Slashdot Mirror
Red-Light Camera Ticket Revenue and Short Yellows
NicknamesAreStupid writes "A Fort Meyers news station reports a nerdy husband getting his wife out of a red-light camera ticket by proving the light was set with too short of a yellow. Then he goes out and proves that nearly 90% of the lights are set an average of about 20% too short. Is this a local incident, or have local governments nationwide found a new revenue source? What puzzles me is how a single picture can tell if you ran a light. If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle). Wouldn't you need two pictures — one just before the light went red showing you are not in the intersection, and another after the light went red showing you in the intersection?"
what the fuck is "online" about it?
If you are in the intersection when the light is red the you have run the light. It's really very simple!
you're doing it wrong.
Around here you aren't supposed to enter the intersection unless you will be able to make it through before it turns red.
Bah, forget the issues with the short yellow - what torques me is that here in Florida it's illegal for municipalities to legislate this kind of thing, but they do it anyway, and no one says boo.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda is a 29-year old white male with a stocky build and a goatee. He responded to my ad to be interviewed for this article wearing only leather pants, leather boots and a leather vest. I could see that both of his nipples were pierced with large-gauge silver rings.
Questioner: I hope you won't be offended if I ask you to prove to me that you're a nullo. Just so that my readers will know that this isn't a fake.
CmdrTaco: Sure, no problem. (stands and unbuckles pants and drops them to his ankles, revealing a smooth, shaven crotch with only a thin scar to show where his genitals once were).
Q: Thank you. That's a remarkable sight.
(laughs and pulls pants back up). Most people think so.
Q: What made you decide to become a nullo?
(pauses). Well, it really wasn't entirely my decision.
Q: Excuse me?
The idea wasn't mine. It was my lover's idea.
Q: Please explain what you mean.
Okay, it's a long story. You have to understand my relationship with Hemos before you'll know what happened.
Q: We have plenty of time. Please go on.
Both of us were into the leather lifestyle when we met through a personal ad. Hemos's ad was very specific: he was looking for someone to completely dominate and modify to his pleasure. In other word, a slave.
The ad intrigued me. I had been in a number of B&D scenes and also some S&M, but I found them unsatisfying because they were all temporary. After the fun was over, everybody went on with life as usual.
I was looking for a complete life change. I wanted to meet someone who would be part of my life forever. Someone who would control me and change me at his whim.
Q: In other words, you're a true masochist.
Oh yes, no doubt about that. I've always been totally passive in my sexual relationships.
Anyway, we met and there was instant chemistry. Hemos is about my age and is a complete loser. Our personalities meshed totally. He's very dominant.
I went back to his place after drinks and had the best sex of my life. That's when I knew I was going to be with Hemos for a long, long time.
Q: What sort of things did you two do?
It was very heavy right away. He restrained me and whipped me for quite awhile. He put clamps on my nipples and a ball gag in my mouth. And he hung a ball bag on my sack with some very heavy weights. That bag really bounced around when Hemos fucked me from behind.
Q: Ouch.
(laughs) Yeah, no kidding. At first I didn't think I could take the pain, but Hemos worked me through it and after awhile I was flying. I was sorry when it was over.
Hemos enjoyed it as much as I did. Afterwards he talked about what kind of a commitment I'd have to make if I wanted to stay with him.
Q: What did he say exactly?
Well, besides agreeing to be his slave in every way, I'd have to be ready to be modified. To have my body modified.
Q: Did he explain what he meant by that?
Not specifically, but I got the general idea. I guessed that something like castration might be part of it.
Q: How did that make you feel?
(laughs) I think it would make any guy a little hesitant.
Q: But it didn't stop you from agreeing to Hemos's terms?
No it didn't. I was totally hooked on this man. I knew that I was willing to pay any price to be with him.
Anyway, a few days later I moved in with Hemos. He gave me the rules right away: I'd have to be naked at all times while we were indoors, except for a leather dog collar that I could never take off. I had to keep my balls shaved. And I had to wear a butt plug except when I needed to take a shit or when we were having sex.
I had to sleep on the floor next to his bed. I ate all my food on the floor, too.
The next day he took me to a piercing parlor where he had my nipples done, and a Prince Albert put into the head of my cock.
Q: Heavy stuff.
Yeah, and it got heavier. He used me as a toilet, pissing in my mouth. I had to lick his asshole clean after he t
Here in Seattle they use a two-photograph system. It must be unambiguous--you were not in the intersection when the light was red, and one in the intersection.
I still believe they cause more dangerous situations than they cure. Just from my observations.
> If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it If they can't get you on running a red light, then they will get you on blocking an intersection. Either way, they'll get you in your end.
Seriously, red-light cameras have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money making. Often the contracts with the company providing the cameras sets a specific maximum length for the yellow light. Making it longer would bring penalties to the City.
Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.
The study noted here actually found that accidents went up after installing the damned things. Then again it was Florida...
Three Squirrels
In some places, it's illegal to enter an intersection if the light is already yellow. That always made sense to me - yellow was the 'head's up' for cars behind the line to slow and stop.
they hit for right on red even when it is ok but then some times you need to go to court to fight it even when you are right.
Some cities go a step further than just a picture. They will give you a picture before, a picture after and a 12-second video of you running the light. All that information can be found online via a URL given to you with your citation.
http://www.plano.gov/Departments/Police/RedLightCameras/Pages/default.aspx
by the weasel, for the weasel, of the weasel.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
From what I understand, the cameras are triggered by motion. If you cross a line while the light is red, you get photographed.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/red-light-camera1.htm
Actually you need 2 photos:
1. taken just as/after the light turns red, shows that you are not in intersection.
2. taken later, with light red, shows that you are in intersection.
#2 must be taken during the same red light interval as #1.
Didn't we discuss this before? Weren't there several outcomes?
1. You cannot face your accuser if it's a sentience-less robot.
2. car driving through red light ! = person paying fine
3. Governments hate their people.
...if they are for "public safety" instead of revenue. I know of several cities here in Missouri that have turned them off because people stopped running the red lights. Instead of going to the press and talking about their success. No the departments were complaining because NO ONE WAS RUNNING THE LIGHTS and therefore not making any money and forcing them to "turn them off". They didn't put those cameras there to increase public safety. They did it to increase revenue.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
The entire ticket camera system was shut down in my entire city a few months ago, after it was revealed a couple congresscritters were getting kick-backs from the firm that installed the system. Or at least, that was the accusation, I'm not sure I've heard about it since then so I don't know what happened legally against him, but there you have it. The cameras are off for good at least. I believe one of the allegations was also that the yellow lights were too short, and the kickbacks were based on the volume of tickets given. I had a few coworkers that got those tickets mailed to them, and if you called the number given, the number was disconnected! Or busy or whatever. The whole thing was definitely a scam of some sort.
Um, nope. If you are in the intersection when the light turns red, you have run a red light. You're not supposed to enter the intersection if you can see you won't clear it before the light does turn red; that's why there's a yellow.
The rule here is that your car must cross the line before the light goes red. This is particularly true for turns, since we do trailing turn lights.
In my city, we now have cross walk signals that display a count down in large illuminated digits until the signal is going to change.
I know this is primarily for the benefit of pedestrians, but I like them as a driver as well. I now know with a greater degree of accuracy how long the green light is going to last, and if I need to be aware of an upcoming change to yellow and perhaps slow down, rather than speeding up to "make it".
This is particularly useful at an intersection I drive through every day on my way to and from work, which has a red-light camera.
I got busted by a red light camera a few weeks ago.
I received a letter in the mail showing two photos of my car. The first showed my car approaching the red light. The second showed my care turning right at the red light. Of course, I assumed that I had come to a complete stop at the red prior to turning right. I was all ready to fight the ticket on grounds that the two photos did not prove the city's case.
However, reading the entire contents of the letter led me to an http link where I could see the 'complete evidence' available to the city. Sure enough, I go to the provided website, enter a string of letters/digits and I am presented with a video showing my car rolling through the light without stopping.
I had no idea that they were capturing motion video as well as still pictures. Nevertheless, I was bummed.
But, even then, my wife, who is an attorney here in St. Louis, advised me against paying the ticket. It turns out that the ticket is issued by a 3rd party that operates the cameras, and not by the city police. There will be no impact on my driving record. The worst that can happen is it will be turned over to collections and placed on my credit report. At that time, I will simply hand it over to my wife and she will challenge the reporting agencies to provide proof that it was me driving the car, and that the debt is mine. Being unable to do that, they will be forced to drop it from my credit report.
Sometimes it is helpful to have a wife that specializes in US Bankruptcy law.
San Diego had this problem. The city either deliberately chose lights that already had short yellows or it set the yellows short after the cameras were installed. That was just one aspect of the fiasco that was the red light camera program. Some attorneys found that many tickets, which were originated by the red light camera company but supposedly "reviewed" by an officer, had in fact been issued without the review. The cop had gone on vacation and presigned a bunch of the "reviews" so people were in effect being ticketed by Lockheed. People who went to court and attempted to subpoena the red light camera design, software, and installation documents (so that they could assess whether the cameras were operating correctly when the alleged offense occurred) were threatened by Lockheed with a lawsuit for attempting to access trade secrets. There were many other questionable things that went on in the program that I've now forgotten about, but suffice it to say that the whole thing smelled so bad that the city terminated the program. It's since come back, but with major changes.
This is not a local incident. Cities have been caught illegally shortening red lights in a ton of different cases over the last few years.
http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit and many more at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yellow+light+short+red+light+camera
"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."
Just ask AAA: The number one way to make intersections safer is double the lengths of the yellows. You take an arbitrary intersection that has accident problems and if you lengthen the yellow, that tends to do more to solve the problem than anything else. Of course as you note, long yellows are counter to profit from red light cameras.
I live in northern VA and there are several lights near my house with red light cameras, all of which have suspiciously short yellows. I've timed a few. With a stopwatch. All of them are under 3 seconds. People are forced to either slam on their brakes or run the red light.
Around here, if you're in the left lane, in a 45 MPH zone, and you're not doing 60 MPH, you WILL have a line of cars behind you, weaving in and out of traffic trying to pass you. Worse, we have a large population of slow drivers, who often plug up both lanes at 20-35 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. This causes severe tailgating and road rage.
It is safer to run the red than to slam on the brakes. At least there's a delay from one red to the perpendicular green. Just going to and from work (a 6 or 7 minute drive), I will pass two or three accidents a week caused by a driver slamming on their brakes and getting rear ended. That's ridiculous.
Oh, and here and DC, people taking left turns ALWAYS run red lights to avoid having to wait for the next one. That's one of my pet peeves, actually. There will still be people turning long after I've got a green light. Pisses me off and causes traffic. That one is just assholes, not a fault of the timings, though.
I've been to some places in Europe where the green light is a set of numbers, so you know exactly how much time you have. Here, with the blinking "don't walk sign", it's too bloody ambiguous, especially in winter when yellows should be 10 seconds... I really wish we had the countdown system, and it's not like it would cost a fortune to implement.
As it is now, I just detour the lights. I'd rather waste fuel than give that crooked system one red cent.
In my city, the company that set up the lights gets 50%, and the municipality gets the other 50%. Sounds like something that is systemically flawed to me. Law enforcement shouldn't be a for-profit thing. They're installed on a few intersections that are always backed up due to design flaw - there really should be overpasses installed at these locations, not cameras. When people have to wait 5 cycles to make it through the intersection, there's a reason that they're blowing yellow/red lights, and it's that something is dreadfully wrong with the whole setup.
Sent from my PDP-11
At least in Oregon's system, it takes two photos. One just before you enter the intersection (it assumes you're going to run it based on measured speed,) and one when you are already in the intersection. The photos have the date/time stamp, as well as a "light red for x seconds" note.
In addition, each monitored intersection also has a video camera that records 10 seconds before, and 10 seconds after the still cameras trip. This way, there is indisputable video evidence of your run, as well. (Yes, I've gotten one. I tried to fight it under the grounds that what I did wasn't technically "failure to obey a traffic control device", but rather "improper right turn on red"; only to find out that under Oregon law, they carry the exact same penalty...)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Well, that is how the bureaucrats think.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
A car going 30 mph travels 44 feet per second. (5,280 / 120 = 44). The stopping distance of a vehicle is a function of friction, speed, and mass. One of the calculators is here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/crstp.html. Just google 'vehicle stopping distance' and you have a choice of several calculators and you can look at the full formula, which is impossible to write correctly here. Assuming you have good tires, and all other things being equal, the stopping distance from 30 mph is 37 feet. Most studies on this issue assume it is fair to give a driver one second to determine whether to stop. First, you must recognize the yellow light, then assess the situation. Are you going downhill? Are the streets wet? Do you have a bowl of goldfish on the seat beside you? This is not trivial. Stopping on wet pavement requires twice the distance. Here's an article that says more or less the same thing: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/stopping-distances.htm.
The basic issue here is that it will take you at least two seconds to stop from 30 mph on dry pavement, four seconds if it is wet. It takes one second to react and one second to stop (though deceleration throws a curve on time here). But in terms of distance this means you absolutely must be MORE than 81 feet away from the stop light to stop at all. My car is 16 feet long. If mine is average, that means five car lengths are required to stop. If that yellow light is less than two seconds long and you are within 81 feet of the light, you will go through on red. You have no choice; the laws of physics dictate it.
The last time I was stopped by the State Patrol for this I said, "Look. It was pretty close. I was doing 40 mph on a hill and the streets were wet. Plus, I thought about it. If I had just slammed on the brakes, I might have been able to stop, but the extra half second cost me." He let me go.
The idea expressed here that you just 'stop on yellow' is ridiculous. If your vehicle is within that window close to the light, you cannot stop, ever. Adjust for wind speed. If you are ever given a ticket for this, vidceotape the intersection to prove tghe length of the yellow light, compute the calculations, and take it to the judge.
In our area, they can ticket you, but it does not appear as a moving violation on your driver's record so your insurance will not go up. There is also some sentiment that putting in these cameras results in more rear-end accidents because drivers become hypersensitive. It's definitely a money-making issue.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
A lot of people around here (Knoxville, TN) raised hell about this topic. Everyone ticketed was validly ticketed because they did not STOP. TN law states that you may make a right turn on red, but only after coming to a complete stop prior to making the turn. Most states I've driven in it is the same way - if the light is red, you may approach, stop, then proceed with a right turn when safe to do so.
However, most people just look and cruise on through. Then when a ticket shows up they get their panties in a wad and actually learn the law, then they bitch about how no one stops for a right on red. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it legal.
I've personally been nearly rear-ended around here a couple of times due to people assuming I wasn't going to stop - even before the cameras were installed, I nearly always stopped before turning. Oh and I suppose it works, because I've also never been ticketed for it, even at red light camera intersections.
I hate sigs...
Around Sydney, Australia they have begun installing red light / speed camera 2 in 1 systems, be careful not to speed up to make a light....
and most models should also state the duration of the preceeding yellow light.
The first picture is triggered when crossing the line (or a few cm behind), the 2nd is triggerd with a timer. So you can see if the car actually drove into the intersection (huge fine), or stopped, but simply missed the line. (smaller fine)
BTW: You also can get fined while crossing during yellow. (really small fine, and hardly ever prosecuted as the city would have to find proof first, that you would have been able to brake and stop instead of accelerating)
bickerdyke
Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.
Indeed. Which is why when red light cameras came to Austin, they first studied all the 'bad' intersections and decided which should have their yellow light lengthened, and which should get a camera. I looked at a map they published showing which got which treatment, and it seemed like about half of the problem intersections were given longer yellows.
One of the intersections that got a camera I have a lot of personal experience with, and it's yellow was just fine before and unchanged after. The problem was people just flagrantly running the red. Seriously it was ridiculous.
Anyway, while I'm sure there's a contractor making a lot of money off the cameras, it seems to have been implemented fairly intelligently here.
Also, while contracts may stipulate maximum yellows, state laws often dictate minimums. I've heard (on /.) of various municipalities getting in trouble with the state governments for breaking these laws to increase red light camera revenue. Which is disgusting. Okay yeah law is sometimes arbitrary, but this law is fundamentally based on the laws of physics. :P
The enemies of Democracy are
"Wouldn't you need two pictures — one just before the light went red showing..."
No, if you want to know whether a car entered an intersection after the light turned red, then the first picture must be taken at the same time or immediately after the light turned red that captures the car approaching from the direction of interest, and a second picture must be taken that captures the same car in the intersection.
The speed limit on Collier Boulevard, where she was cited, is 45 mph. According to county guidelines, the yellow light should be 4.5 seconds.
And that
Mogil said he tested it 15 times with an average of only 3.8 seconds
Thus the difference was reported as .7 seconds. While that does translate to a meaningful distance at 45mph, it still isn't much time. And if you're dependent on a person to see the yellow, click the stopwatch, then see the red and do the same, I'm not sure that you can count on a good set of measurements.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
At Higgins and Arlington Heights road in Illinois, they mail you a photo of your car in the intersection and a photo of the car entering the intersection during the red light. Furthermore they provide a link to a video of your car going through the intersection. "Gotcha" or not, you will need a defense other than a straight-up denial of being in the wrong place during the red phase. (Posting as AC because...um...I "tested" this set-up.)
If you know you are going though an intersection where there is a camera, and you're not sure whether you'll make the light or not, simply cover your face (or duck down) before you enter the intersection. Legally, they must be able to identify the driver by their face in order to be able to issue a ticket. If they can't make out your face, they can't identify you as the driver. Even if they have your license plate number, they still can't issue a ticket without that photographic identify confirmation.
Red light cameras are obviously not for every municipality. Small towns or cities (or even bigger ones) may only see the dollar signs, but in many places (like East Tennessee where I live), it is an everyday occurrence to see people running red lights, even after the cameras went up. Some people don't even care - I'll be ahead of someone in a different lane, come to a nice and easy stop as the light is turning, then see them fly past me after the light is well within its red cycle.
In Knoxville, the intersections with cameras still have an incredible number of infractions, even after all of the awareness that they're there. Either people don't care and would rather pay the fine than wait a moment, or there are an incredible number of people not paying any attention whatsoever. Being that it's east tennessee and from gauging the reports in the news, I'd say there's a valid mixture of both.
The cameras have been installed for about 4 years now and I lived around the block from one for 2 years that I drove through every day. I've yet to get a ticket.
I hate sigs...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You just need to go 170+ mph through the intersection!
http://www.topgear.com/UK/videos/speed-cam-3
Cities should not try to make up for tax short-falls with citations: they need to cut spending instead.
I'm not sure how it works in your city, however here in Edmonton, the system is decidedly simple.
There are two pressure pads embedded in the road before the stop line painted on the road. Your front and rear tires must pass over both pressure sensors AFTER the light has already changed to red in order to trigger a picture.
The only way you can trigger a ticket is if you passed the stopline AFTER the light was red.
Sounds pretty fair to me..
Many of the red light camera intersections also have a countdown timer on the "walk/do not cross" light giving you plenty of time to figure out when the light will change to yellow before you approach the intersection.
a photo of your car in an intersection does not provide jurisdiction. A cop seeing you personally commit an infraction and pulling you over does. A cop "reviewing" this after the fact does not provide jurisdiction either. Screw'em.
If it cost them money they would not do it.
Ever notice that solid line that delineates the lanes right before you have to stop? Did you you know they are painted an exact length for a reason? The length indicates a zone for your information, IF YOU ARE driving the speed limit or slower. If you are not inside that area with the solid lines and you see the light turn yellow, you are going slow enough to brake and stop safely before the intersection. If you happen to be inside that zone and the light turns yellow, you will not be able to brake and stop safely and should continue through the intersection.
I think all government imposed fines need to follow the same rules for reasonable behavior that we already impose on private companies. The utility company is not allowed to charge more than standard interest rate on late payments. Even credit card companies can't exceed something like 26% APY, and yet the city government parking fines jump up 100-300% if you are late, and similar punishments from the IRS etc significantly exceed market rates. Where is the financial equivalent of "cruel and unreasonable" punishment?
Furthermore there is a persistent problem with the government directing money from fines into public services and other projects. This creates an implicit motivation to fine people as a substitute for taxation. And if there are private contractors involved (as in the traffic camera companies) then they are motivated to hide the dirty deed. And since we don't vote on the fines, they can fund various services without public review. Fines also don't have any notion of social equity in terms of who pays them, its just a very bad way to fund anything.
We need two things: 1) independent (non-vested interest) review of all fines for reasonable formulation as well as a fair application with a provable justification that the fine has the deterrent effect in accordance with its stated purpose, 2) All money collected from government fines should go into a fund with extremely rigid rules about what it can be used for to eliminate conflicts of interest. For example it could go to fund public-financing of elections (the recipients are many individuals with turnover so there is little reason to try to manipulate the system). Or it could go into an emergency reserve fund or some other non-liquid asset.
I got a speeding-ticket some time ago. Here in Arizona, we a bunch of those damned things and everyone hates them. They're operated by a company called RedFlex. I had been busted by them twice before and I dutifully paid the fine after seeing the threatening messages in the ticket. As it turns out, less that 30% of those that get the tickets pay them. The tickets aren't enforceable because they haven't been SERVED by an actual person from the city (i.e., a policeman or a server).
The third time I got the ticket, I was going 65 on the freeway. I don't go down that freeway much so I was unaware that it abruptly changes to 55. There is a slope that goes under an overpass and the bastards placed a camera RIGHT under the overpass and at the bottom of the slope. The cameras are triggered to go off if you go 11 or over. I was doing 65, thinking I was in a 65. So I was doing around 67-68 at the bottom of the slope. BAM!
I got the ticket in the mail in a few days later. I said a loud FUCK YOU for my benefit and shredded the damn thing. What happened to me? Nothing. I think a process server may have tried to serve me; I just didn't answer the door (for about 3 months) but I'm single and so I'm not home that much anyway. The ticket was dismissed and nothing showed up on my record.
So if you're in Arizona and you get a red-light ticket. Say fuck it. I know that as an Anonymous Coward my "advice" is suspect, but seriously, it works! Even if a process server does serve you, you can still fight it, and all you have to pay is about $25 extra to cover the charge of them serving you (if the judge says you have to pay the fine).
Please see http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ for details (it's a site about how to beat these tickets).
Short version: these cameras decrease safety. Someone was kind enough to rear-end my vehicle for stopping at the end of yellow. In another case, a police vehicle nearly smashed into me. If there was no such camera, I would have behaved differently.
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
Here in Italy we had the same problem. There were a lot of cases of fined people complaining that the yellow was too short, then many criminal investigations started around the country and they found out that in a lot of places traffic lights were purposely set with too short yellow, to fine as many people as possible, because at that time companies that installed red-light cameras earned a percentage of the fines. Of course, investigations also found out corruption cases linked to the cameras business. After these scandals, a couple of years ago they changed the law: no more percentages of fines for companies that install cameras.
Thanks for that post! I hadn't heard of "mechanical jurisprudence" before, so I found that very informative. I'd mod you up, but I've never had mod points... so you have to settle for this post instead.
As soon as I hit SUBMIT I realized I omitted info.
This only applies to standard autos that 90% of us drive: sedans, coupes, normal sized trucks, etc. No rigs, dualies hauling trailers, Bigfoot suspended trucks, etc. And it also only applies on dry pavement.
No, it's actually pretty simple. If the agents of the local government say you're guilty, then you're guilty. Does that help explain it?
You're wrong. I don't know where you get your information from. Cars in an intersection have the right-of-way in Texas. I doubt it's any different in other states. In fact, I think the drivers handbook says if you're in the intersection you must complete the turn, even if the light's red.
I got a ticket for a right turn on red maneuver, which came down to the fact that the light turned red a fraction of a second before I made my turn.
I asked for a hearing and requested information which would verify the accuracy of the timing of the light, including technical specifications, testing data, etc. The city attorney sent me a response claiming to have the information available at his office, but when I went downtown to peruse it, all they had was some details on the contract between the red light camera company and the city and a few tests of the light's vehicle speed reading against a radar gun. Nothing at all about the actual timing of the light.
When I went to attend the hearing, the 'testifying officer' (some guy who had watched the recorded video) could not cite for me how long the light was supposed to be yellow (although he did bring up some non-legal recommendation) which was something I couldn't find even after reading all the apparently applicable state and local traffic laws. He also was only able to roughly count out the length of light being yellow rather than providing a specific measurement.
Despite their not being able to show that the equipment was working properly (to within the relevant margin of error) or in compliance with legal specifications, nor providing me with the information I had requested which may have allowed me to firmly ascertain my own innocence, I was declared "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" of having committed this trespass of a fraction of a second. I could have requested to bring it before a judge but I was told the court fees would be more than paying the fine, and without legal aid it simply did not seem worth the effort.
It also irked me that it took them ~4 months after the fact to send me the notice of the violation. By that time I didn't even remember being at the intersection in question, so I was effectively deprived of my own witness (were there mitigating circumstances? had I loaned my car to someone else that day? I have no idea).
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
This is probably offtopic, but I've never noticed or heard of red-light cameras here in Grand Rapids MI. I have, however, noticed that speed limits in some areas have gone up dramatically. And being the cynical chap that I am, I'm convinced that they're trying to make up, in gas tax revenue, the lost cigarette tax revenue when the new nanny-state smoking ban goes into effect next month.
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
Short yellows are used in several jurisdictions to generate revenue.
Do you think the authorities running these rackets estimate the revenue per death?
It seems this is common. I've been caught (a ticket, not an accident) by one in Ohio. The cop who ticketed me said it was the most dangerous intersection in the county.
He knew.
A couple of these exploits are mentioned here:
http://www.freedomworks.org/news/denver-colorado-caught-exploiting-short-yellow-lig
This link has it at a little under one added accident per million vehicle entries into an intersection. The ticket rate must be much higher than 1 in a million, so they get nice revenue for each citizen they kill, perhaps $5 million if 1% fatality rate in accidents and $50 tickets to 0.1% of drivers. At least the government doesn't think our lives are cheap. Injuries and repairs are other costs we pay, so this is a very expensive way to fund our government. Drive more carefully in a recession when governments get hungry.
Verbum caro factum est
I would like more links to how this is handled state by state, because I look into it every time I drive in a new area, and I have yet to drive in a jurisdiction where it's illegal to be in an intersection before the light turns red as long as there's room on the other side to exit. Stopping in an intersection because of no exit I've seen handled as parking infringements (cops slap parking tickets right on the window and walk away), not as a red light violation In Victoria, Australia, verbatim from VicRoads' web site: Q. If a driver enters an intersection once a light has turned amber and the light turns red before the driver passes through the intersection, is that considered running a red light? A. No. It was identically true in all of California. There is a huge common conception about you can't be in the intersection when the light is red, and I've yet to meet an Aussie who doesn't believe this. The text of a drivers handbook reflects a lot of misinformation!
The ones in SoCal have 2 systems a video system as well as a Camera to show you are in the intersection on a red. If you fight it, they will bring the video to show you did in fact enter on red and not yellow.
also here is a link of what happened in Costa Mesa CA with to short of a yellow... lets just say everyone got refunded... http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsCostaMesaMain.html
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
"Then when a ticket shows up they get their panties in a wad and actually learn the law,"
dude, seriously? In St Louis, they made it mandatory to stop at red lights before turning right. When did this change happen? Along with the ordinance to add red light cameras. Awfully suspicious, it sounds a lot like collusion between the corrupt city officials and the red light camera contractors. They criminalized perfectly legitimate behavior in order to generate profit. Oh sure, you expect that from corporations, but from your local government? Then again, this is St Louis, so I guess it makes sense in the crooked little backwater town.
It's not like they mail out changes to the traffic laws to the general public. Oh, sure you could do a search online for the laws, but in many cities it's not exactly easy to find. And once you find them, can you understand the wording of the law? Maybe we can, but I'd bet that average americans would neither be able to find the laws nor understand them. And then, you'd have to know there was a change to the law to seek out in the first place. If the law is out of reach of the common man, such draconian enforcement is unwarranted. And yet they do it.
blah blah blah
Either people don't care and would rather pay the fine than wait a moment, or there are an incredible number of people not paying any attention whatsoever.
Here in Virginia Beach, VA, City employees in City vehicles get a free pass because the ticket goes to the owner, not the driver. No point in collecting money from yourself.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I work in traffic light servicing, Perth Western Australia, for 15 years. Yes it is possible to determine that you ran a red light with one photo and the speed you were travelling at. Furthermore the red light camera can also determine when in the amber period you cross the stop line. In Australia, the sensors work on a stop line loop cut in the road. The traffic controller possesses enough intelligence to count the vehicles and vehicle density. The traffic signal output from the red and amber lamps is monitored by the red light camera. The traffic signal controller is never adjusted for red or amber timings; they are set in a ROM timing and cannot be overridden. Depending on the settings for the particular intersection, the red and amber lamp monitoring can be adjusted by the red light camera installer. In Australia; the red light is usually set for two seconds and amber for four seconds. The first two seconds of amber is a safety entry point into the intersection. ie in the event that the vehicle cannot stop. The next two seconds is the exclusion point before the red change. The red light camera can be programmed to detect a vehicle after the two second amber safety entry point and the red signal. The red light camera will detect the amber entry time and the red time. With one photo and a calibration line marked on the road surface, the authorities can tell how fast a vehicle was travelling when it crossed the stop line.
That Prius you're driving is no match for Jim-Bob and his 4x4. No, the jock-lover coach who taught you driver-ed was not just picking on you geeks. You were a bad driver-ed student behind the wheel. Yea, yea, you got an A+ on the written. It's called a stale light. Stale Light. You don't stop your visual scanning on the hood ornament; Your eyes are moving checking the vehicle safety zones. Eyes high and observing several traffic signals ahead. If it is a stale light, let the car begin to decelerate and cover the brake. Be prepared to stop. Stale Green. Stale. It has been on green for quite awhile, stale. Got it, stale light. (Damn, does this kid ever miss a pothole? Thank God his Mom will be the one replacing her alloys!)
As I live in TN, I can't speak to your state. However in TN, stopping before turning right on red was always mandatory, just never followed in practice. The only people that really bitched about it were the ones that occasionally got pulled over and got a ticket (although most of the time the cops would probably let it slide).
Also in TN, we have our driver handbook available online. Not exactly the law, but good enough and easy enough to access and read through periodically. It's available here: http://state.tn.us/safety/dlhandbook/menu.htm . If you click on the study guide and go to page 16, it states:
"RED: Stop behind crosswalk or stop line. Unless otherwise posted, you may turn right on red after coming to a complete stop and when no pedestrians or cross traffic are present."
Pretty clear to me.
I hate sigs...
I read somewhere once about a scheme to make intersections safer by marking a "point of no return" line prior to an intersection. The idea is that if the light turns yellow (or is yellow) prior to the point of no return, you have room to stop (assuming you're going the speed limit). If you've passed the marking, then it would be more dangerous to stop (and end up in the middle of the intersection) rather than continue through the intersection.
Around here, the city vehicles (police vehicles are the ones that make the news) that get ticketed go to the driver. For the police vehicle example, the video and call log are reviewed, and if the officer was not responding to a call they have to pay the fine out of pocket.
I hate sigs...
This is actually old news. The companies that install and manage the red light cameras have always encouraged the municipalities to shorten the yellow lights. In fact, I can remember seeing studies that showed that the cameras did not even pay for themselves unless the yellow lights were shortened.
The oldest article I could find from a quick search was this 2 year old article about a few cities caught in the act of shortening the lights to improve revenues.
That's how we were able to stop red light cameras from being implemented here in Virginia. These "shorter yellow light" studies, along with studies that showed that the implementation of cameras usually increased accidents at intersections, cowed the local legislators to abandon their plans, even after lobbying the state legislators to allow them to install them.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
This red light photo stuff has always struck me as odd. The tickets are generated by a commercial company with a clear interest in higher ticket volume. What assurance is there that the images presented accurately reflect the position of the vehicle and the state of the lights? I'm good enough to alter stills, and I'm pretty sure that there are lots of folks who can make altered video look good. Even if there's a digital signature, who can vouch for the integrity of the keys?
In my state, they DO need two pictures to prove that you ran the light. All of the red light cameras around here overtly take two pictures (with flash, even during daylight hours!) and you're "supposed" to receive the pictures along with your ticket in the mail. And, yes, nearly all of the camera equipped traffic lights here have noticeably and demonstrably short yellow lights, where the state mandate (and possibly federal DOT, 'do it this way if you want your highway grants') is three seconds, some of the camera-lights in town are as short as one second!
The process is highly automated and it's fairly obvious that there is no human oversight. The enticement not to contest the ticket or call the state out on anything is the (frankly, highly illegal) practice of my state demanding court costs up front if you take the ticket to court, to be refunded if you win. I'm fairly sure that violates the innocent-before-proven-guilty clause in both state and federal constitutions.
Story #1: I stood behind a gentleman in line at the DOT one day who was (this is important for the story) a fairly dapper black man who owned a very nice Harley, which I admired out in the parking lot. I saw him ride it up. He brought with him his mailed-in ticket, showing both pictures of someone on a bike running a red light. A skinny white man, with no helmet, wearing a wife beater. On a street bike (think crotch rocket, not a Harley). After pointing out his bike and skin color to the clerk (and I vouched for him; I saw him ride the bike up) the ticket was quietly erased. Obviously, no one had looked at the photos and even the computer system had gotten the license plate number wrong.
Story #2: I got "nailed" by a traffic light camera that I KNEW had a short yellow light, from watching other people get caught by it. Instead of going through the yellow, I stopped at the line and let the light turn red. A full three seconds or so after the light went red, the camera flashed me twice. I anticipated the stupidity well in advance, and was not surprised when a ticket turned up in the mail nearly a month later. It contained ONE photo. I contested and took it to court, to discover the "court costs up-front" policy mentioned above... I demanded to see the second photo, as the camera clearly and obviously took two. The state clerks were very cagey about this, first claiming it was "not necessary" and then claiming it "didn't exist," there was only one photo. To his credit, the judge pointed out that it was the law to present both photos, and he would decide what was bloody well "necessary" for the proceedings. The second photo was produced... Showing my car in exactly the same position, stopped well behind the white line, as it was in the first photo. Oops! In this case, clearly there was some human oversight which decided to lie about the evidence.
No one from the state was punished. I got out of the ticket (obviously) but it took them nearly four months to return my court costs.
Story #3: A friend of mine, who is somewhat cheeky, reported getting out of his automated camera-ticket by demanding to confront his accuser. As there was no paper trail as to who (if anyone) reviewed the ticket or entered the complaint to the court, the case was dropped. (This is why when a cop writes you a ticket it has a lot of flowey language to the effect of "I, [name of officer] do duly swear under oath of perjury that I observed, etc., etc." The cop is acting as your accuser, and entering the charge as TESTIMONY to the court, which is important. A camera can not testify, only a person can testify about what the camera captured.) I imagine this loophole will be legislated around as soon as someone tries it in every state.
You must completely clear an intersection before the light turns red. You can not enter an intersection unless you have time to clear it. This means that when you see yellow you stop. It also means that if there are cars in the intersection or you are driving slowly you must not enter the intersection. In urban traffic this is next to impossible. As a matter of fact if people did not use the yellow lights to make some turns we would have total grid lock.
The worst part of this crap is that people who are required to drive tens of thousands of miles every year are the most vulnerable. And if you think it is hard to obey the law in the family car try it in a large truck! If people actually read the hand book and obey it we would all be out of luck. For example heavy trucks in my state are supposed to stop 200 feet behind the next vehicle. Considering 60 foot long trucks plus 200 ft. gaps while stopped three or four trucks could tie up some towns completely.
Obey the fucking traffic laws and quit trying to find excuses for your wife's shitty driving. Approaching a traffic light with the thought that may will actually turn red before you get there will not only save you money, but may actually save a life or two in the process.
Buncha maroons.
thing is, it's a local (city) ordinance. Those traffic books are for state laws. Cities deciding to get "clever" to generate profit is distasteful and strikes me as an abuse of the law. Just found out there is a class action lawsuit pending right now regarding St Louis's red light cameras. I sure hope they break backs of the red light camera companies.
blah blah blah
If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle). Wouldn't you need two pictures — one just before the light went red showing you are not in the intersection, and another after the light went red showing you in the intersection?"
The purpose of the photograph isn't to prove you ran a red light. The motion sensors, and in some cases underground magnetometers, can detect if your car enters the intersection on a red. The only purpose of the photograph is to record your license plate so they know who to send the ticket to. The photograph is one, but not the only, piece of evidence.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
What's a local ordinance? Here all of that is state law. The only thing the cities get involved in is whether or not to have the cameras. Right now, actually, the state has decided the halt any more installations pending a statewide review - and they barred cities from adding more or any cities that don't have them from adding them.
I totally agree that if there's collusion between the local city, police departments and red light camera companies, nail them. In TN for the most part though, there's been a pretty good separation of responsibilities.
City traffic engineering is responsible for the signal and timing, the red light camera company merely gets a signal for "Red", and any violations go through the police departments.
So far I don't know of any, if there are any, violations that have been overturned in Knoxville.
I hate sigs...
WTF was that? It was the point flying right over your head.
...at some intersections in Texas. Yet if you are making a non-protected left turn and get stuck in the intersection with oncoming traffic going straight and protected left turn, if you have positioned yourself appropriately, it doesn't seem to impede oncoming traffic in either direction. Then when the oncoming straight traffic is finally stopped before crossing traffic starts, or before allowing your following protected left turning traffic to restart, you have a chance to complete your turn. I do this all the time.
Note I am not commenting on whether it is technically legal. But I do it unabashedly in front of police in Houston and Dallas and other cities I infrequently travel to in Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico, and have never gotten a ticket.
Yes, you are correct. If you ever watch a red light camera you will notice two flashes about 1s apart. That also lets them tell how fast you were going.
I like how the media are describing the guy in the article as a "math whiz," even though all it sounds like he did was get out a stopwatch. Even doing the math to describe the stopping distance for a car is high-school algebra. Sheesh.
You are GUILTY of running through a red light, but don't feel any remorse from it and will make everything to NOT PAY the fine you rightfully earned.
Arsehole. Type like you nearly killed me by running a red light while mine was green.
We had quite a campaign in College Station and against every, EVERY, tactic and tool of the city council we put them to a vote and won by a very narrow percentage. All nine cameras are gone.
Red Light Cameras Draw Voters to Polls - http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/65934627.html
Suit Filed Over Red Light Camera Vote - http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/69728592.html
CS's Red Light Cameras to Stay On; Restraining Order Issued - http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/69006022.html
the mandatory stop before making a right on red is a local law here in St Louis. Have not recently checked MODOT's latest traffic rules book, but right turns on red used to be allowed unless there was a sign prohibiting it.
blah blah blah
Red means stop
Green means go
Yellow means go faster
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
I live in Collier County which is where this guy is from. First, the law here is that if your bumper is over the white line before it turns red you can't receive a ticket. Second, it's not just one picture...it actually takes 3 pictures and a 10 second video clip. They installed the video cameras so they could get all the snow birds in SWFL who just roll through a right on red. Everyone I know who has gotten a ticket (and it's a lot of people) have all gotten them for not totally stopping before turning right on red.
It's the people waiting to turn left from behind the stop line that are really annoying... specially if it's busy enough that they wait two lights to turn.. doh!
I used to live in Kirkland, WA and there most if not all controlled intersections have left turn lights. These are "smart" intersections; you never had to wait for an unnecessary red light. Turning left without these intelligently controlled lights seems barbaric now. I miss my omniscient computer overlords. did I just say that... yikes.
If you're coming to an intersection with knight red light camera, use the following rule of thumb:
Where the road begins to peel off a turning lane, you will see a dotted line that then becomes a solid lane divider.
If the light turns yellow, and you're doing the speed limit, and you're in the solid, you will make the light every time.
If you're in the dotted area still and you're doing the speed limit when the light turns yellow, you'll run the red light everytime.
I've never thought about how or why that even works, but it's never failed me. and yes... I have run reds on purpose. :/
and ask for the source code so you can see if it has bugs that would cause it to malfunction. Red light cameras need to be thrown away.
Roundabouts (aka "Traffic Circles") are the one true solution to the problem of running red lights because it replaces an inefficient, mechanically stupid solution with an efficient, self-regulating solution. Traffic lights at their core are an impediment to traffic flow. Every x minutes traffic flow is halted so that (mostly) perpendicular traffic can begin moving again. So all these cars moving at 20 - 50 MPH are brought to a complete stand still. Sometimes (often in some areas) where there's no cross traffic waiting. Regardless, the dumb timer has no choice but to stop traffic.
Enter the Roundabout. Traffic for the most part constantly flows. Yes, there drivers have to slow down a bit to enter and leave, and sometimes even slows to a stop, but stopping as timed requirement all but comes to an end. (There are some massive roundabouts that do have red lights attached to them).
One of the biggest benefits is that t-bone collisions are all but eliminated. If the roundabout is designed correctly that is.
One major objection frequently thrown up against roundabouts is "American's will never learn to use them". Wrong. Here in Houston the City has built several. From what I know we've had more collisions with the light-rail trains than with other automobiles in the roundabouts.
If cities want to get serious about improving safety they should look at proven solutions. And as a bonus we'll all get home more quickly and find we never stand at 2am red light on a deserted road again.
College Station, TX has a long and storied history with these things, and we recently voted them out of our city on referendum.
First, our Chief of Police was let go for one "bad review" after 20 distinguished years on the force when he, as a citizen of College Station, not even in official capacity, opposed red light cameras. The reason he did so was that other city officials were proposing shortening yellow light times to raise revenues.
I got a ticket at a light one night. The speed limit as marked was 40mph, but just before the intersection (about a block) it changes to 30 mph. As I slowed, the light turns yellow, but judging from my initial speed, I believe I can make it just fine. It changes red just before my front bumper passes the line marking the intersection. The yellow light time was based on the 30mph posted speed limit at the intersection, but not the 40mph speed limit where the decision zone is located. This is legal, apparently. Also, the light is set for the shortest legal yellow duration, despite recommendations of at least a half second longer by many safety organizations, including one recommendation based on a study from Texas A&M University, located just blocks away.
So we got a petition to get the ordinance that allows red light cams on a referendum vote. There was a large counter-push by some organization calling themselves "College Station Residents for Red Light Safety" or some such that was funded by the company that installed and maintained the cameras, which as you might guess, isn't local at all.
Even after a decisive vote, the group tried to sue to have the vote overturned on a technicality, but the suit was thrown out. Those things die hard.
Anyway, a couple of notes:
1. Sometimes the people who are retrieving the evidence (i.e. pictures) from the cameras aren't government officers. This can be improper handling of evidence, and can get your ticket thrown out.
2. What about rental cars, or friends driving your vehicle? This tickets the car, not the driver. My mom got a red light camera ticket in a rental car once. The rental car company got the ticket, paid it, and charged her credit card. Nothing she could do about it. How is that due process?
this depends what state you live in, but I live in Texas and in Texas, anyone who does data analysis in required to have a private investigator's license. Technically, you doing a malware scan on your system and selecting to clean the results of the scan is illegal. By the law, removal of malware is data analysis and requires a private investigators license. Now here is how this can be applied to a ticket due to a red light cam. The picture is taken by a digital camera and the picture is received. Someone analyzes/views the photo and determines it to be a red light run. If that person does not have a private investigator's license, that evidence is invalid and cannot legally be used in court So if you receive a ticket due to a red light cam, check your state and local laws to see if there are any such requirements and you could manage to get out of that ticket
I don't typically post on articles, but as I live in the Fort Myers area. Therefore I think it's necessary I make this small correction. It's spelled Fort Myers, not Fort Meyers. Also, if you read the article the man is from Naples, which is in Collier county. Which would not be relevant if it wasn't for the fact that the program, as far as I know, does not yet exist in Lee County where Fort Myers is located.
Here in Israel - red light cameras work just as the OP suggested - they take two pictures - the first showing you entering the intersection while the light is red, and the second - showing you already in the intersection.
I once had to make an emergency stop at a traffic light, and ended up stopping with my front wheels in the intersection. at this point the light turned red, and I was obstructing traffic - so i reversed about a meter to get out of the intersection which triggered the red-light camera. Thanks to the two picture system, I never got a ticket.
Springfield, Missouri had red-light cameras. They were also caught shortening yellow-light times at the intersections (original articles now gone, but here is a copy- http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit. The lights had been up and running for a few years, with no successful challengers. However, a former State Trooper took the argument that the way the tickets are prosecuted was unconstitutional. The City used an "administrative process" for the tickets, which resulted in no reporting to the driver's insurance company or the State. However, this also eliminated any chance for appeal outside of the City. The former Trooper argued that the process is criminal, not civil, and beat the city in the State supreme court. http://www.news-leader.com/article/20100303/NEWS01/3030498/Missouri-Supreme-Court-puts-brakes-on-Springfield-s-red-light-cameras
make some of the time in which your light is yellow, into time in which it's red, and the opposing flow of traffic *still* isn't moving.
I think that should work. Making yellows longer works. I think the mechanism is this: people are likely to run a yellow if they see the change from green (not so much if they don't); they also assess the situation and take social clues ("is they guy in front running?"). Having more all-red time should make people take fewer risks.
(It might also slow traffic? Does that need to happen anyways? ...)
but this law is fundamentally based on the laws of physics. :P
And psychology! Think of visual perceptive delay, attention, reaction time, decision making, motor planning ("slam the brakes") and execution. It's not robots driving the cars :-)
Because everyone has the time to go to court and get illegal tickets reversed. You should avoid giving incorrect tickets, not place the burden of contesting on innocent people.
In RI, if the ticket (even parking ticket) gets lost, it will double after two weeks and triple after some longer time. And then it goes straight to a collection agency. There needs to be an incentive for trying to correct tickets (such as city paying you a fine if they have wronged you more than 3 times).
The parent claims that the cameras are there for money, not safety. Assuming that it is true, and assuming that they don't fix the signals as has been claimed, then raising money from people who are willing to drive outside the law seems quite reasonable. Otherwise they would have to raise taxes for the law abiding.
Others have done the same thing 6 years back.
Here in SoCal, in Costa Mesa: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamscamerasCostaMesaPt1.html
There is a conflict of interest when the camera company is given 50% of of the fine. It would be like paying a bonus to cops based on the number of tickets that they write.
Geez, this isn't rocket science.
Optimal revenue can be acheived when combining red-light cameras with speed cameras and setting the amber time so that exeeding the speed limit is required in order to not run a red light.
Thats the story all the rest is fluff.
I can imagine the conversation.....
Wife: blah blah blah but honey the yellow light was too short.
Hubby : Really so how long do you think the yellow light was again?. I will just go over to the intersection now with my stopwatch and measure it.
What a man.
"She did online traffic school because it wasn't worth our time or money to fight the fine"
Thanks for passing the buck onto the next guy who gets improperly cited... If everybody stood up to the minor injustices of corporations and governments, they wouldn't happen nearly as much. It'd be too expensive. But no worries... someone else will do it for you... or will they?
In the summer of 2006, the Fort Wayne Police Department set up at busy intersections and pulled over the last car through every yellow light. The newspaper recently reported that they wrote approximately 40,000 red-light tickets that year -- 30,000 more than the average. Everyone who contested it in court had their fine reduced to $1. But of course many did not. The FWPD has never apologized, disciplined its officers, or returned the money.
You just succinctly described ACTA.
Reporter Adam.Freeman@nbc-2.com
Board of County Commissioners
http://www.colliergov.net/
Click here to view the Intersection Safety Ordinance
http://library.municode.com/HTML/10578/level3/PI_C78_AIII.html
IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM, PLEASE CONTACT 239-252-8848.
Dallas (Texas) ended up removing their Red Light Cameras all together - they were too effective; people simply stopped running the red lights, and weren't bringing in the revenue that was promised. In short - they were cash flow negative, so they axed the program entirely. They finally pulled the camera post by my house out of the ground last month.
moox. for a new generation.
See that "shall stop before entering?" If you're already in the intersection and the light turns red, that's impossible to do. The law doesn't require you to do impossible things, so proceed through the intersection with caution, legally.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I'm not surprised at all by this article. I did research in Southern New Jersey on this and I've found the same thing, though to a larger extent. From my data&analysis(if you want it, I can give it to you), at least 50% of the lights were short, and there was a strong trend(95% of the variability in the data can be explained by this trend) that as the speed of the road went up, the lights became more and more short and more and more lights got short. It got so bad that at 50mph, 100% of the lights were over a half a second short. What I've started doing is going through lights at 5mph slower than the posted speed limit.
Chattanooga TN (which has been busted before for deliberate short yellows with our traffic cameras) has video. It takes constant video of the intersection when the system detects any cars are nearing. The flash is for the specific stills it takes. So, with this vendor at least, you get both. If you go to challenge the ticket, you can request to see the video.
They installed some red light cameras in our town. I notice that they replace the pressure plates in the intersection, with a dual plate system. They read when a car passes over them and that they are the triggers, not the cameras. So, it is the tires of your car that tells on you. Plus, with a dual plate system, they can calculate your speed. When you speed up to get through the changing light, and you exceed the speed limit, they got you twice, once for the red light, and speeding.
in Australia?
While you're right about right-turn-on-red laws usually requiring you to come to a complete stop and then proceed when it's safe, I do have to ask....
Are you one of those people who feels the need to come to a complete stop *every* time you turn, even if there's no traffic light or stop sign, or even a yield sign for the direction change you're doing? If so, then you might want to reexamine your habits... if there's a stop sign, or a traffic light, or a yield sign then yes, you're supposed to stop, or at least be prepared to stop, before completing your turn. If there's no signage like that, and no pedestrian traffic you need to yield to, then stopping before you make your turn actually makes you a hazard, and can get you cited for impeding traffic if somebody from behind hits you.
There's such a thing as being overly cautious, and it's one of the most annoying hazards on the road... if you're not confident enough to be able to do things with the flow of traffic, then you shouldn't be in that traffic to begin with. People stopping in order to turn right with no signage are a large part of that, but they're right up there with the people driving 15-20 below the limit and the people who signal their intention to turn fully a mile before they actually make the turn. Any of those behaviours can actually earn you a traffic citation. And another annoyance are the people who don't understand or know the laws of the area they're in... for example, while it's not a hazard as such, did you know that in many jurisdictions it's actually legal to make a left turn on red in some circumstances? Specifically, if you're turning from a one-way street onto a one-way street?
I live in Pleasanton (CA) and the police here installed a great alternative to cameras to enforce red lights. It is dubbed the mole. Instead of cameras, the officer uses this device and allows him to talk to the people right after the violator runs the light. It gives both a chance to check why he/she run the light and either warn him/her or issue a ticket. It has worked here like a charm. People like it. No cameras here.
Check the news
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=6915699
and doing a google I found how it works
http://www.auspextechnologies.com
FL should try it....
Posting as AC as I have already done moderation.
Some people have gotten out of tickets with the above subject line or variations on it.
"I do not consent and I waive the benefits."
"I do not plead to courts of contracts"
People who were ticketed need to go back to court and put up a fight. It will cost the court millions to resolve this. That should teach them!
Not all vehicles traversing an intersection are cars. I cycle quite a bit, and short yellows are murder. Bikes generally are not going at the same speed as cars, and there's nothing worse than having a signal turn yellow on you after you've entered a large intersection, then turn red well before you've had a chance to make it through.
Every time I read the word "jurisprudence" I think of this Onion photo.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
Story #3 has already been used to great affect in the state of MN. Red Light cameras were declared illegal by the MN Supreme Court under that premise. I have a citation here for your reference.
I realize implementations vary by location, but I don't think anyone is using cameras to enfore their "regular" law for running a red light. In the St. Louis area, for example, they implemented red light cameras to enforce a new type of "non-moving violation" which, as near as I can tell, should be called "getting your picture taken by one of our red light cameras".
(No, I'm not on crack when I tell you it's a non-moving violation. Perhaps our state lawmakers are, but they classified the violation as nonmoving so that they can ticket the vehicle instead of the driver. I can only assume that this law measures motion from the driver's frame of reference, such the street is what's moving.)
Also note that many systems do take more than one picture; ours even have some sort of video (though I've not personally seen the video quality).
Anyway, my point is that all the debate about the definition of running a red is moot. They're enforcing a new and different law. That said, I can also tell you that here in MO, I've been told by more than one cop that if you're in an intersection and the light is red, you've run a red light. Again this would vary by state, but you might want to check your assumptions about what is or isn't legal behavior at an intersection.
Only in Chicago have I ever seen signs at intersections admonishing "OBEY YOUR SIGNAL ONLY" I suppose Chicago drivers might just go with the signal that most appeals to them.
(Yes, before someone pipes up, I understand the sign is a warning not to get confused choosing a light in Chicago's wonderful 8-way intersections, but I cracked up the first time I saw that, and I knew I'd arrived in a different place.)
Thanks for the laugh. I haven't lived there in a dozen years.
People drive like jerks everywhere. If the insurance laws are ridiculous, it probably reflects efforts by the insurance companies to cut their losses.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
So you can't accurately say you'd mod her up because you have no idea how you'd react should you get mod point. Thanks for the useless fucking post asshole.
For someone from the UK, this just seems crazy - I'm amazed at all these comments on "in state x you can do it this way, in state y it's like this, but in state z it's a combination of the two". How on earth is a driver supposed to know all of this; do you get handed the Highway Code when you cross state lines?
The tickets do have multiple images. Usually at least two showing the vehicle was before the line after the light turned red, and another showing the vehicle in the intersection afterward. Sometimes there are three. Also, they will have a closeup of the license plate, and sometimes a closeup of the driver's face (depending on how the system was setup for that intersection).
Here is a sample from Texas: http://www.ci.irving.tx.us/public-works/images/red-light-five.jpg
Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
Minnesota Supreme CourtThe Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."
"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp
If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle).
This is not true in many jurisdictions. For example, in the State of Oregon (US), if you cross the intersections while the light is yellow, you have run a red light unless it you were "unable to safely stop." If you run the yellow light and it is judged that you could have reasonably stopped, you face exactly the same penalties as if it were red. You will also have a "running a red light" item on your driving history and insurance history.
then they bitch about how no one stops for a right on red
I do, and have been repeatedly honked at for it. As if they somehow know that the cross-traffic left-turners aren't about to get a green arrow.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the problem of slippery road conditions. Slamming on the brakes when you see a yellow light might work on dry pavement, but for those of us who have ice and snow on the roads a significant part of the year, its a very bad idea. The consequences of the resulting skid are likely going to be worse than those of proceeding through the intersection. Not only are sufficiently long yellow lights wise, but around here some intersections have "stop light coming up" signs a good distance ahead of the intersection to warn drivers to slow down and be prepared to stop.
Something is dreadfully wrong with the whole setup.
People, who hear that millions of people are literally starving to death, still want to fuck. That leads to having 7 billion people stuffed into the ecosystem. That leads to long lines of cars filled with idiots who should never have been born.
Something IS dreadfully wrong with the whole setup.
I temped for I believe it was Lockheed in 2002 in Washington DC. There was human oversight of the red light ticketing. In those days the cameras were film cameras and you'd go get a spool of film and load it into a device that would display two photos on a computer screen. The camera was triggered by motion and would go off if you were moving at the intersection as the light was yellow. So the first photo would be of a yellow light. This would clearly catch the license plate. The second photo would be of the car going through the intersection on a red, or of it stopping just in time. If the driver ran the red, you'd click on the first photo to read the license plate #. You also had to discern what state was on the plate, which could be quite difficult. The atmosphere of the company was very parochial, the managers were aloof, condescending jerks who thought they were nice, and once I got within two weeks start date of my real job and I had finals looming, I basically told them off and got fired on purpose. There was a cop that worked there that was supposed to be certifying the tickets but I don't remember ever seeing him. We processed thousands of tickets a day and I don't know how anyone could check all that work. I remember the cameras catching one accident in the month or two I worked there, don't remember much else interesting there other than that some of the people that I worked with went to the club a lot.
A full stop before making a right turn on red has ALWAYS been mandatory in the entire state of Missouri. I don’t know what you east-coasters from St. Louis have always done, but in Kansas City, you STOP on red. Then you make your right-hand turn, if it’s safe to do so (and there isn’t any sign prohibiting it).
See the MO drive guide here.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I ride a bicycle in San Francisco, everytime those thing flash I give 'em a nice bird
"But the 3.6.2 update was ALREADY released WELL BEFORE the story was posted (Tuesday March 23, @02:51AM Eastern): https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/22/firefox-3-6-2-update-now-available-as-free-download/ Firefox 3.6.2 update now available as free download Version 3.6.2 was released THE DAY BEFORE this story even posted! Once again you are caught in your BOLD-FACED LIES, LOL! - by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday April 05, @01:36PM (#31736454) Journal
FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG & right when you shot your big libellous mouth off in that quote above on 04/05/2010 above, taken from here:
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
----
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
That's where you quote above is from, and, Where Germany advised its peoples to stay away from FireFox, as they had for IE before that (but, never for Opera).
(Thus, yet another security bug surfaced in FireFox 3.6.2 in that time frame, yet again, 2x that week it appears (LOL!)).
Clone - How stupid do you feel after that quoted rant of yours above that opens this posting of mine in reply?
Now everyone here will see how stupid you are, repeatedly, in all of your posts... lol!
Clone - tell us, what came out the next day after you posted your crap I quoted above, Clone the CLOWN, you utter dimwit?
FireFox 3.6.3!
Why?? Because YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY SURFACED THAT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY in FIREFOX, YET AGAIN, lmao...
"too, Too, TOO EASY!"
Obviously clone the clown, you lost yet again, and you obviously have done nothing with your wasted life, based on such a stupid mistake on your part above CLOWN. Obviously, You're too stupid to exist CLOWN, and it's no small wonder that all you do is post on slashdot all day, as you don't have enough skills or degrees necessary to your name in computing to actually have or hold a job in the sciences of computing.
----
"It's called using apostrophes and proper capitalization. Stop being lazy and learn to use correct grammar." - by clone53421 (1310749)
on Friday April 16, @03:27PM (#31875770)
Ahem:
Get "hooked on phonics" & learn to READ, moron. Your information quoted above WAS OUT OF DATE THE DAY YOU POSTED IT, lol...
Additionally, before you tell others how to write, moron, produce proof of your PHD in English AND LEARN TO READ, because you skimmed over the fact FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG, lol, after FireFox 3.6.2 which you ranted above about & are caught in being out of date on no less.
Without a PHD in English to your name though? Well, who the hell are you to tell others how to write, clown? Nobody. Just like you are nobody in the field of computing and your outright mistake and big mouth above got you shut right up for mistakes you made there.
"Back it up or shut up." - by clone53421 (1310749)
Learn to read idiot, and speak for yourself: Per your quote at the top of this reply?
Well - it appears that FireFox 3.6 had a bug when you raved on it, lol, right where Germany said to stay away from it, as they did for IE before that (but never for Opera) AND, 3.6.2 had one as well, lmao....
Then, you noted FireFox 3.6.2 issued as a patch on 04/05/2010, but again - Guess what?
FireFox 3.6.2 also had a bug in it, forcing the issue of YET ANOTHER PATCH to FireFox, lol! Buggy crap being recommended by a no mind like Clown? No thank you.