Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[icopus]

That's the kicker. With the new digital technology, the foto with the digital radar speed super-imposed has already been proven in the courts in Texas. You'd think those yahoos in Austin had better things to do with their time... 

You mean other than generate revenue?  Seems that all our reps are up to nowadays.  Not since the passage of the CHL laws (1996) have we seen anything come out of Austin that ACTUALLY protects (financially or physically) the states ordinary citizens.

[hipshot]

So I guess if the State or a city or a county acquires revenue from a red light camera, it doesn't benefit someone who the camera kept from being run over? I know that the opponents of cameras keep quoting "statistics that prove" that red light cameras do not deter red light runners. I know that red light camera proponents quote "statistics that prove" that the cameras are a deterrent to red light runners. Perhaps you should focus on the real issues (safety??) instead of the agendas (they're making money off of this, so that cancels out the lives it saves?) (they're infringing on our expectation of privacy ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY BUILT WITH TAX DOLLARS??)

I can tell you that the fear of a citation is a much bigger deterrent to most drivers than safety issues. I can also tell you that until law enforcement really cracks down on drivers, fatalities are going to keep increasing. Every time the headlines shout "another biker killed" a bunch of law enforcement "experts" on all the forums start spouting off about what the cops are doing wrong, and what they should be doing instead. These "experts" are generally clueless, but they seem to think that they are the last word in law enforcement. Meanwhile, the general question on the forums seems to be, "Why didn't the cops prevent this?" And yet when someone gets on those same forums and bitches about those Nazi cops who pick on bikers, or pick on speeders (accompanied by a dissertation on how speed really isn't dangerous, and the government just uses it to generate revenue) and so on and so forth, the "experts" all agree that the cops are out of line and out of control.

Well, you can't have it both ways. But why would you think that just because a governmental entity makes some revenue off of a safety device that the device's function (safety) is invalidated? If you are opposed to red light cameras and speed cameras, at least come up with a valid argument. And remember, all these ways for you to beat a charge work for the guy who commits the same violation and runs over you. Are you going to accept that the guy who just T-boned your bike when he ran a red light can't be charged because "the city makes money off those tickets?" I think not.

[RD]

I agree Jim.

We're in a downward spiral. The Police have to spend too much time on domestic disputes, drugs, pit bulls, bogus 911 calls, and DWI accidents. I wish they'd bring back a "true" traffic task force. This would  help eliminate several problems. ie. DWI's, no insurance drivers, warrant arrests for unpaid tickets, and yes, even illegals. What ever happened to the road blocks?

I'm all for self-policeing, but not if I'm the only one participating. I'm sick and tired of "no turn signal driver's, vehicular procto exams, and the ever so popular "entitlement".

I always try to obey the law. I've had some slip-ups due to urban sprawl and the changing of speed limits. I'm all for camera's, speed traps, and what ever means needed to straighten driver's up.

[hipshot]

The real problem is that the police have to spend too much time on paperwork. Everything we file has more and more BS involved. Why? Thank the prostitutes -- y'all call 'em lawyers -- they spend the taxpayers' dollars freely in their pursuit of revenue. They keep coming up with abstract definitions and interpretations of the laws to get you off, and that necessitates more complex paperwork when charges are filed. They used to be hired to protect your rights. Now you hire them to get you off -- and guilt or innocence, right or wrong, truth, and justice -- all fall by the wayside. Got a DWI? Your prostitute will attack the arresting officer's motive, attack his competence, attack his equipment, attack his common sense, and do everything possible to get the truth suppressed from the trial. Ever spend three days listening to a prostitute try to get an officer to "admit" that he was working "DWI Suppression" rather than "routine patrol", then tell the jury that because the officers would not admit to working "DWI Suppression" (no such mission at that agency) they were obviously hiding something. It all means nothing, but that prostitute will try to convince the jury that it's a coverup, and the client is a victim. That's how they work. Care to guess how much money that trial cost the taxpayers? Every point that the prostitute made which scored points has to be defended against in future filings of DWI. Of course, the prostitute claims he is just "keeping the system honest" while he gets rich. Everybody was disgusted by the OJ trial, but that's how our legal system works every day, and every day it gets more complicated. Put cops out there working traffic? Need more cops to handle the everyday stuff. And when the cops do work traffic, all you hear is the "revenue generation" Buck Rogers, and "speed trap."  A speed trap used to be some place with a hidden sign mandating a big drop in the speed limit, and hidden cops to catch you violating the hidden sign. Now anyplace that writes tickets is a speed trap, according to the public. I used to really piss off the Woodlands soccer moms doing 65 in a 45 (the same speed limit for miles either side of the city) who start their "everybody knows you're a speed trap" speech. I'd always ask why, if they knew they were in a notorious speed trap, were they speeding? Naturally, that's an improper question. It's all about PC in the end, and a large portion of our society seems to feel that if a citizen is offended at being caught violating a regulation, that the system is out of line. BUT, those same people want to hold that same system liable for holding everyone else to a higher standard. "Make everyone but me accountable for his/her actions."

Look at the Slade trial going on in Houston. If all they considered was the FACTS the trial would have been over long ago. DeGuerin's strategy is to object every time the prosecutor speaks, hoping to suppress something -- that's why it's dragging on so long. Drag it out and piss everyone off, then you can sum it all up with "If they had a good case we wouldn't have been here this long." That's prostitution at it's finest from a top law firm. When you have to watch it every day you really get sick of it.

[snake]

Damn Jim, let us know how you really feel!
DON'T LET THE BASTARDS WEAR YA' DOWN. 

[icopus]

What I'm saying, to be frank, is that they are MORE interested in revenue in the name of safety then in your safety only.  You scoff, but consider this -
Red light running is nothing new.  Statics show that you are far more likely to be a victim of an accident due to either running red lights or being hit by a red light runner as opposed to simply speeding or by those who are simply speeding.  Going a little fast does not an accident make.  Makes sense, right?
BUT, where do the cops patrol?  Rare is the cop sitting at an intersection.  NO.  He's got radar on the open freeway.  It's cost effective and it's much more exciting for him to chase down a speeder. And those speeding tickets generate far more revenue than failure to stop tickets.  Especially when you consider that FTS can more easily get beat in court (there was no proof).
Now that there is a cost effective way of ticketing light runners, you see enforcement.
It's about money.  It's ALWAYS about money.

[hipshot]

So again, why does it being about money make it invalid? Should we say no to safety efforts that make money for political subdivisions?

[jackandangie]

Hmmm safety reasons. I guess I could buy that. But in my research I've found several studies from several countries that all suggest that a more effective way of reducing red light accidents and red light running, is to increase yellow light times and decrease the time between when the yellow light turns red, and the other lights turn green.

Jack

[hipshot]

I haven't done any internationally funded studies through accredited research facilities. I do, however, watch people driving every day. The most common red light violations I see are:

Most common; three to five cars run the light AFTER it turns red. The duration of the amber light is not a factor at all.

Fairly common; approaching drivers slow but do not stop; they anticipate being able to run it and are unable to stop if the intersection is not clear.

Occasionally: approaching drivers at night (and I see this frequently in a few places but never in others) kill their lights and blow the lights and stop signs at high speed.

All that "blame it on the authorities for making the amber light too short" stuff sounds nice, but it's not a real-world solution. What we need to do is give drivers a reason to start paying attention and obeying laws. That's the real issue. I don't have a bit of trouble stopping for red lights, and I have a difficult time digesting all of the stories I hear about how hard it is to stop for them. I know that several acquaintances of mine have been rear-ended by red light runners who had no problemstopping, but the clowns who hit them were all upset that they didn't run the lights. Amber DOES NOT mean stomp on the gas, no matter how many times the red light runners insist that it does.

[crow57]

Hmmm safety reasons. I guess I could buy that. But in my research I've found several studies from several countries that all suggest that a more effective way of reducing red light accidents and red light running, is to increase yellow light times and decrease the time between when the yellow light turns red, and the other lights turn green.

Jack

But drivers will compensate for the longer yellow lights once they get used to them, and just run yellows, which inevitably sometimes will mean running red, which makes longer yellows pointless, but they reduce the efficiency of the intersection too.  Yellow lights should be just long enough to allow you to come to a normal stop from whatever the posted speed is.  The FHWA Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices says 3 to 6 seconds, depending on traffic speed, and an additonal (up to) 6 seconds before the intersecting side turns green...   It just makes more sense IMHO for everybody to stop before the light runs red, bust those that don't, and if the lights aren't programmed in compliance with the standard, or the enforcement devices aren't properly proving a violation, then fight it in court...  I'd rather let people who can't follow the rules pay the costs, instead of everybody paying for it everytime they sit through light cycles that are unnecessarily long.

[jackandangie]

Hmmm safety reasons. I guess I could buy that. But in my research I've found several studies from several countries that all suggest that a more effective way of reducing red light accidents and red light running, is to increase yellow light times and decrease the time between when the yellow light turns red, and the other lights turn green.

Jack

But drivers will compensate for the longer yellow lights once they get used to them, and just run yellows, which inevitably sometimes will mean running red, which makes longer yellows pointless, but they reduce the efficiency of the intersection too.  Yellow lights should be just long enough to allow you to come to a normal stop from whatever the posted speed is.  The FHWA Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices says 3 to 6 seconds, depending on traffic speed, and an additonal (up to) 6 seconds before the intersecting side turns green...   It just makes more sense IMHO for everybody to stop before the light runs red, bust those that don't, and if the lights aren't programmed in compliance with the standard, or the enforcement devices aren't properly proving a violation, then fight it in court...  I'd rather let people who can't follow the rules pay the costs, instead of everybody paying for it everytime they sit through light cycles that are unnecessarily long.

But what the FHWA Manual advocates is NOT what is in practice. In my town yellow lights are at the most 4 seconds, and the intersecting side turns green immediately. If the manual standards were followed then there would be less collisions and less violations. Studies have proven this

2004 Texas Transportation Institute study found:
"An increase in yellow duration of 1.0 seconds is associated with a [crash frequency] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes."

2001 report by the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives found:
"The changes in the yellow signal timing regulations have resulted in the inadequate yellow times. And these inadequate yellow times are the likely cause of almost 80 percent of red light entries."

"they found when the yellow signal was 1 second shorter than what the standard ITE timing formula specifies as a minimum, red light violations jumped 110%. Adding an additional second to the ITE minimum yellow yielded 53% reduction in violations, producing the greatest benefit of all the factors studied (2-6). When safety is the main concern, preventing crashes is more important than reducing violations. Yellow signal timing again proved most effective in reducing crashes. An extra second yielded a 40 percent collision reduction."

These studies were undertaken covering 181 intersections over three year period so we're not talking about some hypothetical thing here. The thing is, if safety were the real concern, then why don't they try these things first before they went out and spent a lot of my money on expensive cameras. I don't mind them putting up the cameras, what I have the problem with is the fact that at nearly every one of the camera intersections I know of in my city, after installation, the yellow light time dropped considerably. So much so that if you slow to enter the intersection (the prdent thing to do, covering the brake) and the light turns yellow just as you cross the white line entering the intersection, that maintaining a cautious speed would get you a ticket at a camera intersection because the yellow is so short and the intersections so wide, that you are still in the intersection when it turns red. THOSE are the ones that I don't like.

Jack

Jack

[hipshot]

I can't comment on what goes on in your town. I'm not there (I guess, where are you?). I do know what I see every day. I see people run red lights ON A DAILY BASIS at lights that have more than long enough amber cycles -- I don't have to stand on the brakes to stop when they turn amber. And I hear all the BS about "too short a yellow light." The problem may be too short an amber cycle in isolated cases. But in most cases the problem is idiot drivers. It's become the American way. Tailgate, speed, flipflop lanes without signaling, cut people off, run red lights and stop signs, ignore tickets, and whine about the Nazi cops when you get caught. Whine that "you forgot about those tickets" after they go to warrant status. It's the American way, don'tcha know?

You know, I had to laugh when I was in a young guy's truck some time back. This kid -- he's younger than my daughter -- was driving very aggressively on the freeway. He was speeding, using all of the lanes, and following WAYYYYYYY too close. When I commented about his driving he told me, " You ain't in the country now. You need to learn how to drive in the city." What a joke.

From my observation, 99% of driving problems stem from immaturity. You're in a hurry. Subconsciously, you want to get ahead of every one else, so you push it. The mature thing to do would be to take a deep breath and think about it, and drive courteously. But that's not fashionable any more. What the hell, if you get caught or cause a wreck you can blame it on somebody or something else. Somebody will have authored a study you can quote that says people drive the wrong way on freeways because amber light cycles are too short, or because one-way roadways were just made to generate revenue, or because of global warming. Won't be YOUR fault. It's those money-grubbing politicians. Hell, I'll just bet you that if we abolished all traffic laws and enforcement, and just let America drive the way each individual sees fit, we'd never see another wreck again. I'll bet our insurance premiums would drop to nothing overnight. Peace and tranquility would reign on America's highways and byways. Yeah!

[jackandangie]

Believe it or not, you and I are on the same page. I'm not talking about the blatant red light runners who would run a red light regardless of how long the yellow was. I'm talking about the few " isolated" cases where a guy driving cautiously and conservatively could end up receiving a citation given by a camera that was undeserved, and in a case where a police officer observing the situation would instantly recognize a situation in which a driver was cautiously entering an intersection in which the yellow light was too short and know that this wasn't somebody that was trying to run a light, but was being careful, recognize that there was no way possible for some to stop in time for the light, and not able to clear the intersection before the light became red. It happens, and police IMHO have much better judgement of such situations than a camera. If the yellows are set correctly and the camera timed accordingly, those isolated situations would not result in either a citation or collision, yet blatant runners would still be caught. 

jack

[icopus]

So again, why does it being about money make it invalid? Should we say no to safety efforts that make money for political subdivisions?

OK.  Wow.  Where or how did I say that?  I believe what I said... now read carefully because there will be nothing subtle here -
Despite what they're telling you, their INTENTIONS have nothing to do with safety.  It is that STATED INTENTION ("for your safety") that are invalid.  Their REAL intentions are about generating revenue effectively and at minimal cost.
For the record, I have NOTHING against making our intersections safer.  But, I do have problems with hypocritical, lying governing bodies.  We all should.

[hipshot]

Icopus, the reason for traffic regulations IS safety. I will grant you that many governmental entities are trying to make money off of enforcement, but the basic traffic laws were passed long ago to promote safe driving. The very things you are saying are what a lot of people are using as an argument to justify violating those laws. Anyone who drives, especially someone who drives a motorcycle, should be tired of idiot drivers; I know I am. And too many of those idiot drivers argue that government making money off of traffic enforcement invalidates enforcement. There are a lot of weak-minded morons willing to subscribe to that concept. If you see through it, good for you!! I can tell you that, as a cop, working for a governmental entity which pushes traffic enforcement as a revenue generating enterprise can be an embarassing and disgusting experience. There is a little PD up the road which has the mindset that cops are only there to write tickets, and they don't want their officers doing things that might get them sued, like catching burglars. They have said that other agencies which actually chase crooks and such are "out of control" and "a bad influence." A lot of their guys absolutely hate it there, but they pay better than most agencies. I couldn't work like that. But, you have to follow orders........