|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
Frank Krygowski writes:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:44:41 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: 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. Or alternately, purported abuse. Remember, we have one political party enthusiastically working to require photo IDs and who knows what else to reduce "voter fraud" - fraud which has been shown again and again to be negligible, if not mythical. See http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/316...ickets-for-you Do you think that story was invented? 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 the constitutional right to disobey the laws. Private law enforcement is a *huge* conflict of interest. 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. 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. OK, I'm fine with that. 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. -- |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
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, and seem to feel a motorist should always be able to drive at whatever speed they choose. 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. 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. [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. 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. Now, how are these things handled in other countries? - Frank Krygowski |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
Frank Krygowski writes:
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, and seem to feel a motorist should always be able to drive at whatever speed they choose. 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. 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. [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. The analogy is flawed. The guards get paid whether or not there is a robbery attempt. Hypothetical bonuses aside, they don't have an incentive to induce robberies. That is not the situation with the red light cameras. -- Joe Riel |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/16/2013 02:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: 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. They seem to define "****ing the motorist" as "enforcing the legal speed limit" or "preventing people from running red lights." They do list speed traps, which they describe as enforcing speed limits below the prevailing speed of traffic - so hey! If enough people break the law, then we should let them all go! That's little more than anarchy. 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. Yes, and the studies supporting that consider only the effect on motorists. But in Ohio, within a city or village commercial district, the speed limit is supposed to be 25 mph. It allows for people doing things like crossing the street in reasonable safety, and it's certainly better for bicyclists and kids on sidewalks. The "85%" crew thinks it's fine if most motorists do 40 mph through such an area - because they wouldn't do it if it weren't safe, right? Yet the chances of survival for a pedestrian go way, way down if the motor vehicle is over 25 mph. Motorists don't take that into account. They judge only their own chance of running into another car. Furthermore, motorheads like the National Motorists Association don't call for letting motorists off the hook who are only 5 mph over the limit in their self-defined "speed traps." They call for an _end_ to speed traps, which would mean not enforcing any speed limit. My town is listed as a "speed trap." Yet when the newspaper in the nearby city did some investigative reporting, they found that people getting tickets were at least 10 mph over the 25 mph limit. Many were far above that. And BTW, I rode my bike by just after a cop had pulled a motorist over. I heard the cop say "Sir, you were doing 39 mph in a 25 zone." So he should be let go?? Of course, the National Motorists Association has lots of advice on how to fight a speeding ticket. Nothing I see there hints at "Hey, if you were being irresponsible, pay the fine and straighten up." And what's the real detriment to the motorist of simply driving the speed limit? That 39 mph guy would have lost less than fifteen seconds on that stretch of roadway by doing 25 mph. Do motorists _really_ need to save every quarter minute? The very thought is plenty of proof of too much privilege.. - Frank Krygowski |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:
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 agree with everything above, except the last sentence. If the abuses were really as great as the anti-camera crew pretends, they'd be extremely easy to document. Yellow lights are easy to time with a stopwatch. It's easy to prove a speed limits is less than state law allows. And while I think the appeal process should be easy, realistically that won't matter when the camera clearly shows your car busting a red. (One lawyer I know well, who does a lot of traffic work, says that almost nobody challenges the cameras simply because they know they were in the wrong, and there's incontrovertible proof.) - Frank Krygowski |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On 10/16/2013 07:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote: On 10/16/2013 02:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: 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. They seem to define "****ing the motorist" as "enforcing the legal speed limit" False. They want to stop municipalities from enforcing speed limits not set by best engineering principles (well, actually, just set limits according to those principles and then enforcement isn't a problem anymore.) or "preventing people from running red lights." False. They want municipalities to stop trapping people into running red lights by setting up dilemma zones and then fining them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They do list speed traps, which they describe as enforcing speed limits below the prevailing speed of traffic - so hey! If enough people break the law, then we should let them all go! That's little more than anarchy. That's actually best engineering practice, DAGS for the Solomon and Cirillo studies on the subject. 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. Yes, and the studies supporting that consider only the effect on motorists. But in Ohio, within a city or village commercial district, the speed limit is supposed to be 25 mph. It allows for people doing things like crossing the street in reasonable safety, and it's certainly better for bicyclists and kids on sidewalks. The "85%" crew thinks it's fine if most motorists do 40 mph through such an area - because they wouldn't do it if it weren't safe, right? Yet the chances of survival for a pedestrian go way, way down if the motor vehicle is over 25 mph. Motorists don't take that into account. They judge only their own chance of running into another car. Yet another typical anti-motorist argument. The truth is, if in general speed limits are set correctly, that might foster *more* respect for the law, so that when a speed limit seems lower than expected, motorists might actually think that there's a good reason for it rather than just assuming that *all* speed limits are 20-30 MPH lower than they safely could be. Furthermore, motorheads like the National Motorists Association don't call for letting motorists off the hook who are only 5 mph over the limit in their self-defined "speed traps." They call for an _end_ to speed traps, which would mean not enforcing any speed limit. My town is listed as a "speed trap." Yet when the newspaper in the nearby city did some investigative reporting, they found that people getting tickets were at least 10 mph over the 25 mph limit. Many were far above that. And BTW, I rode my bike by just after a cop had pulled a motorist over. I heard the cop say "Sir, you were doing 39 mph in a 25 zone." So he should be let go?? I have no idea. Is it safe to drive 39 MPH there? I wasn't there. I've seen plenty of roads signed for 25 or 35 MPH that looked like highways. Of course, the National Motorists Association has lots of advice on how to fight a speeding ticket. Nothing I see there hints at "Hey, if you were being irresponsible, pay the fine and straighten up." The question is, was a motorist who got a ticket really being irresponsible, or no? If the latter, then there should be no ticket. If anyone really cared about safety, tickets would be given for unsafe lane changes, not signaling turns, no lights after dark, no lights when it's raining or snowing, blocking the passing lane on the freeway, etc. When was the last time you heard of someone getting a ticket for any of those behaviors? The last time I heard of it was ON THE LOCAL NEWS when some idiotic bimbo actually did get a ticket for blocking the passing lane and was so outraged that she made a huge stink about it. (her argument, unsurprisingly, was that she was driving slowly so she was a very safe driver.) And yet you see people *doing* these things all day every day... but the cops are too busy writing speeding tickets on the freeway and just don't give a ****. And what's the real detriment to the motorist of simply driving the speed limit? That 39 mph guy would have lost less than fifteen seconds on that stretch of roadway by doing 25 mph. Do motorists _really_ need to save every quarter minute? The very thought is plenty of proof of too much privilege. Time is money. We're a fast paced society, we have places to go and things to do. 55 MPH freeway speed limits are like me telling you that you can only ride your bicycle at 5 MPH or less. You're going to ignore the crap out of me if I tell you that, and you'd be right to do so. 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
Nate Nagel writes:
On 10/16/2013 02:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:58:21 AM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote: [Frank Krygowski] 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. I really don't like the cameras much. Any state of the art speed camera can surely log *every* vehicle through its intersection, scanned in real time. I would prefer that neither governments nor private firms be free to archive that kind of data without limit or oversight. Cyclists, pedestrians, and passengers are harder, but automatic face recognition is improving, and why should anyone worry about a few false identifications? Yes, I know, if I could just rid myself of dirty secrets to hide I wouldn't mind big brother wanting to count my balls every time I stand up. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed
On 10/16/2013 08:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote: 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 agree with everything above, except the last sentence. If the abuses were really as great as the anti-camera crew pretends, they'd be extremely easy to document. They are and they are. Yellow lights are easy to time with a stopwatch. It's easy to prove a speed limits is less than state law allows. It's easy to prove you're being screwed, but good luck getting the anything done about it. This is WHY the NMA exists, so that enough people get together to be a pain in the ass enough to legislators about these abuses so they finally get some small amount of attention. And while I think the appeal process should be easy, realistically that won't matter when the camera clearly shows your car busting a red. (One lawyer I know well, who does a lot of traffic work, says that almost nobody challenges the cameras simply because they know they were in the wrong, and there's incontrovertible proof.) I know it's damn near impossible to fight, that's my point. Because traffic offenses are not criminal offenses, you're not given due process, and realistically no appeal is possible without great expense. But are you really wrong, when you "blew" a light that you had 2 or 3 seconds to stop for on a 55 MPH road? Really? And even if you do have a solid, airtight case that you were set up (e.g. by a yellow so short that a dilemma zone was created below the speed limit) usually the case is dismissed so that the judge does not have to give a decision that would provide case law precedent for others to appeal. Believe me, your legislators, the camera companies, and the police are all most emphatically NOT your friends. They just want your money. 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 8:44:51 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:
Believe me, your legislators, the camera companies, and the police are all most emphatically NOT your friends. They just want your money. I don't know anyone working for a camera company. But I do know several legislators and quite a few cops. They actually are my friends. And none of them have the evil motives you attribute to them. - 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 | Nate Nagel[_2_] | Techniques | 122 | October 28th 13 10:02 PM |
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 |