|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On 10/15/2013 08:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: On Monday, October 14, 2013 10:10:27 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote: You're in the UK... don't know how it is there, but here things are definitely predatory. Especially with the red light cameras, the yellow intervals are often well short of the ITE guideline, giving you a choice between panic stopping (and risking a rear-ender from the guy behind you who's not expecting you to do so) and making an involuntary donation to the highway fund. Fortunately at least some states (VA for one) are recognizing this and taking steps to keep the camera companies in check. (Oh, yeah, the cameras are generally operated by private, for-profit firms.) I happened to be browsing through some Ohio traffic laws. I found that Ohio has a law that states that if a red light camera is installed, the yellow light phase has to be exceed the normal (standard) yellow time by one second. That seems fair to me. That surely smells like a reaction to abuse, whether in Ohio or elsewhere. Ohio is notorious for abuse of traffic enforcement in general (New Rome, Linndale etc.) Don't know about RLCs in particular but there are still periodic news "exposés" in many places around the country of a reporter "discovering" that the yellow light timing isn't set to ITE guidelines even when a state law explicitly states that such must be evaluated before any RLC can be commissioned at an intersection. And yes, Ohio is trying to clean up its act somewhat as for example the village of New Rome was actually unincorporated (by the state, not by consensus of the residents) about 10 years ago primarily due to its abuses of traffic enforcement - a good portion of the town's budget was coming from traffic tickets, and a large portion of said budget funded the village's large (relative to population) police department... Too little too late, as there's many of us who still remember the "old" Ohio and just plain don't trust cops, or that attitudes really have changed. But maybe in another 20 years things will be different. And I don't have a problem with a private firm makes some money by enforcing traffic laws. We can't afford to station cops at every red light, or have radar patrols on every road, so we now have near-zero enforcement, with predictable results: people who think it's their constitutional right to disobey the laws. Private law enforcement is a *huge* conflict of interest. If there have to be speed cameras, they should be run by a government, and someone should hold that government's feet to the fire to prevent revenue-seeking rule changes. Even worse, many of the private companies rather than getting a flat fee per camera per day, are actually paid *per violation.* nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:
And yes, Ohio is trying to clean up its act somewhat as for example the village of New Rome was actually unincorporated (by the state, not by consensus of the residents) about 10 years ago primarily due to its abuses of traffic enforcement - a good portion of the town's budget was coming from traffic tickets, and a large portion of said budget funded the village's large (relative to population) police department... Too little too late, as there's many of us who still remember the "old" Ohio and just plain don't trust cops, or that attitudes really have changed. Well, as a person who bikes and walks around here, I'm just fine with drivers who say "I don't trust the cops; so I'm going to just drive the speed limit, and stop for the red lights." Also for the drivers who say "I'm going to avoid that town." - Frank Krygowski |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On 10/16/2013 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote: And yes, Ohio is trying to clean up its act somewhat as for example the village of New Rome was actually unincorporated (by the state, not by consensus of the residents) about 10 years ago primarily due to its abuses of traffic enforcement - a good portion of the town's budget was coming from traffic tickets, and a large portion of said budget funded the village's large (relative to population) police department... Too little too late, as there's many of us who still remember the "old" Ohio and just plain don't trust cops, or that attitudes really have changed. Well, as a person who bikes and walks around here, I'm just fine with drivers who say "I don't trust the cops; so I'm going to just drive the speed limit, and stop for the red lights." Also for the drivers who say "I'm going to avoid that town." So you really don't care whether or not someone was driving unsafely or even breaking the law or not, you just want to stick it to drivers. Oh, wait, I've known that for years. Move to New Rome, you'd fit right in. Some of us actually believe in fairness, laws that make sense, and reasonable enforcement however. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:05:29 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Well, as a person who bikes and walks around here, I'm just fine with drivers who say "I don't trust the cops; so I'm going to just drive the speed limit, and stop for the red lights." Also for the drivers who say "I'm going to avoid that town." So you really don't care whether or not someone was driving unsafely or even breaking the law or not, you just want to stick it to drivers. Oh, please! First, I'm just saying that motorists should obey the laws (even though I realize that's a radical idea in some circles). Why should violations of traffic laws be treated more leniently than violations of shoplifting laws, industrial pollution laws, or other laws? Second, nobody is "sticking it to drivers." We've already made the world extremely convenient for motorists in every possible way; and in doing so, we've made it quite inconvenient for those _not_ driving motor vehicles. For motorist convenience, my otherwise walkable village was cut in half by a 5 lane road that looks more like a freeway than anything else, and pedestrian crossings are far apart, with long waits for a "Walk" sign. And that's far from unusual! Grocery stores that used to be within neighborhoods have all been moved miles away, on "main roads" so there would be easy access for motorists and plenty of parking. Pedestrians aren't even given sidewalks in most places where roads are widened for motorists. Motorists are hardly a persecuted segment of society. The idea that expecting obedience to laws is persecution, only illustrates how out of control motorist privilege has gotten. - Frank Krygowski Oh, wait, I've known that for years. Move to New Rome, you'd fit right in. Some of us actually believe in fairness, laws that make sense, and reasonable enforcement however. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On 10/16/2013 03:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:05:29 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Well, as a person who bikes and walks around here, I'm just fine with drivers who say "I don't trust the cops; so I'm going to just drive the speed limit, and stop for the red lights." Also for the drivers who say "I'm going to avoid that town." So you really don't care whether or not someone was driving unsafely or even breaking the law or not, you just want to stick it to drivers. Oh, please! First, I'm just saying that motorists should obey the laws (even though I realize that's a radical idea in some circles). But those enforcing the laws are exempt from them? That's what we're talking about here - ILLEGAL ACTIONS on the part of municipalities to raise revenue at the expense of motorists, by trapping them into breaking the law. Sure, if a light immediately turns from green to red with no yellow, and I cross the stop bar after the light turns red because I have no hope of stopping, and the law says that that is illegal, well, then I'm a criminal. But would you really say that I was a bad person or scofflaw in that situation? Do I *deserve* a ticket for that? Or is this one of those four legs good two legs better kind of things? nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:44:56 PM UTC-7, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/16/2013 03:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:05:29 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Well, as a person who bikes and walks around here, I'm just fine with drivers who say "I don't trust the cops; so I'm going to just drive the speed limit, and stop for the red lights." Also for the drivers who say "I'm going to avoid that town." So you really don't care whether or not someone was driving unsafely or even breaking the law or not, you just want to stick it to drivers. Oh, please! First, I'm just saying that motorists should obey the laws (even though I realize that's a radical idea in some circles). But those enforcing the laws are exempt from them? That's what we're talking about here - ILLEGAL ACTIONS on the part of municipalities to raise revenue at the expense of motorists, by trapping them into breaking the law. Sure, if a light immediately turns from green to red with no yellow, and I cross the stop bar after the light turns red because I have no hope of stopping, and the law says that that is illegal, well, then I'm a criminal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process But would you really say that I was a bad person or scofflaw in that situation? I'd have to recuse myself ;-) Do I *deserve* a ticket for that? As in "cyclists need to obey the &^%$#@* law, period"? Or is this one of those four legs good two legs better kind of things? Well, if by legs you mean wheels, a bicyclist *would* seem much less likely to be cited in your hypothetical scenario. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On 10/16/2013 05:29 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:44:56 PM UTC-7, Nate Nagel wrote: On 10/16/2013 03:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:05:29 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Well, as a person who bikes and walks around here, I'm just fine with drivers who say "I don't trust the cops; so I'm going to just drive the speed limit, and stop for the red lights." Also for the drivers who say "I'm going to avoid that town." So you really don't care whether or not someone was driving unsafely or even breaking the law or not, you just want to stick it to drivers. Oh, please! First, I'm just saying that motorists should obey the laws (even though I realize that's a radical idea in some circles). But those enforcing the laws are exempt from them? That's what we're talking about here - ILLEGAL ACTIONS on the part of municipalities to raise revenue at the expense of motorists, by trapping them into breaking the law. Sure, if a light immediately turns from green to red with no yellow, and I cross the stop bar after the light turns red because I have no hope of stopping, and the law says that that is illegal, well, then I'm a criminal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process Traffic tickets, and especially ones given by automated cameras, are literally almost completely exempt from due process. You get a ticket, you have no realistic recourse. That's how the system perpetuates itself - you might have received a $300 ticket you didn't deserve, but it'll cost you $1000 or more and a day or two off work to fight it. But would you really say that I was a bad person or scofflaw in that situation? I'd have to recuse myself ;-) Do I *deserve* a ticket for that? As in "cyclists need to obey the &^%$#@* law, period"? It'd be better if *everyone* obeyed the law. Sadly, as bad as motorists are in this respect, when you get to automated enforcement, the enforcers are generally *less* inclined to obey the law. Or is this one of those four legs good two legs better kind of things? Well, if by legs you mean wheels, a bicyclist *would* seem much less likely to be cited in your hypothetical scenario. True, not enough of a laser cross-section. I wonder if they detect motorcycles? Problem with the plan I'm forming is that the areas where detection is most rampant around here also tend to have bombed-out, third world type roads... nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:44:56 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/16/2013 03:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Oh, please! First, I'm just saying that motorists should obey the laws (even though I realize that's a radical idea in some circles). But those enforcing the laws are exempt from them? That's what we're talking about here - ILLEGAL ACTIONS on the part of municipalities to raise revenue at the expense of motorists, by trapping them into breaking the law. I'm not in favor of municipalities or camera companies breaking the law. But I am in favor of proper and legal use of these traffic cameras. It shouldn't be hard to use them legally. If you want to complain _only_ about illegal uses, then we're in very substantial agreement. - Frank Krygowski |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On 10/16/2013 08:09 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nate Nagel considered Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:44:56 -0400 the perfect time to write: On 10/16/2013 03:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:05:29 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Well, as a person who bikes and walks around here, I'm just fine with drivers who say "I don't trust the cops; so I'm going to just drive the speed limit, and stop for the red lights." Also for the drivers who say "I'm going to avoid that town." So you really don't care whether or not someone was driving unsafely or even breaking the law or not, you just want to stick it to drivers. Oh, please! First, I'm just saying that motorists should obey the laws (even though I realize that's a radical idea in some circles). But those enforcing the laws are exempt from them? I don't know which bit of your mind that came from, but it wasn't stated in anything you're replying to. That's what we're talking about here - ILLEGAL ACTIONS on the part of municipalities to raise revenue at the expense of motorists, by trapping them into breaking the law. Seems that the most that even the "poor persecuted motorists" can come up with is an occasional example of a light that has it's calibration out by a few percent. Occasional? They're nearly universally like that. And when they get reported, they get fixed. You actually believe that? How cute. That one light might get fixed, then quietly the camera is taken down and moved to a different "problem" intersection. (where the actual problem is a short yellow.) Sure, if a light immediately turns from green to red with no yellow, and I cross the stop bar after the light turns red because I have no hope of stopping, and the law says that that is illegal, well, then I'm a criminal. But would you really say that I was a bad person or scofflaw in that situation? Do I *deserve* a ticket for that? Of course not, and you know as well as I do that if you were given one in those circumstances you'd appeal it and it would be thrown out - and if the case was that extreme, probably the contractor that fixed the lights to generate illegal tickets fined, sacked or maybe even imprisoned as well, for fraud. How am I going to appeal an automated ticket? (seriously, look it up, it's really difficult and expensive to do - more expensive than just paying the ticket. This is how the corrupt system stays functional. It's easier to just give in than fight.) Or is this one of those four legs good two legs better kind of things? For me, it's one of those illegal and dangerous bad, legal and safe good, kind of things. But you're OK with the government breaking the laws that they are supposedly bound to? That to me is worse than an individual And as Frank says, things have already gone way past reasonable in pandering to motorists, even without colluding with their illegal behaviour. Ah, you're not from around here are you. Seriously, here in the US, traffic law is NOT about safety. It's about making money. It's *spun* as being for safety, but most enforcement does SFA towards actually making the roads safer. Motorists are not pandered to, far from it. It's become a game of motorists vs. cops, really. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:38:57 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:
Seriously, here in the US, traffic law is NOT about safety. It's about making money. It's *spun* as being for safety, but most enforcement does SFA towards actually making the roads safer. Motorists are not pandered to, far from it. It's become a game of motorists vs. cops, really. How odd. I've had only two speeding tickets in my entire life, and one was in Canada. If you really feel so persecuted, Nate (despite all the shopping plazas designed only for motorists, the shifting of almost all commerce away from walking distances, the free car storage on public property, the lack of sidewalks in so much commercial development, etc.) you might consider giving up the car. Ride a bike instead. That'll show 'em! - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed | Jay Beattie | Techniques | 36 | October 20th 13 03:26 AM |
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed | AMuzi | Techniques | 2 | October 16th 13 06:28 PM |
Speed Cameras vs. Red Light Cameras | His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher[_2_] | UK | 0 | April 27th 11 02:06 PM |
Red light cameras? | Frank Krygowski[_2_] | General | 81 | April 26th 11 01:45 AM |
Red light cameras? | Frank Krygowski[_2_] | Techniques | 82 | April 26th 11 01:45 AM |