on the way to my neighborhood because he doesn't want a ticket, or doesn't want to do the paperwork it would take to get out of the ticket...The cop needs to get there as quickly and safely as possible and shouldn't have other things on his mind.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Uh...are these same cameras in the area also doing the same fines for other people, not just the police who run the lights?
I would follow that it is not just police, fire, and ambulance that should always follow the law except when it is in public interest, but that politicians and celebrities should follow the law too, and also that it doesn't necessarily need to be a "public interest" - If my friend has a gunshot wound and I'm driving him to the hospital in my car (and I'm not in an ambulance...), I do not have malicious intent if I slow for a red light, make sure no one is coming, and then carry on through the intersection. In such a situation, I shouldn't get a ticket either.
I've seen countless police officers that pull people over, then cruise down the road at 90mph, set up another speed trap, pull someone over...if there's no need for the officer to speed, he shouldn't be doing it either.
In soviet russia...oh...wait...
I can't tell you HOW many times I see a cop running a redlight, or even a CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) bus going through as if it were a green light. I absolutely love when people who think they are above the law get a nice dose of reality.
Its not like theres no difference between police cars and normal cars, the license plates especially are FAR different.
Police cars in a lot of cities don't use real license plates at all, they use a tag in place of the license plate that shows the car number usually along with a color code for the precinct.
Either way I think police should be able to run red lights if they need to, and that includes following suspicious persons on foot or otherwise. They should not be able to just run red lights for ANY reason, but i think they should be careful and try not to do it at high speed, thats where the problems come from.
The the camera is punishing you for your inability to control your average driving speed.
There is no reason you have to go 70k on a inner-city street, right?
In my city (Minneapolis), all of the traffic lights have sensors on them that warn other motorists when emergency vehicles are approaching. These sensors are wired to the lights and sirens of the vehicle, so that they get priority when approaching intersections. How hard is it to tie these sensors to the red-light cameras so that they're disabled while the emergency vehicle has to go through the intersection?
On the other hand, if the cop didn't have his lights and sirens on when he ran the red light, he should be held accountable just like any other citizen. There was no emergency, therefore he had no right to break the rules.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
My bicyles
Maybe I'm just living under a rock, (I don't drive much, living in downtown Montreal), but I've never even heard of red-light cameras. Sounds awful. Do they have them in Canada? How prevalent are these things?
Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time.
Speeding.
What if there is rain or snow on the ground?
Unsafe driving for conditions.
You might also run a red light if someone is following too closely to you and you don't want to get rear-ended when you slam on the brakes.
Good point. Of course, having the photo as evidence would help you when you go to court to contest the ticket.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
that article tells us that obviously, many officers do not know the laws very well. So? Why should the ./ crowd be bothered?
Then you are going too fast for the road conditions. This is not a valid reason to run a red light. I'm no driving rules nazi - I have owned and driven performance cars quickly, on the road. I freely admit that I treat speed limits as 'guidelines'. This said, you should always drive taking into account hazards. A red light is a warning of a hazard (intersection, pedestrian crossing).
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
However, in the course of a disagreement between Scottsdale and the State, use of the cameras to generate citations was stopped but the data was still collected for analysis by a local professor. It seems that during that time, a lot of law-enforcement cruisers were caught going far over the limit without lights, etc.
On top of that (IIRC) there was a wreck a bit ago involving a private vehicle and law enforcement; needless to say, the private driver was cited by the cop. Said private driver's attorney subpoena'd the speed cameras and guess what?
I've also heard of other cities where the red-light cameras where police involved in wrecks at intersections wrote up the other party only to have the camera results subpoena'd and turn the tables. Fine by me -- a red-light camera would have saved me a lot of time and expense several years ago.
IMHO you can argue speed cameras either way but red lights should just plain have recorders, period.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
either they always turn red as i approach, or they won't turn green until the car has stopped. i'm only half joking when i say that everyone should be allowed to run red lights as they see fit. so long as they look both ways and it is safe to do so. V for Vendetta, folks.
allow me to do exactly the same thing.
The only time an officer should be able to violate traffic law with impunity is when it is required for performance of their public duty. (i.e. a pursuit, or when responding to an emergency situation)
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I worked at two police departments.
Officers are supposed to obey all traffic laws. Code 1 and code 2 responses require obeying the laws. Only code 3 calls (lights and siren) allow them to break these laws.
Cops frequently break these rules. Sometimes it's about expedience, sometimes it's about laziness.
Most cops have informal "code 2 high" which means not using lights or siren and breaking traffic laws as safely as possible. Sometimes they will just use a quick squirt of the lights to get through an intersection.
Bottom line: if the regulations specify obeying the law then they damn well ought to. They are setting a horrible example. When the regulations allow it they should of course feel free to go all out.
Then that assumption should change too.
Traffic court shouldn't just be a money collecting thing, it's supposed to be a court!g
Man up, Nancy. Despite the popularity of claiming otherwise, we don't live in a police state.
If you're too afraid to say something even mildly anti-government, then the problem is with your paranoia. Even if you were right, though, giving into your fear by self-censoring would only help your would-be oppressors.
Either you're overly scared, or I'm not scared enough. It doesn't matter. Either way, it's our moral duty to express ourselves.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_ custodes%3F
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I live in Dallas currently, and let me say, these cameras are starting to go up everywhere, at just about every single light in the city. And Dallas, especially around the downtown area, lights are designed to make you want to run them. There's a set of lights on Commerce St that all match, except one, in the middle, so you can typically breeze halfway through most of them and then you have to wait, can go one, and have to wait for that one then you can finish. It's ridiculous, it's a tiny street never used by anybody, and if they are they have to turn onto Commerce(one way, 3 point intersection).
There's lots of other places, recent construction has literally removed some intersections, but not the lights, which are left running just as before(some with extended hours! Typically blink yellow after 9, but not anymore). Although, I seriously run them and they haven't put cameras up there yet and I would argue and drag it out long enough to make a police officer regret stopping me, but I have seen others stopped because of it. The lights going into downtown(mainly Elm and Main) are typically tuned so you're going to just miss each one and have to wait the full length of time to go, or buses are everywhere and because of continuing construction have to block all traffic going in a certain direction, as the bus lane is now a construction lane. It's quite aggravating and these traffic cams are an insult to everyone in Dallas, "We don't have good roads or a decent traffic system but we'll ticket you for it!" and probably an insult just about everywhere else in the country. I can see reasons, especially at dangerous lights, and I hate to defend myself, but a 3 mile trip shouldn't be 20-30 minutes because of 8 traffic lights(typically having to wait twice at two of them because of some additional not syncing up on cross streets). Fix the system first where running a light is trying to be a bastard instead of trying to go to the grocery store, then let's put them at dangerous intersections and highway/feeder type intersections, and let's go from there.
That being said, and the cameras not about to go anywhere, I find it quite fabulous that an officer is being forced to pay. We had a whole spat of police fired within the past two years because of unpaid traffic fines in different cities and counties and this just adds to the fun. Of course we're completely understaffed, have a terrible corrupt staff, and a high crime rate by police officers who will not look at anything except a speeder. I actually went to report a break in of a car(that was happening at that exact moment) and an office told me he needs to steal the car and speed or he won't care. Then they tried to beat up on our Derby Girls! C'mon! That's just low.
How old are you?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
XXX#######
and some are more equal than others. I believe that only the Star Wars movies show the correct wording from one of the Chancellors: "No one is above the law." Obviously the police don't like being policed by their own systems. The bad part about this is that I have seen the local gendarmarie here come up to a red light, not under call conditions, hit their lights and sirens to go through a red light, then kill them. I tailed a cop doing this once and he was headed right for the drive-up line at a McD's. I have no symphathy at all for them.
firetrucks don't have license plates and they don't need ETC tags ambulance do need the tags.
"Seriously, who is crazy enough to post a real opinion on a public forum without being anonymous."
This isn't 1984 man. Write "Fuck the police" if you want.
Enjoy life. That's my opinion.
We watch "red-light" web cameras.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
is to make them applicable to EVERYONE. The politicians who voted for them. The cops who run them. EVERYONE.
Who watches the watchmen?
Automatic camera systems. That's who.
But then again, I could be wrong.
If you're going too fast to stop for a light that changes, the camera that nabs you is hardly the problem. Lights are generally timed in such a way that, once they turn yellow, you have _more than enough_ time to stop safely, even if you're going above the speed limit. If you think you're going too fast to stop, you're doing something wrong. And as for rain or snow: slow down! There's no excuse for poor driving, especially in hazardous conditions. That's a deadly, two ton piece of steel you're piloting, not a go-kart, and your right to reckless abandon is seriously curtailed in the presence of other people (which is pretty much always, if you're on public roads). If you're going too fast and you hit something, or run a red light, it's _your_ fault, and that's that.
The largest gang in america is complaining about following the laws like everyone else. Big surprise. If we can't even trust these fools with cars how are we suppossed to trust them with guns or even any authority? I swear cops are some of the worst criminals we have. 99% give the rest a bad name.
I have police officers violating traffic law left and right even when they are not in emergency. E.g. Taking a left turn from the right most lane and vice versa, not making a complete stop at stop sign, taking right turn on red light where sign says that it is not allowed and so on. Since the camera is only for the red light crossing, the police can still violate 95% of the traffic laws without any penalty.
Instead of whining about it: http://public.sphere13.com/images/anonymous.png
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
Officer: Why did you run the red light? Driver: Because I was speeding! Officer: Why were you speeding? Driver: Because I just ran somebody over! Officer: I see... Driver: Look, these drugs aren't going to traffic themselves. Officer: You're free to go.
Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
Unless there is an emergency, then nobody should be running the redlights ... but this "solution" looks
like a nightmare.
How about adding a small RF transmitter to the siren & lights in emergency vehicles so that when *both* are on, any redlight cameras in the vicinity add a notation to photographs they take that there was an emergency in progress. This would allow the emergency vehicles through without tickets and without bureaucracy.
Why make a big stink? Surely, if no one complained and bought this into the limelight, then they could always jump the light and then later casually say "oh i thought I saw X...". now they have to justify running the light, most likely in writing and in triplicate. I wonder why people don't realize it's better to be quiet about something, sometimes.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
You can't do away with the police's right to abuse their authority...
Let's face it, the only reason anyone donates to the frequent calls from the various police related funds is because you get a nice bumper sticker that they all but outright state will let officers know you've given them money and thus should be exempted from most traffic tickets.
If they had to start abiding by the law, no longer selectively applying it when it comes to their friends and those who effectively bribe them, they couldn't make those exceptions. Without those exceptions, who would give them money? Without that source of income, how would they replace that revenue stream? More taxes.
So, really, unless you want more taxes, you have to support our felonious friends in blue. Sure, there are some irksome moral questions about their honesty here... but more taxes would be... unAmerican!
Those are all semi-valid points. So I propose the following:
In addition to the green, for go, lights and the red, for stop, lights why don't we put another colored light on there to indicate that the signal is going to change to red in moments. Maybe something between green and red.... like yellow. Then when the light is yellow you'll know that it's about to be red. As such you'll be able to do all your decision making before cross traffic starts into the intersection.
In case you just don't get it, the yellow light means stop if it is possible to do safely. The only way any of the situations you describe will ever come up is if you aren't obeying traffic laws in the first place.
Fuck off pigs.
AWE, the poor poor piggie. Poor piggie can't speed when he/she wants and then give a ticket to someone going 1 MPH over the speed limit. Poor piggie. Poor piggie can't run the red light because he/she just wants to. Personally, I think that if I see a lazy piggie running stop signs or red lights, I should be able to report him/her anonymously and have them honestly and independently investigated after he/she has a certain number of reported infractions. Personally, I really LIKE the idea that they will actually be held to the same standard of law as everyone else. Hell, we all know they are just going to give the ticket over to the chief piggie and he/she will cover it up anyway. May as well not even bother. Poor poor piggie. Flame on and BBQ.
maybe you should pay attention to the yellow light, if you start braking when the yellow comes on, you should be able to stop safely. If not you were not driving at a safe speed. If you have to slam on the brakes, you were going to fast or not paying attention to the yellow light.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
They basically operate on the "guilty until proven innocent" principle
No, they work on the "Innocent until proven guilty, and here's the proof" principle. Your objection probably stems from the mistaken belief that you should be able to get away with an infraction because a human isn't there to catch you. However, I agree that they seem to appear in revenue generating areas, which makes one wonder if they are really after safety or money.
In the Greater Toronto Area we used to have photo radar. Basically, a van would park by the side of the freeway and snap the license plate of anyone who was speeding. People complained loudly that it was merely a cash grab, and there's no doubt that it generated its share of revenue. However, cash grabbing aside, the photo radar did reduce the speed on the freeway, and thus made it a safer road to travel.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The police have been demanding survalence cameras with the mantra "only people with something to hide have anything to fear".
Now we see that the police have something to hide! Touche! I love it! Stick it to 'em!
seriously... what does this have to do with IT?????
I completely agree, and I'm not afraid to share my opinion! In fact, just the other day I was telling a friend how completely stupid the cops are around here! All they do all day long is eat donuts and sit on their fat as....al#&(!@NNA&$N+++ATH^NO CARRIER
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Seriously, who is crazy enough not to? Your post is so weird my guess is you were just trying to be humorous.
The preservation of free speech REQUIRES us to speak up publicly as loudly and offensively as we wish. Eternal vigilence is the only way to protect freedom dude, as our ancestor revolutionaries warned us we would need.
The spirit of Kareem America never dies.
PS, posting as AC just cause I don't like cookies and sign-up bullshit that slashdot requires - but I'm easily traceable - and so what?
Who's really being naive here? It might not seem feasible for the cops to trace some comment here, but the Patriot Act (and other blatant violations of our civil rights) sure do make it a lot easier now. A little paranoia under the current situation might just be a healthy attitude. A personal story along these lines: The local state "officers' association" makes a habit of calling citizens for donations. The first time I was pulled over for a questionable violation about a month after turning these guys down (more than a bit vehemently because I didn't want to contribute to their "Iraq fund"), I paid little attention to it. The second time about a year later, however, it definitely caught my attention. Strange thing: when I called the duty officer to ask about the curious behavior of the officers who stopped me for the second supposed offense, he made a point of informing me that officers were "allowed" to violate the law. We just had to "trust them" that it was in our best interests. How far does this kind of thing go before we reach a "police state" condition?
Up in BC (Canada), they have signs before the light - they've got yellow lights that flash to tell you that the intersection ahead is red or is going to turn red. They're fantastic, and they mean that people have a much longer time frame to figure out whether they need to slow down.
~ Leilah
Seriously, fuck them. I drive past a station twice a day, and frequently see the fucking pigs going off duty pull out of it in their own cars, usually without a seatbelt, then go screaming off up the 30mph residential street, the same one on which their piggy brethren often mount a speed tax trap. So, basically, fuck their pudgy white hypocritical porcine asses, fuck them sideways with a LIDAR gun, and lets see them held to the same standard that they hold us to. They need to justify every Goddamn infraction that they're caught performing, just the same way we are.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Police frequently have to run red lights. Maybe they are responding to a call. Maybe they are pulling over a drunk driver who ran the light.
How is a police officer supposed to keep track of every single time this is necessary? Very often, it will be something that doesn't result in an arrest and doesn't require a report. In the heat of the moment, they will forget doing it and won't be able to explain themselves when that picture comes.
It should be presumed that if you are in a squad car, you are enforcing the law. You're not above the law. But you have to be free to do what's necessary to enforce it.
And furthermore, the cameras are evil. Get rid of them.
That statement is nonsense. I'm 10 feet from the intersection when I see it turn yetllow and you are saying I should be able to safely stop? You're an idiot!
At the precise moment the light turns yellow, a person has to quickly determine IF they can safely stop at their present speed (which we will state is the speed limit and at the normall rate of traffic) given the distance to the intersection AND is the vehicle behind them also able to stop as quickly (a loaded dump truck or tractor trailer might not).
If you misjudge that and decide to go through (and you have NO idea how FAST the yellow light is going to turn RED) and have it turn RED right as you enter, BAMB, you have a ticket.
The yellow light should have some "sweep" of a hand that indicates the time yellow, or some way to indicate how long the yellow is.
It's always been the case in the UK that police, ambulance and fire services are subject to the same road laws as everybody else, with a rider that provided they're under orders from their controller to treat a journey as an emergency, and turn on the blue lights, the driver won't personally be responsible and any fine will be waived or paid from central funds.
But the vast increase in speeding tickets due to speed cameras created a bureaucratic nightmare, so it's now been agreed that if the blue lights are visibly illuminated in the camera's picture, no fine will be issued.
I'm surprised that getting caught with a traffic cam can count as a point on your license. How do they know who was driving the car?
In most places I believe that getting caught with red light cams is basically treated like a parking ticket - the owner of the car pays the fine, but it doesn't affect your driving record or insurance at all because there is no easy way to tell who was driving the car.
Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time.
Speeding.
Not always. I can think of one case where I was going the legal limit, 45 IIRC, and the light suddenly changed. I hit the brakes, but skid all the way across the intersection. It happened to suddenly change as fire crews and police were approaching the intersection.
What if there is rain or snow on the ground?
Unsafe driving for conditions.
The worst time to drive in my experence is after a small sprinkle, or when the rain starts. This is where road oil floats to the surface and makes the roads more slick. Slamming on the brakes would be "unsafe driving for conditions". Safe driving would be to extend your estimated stopping distance. This IS a reasonable explanation.
Among the worst is black ice, which is something that even the best of drivers can't always take into account.
You might also run a red light if someone is following too closely to you and you don't want to get rear-ended when you slam on the brakes.
Good point. Of course, having the photo as evidence would help you when you go to court to contest the ticket.
Well, I think the point is the human factor, any reasonable cop would possibly accept that it was a judgement call on part of a driver to avoid an accident.
Probally worse than talegating are cases where you are taking a left hand turn at a controled intersection with a bus, large van, or other tall or overlong vehicle, where it's not possible to see the indicator. But odds are a photograph won't yield your license if taken from the front in that case. Even keeping a following distance of one car length, perfectly safe at 5mph, I have run a light or two.
But not included in this list are deserted intersections at night which offer some form of flacky motion control which doesn't work right. Those, after waiting the length of one song, I have run. Most notable in my experence are toll booths in Florida which don't accept the money you throw at them, which isn't an issue if you have a rental car. The ticket goes to the rental company and there does not seem to be a procedure to ticket the correct person if they are out of state.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
this means the police will start to become obliged to follow and experience first hand some of the ridiculously low speed limits and other redundant road laws are that they enforce on the rest of us, so they might finally do something about making them better.
Various cities near where I live have experimented with red light cameras. One of them installed a couple of cameras at the bottom slight hills, where people would be gaining momentum from gravity as they approached the traffic light. I had to stop short a few times myself and eventually just avoided the intersections entirely. Anyway, one day I saw some really long skid marks and the pavement was gouged pretty badly from what was probably a rollover accident. They removed both cameras the next day.
The local paper didn't carry news about the accident, but did say that there had been some mixed success: while red-light-runner-induced t-bone accidents had gone down somewhat, rear-end collisions were way up, probably from drivers scared of getting tickets and braking so soon that they caught the driver behind them off-guard.
I was shopping for a house in North Dallas last weekened. My agent informed me that the city had just recently installed cameras to catch people running red lights. And, by strange coincidence, a new story recently said the occurence of rear-endings was up nearly 400% from the same period last year.
"What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
Cops and ambulances are subject to the law except when their sirens are on. Since these are traffic light cameras, we could be able to tell that pretty easily. Unless cops want to turn on their sirens all the time, they won't abuse their privilege.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
>If you misjudge that and decide to go through (and you have NO idea how FAST the yellow light is going to turn RED) and have it turn RED right as >you enter, BAMB, you have a ticket.
If the light was yellow when you entered the intersection, it's not a violation. If you misjudged and thought the light would stay yellow long enough for you to enter the intersection, you committed a moving violation if you got it wrong. If you are going fast enough that you saw the green change to yellow but did not have time to stop, you were speeding, or the light was malfunctioning.
If your argument in court is going to be "I entered on the caution light", you had better hope the photo equipment does not have specific calibration to show that the light was red before you entered.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
These things are definitely a cash cow for cities that have them. Here in Albuquerque, cops will get ticketed if they flippantly run a red light, but the city itself wants to get rid of the cameras. The cameras attracted the attention of Santa Fe which wants 75% of the revenue from red-light runners. Since Albuquerque tax payers picked up the tab for the cameras, its citizens are crying foul. I wonder if Dallas pays Austin in the same kind of racket.
Funny thing, I lived in Dallas for years and I don't recall seeing one red-light camera. Must be new, I guess.
Obvious example: you enter a light on green behind a very slow vehicle that just turned right. The light changes to yellow precisely as you cross the line. You will not get out of the intersection before it turns red no matter how hard you press on the accelerator. The lights are timed to allow the intersection to clear only at typical driving speeds, not from a dead stop. However, you entered the intersection legally because the light was not yet yellow.
Another obvious example: we have a large number of lights in which the yellow cycles are too short. Most of these are not equipped with red light cameras, but I would estimate that 75% of the lights in Sunnyvale, CA have a yellow cycle such that there is a window of two or more seconds in which it is neither possible to stop prior to entering the light nor to completely clear the light prior to the light turning red. This is assuming travel at the posted legal limit. Indeed, only people exceeding the speed limit significantly can be guaranteed that they will get through the intersection before it turns red.
Assuming that all of these cameras are set up to shoot the picture only as you enter the intersection, that should generally take care of that second problem. However the first problem of entering the light at a slow speed would still be a problem in cases where you have multiple traffic lights a few feet apart, synchronized based on a vehicle going at or near the speed limit, as you would be entering the second light on red out of necessity.
And, of course, then you have the abuse problem---local municipalities that deliberately shorten the yellow cycle to raise revenue, putting the general public at risk of life and limb just to raise a quick buck. There are plenty of stories of this happening. No longer is it the little one horse county in Alabama with the sheriff sitting behind a billboard pushing the button to make the light change to red to try to trap people into running the light. Now, we have cities like Union City, CA, doing it programmatically on a large scale. And evidence suggests that while the number of red light violations decreases, there is a net increase in the number of actual accidents as a result of people panicking and trying to stop when they should have gone through the intersection, resulting in rear end collisions.
Red light cameras are evil. I don't run red lights, but even I think that they are a horrible idea. If you're having trouble with people running the lights, the correct fix is to extend the yellow cycle and add a two second all-red period at the end like they have in more sensible states. Adding cameras to try to "get people" cannot possibly be believed by any sensible person to have any real impact on safety. It is strictly a means to generate revenue, and thus is fundamentally unethical by any reasonable standards. They should be banned nationwide. There should be a federal law that prohibits their use. Maybe if that happened, city governments that rely on such idiotic tools will be forced to rethink their traffic lights and make them more sensible with longer yellow light (which consistently have been proven to significantly improve safety without any negative side effects).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Next thing you know, they'll be wanting to read WhiteHouse emails! (oh, wait.)
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
There's a simple, easy to implement solution to this problem that can be done not only without taxpayer expense but will actually enhance city revenues: put a doughnut shop at every traffic light. No cop will ever run a light again, not even on an emergency call.
:p
Unbelievably, my spellchecker doesn't have an entry for the correct spelling, "doughnut," but does have one for the shortcut, "donut"
I agree they should be allowed to run the lights in emergencies and not be allowed otherwise. The problem is, who has the burden of proof in showing this was an emergency or not an emergency? Are we going to force police officers to prove, in court, that they were on an emergency call and had to run the red light? Think about how many red lights police officers run on a regular basis, I would imagine it's quite a few. This would entail higher court costs (which our gov. won't like), it will leave police officers fighting tickets in court all the time (which our gov. won't like) and therefore it would leave less officers on the street (which citizens won't like)... So I wonder if there really is a peaceful medium in this situation.
I doubt that police officers keep detailed logs of their daily activities. It's possible they keep track of the substantive activities that take place during the day, but I doubt they have a log of exactly what hour/minute/second they began and finished their drive to whatever police related activity they were headed to. It makes sense to hold police officers to the same laws as citizens, unless they have a compelling reason (emergency) not to be held to these laws, but how will we prove there was no compelling reason and who has the burden of proof? The idea of guilty until proven innocent that another poster referred to earlier will surely come into play in this aspect as well if cops are made to defend each ticket they get.
Anyway, this is all too 1984ish for me.
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
Oh, yes, and on multiple occasions, I have seen the traffic light at the corner of Sunnyvale Rd. and Maude Ave. change from red to green to yellow in less than one second (coming from the Fair Oaks direction). If you start to enter the intersection, you would be screwed. I don't know if there's a camera at that intersection or not, but if so... you get the picture.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Many of them are a feat of engineering, too. Most places have them placed and timed to go off so that even if you're going 10 miles over the limit, you won't make the yellow if you see the lights start to blink just as you pass them. As in, if you see them *at all*, you're not going to make the light.
Couldn't see the light because you were behind a semi, who may or may not have also run it. To be safe, what are you to do? Stop? I don't think so.
Opticoms activations are very, very obvious, including a confirmation light from the direction of the emergency vehicle. It would be pretty blatantly obvious for a police car cruising along at a regular rate of speed to use one. They can also be quite long range, so in the congested areas you typically find red light cameras they could trigger multiple signals down the road.
FUCK THE PO'LICE.......... ;) just kidding.
If you read the article it's pretty absurd the police's reasonings for running red lights are. Once statement was to the effect, "if i'm on a call but it's not an emergency, and i run a red light to save myself 1 or two minutes........" Um you just negated the issue by stating that it WASN'T an emergency! Sheesh! Then they go on to say "they they are mandated to get to a call as soon as posible". As soon as possible. It's "possible" for you to get there safely and respond to a call and following traffic laws. It's also "possible" that on an emergency call you can run the red light because it dictates that it's an emergency and the possiblity that you need to be there sooner has just escalated.
I'm frankly sick and tired of police, politicians, etc getting preferential treatment just because they are "IN" power. I'm constantly seeing police cruises and get this "utility trucks for the city" of san ose parked around town anywhere close to food establishments (sidewalks and such) and all they do is place a few "orange cones around the vehicle, to make it "OK", when it's lunchtime. The fire fighters are the true unsung hero's and the ones who should get the pref treatment if anything for they go INTO burning buildings to save peoples asses. The same article also says the firefighters don't care beacuse they've always had to abide by that law.
The police are just pissed cause they have to follow the same rules that they enforce and now can see exactly how us unwashed masses live.
Police are notorious for placing themselves above the law. On the road, I see them speeding like crazy, and have been tailgated more than once by a police car. Not all police do this, I imagine, but they tend to be among the most aggressive and pushy drivers on the road.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
This is especially true on lights with a camera. Typically, the yellow time on the light is decreased, causing a corresponding increase in revenue and decrease in safety. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this type of thinking kills people even while it makes the police and the company that installed the cameras money. Revenue is being placed above the safety of the people, plain and simple.
this is the day of the bush administration, where reckless disregard of the law is a regular occurrence.
if the top levels of the government give no good goddamn about the law, why should the lower levels (cops, etc) give a damn?
we have no respectable role models anymore in law creation or enforcement. its just an observation, and a sad one at that.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The yellow light, means you should stop immediately if you can, not that you should see if you can guess how long it will last and guess if you can get over the line before the light changes. You should know your speed, and you should know you safe stopping distance at that speed. If the yellow lights come on, you should brake, if you reach the line before you stop, then continue, you should not keep driving at the maximum speed limit.
The vehicle behind you is not your concern, he has a minimum of a 2 second advantage on you anyway, if you can stop so can he. If there is a truck behind you, it should have enough distance between you to stop in time, it is the truck drivers job to know their stopping distances and timings, and they are generally very good at it, because they face big consequences if they cause an accident.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Cops are above the law.. they are our betters.
w oman_clocked_driv.html
..warning. ok?
They are government officals.. whats the problem pesent?
City councilwoman clocked driving 100 mph
http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/04/city_council
"She proceeded to exclaim to me that she had the authority to 'do what I wanted' and that she had a badge and was late for a meeting," the report reads.
Here is a warning.. and if you do it again.. you'll get another.. ( >_> )
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Following too close. Everyone does it, I know, but that doesn't mean its safe or legal
Here's an example. I was stuck at a red light on my motorcycle. The traffic sensor was not set up to be sensitive enough to detect that my bike was there so the light never would change to green unless another car came along. No car was comming along, there was no cross traffic. I waited for several minutes and finally just rode through. The camera would have given me a ticket.
Of course, the camera didn't sense me either so no one else ever knew.
'nuff said
Speeding.
No, not necessarily. Several municipalities that have installed red light cameras have also shortened the duration of the *yellow* lights at those intersections.
With a proper-duration yellow, you have time to stop safely. With a shortened yellow, you don't, so you run the red light and the city gets revenue.
In fact, if you really want to reduce red-light running, increasing the duration of the yellow by a full second eliminates something like 80% of them. But that doesn't raise cash, so that's not what's done.
In fact they are SUPPOSED to be long enough to allow people to safely stop, but sometimes they are not. Some places do shorten the yellow, intentionally to increase red-light running revenue. And I've read that some areas with red-light photo systems tend to shorten the yellow even further. I personally don't have any trouble making it through on yellow or stopping, but I have been places where they'll use the same length yellow in a 45MPH zone that I'd typically expect for a 25MPH road. You really have to punch it or stop short on yellow in these places, and I could easily see being in a crappier car that would not break or accelerate well enough to avoid a little red.
I'm sure that will be a great consolation to you while they're fitting you for your neck brace.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
The law is the same for everyone or there is no law!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I agree with WrongMonkey - following too close. It's your responsibility to determine the signal indication before entering the intersection, even if that means you have to wait until the semi is half-through.
Do I actually do that? Not usually. But that doesn't mean that sliding through a red arrow practically under the semi's rear bumper is particularly the right way to do it, either.
"Obvious example: you enter a light on green behind a very slow vehicle that just turned right. The light changes to yellow precisely as you cross the line. You will not get out of the intersection before it turns red no matter how hard you press on the accelerator. The lights are timed to allow the intersection to clear only at typical driving speeds, not from a dead stop. However, you entered the intersection legally because the light was not yet yellow."
Are you from a state with driver's training? I'd wager you're not. The traffic laws don't always protect us every conceivable situation. Sometimes we have to open up our own can of common sense and use it. If there's a car in front of you that's in the intersection, you shouldn't be in it yet. That's not always a law depending on state but should be taught by a driving instructor, listed in your driving manual, or easy enough to figure out on your own. You should only enter the intersection when you have an unimpeded path to the direction you're going. That means not drifting into the intersection while waiting to turn left at a red light or getting in the intersection while a car with the right of way over you is also in the intersection (even if you're following them and they're going the and direction you are). I know that's not common practice but those guidelines are there to keep you from breaking the law. If you're in a situation where the law is enforced very strictly, it would be a good idea to follow those guidelines.
Now improprieties with the yellow light are another matter. I don't understand the "window of two or more seconds in which it is neither possible to stop prior to entering the light nor to completely clear the light prior to the light turning red." Are you slowing down as you approach the intersection? It's a good idea even if the light is green. You never know what the other cars (or that evil ornery light)is going to do.
Like I said earlier, these things aren't laws in most cases. They're just guidelines to keep you from breaking laws.
I can't speak for other states, but California's speed law places the posted limit as an upper bound, but also makes it speeding to at any time exceed the speed that is safe for the conditions and circumstances even where that is lower than the posted limit; if you are going too fast to respond to a red light at an intersection, you are also going too fast to respond to the traffic that has the green light and therefore the right of way in that intersection and are, ipso facto, speeding.
This also extends to the case of rain or snow: if you are driving fast enough that your safe stopping distance under the conditions does not allow you to react to the light changing, you are again driving faster than is safe for the road conditions, and therefore speeding.
well, the above was meant as a joke, but guess it didn't work out quite the way I intended. Perhaps more thought on the wording next time.
When all else fails, try.
And that's a double intersection.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Good point. Of course, having the photo as evidence would help you when you go to court to contest the ticket.
That is, if you survive the crash and are still able to walk and appear in court.
In the academic work I've done with traffic, it appears that in most places, the red-light cameras tend to cause more accidents and make intersections less safe. Several municipalities and states have removed the systems because of the adverse effects on safety and overall traffic.
Photo-radar, on the other hand, appears to not have this problem.
If you MUST have automated traffic enforcement, at least use the types that don't cause more injuries and deaths. To do otherwise is to profit off the deaths, injuries, and suffering of citizens.
I'm sick and tired of seeing cops disobey whatever law they choose. They blow through red lights and zip along at 15 or 20 MPH over the speed limit all the time, and as an honest citizen, there's really nothing I can do about it. I've been against these red light camera things, but maybe if they're going to force the people enforcing the law to actually obey the law I need to rethink that stance.
In the great commonwealth of Pennslyvania, anytime you are hit from behind, it is the fault of the person hitting you from behind. This can make it a nightmare for pileup accidents. I tend to slam on my breaks a ton when someone is behind me, following a little too closely. They tend to wake up.
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
So what exactly, pray fucking tell, is "not too close" when driving a compact behind a semi?
Really, I'd like to know, because even 3 or so car lengths doesn't always let you see the lights when driving at normal speeds in the city.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Lights are generally timed in such a way that, once they turn yellow, you have _more than enough_ time to stop safely, even if you're going above the speed limit.
Not in Beaverton, Oregon. In a key intersection, the yellow light used to last 4 seconds. After they installed the red-light cameras the yellows were reduced to 2.4 seconds. Taking into account human reaction time, there is NOT enough time to see the yellow and come to a stop before you're in the middle of the intersection. I say fuck'em, and often stop at a green light in case it's close to turning yellow. I'm not the only one either and it really fucks up traffic. People behind me don't like it, but I'm not paying a $250 ticket because of a crooked city hall.
No, not necessarily. Several municipalities that have installed red light cameras have also shortened the duration of the *yellow* lights at those intersections.
But the government is infallible and would never do anything dishonest...
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I seem to remember in Bavaria that the green lights would flash a couple times before going to yellow. I thought that was a great way to help figure out how long you had until the light turned yellow.
Of course, that would reduce the probability that people would get caught by redlight cameras and would reduce revenues. So, I'm sure we'll never do that here.
What are you, fucking stupid? It's pretty obvious in this case that "not too close" means "far enough away to see the goddamn traffic light." Drive much?
Many police officers believe that they, and their family members, should never receive tickets from their fellow law enforcement officers. They call it "professional courtesy". Unfortunately for them, the red-light camera has no concept of professional courtesy. That's a good thing. Believe it or not, police officers are subject to traffic laws, even though they are rarely enforced.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Enforcing the law does not mean they are above the law.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
That's not the case in places in Oregon. They shorten the yellow lights when they install the red light cameras so that there's practically no time to react. Even if you're going just the speed limit, you'll end up stopped in the intersection or running the red.
Because of that, I've actually stayed in the intersection after screeching to a halt. I'll also stop on a green that's been green for a while. Both choices fuck up traffic a lot, but I'm not going to pay a $250 fine just to make someone else's drive a bit faster. They can go to city hall if they don't like it.
The lights are timed so that you don't have time to stop safely or go through the intersection without eventually turning red. They do this to get more ticket revenues. It's disgusting that they'll put profits of the city over the safety of drivers.
[/yelling and screaming]
Lot of outrage and grandstanding here about this issue. It's all justified, of course. Not that you don't know this, but there's an unwritten rule. When a whore was asked if she ever experienced sexual pleasure with a John, she said, "Do cops get tickets?"
My brother in law was a cop. He got fired for speeding, kind of, a long story. If a cop out of uniform is pulled over by a patrol car, there's only one thing he has to do. Be polite and show his badge. No ticket. End of story. That's the way it is.
[yelling and screaming]
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Twice I've come close to being hit by a police car running a red light without sirens, once on foot and once while driving. I didn't look and say "oh, police, maybe they're going to run the light." I doubt they did it on purpose, just thought it was clear so they went. It was late at night, in a residential district. I'm sure they didn't want to make a nuisance at that late hour, but they didn't seem to be in any hurry either. They ran the light as a course of habit. The law is there for a reason, which is to promote safety. The sirens are there to safely make an exception to traffic law. Emergency vehicle drivers in the habit of running red lights will fail to notice pedestrians and drivers. If penalties and fines are what it takes to get everyone else to obey the law, that's what it will take to make our emergency vehicle drivers obey the law, and more importantly, that's what it will take to make them safe.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Where is the obligatory car analogy? If ever there was an appropriate moment...
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
The article only refers to the growing set of 'red light cameras' here.
Police are very scarce overall in Dallas. I go for days without seeing a police car.
I will watch now! I drive with a camera and will take my own pix and chat with any offending officer.
I have the brass to buck the system. A few years ago I got onto a plainclothes officer for always parking in handicapped in my apartments. Boy was he pissed. He tried intimidation. He slowly put his gun harness on, stuck his glock in it. Then zoomed off. Then shortly afterwards he moved. Hope your are nicer now. But most police here really are great and wonderful people.
Thanks,
Jim The Java Man
The law specifically requires the camera sensor to be where a vehicle must stop. So if you're in the intersection already, you're home free.
Since you're in California, it's CA Vehicle Code section 21455.5(a). Sections 21455.5 - 21455.7 cover all this and even include your concerns about short yellow light cycles.
The worst time to drive in my experence is after a small sprinkle, or when the rain starts. This is where road oil floats to the surface and makes the roads more slick. Slamming on the brakes would be "unsafe driving for conditions". Safe driving would be to extend your estimated stopping distance. This IS a reasonable explanation.
Small amounts of water on the road can also cause "dry hydroplaning" at fairly low speeds - small amounts of water fill the valleys in the texture of the road and because water doesn't compress very well, you get a situation where the tire glides over the valleys on a cushion of water.
Not much friction in that situation....
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Many individuals feel the need to express their dislike of traffic cameras and photo/laser radar, as one can see from reading the responses to this article. But I have to ask the question, and I ask this as simply as I can.
If you are not running red light or speeding, then you wont be getting tickets, so why does it matter if the cameras are put in locations that generate the most revenue? Or the police setting up in areas that you wont notice them until you 'get flashed'?
The only reason to complain about the above items is if you are getting caught. And if you are getting caught, then you are breaking the law, and deserve the tickets you received.
one word describes my reaction to this
that word?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Seriously there is no other reaction to this beyond intense, hearty, belly laughs. So it's "ok" if some schmoe (like me) gets a ticket with these cameras but god FORBID some COP gets one from them. Cops shouldn't be the EXCEPTION to the laws, they should be the EXAMPLE.
How many cops have I seen going home from their shift and "blue thru" a traffic light? (By "blue thru" I mean turn on their lights and pull through what is normally a busy intersection in their quest to get the fuck home, like the rest of "us") I've seen a LOT (growing up in a small town you just get used to seeing cops using their position for personal.. not really gain let's call it personal "comfort").
So all I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA really that's my only reply to this.
--- www.f-theocean.com
Cops and ambulances are subject to the law except when their sirens are on. Since these are traffic light cameras, we could be able to tell that pretty easily.
I've watched Boston PD officers routinely approach a red light, flip on their lightbar, blip the siren a few times, go through, and then switch off their lights again.
Judging from the speed they approached and exited the intersection (ie, at or below legal speeds, leisurely departure from the intersection etc), it was pretty much just because they didn't want to sit at the intersection.
Please help metamoderate.
That's all well and good in a perfect world. But some people DON'T stop at a yellow light if they think they can make it, and they WILL rear-end someone. I know because it happened to someone I know. Stopped at a yellow light, and was rear-ended by someone who wasn't paying enough attention. It wasn't a bad wreck, but it still made her insurance go up, even though she was not at fault and was driving safely.
If you live where everyone drives safely and keeps safe distance, pays attention all the time, and actually stops at yellow lights, good for you. But a lot of drivers are complete and total idiots, especially about yellow lights, and I'd rather not have my insurance go up and my car fucked up by some simpleton just because there's a chance the light will go from yellow to red before I make it through.
There are regulations about yellow time length. The minimum listed in the MUTCD is 3 seconds. I'm going to have to call bullshit on your 2.4 second claim. And what's the speed limit, 25 mph?
The city of Minneapolis in Minnesota spent millions on these red light cameras and the state has deemed them illegal because of the assuption that the owner of the vehicle is the person thats driving and mails these tickets to the owner of the vehicles.
I own a company that has 10 vans and I payed a few of these tickets before the red light cameras were turned off by a court order. Now I will be able to apply for a refund of such ticket.
I don't like the idea of just the police trying to get out of these tickets, but I'm for the police in this issue. Maybe they and anyone thats gotten one of these tickets should look up the state court documents of the people of Minneapolis's fight to make these ticket lights illegal.
Now the state of Minnesota wasted millions of tax dollars and should of thought first before buying these cameras... They are still paying for these things and its now a big waste of tax money.
I think we need to stop the guilty till proven innocent movement and go back to the law.
Any time you do not have a clear view of whether its safe to proceed, then you are following too close.
Any time you do not have enough distance to safely brake, you are following too close.
I'm not talking about what strokes your racecar-wannabe-ego, I'm talking about what's safe. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't drive at all. Getting a ticket from a camera should be least of your worries, people's live are at stake.
The example of a right turn I gave was not necessarily one in which the person turning was in the intersection. In particular, I'm thinking of a certain five lane road with a dedicated turn lane cut across the corner. The person turning enters that area, at which point it is perfectly reasonable to accelerate and enter the intersection, but because you only have about five feet of space to accelerate between there and entering the intersection, you aren't going very fast when you enter it, and thus you can't get out before the light has been red for several seconds. It's a very uncomfortable situation to be in.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Do you notice more when you're driving, or when you're stopped at a light?
:)
Measuring police worth in distance driven marks you as an idiot.
I know all about the MUTCD, having worked with a professor writing "quick guides" and presentations based on it. 2.4 seconds is what someone standing on the side of the road with a video camera can measure by counting the frames. It was in the media and even covered by a local radio host.
Speed limit is 35 on the road with that intersection.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but many people aren't. And quite frankly, it is that very law that causes the red light violations in the first place. Most sensible states have laws that say that you cannot legally enter an intersection unless you expect to be able to CLEAR the intersection before it turns red---NOT that you will be able to ENTER it. As a result of the silly laws here in CA, people speed up so that they will be able to just barely get into the intersection before it turns red, and they're still in the intersection five seconds after it turns green, causing LOTS of traffic problems.
Similarly, that law causes people to enter an intersection to turn left into a ramp with a metering light at the other end knowing full well that the light will change to red long before the driver is able to get through the intersection onto the ramp, causing significant traffic backup on a number of roads in the Bay Area. However, because legally, those drivers are not breaking the law, there's nothing anybody can do about it except honk their horns.
No, the "if you enter before it turns red, you're legal" law is asinine and should be changed. Then, the yellow cycles across the state need to be universally lengthened by at least two additional seconds, followed by a minimum of a second all-red grace period. I guarantee that if California did that, it would not only eliminate the red light running problem overnight, but would also make the roads a lot safer and more pleasant for drivers.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Do yourself a favor and grow a set of balls.
Oops.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Doesn't that defeat the whole point of having the yellow light between the green and red?
*sigh* back to work...
This happens to me all the time. There's a town near my home that has the worst sensors I've ever run across. I can usually move my bike back and forth and get the sensor to detect me, but somehow this towns lights simply don't like motorcycles. Twice I've been pulled over for turning left against a red light, and both times the cops let me go because they understood the light would never turn red for me. If it had been a camera I'd either pay a fine or spend a day in court each time it happened. Either way it sucks.
Sadly Tijuana already has that one patented.
Over the years, in three different states, I've met (socially) a number of cops.
Out of curiosity I always ask them what the badge means. (It started because I saw some Latin on one.)
Every time, they have all said the same exact thing:
"It's a license to go fast."
Seems to me that cops consider their jobs give them the perk to be able to break a number of laws or regulations with impunity, since they don't want to persecute their own. They figure if they aren't hurting anyone, nobody should care. (Unless of course, it's the non-police doing it, then they seem to be happy to nail us.)
If you're curious, the question and answer is absolute fact, it really happened.
The paragraph below that is just my opinion, that's why it begins with, "Seems to me...".
Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
Read it again. He's proposing you run the light (thus no rear-ending and no neck brace) and then contest the ticket.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
If he didn't have his cherries on he should receive a ticket. Police by and large don't believe the law applies to them, this camera doesn't abide by the buddy code they use so unlike their fellow officers it will ticket them. This is a good thing.
Police have a ridiculous amount of unchecked power. They carry arms and sticks, corroborate one another's stories so that they are the only ones who know what really happened outside the station and they can't be policed in turn. Further, it doesn't take much to become a cop. If you can pass a physical and have a fairly clean record you are in.
The only reason I support using a camera to ticket in this instance is because a police officer will always be the one driving his squad car. It is not a safe assumption that a civilian vehicle is being driven by the registered owner and the registered owner is NOT responsible if another driver speeds or runs red lights using his vehicle. Cameras and automated systems should never be used for ticketing.
it's about damn time. civil servants need to remember they are just that, and they are to lead by example.
i support treble penalties for any civil servant who breaks a law, with 0 tolerance. let's end the concept of government corruption and incompetence. I support the death penalty for both. public hanging. as in a few years, we would have a model of open and non corrupt government. something we lack now.
-.no
Class action suit
I know I'm posting as AC so nobody will see this, but yes that does happen.
There was a study of accident reports in Plano, TX a while (year?) after they installed their red light cameras.
There are fewer T-Bone type collisions at the intersections due to people running the red light. About half as many, if I recall correctly.
And there are more, once again IIRC, double the number of rear end collisions at intersections.
It's the /reduction/ of pirates is implicated in the rise of global warming.
In Memphis, they've passed a law making it legal for motorcycles to drive through red lights when they can't trip the sensor.
I'm sure Memphis isn't the only place to make special considerations for smaller vehicles.
*sigh* back to work...
For all you yanks out there: what are your thoughts about how your president gets his own corridor cut through traffic? That cavalcade doesn't observe red lights, stop signs, etc etc.
Should your CIC wait in traffic?
And now: The Man, sticking it to the Man.
We're happily building a police state that will be nearly unkillable. But, remember kids: Police states are run for the benefit of the police -- and whoever their bosses are. The police and their bosses will never, ever be subject to the same surveillance YOU will endure all the days of your life. It's a mook's game. Don't cave into the hive mind: security is not more important than freedom.
And it's not like you all spend your days in Baghdad, anyway. What do you need all that security for? You're being conned.
Victoria Australia has similar, though differently worded. You are recommended to travel "at the maximum speed which is both within the posted limit, and which provides safety and complete control of the vehicle".
So you've made it quite obvious that you are able to recognise this situation as a hazard. Now all you need is the ability to drive at a speed appropriate to those conditions.
... I'd want my tickets to go away.
Of course, as a software geek, I want them to go away too. Maybe we software geeks will have to figure out how to make our tickets go away.
Best system I've seen, amazed it's not in more places.
Around here the cops go into people's houses just to use the bathroom... make sure you eat all your leftover pizza!
So who the fuck else could it be that was at fault? Santa Claus? The tooth fairy? The devil made me do it? I have a really hard time believing that you seriously mean that it's the driver in the front cars fault that somebody decides to run into him.
I thought pile up accidents already was a nightmare. I can't see how this makes it any worse.
I cried with laughter, wondering how you managed to combine those two statements.
Then, unfortunately, I realized you were referring to the person rear-ended. I'm confused as to why her insurance would go up as a result of another person's at fault claim.
The problem is this, the lack of pause between one light going red and another green. In Australia, you can enter the intersection at any time on a yellow and be safe, because the 'all red' period is enough to allow a vehicle to get from one side to another.
Far safer.
If a police officer runs a red light because they just got a call, obviously they won't be fined. On the other hand, if they're just cruising around like the inconsiderate repressed bastards that they are, they should be responsible for all actions they take that aren't directly mandated by duty. They certainly don't give anyone else any leeway. The whole concept of traffic fines makes very little sense to me. I'd rather pitch in a few dollars a year on my taxes than have to deal with radar pigs. Yep, speeding can be dangerous, but ignorant driving is far worse. It doesn't matter how fast you're going if the federal worker in her Echo decides to invade your personal space without warning, or some jackass who can't be bothered to think ahead decides that he needs to turn onto the left street while he's in the right-most lane, or some outlander who's never seen an arrow decides to go the wrong way up a one-way street.
I'd like to think that if people relied less on traffic signs and more on their own common sense, the roads would be safer overall. It's simple: you're piloting a 3000lb battering ram. If you don't want to kill or be killed, then keep that battering ram away from soft mushy things like people!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
This might sound naive, but don't the cameras also photograph the light to show that it was red at the time? Or do they just photograph the plate, assuming the light was red?
I would be more comfortable if the photo showed a car actually running a red light, photoshoping notwithstanding.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
That may be true. However, consider that in some cases, those police are on route somewhere (responding to a call) as a part of their duty, and need to get there in a timely manner. The response may not be worth driving 40 over the speed limit with lights and sirens to get there, but can be judged to be worth missing a three minute light, especially at a non-heavy intersection.
Also, sometimes people morph into chaotic, panicking obstacles when lights and sirens are turned on. I have heard from officers that sometimes it is safer to speed to a location with the lights off than it is to travel there with lights and sirens on full. With the former, they can get where they are going without much ado (but must be very careful), whereas the latter they have to deal with people who forget the simply rule of pulling over to the right. You have people moving into the left lane, slowing down, speeding up, stopping...people just forget to be reasonable.
Well, you will be glad to know that in Wisconsin you can now proceed through a red light after allowing 45 seconds to pass.
In regard to the red light camera, if the traffic signal sensor fails to trip, the camera might fail to trip as well.
If it was my watch, I'd fire anyone who complained, immediately, and without hesitation. Police officers have a higher responsibility to follow the laws than ordinary citizens, since they have the power to enforce laws. Not only that, but being a police officer is a privilege too. If you don't realize that, you're a danger to the people you're sworn to protect.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
It's about the Prosectors/State Attorneys choosing not to prosecute them. Remember, if a cop breaks the law while undercover, he's still able to be charged with that felony/misdemeanor/etc; the state attorney can (and usually do) allow it to pass.
...you say it, in bold even, it's still spelled "due."
Same in SA. Here, you have to enter the intersection three seconds after the red (IIRC) for the camera to get you. So it's hard for it to happen accidentally.
You have? Then why aren't you doing something about it? Video tapes, pens, and paper, combined with local news agencies tend to make for some red faces... or perhaps a lawyer...
I can't speak for other states, but California's speed law places the posted limit as an upper bound, but also makes it speeding to at any time exceed the speed that is safe for the conditions and circumstances even where that is lower than the posted limit; if you are going too fast to respond to a red light at an intersection, you are also going too fast to respond to the traffic that has the green light and therefore the right of way in that intersection and are, ipso facto, speeding.
45 was the speed limit, and 45 was a safe speed considering the conditions. Problem being the light didn't shift from green, to yellow, to red. It shifted from green directly to red. I was aware of the intersection, aware of a fire station whose doors just opened. It was IMPOSSIBLE for me to stop at the red light as the warning on a highway with a posted limited on 45 was under a car length.
The light was too fast for traffic which may or may not have had a green light, as noted emergency vehicles obviously triggered a quick light change, and still where still at a full stop. My stopping distance at 45mph was between 50ft and 70ft, as in I was in a skid until after the intersection banking ever so slightly to glide into the shoulder.
The problem, with all due respect, wasn't with me nor the speed I was traveling. It was with the light, the light which was clearly geared to go directly to red when triggered. It was clearly the city's choice to make it that way. Clearly police who were near by were aware of it, saw how I reacted, and didn't bother to ticket me.
No one had the green, it turned ALL RED. If it had not, I would have still had the green.
This is why blind enforcement is a bad idea, because you can not be a reasonable person and think that every time a condition is violated it's the fault of the driver. The fault was a traffic signal which was programmed to go from green directly to red in the event of an emergency. Given it was a very rural road, I'm sure they saw no problem with it. Anyone who couldn't stop in time wasn't in the way of a firetruck as it seemed to go red with the door half open, so they were out of the way, and anyone else was either already stopped or would stop.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Make things more dangerous. AAA examines it quite a bit and they've got no stake in it (they don't own traffic enforcement companies or anything) and they've found that redlight cameras increase accidents. I don't know that they've done any research as to the reasons, but they've found very clearly that when redlight cameras go in, accidents go up. That alone should be enough that we should suspend adding them until more research is done to find out why, and what if anything can be done to stop that. The whole reason to stop people from running red lights is safety. If the cameras make it less safe, they are worse than useless.
1. What if the driver in front is drunk? I am sure there are other circumstances that might make it the person in fronts fault, alas IANAL nor do I have much experience with traffic accidents. Do I think its a good law? Yes. Do I think it is going to be right 100% of the time? Most certainly not.
2. Pileup as in, I get hit by a bus from behind, and my stopped car ends up running into the car in front of me. Most normal people would understand that this is the fault of the bus, but as the law is written it sees that it my fault, so you have to get the actual blame placed on the bus. Which can be easy, if the bus company decides to take the blame or difficult if they decide to fight it. This is my personal experience.
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
It is at least three, often more, in each direction in almost all parts. Perfectly possible the driver was in one of the middle lanes. Also, often the rightmost lane is for exiting only, it'll be a couple miles long at most, just for access to the exits.
This is a major city loop, and there's not the luxury of saying all traffic should cram in to the right lane. They have multiple lanes so traffic can spread out and keep moving efficiently. More or less, the further you have to go, the further left you go. You want to keep out of the way for people getting on and off the loop.
Arizona law (ARS 28-721) requires right lane driving only for two lane roads of sufficient width. For three lane, or greater, roads, the law doesn't apply. This is especially relevant since in the Phoenix metro the left most lane is often a variable carpool lane at different times of day. Can't really have that work, if you don't allow driving in it.
It's reasonable to fine them if they violate the law. But then the law allows then to run the light if they have some reason to do so. So the best thing would be to fine tune the law so they can still run the lights if they need to. But I'd say to fine them 10X more if they are simply using their status as police to break a law.
Am I missing something? Why couldn't someone on the side of the road measure the frequency by using, say, a stopwatch?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I just wanted to add a reason to your list... Motorcycles often arent heavy enough to trigger traffic lights. If you obeyed the law to the letter you could sit there for days.
Ive had to run many a red light because of this... mind you i ran it after having to sit & look at an empty intersection for 5-10 minutes.
Im glad we dont have those things here yet.
When I got a call telling me my 4 day old son had only minutes to live. I treated all red lights like rolling stop signs, and sped. The consequences really did not seem important for some reason.
Seriously, who is crazy enough to post a real opinion on a public forum without being anonymous.
Being that a check on my registration will not return the name "Lord Kano", I feel completely free to say that all cops take it in the pooper and that they like to go ass to mouth.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I had a ticket for a similar situation:
I had had my vehicle repaired, and the repair was done with a faulty part.
When my clutch stuck the car in gear so that my choices were to run the red light or run off the bridge on the curve immediately on the other side of the intersection because my steering wheel lock engaged from turning off my ignition, I chose running the light and not dying over running the light anyway and dying.
California doesn't allow that a mechanical breakdown could be a mitigating factor in any moving violation, and so it was a $390 fine and points on my license. There is no arguing this.
Even if I agree with this on the theory that vehicle maintenance is the operators responsibility, I _had_ the vehicle maintained by a certified auto mechanic: it was a defective part that caused the malfunction.
I'm convinced that a reasonable police officer in the same situation would have called a tow truck when I finally got the vehicle to a safe point where I could turn off the ignition with the wheels pointing more or less straight, but there is no appeal against an unreasonable camera.
I wish I had had the ability (time) to follow this through an appeals process to case law (just on principle, but I didn't.
I paid the fine: there's pretty much zero appeal for these revenue collection devices, no matter what your story, at least in California.
-- Terry
Mea culpa. I noticed that after I posted my wise-ass response, but by then it was too late.
I was hoping it would simply get lost in the sea of other poorly planned comments. I should really know Slashdot better by now.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
"Driver in front never at fault" laws are plan stupid.
Utah has such a law, and I was ticketed there (maybe 16 years ago?) for rear-ending someone; so to answer your question:
"So who the fuck else could it be that was at fault? Santa Claus? The tooth fairy? The devil made me do it? I have a really hard time believing that you seriously mean that it's the driver in the front cars fault that somebody decides to run into him."
It was the fault of the asshole in front of me with the broken brake lights who didn't maintain his vehicle.
I.e.: the guy in front.
I still got the ticket, because that's the law (the officer had no choice), but I was able to fight (and win) in court as a result.
But it cost me the use of the bailment I had to pay until the court heard the case, the use of my vehicle and the cost of a rental car while the case was pending (the insurance would not pay for repairs or a rental if I was at fault), and a day in court -- all over a ticket which should never have been issued to me, but for the utterly stupid law.
-- Terry
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Driving is just a minor issue. The big "cop exemption" involves evasion of the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban by cops. This prohibits any gun ownership or possession in the US by anyone convicted of domestic violence.
Including cops and soldiers.
The Army has faced up to this. A domestic violence conviction for a soldier means no more access to small arms. (Aircraft, artillery, and other big stuff are still OK.) But many police departments are really lax about this. Nationally, about 60,000 cops should have lost their jobs when that restriction became law in 1996, but to date, only a few hundred actually have. However, at least it's usually checked when hiring new cops, and gradually, departments are coming around. Even the Fraternal Order of Police finally gave up fighting this.
I'm for it. The same thing happens for visiting foreign dignitaries, parades, protected persons moved to and from court, and funeral processions.
There's plenty to complain about with George... but letting the president's car get where it's going quickly is not one of them.
Take off every 'sig' !!
Heh.
That's funny.
Heh heh.
Ha Ha!
Whoa that's rich!
Hee hee silly police people!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
ROTFLMAO!
Ho ho ho!
(panting for breath now)
I feel really bad for all those officers caught speeding by the red light cams...
uh... not!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Maybe we can petition the city into putting up a public web site with the pictures?
Wouldn't it be great if we could get videos too??
Hahahahahahahaahahaha!
Man that's hilarious.
That's not the whole story. I've seen reports that said that cities reduced the "yellow time" in order to get more red-light tickets. I think I read that some cities had gone down to as little two seconds yellow as a result. I think that changes the game from just speeding and unsafe driving to unsafe light timings.
To add to that, there are no studies that show that this system works, and there are no statistics that show whether red-light running. It's a lot of expense for something that we don't know is really needed and we don't know if it's really working.
http://www.onemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/ en/lta_information_guidelines/faqs/other_faqs/traf fic_management.html#MainPar_0009
Quoting one response...:
"...Over a period of one year, we found that the effect of the countdown timer was only felt during the initial four months of the trial, that is, there was a reduction in the number of vehicles beating the red light.[emphasis added] Following that, we found that motorists' behaviour had reverted to when the countdown timer was not installed."
Another good (albeit a few years old now) discussion can be found here...s g?msg_id=0000O7&topic_id=1
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-m
Food for thought nonetheless, it would be nice to see this put in place in the 1st world. Let's bring traffic signaling into the 21st century. I can imagine countdown timers in conjunction with cameras would definitely cut down on red-light-runners.
HEX offender mugshot ID: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Any time you do not have a clear view of whether its safe to proceed, then you are following too close.
And two car lengths behind a semi is perfectly safe.
Following that far from a semi through an intersection is perfectly safe.
The color of the light is meaningless to safety in that situation.
So be honest, do you care at all about "people's lives", or do you just love authoritarianism because your post sure makes you seem like the latter since there is nothing supporting the former in it.
As a relatively new driver (less than a year) on Canadian roads during the winter. I have to call you an asshat.
I've driven through a good 10 inches of slush before, and you know what I did? Reduced my speed. Instead of 80km/h I did 30-40km/h and sometimes slower. You can feel when the car isn't gripping well, that is unless you're driving a poorly tuned tank of some sort.
Unless you hit a covered piece of ice, it's really hard to argue you couldn't have prevented the argument, and in general, you'll know when there is ice because it's freezing rain outside. The real question is "where" the ice is. But in any event in freezing rain you shouldn't really be driving but if you have it's just a safe bet to reduce speeds considerably.
As for not stopping for lights, try this trick, look for a pedestrian crossing signal [if any]. They'll give you more than advance warning. If it's flashing the don't walk sign expect the green to turn yellow shortly, in which case if you're really far away, expect to stop and slow down accordingly.
I don't get why people rush to speed to red lights. For example, my trip to work is pretty much along one road that has a half dozen lights on it. And between every single light people feel the need to hit the speed limit + 20km/h, even though there is only 1km between them. Newsflash: That's how you wear out your breaks and engine quicker. Usually I hit at most the speed limit (only if the light is green) and usually 10 under if it's yellow or red. No sense burning extra fuel to wait longer at a light.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
So, should cops be also subject to law enforcement ? Here's an on-topic story:
While working in Italy I hit the bars with a bunch of colleagues and their friends, one of whom was a cop (polizioto). Italy also has a second type of police, the carabinieri, who is military, and their status overlap broadly, so there's often competition between them. So the guy tells his story, that he's in an unmarked car with his team when they get stopped by the carabinieri for going over the speed limit. They flash their cop card, but the carabiniere is unfazed: "the law is the same for everyone, here's you ticket". So the cops take the piss, come out of their car and start reviewing the others' car: dead tail light, pressure of the tires too low, expired driver's license, wrong number of stamps on the insurance form and whatnot; with the other side doing the same, obviously. In the end 15 tickets between 2 cars, 3 carabinieri and 4 cops !
Non-Linux Penguins ?
not that you should see if you can guess how long it will last and guess if you can get over the line before the light changes.
Actually, that is exactly what the yellow light means.
Your tires are 5 feet before the line going 45 and the light turns yellow and *you* stop immediately?!?
Bullshit.
It's a judgement call every time the light turns yellow.
Sure, some people have shitty judgement, but that doesn't make your assinine absolutist nonsense even remotely sane in any way shape or form.
... such as Soviet Russ... no, such as Spain where I live, there are laws in fact used to allow "priority vehicles", like ambulances, fire engines and police cars (generally, every vehicle that has flashligts on top of it) to speed, or jump STOPs and traffic lights if they are on duty.
The catch there is that they do it under their responsability, so if they cause an accident, it will be THEIR fault.
I guarantee that if California did that, it would not only eliminate the red light running problem overnight, but would also make the roads a lot safer and more pleasant for drivers.
Fair enough, and I won't bet against you on that.
But...
Do you really think that has a fucking thing to do with traffic laws?
Safety and pleasantness aren't even relevant. Not only do they make more for tickets, but they make more from people dying in the intersections by pointing at as a need for more cash.
Seriously, welcome to 1984.
Not the Orwell book.
This type of shit's been going on at *least* that long.
so far, i've managed to beat those 50% odds each time it's happened (either managing to stop without destroying my cargo or car, or managing to get through a millisecond before it turned red).
those cameras introduce bias.
that kind of situation should not exist if the light were timed competently, but theyre not, and I personally have no control over it, but i guess according to you i'm guilty until proven innocent because i was placed in an impossible situation by factors i could not control.
the irony is.. in those instances.. if i had been speeding i would not have ended up in those situations... i would have been traveling fast enough to avoid the dilemma.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Reaction times? That's what I would say if someone said they measured it with a stopwatch. How accurate is a human with a stopwatch?
It's harder to dispute the accuracy of the frame-count on recorded video.
As Englishmen like to remind, in UK, even the Queen stops at the red light.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
If they believe that the law doesn't apply to them. If they run a red light, they better damn well have a compelling reason to do so and the appropriate signals on.
Only if they're set up and configured by morons.
Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time.
If they're not set up by morons, they will only be armed about one second after the light turns red. In that case, you're either across the intersection already or you were going way too fast in the first place. Also, the camera will take two pictures, about a second apart, to see if you actually went across the intersection or stopped.
What if there is rain or snow on the ground?
See above. You might also run a red light if someone is following too closely to you and you don't want to get rear-ended when you slam on the brakes.
Geez, don't your traffic lights have an amber phase ?
Anyway, that "someone" will be on the picture and if they were really that close, you can make an argument.
They are totally biased, because they assume if the camera catches you, you are in the wrong.
Dunno about where you live, but where I live, you can contest everything. They'll have to prove the offense then. Since the people who set up the cameras usually aren't morons around here, you better have a really good reason to do so, though.
As a cop and a volunteer EMT/fire fighter, I have some insight on this. Anyone running lights and sirens is exempt from stopping at red lights though they are entirely responsible as they are considered offensive drivers when doing so. That means their insurance pays no matter what if they hit you. In most states, fire trucks and ambulances are limited to an arbitrary limit above the speed limit, so say speed limit + 10 mph. Cops are not restricted to this limit due to the need for even faster arrival, the maneuverability of their vehicles, and the amount of training they receive (roughly 10 times that of an ambulance or fire truck driver, most departments average around 100 hours behind the wheel in high-speed situations)
Some other points:
-When most people think an ambulance or fire truck is going very fast, its not. It's all perception. I have had people call 911 and report I was speeding in a fire truck and when I was radioed I was only doing 5 mph over. I know this because the tanker I was driving isn't capable of getting up to speed that fast carrying 5,000 gallons of water. It also doesn't need to be the first vehicle on scene and thus is the last to pull out of the station. The lights and siren make it seem faster as well as public perception from movies where they are always speeding.
-As a cop, a siren is not required just because your lights are on. This is a code 2 (lights only) versus a code 3 (lights and siren response). When running code 2, you are more restricted from speeding and could be taking a greater risk depending on the situation. It means, I need to get there quicker the normal but I'm not going so fast that I can't comply with most traffic laws.
-Cops do not run lights and sirens for a reason on occasion. Sirens can be heard for over 3 miles and thus will alert criminals that they are close by. For that reason, they are not used on domestic disturbance responses (people tend to run or kill and then run) or when tracking a suspect (they know where to avoid you).
-Cops not getting tickets because of brotherhood is crap. While the cop may not get a ticket, they generally get very severe internal reprimands. Equate this to you taking a stapler from work. Should you be punished by your employer or charged with theft. I have seen cops demoted and take a $10k a year pay cut for getting into an accident because someone ran a red light and hit them while they were going through a green but their lights just happened to be on.
-A poster pointed out that cops don't always signal. This is probably true, have you ever tried to talk on a radio, usually to both a dispatcher and other units, type a plate into a mobile terminal, and drive at the same time? A cop must do this all at the same time even while on normal patrol. At some point, a cop is going to have to make a decision whether he can safely execute a maneuver without signaling or he is going to be task saturated.
-When a cop is tailgating, he is not enticing you to do wrong. He is pacing you. This is an approved method of speed determination in all states as radar is ineffective in the same direction you are traveling and within +/- 15 mph of your speed. Cop cars have certified calibration of their speedometers. They maintain an exact distance, usually 5 feet from your bumper and look down. This may seem inaccurate but it has been upheld many times and is virtually the only option. Most courts require you maintain this over some distance. Keep driving the speed limit and when he has an accurate speed he will pass.
-Cop cars are already equipped with GPS and radio systems that report speed and location back to the dispatcher. Their actions are enforced just not in the same way as yours.
-Red light cameras suck. I am sure the point the cops hate is who is liable for fighting this. Are the cops liable for searching logs and proving they were on a call? This could add a lot to the 4-5 hours of paperwork a normal cop does in a 12 hour shift. That's less time on the road and more mandatory overtime for the other cops to cover.
Most of the cops I know feel they are above the law. Think about the cops you know that smoke dope, drive drunk and do illegal shit when their red lights aren't on. They are regular people in an emotionally f-cked job. Doesn't give em the right to play god, but most of em do - on and off the job.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Is this a case for or against governments relying on un-biased automated systems? Or, should anyone be able to control who is recorded on camera and who is held accountable?"
It depends. Do you want a legal system in which the rules apply to everyone, or only to those too weak to cheat?
Revive the Constitution.
They should pull cops over too for speeding. They pull me for doing a little over the limit on the 65mph highway, then I see them speeding by going at least 90mph in a 55mph zone (Buffalo, NY for example) whilst talking on their cell phone, no emergency either because they're just doing rounds on the highway pulling over people that are going 60mph.
I know cops are exempt from the cell phone law, but there is no reason they should be allowed going high speeds in a non-emergency situation calling their girlfriend, or rather anyone that hasn't have to do with the job.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Has anyone suggested just getting rid of the cameras?
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
by human eyes.
Yes there are times when an officer should run the light. However they should never run it without the strobes running.
As for human review...
I got one of the red light tickets
The photo showed my brake lights on, and smoke billowing out from under my trailer tires.
What the photo did not show that the video I took of the light right after I went through the intersection was that there was no Yellow, went straight from green to red.
Now if there was someone reviewing the pictures I would have not gotten the ticket.
It's hard to stop 17,000 pounds even though I was going less than 45mph, I still left
skid marks for about 75 feet and did actually come to a stop on the other side of the intersection with my horn blowing and full expectation of t-boning somebody.
So to me, Yes they are a good thing, Yes police should be able to run them if they are running their lights, someone should review them to make sure that there is not a reason for running the light. e.g. Getting out of the way of an ambulance or fire truck or police or in my case, just flat out unable to make the stop. Now I did show the Judge the video, and the photo of the "violation". His response, he sent a deputy out to look at the intersection to ensure the light was fixed, and dismissed my case.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
...that they punch and strangle a police officer.. yes, yes it is a bad thing.e rt_agente_te_wurgen.html
_ France
d t_met_scooter_in_op_agenten.html_ rijdt_met_hoge_snelheid_in_op_agent.htmlr ijdt_agent_aan.html
http://www.nu.nl/news/1038914/14/rss/Jongen_probe
Once masses of people get in a destructive uproar over two kids dying because they knowingly fled from the police and decided an electrical housing was a dandy place to do so.. yes, yes it is a bad thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in
Once a smaller mass of people get in a, thankfully, more peaceful uproar over two kids dying because they knowingly fled from police on their moped, for the relatively minor offenses of not having a license plate and not wearing helmets, and wrapping themselves around a tree.. yes, yes it is a bad thing.
http:/// dammit, can't find it right now
Once there's several incidents where there's people taking their vehicle and purposefully trying to run into cops (rather, expect them to get out of the way as a means to escape whatever check (alcohol, speed, whatever) is being performed.. yes, yes it is a bad thing.
http://www.nu.nl/news/740197/14/rss/Tilburger_rij
http://www.nu.nl/news/849457/13/rss/Scooterrijder
http://www.nu.nl/news/726139/14/rss/Automobilist_
Don't get me wrong, people don't have to just take *everything* authority, in these cases the police, are doing. A certain level of 'contempt' is sane. But keep in mind that the slope of contempt for authority is a very slippery one.
Take the riots in France.. if I were a kid there now who committed a crime and I'm being chased by the police, I might be more inclined to flee as well - after all, a large portion of the population will stick by me should something go wrong - they'll tell the police that they shouldn't chase me at all, thanks to their new level of sheeple-contempt for authority. Heck, the police may be less inclined to chase me at all in fear of this contempt, and I could get away with whatever I was doing.
You and I may be able to keep our footing on it, but you and I both also know that plenty of people can't or even won't; regular news reports being ample evidence thereof.
Funny you mention UPS. Not sure if it is still true but when I started driving about 30yrs ago it used to be a technicality of law here in Australia that the only people who could legally speed was the government run postal service, IIRC the same was also true in Britain. I agree the 10mph "efficientcy" idea is dumb, to spot speeders you travel at the limit, to spot other things you often need to slow down.
For bullshit like red light cameras cops need a code of conduct that they themselves respect and regular defensive driving lessons, that's about it. Having said that people can and do get killed and maimed every day on the road. A few years back a couple of cops ran a red light near where I lived killing an entire family and causing a massive pile up. It happened right in front of a major suburban police station, the two cops had just come on night duty drunk and had fled the scene of the accident. Thier workmates quickly found them and locked them up for questioning by the internal affairs people, both "pigs" quite rightly ended up with stiff prison sentences for manslaughter and a slew of other charges.
Yeah we still have the "bush pig" problem and corruption varies from state to state and generation to generation. The one thing that is consistent is that the prohibition on drugs is the root cause of a great deal of police corruption and organised crime. The FBI during the US's prohibition on alcohol were overtly corrupt and the same thing been happening the world over with this stupid war on drugs we have had for the last half decade or so.
You want to pull the profit rug from underneath organised crime and corruption then get rid of the antiquated notion of prohibition and bring on "the pursuit of happiness". As for "the children", drug and alcohol problems are health problems, some people are born into shitty circumstances others go looking for it, many end up simply determined to spend all of their often short and miserable lives in an alternate state of reality or behind bars.
Like a large chunk of the adult population I have done all the dumb things, I still like the odd trip to an "alternate reality" and put the foot down every now and then (on a "safe streach of road" naturally). However dumb things can become dead things, particularly if you are young, "bulletproof", and you have never been touched by a "dead thing" (or old and can't see a thing). In my mind, cops should be focused on minimising harm as in preventing "dumb things" turning into "dead things". If they could manage that then who gives a flying fuck if they use a siren to get their doughnuts.
Disclaimer: I have friends and relations in the force. From my experience "cops" outnumber the "pigs" over here by at least 5:1, 10:1 if you put an empty kiddie seat in the back and stand up for your rights without being pedantically confrontational or uncooperative. This doesn't mean you won't get a ticket but it can often mean you won't get a court date (and/or hospitialized for resisting arrest on a "drug offense").
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Actually, I believe that the law says that a red light means that you must stop, not that you must stop if it is safe to do so; certainly that's the case in the UK at least. Amber is stop if it's safe, red is stop. If you're going too fast to stop then either you were speeding (illegal) or driving without due care and attention (also illegal).
The cameras are unforgiving. They are totally biased
No, the camera merely records the fact that you ran the light. It is the human who uses this information to instigate legal proceedings against you that presumes your guilt. The camera does no such thing; it can't, it's just a machine.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Many intersections in the US have this feature too, but it isn't widely known, and may not be in place everywhere. I was taught about it in driver's ed, but I have noticed some intersections where it wasn't painted that way.
"With great power comes great *responsibility*."
What a moron, quoting Spider-Man.
At least you gave me a laugh, but shut up before you say something else moronic.
The law does not give the right away to anyone running emergency lights and sirens, it only authorizes the request for the right of way, however if you fail to yield the right of way you could be given a tick for "failure to yield right of way to emergency vehicle". Welcome to Texas, no you cant have green card, go home...
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
I think, for once, the UK has a sensible approach in law on this one. Our traffic law exemptions are often written in terms such as "vehicle being used as an ambulance". Clearly it is expected that emergency paramedic types are covered by this, but the same exemption has been applied to other cases similar to those mentioned in this thread.
Predictably, there have been a few silly court cases that hit the news. Doctors or blood transports on their way to emergencies but not technically ambulances and with drivers not trained in emergency response driving are the most common examples. However, these cases are pretty much always thrown out in court, as long as the driver's behaviour was reasonable under the circumstances.
And yes, the exemptions can also be (and have been) used for private citizens driving people to hospital in genuine emergencies. However, speaking as both police-trained driver and first-aider, you want to be very sure this is better for the patient than just calling an ambulance before you start going all hero and racing across town, for a whole host of reasons:
Put that lot together, and you can pretty much see why the authorities aren't keen to promote civilian alternatives to ambulances, even as the law makes reasonable provision for it if it happens.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
45 mph = 66 feet per second, so at 150 feet, I would cross the line in under 3 seconds, so I have no problem making it to the line before the light changes, over 150 feet I have time to stop. So the only time I would end up going through a red is if I try to make it across the line from distance of about 250 - 300 feet or if I wait until the light goes red before braking.
so whine all you like, I don't care, but don't try and convince yourself your self that running reds is some involuntary act.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
An ass chewing? Isn't that special.
If I were caught speeding, would the traffic sargeant give *me* an ass chewing or a ticket? I'd rather be yelled at for twenty minutes than have to pay a $100 fine. So would the cops. That's why they got an ass chewing and everybody got tickets.
So, perhaps the effect of red light cameras will be that people will begin to feel that tailgating is too dangerous for whatever nonexistent benefits they get from it. This would not be an effect which would be immediately noticeable in a study, but the end result would be that red light cameras had improved safety quite a bit more than even expected.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Do you really think that the cop can tell what color your skin is when you are flying by him at 90 mph?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Yes, I meant the one rear-ended. Sorry for not being clear.
And I'm not sure either, but it's apparently how it works. Every insurance company I've talked to wants to know if you've been in a wreck in the last 3 years, "regardless of who was at fault." Which is just ridiculous.
Funeral processions get the same treatment.
Not in the UK, though. But during my college years, I drove two different cars. One was a four cylinder Fiat sedan. It was tiny and looked like it couldn't go over the speed limit if it wanted to. Looks can be deceiving. I could frequently, while driving this innocuous looking car, speed right by police cars, highway patrolmen, etc. Let me reiterate that: I could SPEED past them without so much as a glance.
My other car was a Chevy Camaro all decked out with after-market parts...your basic white trash muscle car. I could not so much as approach the speed limit or even do anything as simple as drive with a headlamp out when any cop was around. I was pulled over and NOT ticketed, just harassed, while driving that vehicle infinitely more times than in my POS 4-banger.
Ironically, if anything, I drove MORE aggressively with the POS car than the camaro...but the muscle car got all the attention.
somewhat hard to whip out the video camera while I'm on a bike. And in the rare situations when I'm in a car, I wouldn't consider using a video camera while driving to be very safe, ya know? I've done lots of cross-country drives lately, and the idea of doing some dumb-assed stunt like chasing down a police officer, stalking him to see if he does it again, and then video taping him while I'm driving...all while I'm hundreds of miles from home...doesn't sound very appealing to me. I don't hold a camera at ready at all times while driving or riding you know, and as such I don't have the time to pull one out when I see the same cop again coming up from behind me, then later see him pulling over someone new. If I even owned a video camera, which I don't.
Nice troll though!
BTW, I have gotten a police officer fired and criminally punished, but it was for something far more serious. I don't recall seeing anything in my post there about me not doing anything when I see such.
Would a better example be a father who punches a police officer for arresting his kid?
Oh no, that would still be fear.. as the father would fear that his son may get a record.
All contempt could be rationalized to actually be fear that way. Would contempt be to find a spot where there is a cop doing speed checks, then speed by, again and again, and then refuse to pay any fines? That'd be contempt for the law, not for the the authority (cop) in question.
I don't see any fear, whatsoever, in the 14-year old who punches and strangles a cop. Somebody who would have fear would run from the cops, not assault them. Similarly, although the 2 French kids may have had fear for the cops when they fled, those in riots certainly had no fear - they had something more along the lines of contempt.
-A poster pointed out that cops don't always signal. This is probably true, have you ever tried to talk on a radio, usually to both a dispatcher and other units, type a plate into a mobile terminal, and drive at the same time? A cop must do this all at the same time even while on normal patrol. At some point, a cop is going to have to make a decision whether he can safely execute a maneuver without signaling or he is going to be task saturated.
Considering us civilians are under scrutiny for talking on our cellphones + driving, cops shouldn't be trying to one-up that. That's going to get them into an accident. They should pull over.
The correct procedure in this instance is to mail the traffic court and ask for a hearing, call the Department of Transportation and ask for a copy of the report for the malfunctioning traffic signal, send it to the DA with an explanation, and hope that he drops the charge.
If he doesn't, show up for court and show the report to the judge. There are no guarantees, but that should take care of the matter.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Not always. I can think of one case where I was going the legal limit, 45 IIRC, and the light suddenly changed.
Since the original article is about Dallas Texas, you may need to know that in Texas even though the speed limit of a major thoroughfare might very well be 45 or 50MPH, etc, that there also exists a statute (Texas Transportation Code, Subchapter H, Section 545.351(c) ) that says that the operator of a vehicle must reduce speed when approaching and crossing an intersection. The statute does not state an explicit amount by which to reduce speed, but Texas DPS (the state police & highway patrol) guidelines suggest the speed reduction to be at least by 5 MPH as a practical amount of speed reduction, so in your case of a 45MPH posted speed limit on the road leading up to the intersection with a traffic light, you should slow to 40MPH as you approach the intersection. A 5MPH reduction will give you significantly better stopping distance and additional time to react to a fast-changing traffic light (of which I have to admit there are plenty in Texas that turn from yellow to red much too unreasonably quickly).
The same red light cameras that made the pols feel "tough on crime" and make money too, turn out to create a political crap-storm with the police union and miffed citizens. Yee haw!
There is a light near my house that has a sensor that is placed two cars back. If you don't know this and it's 2am and no one else behind you. You could end up waiting a loooooong time for that second car ;^)
Nice! That'd be much cheaper than the lights, too. I wonder if the US could be talked into something like that. I always get caught by surprise when I'm driving down in the States now, where they don't have the warning lights.
~ Leilah
by assigning another Houston police officer to ' monitor ' all red light camera infractions.
As such, before any citations are issued a Houston police officer reviews the video to determine if the
incident qualifies. I'd love to see the number of officers blowing redlights who actually receive a citation.
The ONLY incident I have EVER been in was due to a police car running the red light. The vehicle in front
of me was about to go through her GREEN light when she had to slam on her brakes hard to avoid hitting
deputy goober who was blasting through the light.
It's an unwritten rule that police officers do NOT issue tickets to other officers. When it does happen,
it's rare. On more than one occasion have I seen the police officer who doesn't want to bother with
stopping for the stopsign and / or redlight. He simply kicks on his lights, blows the light / sign and
kills them once through it. This particular officer did it every day. His destination ? His driveway. . .
Or we can take the case of the officer driving down the freeway at speeds that would guarantee any normal
citizen a nice ticket. The whole ' enroute to a call ' thing doesn't fly when the officer in question
passed his jurisdictional line forty miles back. In other words, Police Officer from city X is in city Y
doing whatever. We know he's not running traffic or some radio call because he is too far out of his area
of responsibility.
While I don't dislike ALL police, those of you in law enforcement should realize that it's the officers
we DO see that are creating the bad public image for you.
Interesting and informative post--thanks.
However, here's something I see fairly often. A cop approaches a fairly quiet intersection--as he approaches, he turns on his lights and blips his siren, then blows on through a stop sign or red light--and then turns it off again, as he cruises down the street, quite clearly going to no particular event or issue. (In fact, I've actually seen them 'siren' their way through a red light and pull into a doughnut shop--the ultimate cliche!)
As for pacing, the only problem I have is the distance--five feet?! Regardless of training, that's not a safe distance at anything over 40km/h.
Fundamentally, cops need (and get) exemption from most laws when they're on a call--unfortunately, this gives some of them the feeling that they're completely beyond all traffic laws, and have no responsibility to behave appropriately. And around here at least, they don't get reprimanded unless they hit something/someone.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time.
Speeding.
Incorrect. If a yellow is timed wrong (short) for the speed limit of the road, you can find yourself quite fucked when trying to stop on time. This is particularly true if you're on a motorcycle, where getting rear ended by another driver a long ways back that thought you were going to go *is* fatal, and getting rear ended by a close driver is a lot more likely to be fatal than in a car.
Also, motorcycles face an additional danger when trying to stop quickly: if you lock your rear brake you just ride it to a stop, but if you lock that nice powerful front brake you could find yourself staring at the pavement. Just because some asshat timed the light wrong and the city decided to turn a profit on it instead of fixing it.
However, living in the Dallas/Plano area, I'd like to point out one nice massive flaw in their system: the camera for your lane if you blow a light only faces the *front* of your vehicle for the moment since Texas requires license plates on the front of a car. Bikes don't have license plates on the front. Oops! There IS one rear end camera in Plano that I've seen, but the rig is huge, obvious, and most likely a ton more expensive (it's a free standing structure) than just slapping a camera on top of the pre-existing stoplight rigs.
I've blown at least 3 of the front facing camera stoplights on a bike (yes, I was doing the proper speed limit and simply couldn't stop with how the light was timed) and never once gotten a ticket. So I'm not 100% sure of my conclusion, but it seems a reasonable conclusion so far.
...then the intersections and cameras would be labeled with giant signs saying "Red Light Camera HERE!!". Instead the cameras (at least in MD) are in nondescript boxes. Clearly the goal is to maximize revenue and deter (not stop) red light runners.
So the pigs are complaining that they're being treated like everyone else? OH, HOW MY HEART BLEEDS. These are the same authoritarian pricks who pull you over for an expired tag and act like you're a murderer. These are the jackholes that harrass people for standing on the sidewalk. These are the jerkoffs who are more interested in writing bullshit tickets for idiotic non-moving violations to increase state revenue, than they ever have been in enforcing safety on the road, and who selectively pick and choose who they're going to pull over or ticket tonight based on their own arbitrary standards, not any legal reasons.
I have absolutely zero sympathy for cops, especially ones that turn into whiny pussies for being subjected to the same alws as everyone else. A couple weeks of training and a badge don't make you better than anyone.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Cops should use self restraint and make at least an attempt to comply with the laws they enforce on everyone else. If they do not, send them a signal. The next time a public safey/police bond measure is on the ballot, vote no.
After funding has been cut five or six times, make a point of saying strongly "If you will not make an effort to comply with the rules, we will starve you out." If you find that no one else even seems to notice the issue, remember that slashdotters are far from the norm.
There is nothing magical about anyone who has received driving training. The vast majority of trainees in any driving class won't make any noticeable long term improvement in there driving skills. The biggest thing we work on in law enforcement driving training is undoing the plethora of bad habits and incorrect attitudes that they have. A major stumbling block is that there is a tendency for policemen to have a somewhat inflated ego. Basically lots of them got into the business because it gave them guns, badges, etc... And it gave them Control. The ego needs to be worked out of a lot of them so they can open their minds to learn and be safer.
Ambulance drivers aren't given "Go Fast" training in any part of the country that I am aware of. As a rule of thumb they aren't allowed to pass ANY moving traffic on the right. They will only pass on the left. I have never heard of one speeding or even progressing quickly into an intersection on a red light. If you watch they tend to slow to less then 10 miles an hour and carefully inspect an intersection before sticking their nose out.
Police officers tend to be much more aggressive. It is never publicized but their vehicle attrition rate is amazing. (If you know someone working at a body shop with a police contract ask them!) If any group of people had the accident rate of police officers on duty they would never be able to get insurance. Police are just as likely to get distracted and sloppy about their driving as any other person but they are put in situations where they are encouraged to drive much more aggressively then the average driver. Driving training doesn't do anything magical for them either. Most people don't have any gift for driving. That goes for the police too. They do have some misconceptions trained out of them and they have actually practiced car control but it doesn't really do anything to make them 'special drivers'.
The biggest problem I see with police and driving is that they aren't subject to the traffic laws that the rest of us are even when they are off duty. Ask one of them about it. They will give you a story about "how they are always on call to backup any other law enforcement officer at any time and if they were to give each other tickets that would reduce their trust and reliance on one another".
What a load of horse dookey.
So their reason for letting each other get away with ignoring the laws that they enforce on us is that they are so childish that they wouldn't help an officer in need if they had received a ticket from them? My god, just spouting that kind of stupidity should be grounds for immediate termination.
Unless they are willing to follow the laws they have no business enforcing them.
BTW - The law does say that if they are running lights/siren/etc in the line of duty they can enter intersections against a red light and ignore other traffic laws. That is how it should be but if they collide with someone who has a green light it IS the officer's fault.
This is really pathetic.
How many times have I seen Boston area cops (and State police) also abuse their position to get through traffic. Turn on the lights and people get out of your way (it's the law). They're not in pursuit of anyone. This happens in Southern NH, too, and it's f**king annoying.
It's about time they were held responsible.
From my extensive experience in this matter, I have observed that, for every patient saved, an average of 10 people, most of them hookers, are killed.
I can rest my case.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
If only there was a way for emergency vehicles to indicate when they would stop obeying the laws of traffic...
Because I really do care about people's lives (I've lost too many friends and family to careless drivers), I'm going to reply one more time and I'll try to be as clear as possible.
A safe distance between you and the car in front of you is the distance at which (1) you can anticipate the traffic conditions that could require you to respond (2) give you enough time to respond safely. It doesn't matter if its 1/2 a car length or 10 car lengths. There is no set rule. I don't know why you say 2 car lengths when we've made no assumptions about speed or driving conditions. City driving could reasonably mean anywhere from stop-and-go to 45 mph.
The hidden assumption in your case seems to be that traffic coming the other way is at a full stop when the light changes and will wait for both the semi and you to run a red light. Let's assume that there is no traffic stopped at the light when it turns green, but there is another driver half a block away travelling at 35 mph. That driver will see the light turn to green, see that the semi will be through the intersection before they arrive, and that driver continues at 35 mph. But wait! you're following two car lengths behind! Even if the other driver slams on their brakes as soon as they see you, there won't be enough time. You get completely side swiped and its entirely your fault! Let's hope you don't have passengers.
Does this seem contrived? It isn't, I've seen an accident almost exactly like this happen at 1 am, (I was walking at the time and not involved). Fortunately, everyone was wearing seatbelts and noone was hurt.
BTW, I'm a bit upset that you would jump to the conclusion that I love authoritarianism. At what point did I support traffic cameras? I was just trying to point out a common misconception about safe driving. Anyway, this has gotten severely off-topic.
From the article: "I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."
Change "in the morning" to read "in the afternoon", and that would sum up the counterclaim. It's not acceptable to break the law just because it's two in the morning, not two in the afternoon. If it was not deemed an emergency, there is no reason that suits the public interest for allowing the people enforcing the law to disobey it.
In some cases a few minutes may make the difference, but this will always be the case. The system we put in place must be followed, and if it does not work to our satisfaction, it must be amended. When individuals are allowed to compromise the law at whim, the very foundation of our society is forfeit.
My grandfather who is 83 was T-Boned 2 weeks ago by a police officer who ran a stop sign without lights. Since there were other witnesses, the man claimed responsibility for his actions, but I'm certain he didn't receive any penalties for running the sign. A few months ago, I was passing through a green light at about 3am after getting off work. An officer ran a red light, forced me into a raised median and slammed on his brakes. After seeing I made a recovery and went back on the road, he flipped his lights on as if, "Whoops.. now I'm on a call, I'll turn the sirens on." I'm sure shit like this happens all the time, but people are so scared to report it, that they can't. They SHOULD be punished for not using due care.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
I say if they proceed thru the intersection cautiously with the lights on, fine. better yet lights and sirens that way people make way for you. just blowing an intersection is reckless at best.
San Diego installed red light cameras years ago. The cops were all for it until they started getting hit with $371 fines themselves. Interestingly, the city had to turn the cameras off for a time when some enterprising folks discovered that the yellow light times had been deliberately shortened to entrap more people. There were a few other discoveries too, such as the cameras being run by a private company (Lockheed Martin at the time), and the cop who was supposed to "review" the tickets before they went out going on vacation and signing a bunch of blank forms so Lockheed Martin could cite people while he was gone. And then there were the threats by Lockheed Martin to sue people who wanted to subpoena the schematics, software, and calibration records of the cameras so they could contest their tickets.
Not only is that reckless, unsafe, and (where I live, at least) like to enrage the person behind so that they begin deliberately stalking you, but it's also the kind of idiocy that can cause pileup accidents and traffic jams. I used to do this all the time before I sat down and really thought about the ramifications of my actions.
Here, read the article that changes the way I drive. Mysterious "no accident" traffic jams are caused by the amplification of sudden slowing by a line of cars braking from a single event. The guy behind the guy behind the guy you're pulling this stunt on has to make a more sudden stop than the guy you were targetting. This sort of effect can amplify itself throughout dense traffic and eventually spread out to cause stop-and-go traffic. It's a very inconsiderate thing to do when you consider the effects of "winning" your little game against the effects it can have on everyone else.
That said, if you must try to push back at those trying to push you around on the road, it's much simpler, less accident prone, and less likely to shock traffic into a jam to just let your foot off the gas and gradually slow down. I haven't found any tailgater that's willing to stick behind a guy that's slowed to 10 MPH slower than they were going when the tailgater first got impatient enough to hang on my bumper.
Really, though, the best approach is to just avoid the fast lanes and go at a more relaxed pace. Pushing back at bullying drivers only works you up into a rage and makes you a less safe driver. Trust me, I find myself less miserable when driving now that I don't drive so competitively anymore, so do it for yourself if not for others.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
(of which I have to admit there are plenty in Texas that turn from yellow to red much too unreasonably quickly).
My complaint wasn't so much the short blipped yellow. My complaint was no yellow... as in triggered by either the neighboring firestation, or emergency vehicels in route. I say it was triggered as the lights went 4 way red.
Even at 40mph, thinking distance of 40 feet is not unreasonable. A braking distance of 80feet is not unresonable. The fact that I was at 45, I had one car length of thinking time, and stopped between 50 and 70feet (the length of the intersection), I did well. It actually sugests that I was probally going 40mph by the time I hit the intersection.
This is why we need a human to evaluate whether or not the driver was at fault and should get a ticket, or not. In the case I pointed out, the fault was the light, and who ever designed that blasted thing. A human at any highway speed needs adquate warning to a light change to take into account thinking time. While I agree the firestation should have control over the intersection, in this field of work every second counts. However, their control should not trigger a light to go from green to red, but rather give some yellow. But even so, i'm sure it was the design to switch in the event of an emergency, and anyone who's not technicaly able to stop is already clear of firetrucks so it's not an issue.
Whether it be Texas or where I live, the laws of physics remain the same. You can quote matters of law, but if law is absolute, there is no justice.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
While they're installing these expensive camera systems couldn't they also take the time to install some proper, legible street signs. Most of the signs in the downtown area are on stupid ground level poles with vertical white text on a grey background. Even if the sign isn't blocked by parked cars or street furniture it can be nearly impossible to read if the sign is older and the gray paint has oxidized to a lighter color.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Let's all post the same thing 650 times! Brilliant!
Because I'm sure my argument about why cops should obey the law except in extreme circumstances is a unique viewpoint.
so that they're (slightly) harder to spot for the pikey scum they're trying to catch
I fucking hate Pikeys!
"You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
he fact you would cite such a stupid example just shows what an idiot you are, use a sensible argument not a stupid strawman.
Wow, you're really not smart at all, are you.
It shows how simple it is to come up with an example absolutely destroying your obviously unthought through "point".
Had you thought about it for a couple of seconds before posting that idiotic tripe, then you would have realised it yourself without it having to be pointed out to you.
It was an absolutely sensible argument. Yours was nonsense as I so easily demonstrated.
Grow up and deal with the fact that *you* were wrong. It's called personal responsibility, go ahead and take some.
so whine all you like, I don't care, but don't try and convince yourself your self that running reds is some involuntary act.
And you have the audacity to accuse me of a straw man argument?!? Wow, what color is the air on your planet?
That was never anything even approaching my argument. My point as I clearly stated was the speeding up or slowing down for the yellow is a judgement call. The fact that such an easy example obliterated your contrary point demonstrates how deeply stupid it was.
Deal with that too little kid.
Maybe this will stop the asshole cops who come up to a red light, then turn on their siren and lights, rush through the red light, and turn off said sirens and lights as they turn into the donut store parking lot.
I've seen it happen ...
So when I slam on my brakes because the guy in front of ME slammed on HIS brakes, and the cop rear-ends me, he will be cited for failure to keep a safe distance and failure to keep control of the vehicle. Right?
And as for maintaining an exact distance, what, they have laser rangefinders on their dashboards? Or are they just winging it?
Anyways, in most states, the person doing the rear-ending is ALWAYS 100% at-fault in the accident.
Ok, the distance for pacing is 15 feet (I missed a 1 in my original post) or one average car length. Any further and it is difficult to maintain the exact distance which is essential.
... the red-light cameras watch you. and that's how it all started in the first place.
I'd draw the line a little more exactingly. As long as they're using the cop light bar, it shouldn't be a criminal traffic violation; they're giving other drivers the critically needed safety warning. However, if they're using the lights to avoid traffic rules beyond what police regulations permit, that should be handled as with other police disciplinary violations.
Of course, having to explain one's habit of running lights improperly to an internal review board may not make them any happier. They might even prefer just paying a few damn tickets.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Yeah, sure. I don't expect ever to be as stupid as the woman I saw driving a large SUV with a correspondingly large towing package. On the large horizontal bar was a large bumper sticker that read, "Bad cop -- no donut".
Read your rental agreement -- the company covers its ass with an indemnity clause. The charge will appear on your credit card sometime down the line.
Obvious example: you enter a light on green behind a very slow vehicle that just turned right. The light changes to yellow precisely as you cross the line. You will not get out of the intersection before it turns red no matter how hard you press on the accelerator. The lights are timed to allow the intersection to clear only at typical driving speeds, not from a dead stop. However, you entered the intersection legally because the light was not yet yellow.
Not quite. In most jurisdictions you are only supposed to enter the intersection if you can exit the intersection before the light turns red.
In New York City, getting caught in the intersection (aka "blocking the box") when the light goes red is a big ticket.
I did a little more research, and now I'm pretty sure you're making up that 2.4 second bit. Found this from the insurance insitute for highway safety. Rmember that insurance companies don't make any money from red light fines, but from reducing accidents and thus claims.
Of course they do. When drivers get tickets, their insurance rates usually go up.
Now, if the insurance company can charge more (due to tickets) when the risk of accidents (and claims) remains exactly the same, then they're doing really well!
Explanation of clutch failure
"I don't understand the problem you had. Your clutch got stuck. Could you pull the transmission out of gear without depressing the clutch?"
The clutch would not disengage (the actual failure was a shear in the clutch plate). As a result, the car could not be forced out of gear, so the engine could not be disengaged from the wheels, without turning off the ignition.
"Did your brakes not work? Most brakes are much stronger than the engine."
That depends on whether you are in a low gear or a high gear (overdrive). If you are in a low gear, the best you can do is burn your breaks and go forward anyway. My brakes worked, but it took time to evaluate why the clutch was not disengaging, try to pop it out of gear anyway (to hell with the gears grinding!), discover that that wasn't going to work, and decide whether or not to ride it out. I had attempted to start decellerating as soon as the light turned yellow, and had about 4 seconds to make all these evaluations and decisions (I did very well in this: I considered 4 options, and average human response time is 2 seconds). If the transmission hadn't been locked into gear, or I had been able to pop it out of gear, I could have stopped before it went red; when the second failed, there was no chance of it.
"Did you sue the mechanic/part manufacturer?"
They redid the repair at no cost, covering towing and rental. The best I could get them on is $390 for the ticket. It would cost far far more than that to take them and the manufacturer of the part to court (both would have to be a party to the case - I can explain the tort liability, if you want me to... though I'm not a member of the bar, I know the law), get expert testimony, etc. etc..
After that, I would (and do) still have the points on my license, and my insurance rate would still go up (as it did).
"Of course there is. Tickets are not issued by a camera, they are issued by the court system. Go to court and try to explain. If the court system in California doesn't accept mechanical failure as an excuse, the fact that you got caught by a camera is irrelevant. A judge would accept a cop's testimony the same way."
I *did* go to court, and argued it to the judge. A cop would have exercised human judgement and not issued the ticket; an officer testified to that (I entered the intersection 1 second after the light turned red). It didn't matter: the camera, lacking human judgement, caused the ticket to be issued, despite what a reasonable person or officer would consider.
So yeah, *if* the officer was an asshole instead of a reasonable person, the court would have accepted his testimony and enforced the rule, but *if* human judgement had been exercised instead of an inhuman machine process, the question of enforcement of the rule would never have arisen.
In California, as in most states, you are not permitted to have a jury trial on traffic violations, or I would have insisted (the only way I could have done this is to follow it through appeal - which as I said before, I simply don't have the time to do right now.
Like I siad: until someone challenges the legality of these things through an appeals process, there's no chance. And I suspect that if it ever came to it, they'd drop the charges on the person challenging, to avoid setting a precedent that would bite into their automated revenue stream (think about how RIAA handles cases, and why the suit for civil damages and legal costs going forward, even though they "decided not to sue", is such a strongly watched case).
-- Terry
Working brake lights are the law *for a reason*.
It is not always possible, when there is other traffic around, to tell whether the person in front of you is slowing down or not (look up "retrograde motion" on Wikipedia). Brake lights warn the other driver.
If the jackass had obeyed the law and stuck his left arm out the window, I *also* would have known he was stopping, and come to a stop.
So in the case in question, the pickup truck I was following was in violation of two laws in Utah, and would have failed inspection and the state would not have renewed registration over the brake lights (same for Arizona, for that matter).
I'm actually constantly amazed that California has turned registration from an opportunity to improve safety (by conditionalizing registration renewal on safety inspections of all vehicle systems, as other states do), into simple revenue collection.
But to carry your original point to its logical conclusion:
What's a safe following distance for a car which you don't know whether or not they have antilock brakes? Clearly, it's safer to follow closer if they don't have them, since if they have them, then they will have a shorter stopping distance.
Or even better... what's a safe following distance for an enclosed truck with a tare weight of 2000 pounds, a load capacity of 6000 pounds, and therefore brakes capable of stopping 8000 pounds? I guarantee you that if the truck is unloaded, its stopping distance is going to be far shorter than if it were fully loaded, by a significant amount.
A reductio ad absurdum of this argument, you would apparently have all cars at least one block apart so that they weren't "tailgating": there's ALWAYS a reason to stay farther back than you are ("maybe the driver in front of me is drunk, and I just can't tell for sure from a safe distance").
Defensive driving is a good baseline, but at some point, you have to assume that the other drivers on the road will be cooperating with each other to try and drive safely; it would be impossible to drive next to someone on a multilane highway - the distance between cars is *far* shorter than the difference in stopping distance or the time absorbed by reaction time, and after all, they might swerve into you.
-- Terry
I think you'll find that your law actually requires only a reasonable expectation to be able to exit the intersection before it turns red (i.e. that the path across the intersection is unobstructed, with space beyond the intersection sufficient to hold your vehicle). If you enter the light on green, regardless of your speed, you automatically have a reasonable expectation that you will be able to exit the intersection before it turns red, though you can certainly be surprised, as I mentioned.
Were the law not written based on a reasonable expectation, but rather written to require "guaranteeing that you are clear of the light before it turns red," you would be legally required to stop for every green light unless you could enter the intersection at normal traffic speeds. Why? Because you would have no way of determining whether the light would remain green long enough to get through the intersection. Such a law would be just as silly as laws that say that it is always legal to enter the intersection on green even if the exit is blocked.
Of course, what we really need are large countdown clocks like they have at pedestrian crossings. The clocks would show green numbers down through 7 or so, then turn yellow, and then at zero, the numbers would turn red, at which point you are expected to be out of the intersection or you would get a ticket. That way, drivers could never be caught unawares by a badly configured light. It really wouldn't matter when it changed to yellow, as you could visually judge the distance across the light and determine whether or not it was reasonable to enter the intersection with full knowledge of when the light would turn red. The yellow would just be provided as a convenient way to guess whether it is appropriate to enter or not rather than as your sole means of determining this.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Which means the current exemptions from the law are not doing any good at all, so the law should be enforced equally.
So you've made it quite obvious that you are able to recognise this situation as a hazard. Now all you need is the ability to drive at a speed appropriate to those conditions.
Right, because my post implied "speed up in these situations", you fucking twit.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Well, you should elect a better mayor then shouldn't you.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
There are times I wished Slashdot would let you delete your own posts. Or at the least replace it with "this post has been deleted by the poster."
My car once hit someone from behind. We were both at a red light when the guy in front of me put his car into reverse and stepped on the gas. Weirdest accident I've ever been in.