Running a red light on a bike at a photo-enforced intersection

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:05:37 -0800, SMS
wrote:

I'm surprised that a "rolling right on red" (translation--running the
red light) is only $75.

If you are ticketed by a police officer, you get a ticket and a hefty
fine. If the camera gets you, you get to see your video online an
mail 'em a check (or pay with a credit card online) for $75, and it
doesn't show as a moving violation on your record. At least that's
the way it works here.

As far as your parenthetical statement, I believe there's a difference
between hauling ass through an intersection, and braking (but not
stoping completely) before making a right turn. But as far as the
camera is concerned, it isn't.

In article ,
writes:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:05:37 -0800, SMS
wrote:

I'm surprised that a "rolling right on red" (translation--running the
red light) is only $75.

If you are ticketed by a police officer, you get a ticket and a hefty
fine. If the camera gets you, you get to see your video online an
mail 'em a check (or pay with a credit card online) for $75, and it
doesn't show as a moving violation on your record. At least that's
the way it works here.

As far as your parenthetical statement, I believe there's a difference
between hauling ass through an intersection, and braking (but not
stoping completely) before making a right turn.

If there's a pedestrian lawfully in the crosswalk at the time,
a non-stopping right-on-red driver might just knock him down
and mow him over.

But if the driver is really hauling ass, he and his vehicle
could fling the pedestrian a number of yards into some
random vector.

Fortunately, most right-on-red car movements are slow, so the
worst that innocent pedestrians get is usually recoverable
after some hospitalization, treatment & physiotherapy.

There's always that distinction between how The Law applies to
the riff-raff in general, and us normal people in particular,
isn't there?

But as far as the
camera is concerned, it isn't.

Cameras don't lie. They don't even cook up lame excuses.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Jay wrote:

For those who may not know: Some municipalities in the States are installing
automated cameras at select intersections. The cameras take pictures of
vehicles who have run the red light, and mail a ticket to the registered
owner of the motor vehicle, based on the license plate.

Do red-light-running-bikes have anything to be concerned about?

Absolutely zero, as far as getting a ticket via the camera.

The dirty little secret of those camera violations is there is no way to
enforce the ticket. Unless the you admit the violation by returning the mailed
ticket.
The letter that is mailed is not registered, nor does is require a signature
of receipt.
Do the math...
--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

Tom Keats wrote:
:: Not so many years ago, British Columbia had automated
:: photo-radar. Oooh, you shoulda heard the hue & cry
:: over that. The drivers were screamin' like stuck pigs.
:: "Money grab" this, "oppression" that ...
::
:: Then another political party took over the provincial
:: gov't and got rid of the photo-radar for political
:: expediency (i.e: popularity.)
::
:: Citizens & governments are sure all for Law And Order,
:: except when it interferes with their (our) own
:: law breaking.
::
:: cheers,
:: Tom

A couple of months ago, the city of Dallas started a campaign to force
people to get their cars registered/inspected. They announced they would
impound cars found lacking in those respects. Well, immediately, people
started writing letters to the editor of the Dallas Morning News decrying
the oppressiveness of one being required to have his motor vehicle
registered and inspected prior to driving on the city streets. According to
them, it impacted only poor people and especially impacted illegal aliens,
so it was obviously a class warfare tactic as well as a punitive immigration
tactic.

A few days ago, there was a story on the red light cameras in the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram, complete with guys being interviewed saying their lack of
stopping on red prior to turning right was of no significance because they
"were sure that no one was in danger" when they rolled through the corner.
The only thing lacking from that news story was the obligatory "why don't
the police go after someone who's REALLY breaking the law for a change!"
stuff.

Pat

PatTX wrote:

A few days ago, there was a story on the red light cameras in the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram, complete with guys being interviewed saying their lack of
stopping on red prior to turning right was of no significance because they
"were sure that no one was in danger" when they rolled through the corner.
The only thing lacking from that news story was the obligatory "why don't
the police go after someone who's REALLY breaking the law for a change!"
stuff.

Well I do think that it'd be a better use of their time to go after red
light runners that are going straight through the intersection, or
turning left, rather than those that are running it with a 5 MPH right
turn. While not condoning the right turn red light runners, it's
probably true that the danger was minimal.

On Feb 28, 6:35*pm, SMS wrote:
PatTX wrote:
A few days ago, there was a story on the red light cameras in the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram, complete with guys being interviewed saying their lack of
stopping on red prior to turning right was of no significance because they
"were sure that no one was in danger" when they rolled through the corner.
The only thing lacking from that news story was the obligatory "why don't
the police go after someone who's REALLY breaking the law for a change!"
stuff.

Well I do think that it'd be a better use of their time to go after red
light runners that are going straight through the intersection, or
turning left, rather than those that are running it with a 5 MPH right
turn. While not condoning the right turn red light runners, it's
probably true that the danger was minimal.

Not if there is a pedestrian there. Many drivers see only cars.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS wrote:
:: PatTX wrote:
::
::: A few days ago, there was a story on the red light cameras in the
::: Fort Worth Star-Telegram, complete with guys being interviewed
::: saying their lack of stopping on red prior to turning right was of
::: no significance because they "were sure that no one was in danger"
::: when they rolled through the corner. The only thing lacking from
::: that news story was the obligatory "why don't the police go after
::: someone who's REALLY breaking the law for a change!" stuff.
::
:: Well I do think that it'd be a better use of their time to go after
:: red light runners that are going straight through the intersection,
:: or turning left, rather than those that are running it with a 5 MPH
:: right turn. While not condoning the right turn red light runners,
:: it's probably true that the danger was minimal.

Until the red light cameras came into being, "they" didn't go after either
of these scofflaws.

Pat in TX

On Feb 26, 7:29 pm, wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:11 pm, wrote:



On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:44:44 -0600, "Jay" wrote:
I ride to work at 5am. I can see for .25 miles in each direction (left and
right) at the intersection in question.

The risk to all parties involved approaches zero.

J.

I also run 'em on an early morning commute. I'll also do the old
right-uturn-right maneuver in certain situations.

My checkbook is $75 lighter because one of those cameras got me doing
a rolling right turn on red--another situation where I was endangering
no one. But the video didn't lie--I didn't stop so it cost me.

I'd like to blow through one (assuming no cross traffic) just to see
if I'd set off the camera.

what happens when you roll through reds is that it becomes habit
forming. your mind becomes less attuned to reacting to seeing a red
light. You will find yourself rolling through a red by force of habit
when you should've stopped. It can also influence how you drive.

Pure conjecture.

Ever walk an abandoned big city at night? Surely most of us jay walk
up a storm, ignoring signals as potential automobiles can be heard
coming a block away. However, when walking with the masses during the
flight to lunch--these evening stroll does not imprint one enough to
step in front of a Taxi cab.

To the experienced pedestrian, the mere presence of others will
automatically change habits--the same goes for smart cyclists and even
veteran motorists. Surely with your theory, NASCAR drivers in their
minivans would have the whole family turning left uncontrolably,
making the children late for soccer practice.

On Feb 27, 1:05 pm, SMS wrote:

I'm surprised that a "rolling right on red" (translation--running the
red light) is only $75.

Forbidding right on red is what's surprising. Doing so as a blanket
rule inhibits urban traffic flow.

landotter wrote:
:: On Feb 27, 1:05 pm, SMS wrote:
::
::: I'm surprised that a "rolling right on red" (translation--running
::: the red light) is only $75.
::
:: Forbidding right on red is what's surprising. Doing so as a blanket
:: rule inhibits urban traffic flow.

Who does that blanket rule?

Pat in TX