On 10/16/2013 02:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:58:21 AM UTC-4, Radey Shouman
wrote:

See
http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/316...ickets-for-you

Do you think that story was invented?

No, but I know it's not the last word. I'm somewhat familiar with
the National Motorists Association. They're anti-law in general,

bull****. They're anti-****ing-the-motorist, so you don't like them.

and
seem to feel a motorist should always be able to drive at whatever
speed they choose.

Oddly, so do Solomon and Cirillo (at least on highways and major roads.)
You know, the authors of the two most definitive studies on speed and
highway safety ever conducted in the US.

For example, I'm pretty sure it's their website
that lists "speed traps" throughout the U.S. - which are really just
places where the speed limit is actually enforced.

Read that article and think about it. They're in quite a huff
because (for example) a yellow light of 4.5 seconds was reduced to
4.3 seconds, because that's what the formula called for. And they
admit that the changes were to comply with the standards, were not
concentrated at camera locations, and were sometimes lengthening the
yellow cycle.

There are far more egregious examples than that, and they are sadly
quite common.

Furthermore, their complaint about the change in the standard (speed
limit or 85% speed, removing "whichever is greater") is really a
complaint that if lots of drivers speed, their desires are not being
taken into account. Sorry, I'm pretty firm in my belief that
speeders shouldn't be given privileges.

But if 85% of people are "speeding" and yet there is no rash of
incidents or fatalities, then it's the law that's wrong, not the
motorists. Statistics and every legitimate study on the subject support
that viewpoint.

Additionally, if 85% of motorists are speeding, and a municipality times
the yellow intervals for the speed limit and not the 85th percentile
speed, then they are deliberately making the motorists using that
intersection less safe for the purpose of generating more citations.


[fk:] Yet we have private security guards at banks.

Those guards are not allowed to confiscate stolen money from bank
patrons and add it to the bank coffers. And, really, I don't think
that private guards should have more privileges in protecting
corporate interests than private citizens do in protecting their
own. But that's one of those second amendment things.

The security guards do get paid if they catch someone robbing a bank.
They may even get a bonus for doing so. To me, that's not much
different than a camera company getting paid if it catches someone
running a red light.

But again, if you'd prefer that municipalities buy they cameras
themselves, that's fine with me.

And purportedly "short yellows" can be dealt with via legislation.
That's what Ohio has done.

And the municipalities comply with the law simply because it passed?
Just how naive are you exactly? This is exactly what we're talking
about, yellow light intervals are codified into law, and municipalities
are ignoring it to allow their private subcontractor camera company
buddies to make lots of money at the expense of the average motorist -
all the while doing nothing about the underlying safety problems of a
short yellow.

Again, some places (VA) are actively doing something about the problem,
but many are only giving the issue lip service or else issuing press
releases to the effect of "well don't run red lights you horrible unsafe
driver you." And even Virginia is not perfect, e.g.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/41/4144.asp

apparently a yellow interval of 3.6 seconds was found at an intersection
that required a yellow of 4.3 seconds - and then it had to be lengthened
again this January due to changes in guidelines.

At least it was actually *done...* but how many people were ticketed as
a result of a "gotcha" and not inattention or recklessness?

But wait, there's more - apparently tickets were issued at the same
intersection for RTORs.


I wonder how it's done in other countries? Perhaps part of our
problem is that this is the place where some in power feel that
Free Enterprise should solve every problem, and that government
should be small enough that one can "drown it in a bathtub."

Dude, try to stay on topic.

It's a discussion, and I'm exploring the topic by wondering about the
motivation of the complainers. I'd not be surprised to find a lot of
overlap between camera complainers and Tea Party members.

The original idea behind the Tea Party (small government, living within
our means, etc.) was great. Too bad it was co-opted by the Republican
establishment almost as soon as people heard about it.

But you see, I'm not actually anti-camera in principle, only in
practice. If you can assure me that yellow timings will be properly
set, and that the cameras are reliable enough that only a tiny fraction
of the tickets will be issued in error, and that there will be some kind
of review and appeal process that will allow people ticketed in error to
have their tickets reversed without undue time and financial effort,
then I'm OK with them. But I believe that in a typical camera
installation, NONE of those things are true, which is why I am opposed
to them. I also believe that a camera 100% by the rules won't likely be
profitable, which is why I believe that camera operators have a huge
incentive to cherrypick intersections with short yellows or in other
ways bend the rules.

There's plenty of people legitimately driving unsafely that there are
ample opportunities for officers to write legitimate, deserved tickets
without resorting to dirty underhanded tactics.

Now, how are these things handled in other countries?

Pretty much the same way as they are here, sadly. People aren't happy
about it in other countries, either.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3918.asp

"A court challenge forced officials in Victoria, Australia to admit last
week that red light cameras at eight intersections have been extremely
productive because the yellow warning times were illegally short. The
yellows fell short anywhere between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds with the
incorrect timing in place, in one instance, for seven-and-a-half years."

Actually, the Aussies pretty much own this technology... think about
that. That revenue isn't even going to an American company.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel