I don't consider it arguing, but rather a discussion of issues.

Here's an example of the "Prepare to Stop" signal:



Note that this signal starts flashing well in advance of the light going yellow.

If you aren't past the sign and it starts flashing you _will_ have to stop, so there is no quick decision to be made at the signal itself. You can simply let off the gas and coast to a stop safely.

If you don't see it flashing you will definately make the light.

These have been very effective in reducing the accident rate at these high speed (45mph) suburban intersections.

If a municipality truly cared about the accident rate, they would go for these before they installed red light cameras. These are low-tech, reliable, and helpful rather than high-tech and punitive like the cameras.

 

id downshift and gun it!!!

just kidding wanted to ____ someone off

 

"If a municipality truly cared about the accident rate, they would go for these before they installed red light cameras."

I used to live in a municipality that tried something similar - they put up a sign that said "Be Prepared to Stop" with no lights and no hookup to the intersection or anything. All people did was complain that it was yet another example of government waste. They put the signs up anytime they built a new stoplight where there was previously none, because they found that for a period of few months after anytime a new stoplight was installed the accident rate at that intersection would be high since people weren't used to having to stop. It didn't seem to be much benefit to actually lowering the accident rate, but it wasn't quite as sophisticated as that nevada thing either.

The problem with the Nevada approach is that it will only modify the behavior of drivers who WANT to stop for red lights, and doesn't do a thing for those that deliberately run red lights. Cameras will catch 'em about every time, and after a $200 ticket or two most people will wise up and drive more safely.

I'm not too worried about the conseientious drivers out there. Its the people that drive like there are no consequences anytime there's no cop around that make me wish I had Side Air Bags. Cameras create those consequences.

 

So long to your right to face your accuser

 

^^^

that's what the hearing in court is for.

Or are you referring to just not being able to have an argument with a camera same as you could with a cop?

 

I don't think stating your case is arguing.
And it seems that unlike you, those of us that work for a living and have a life, don't have time to go to court.

Let me guess, you think that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care if a cop wants to search you, or your car or your house, right?

 

Your municipality's approach is far from similar to the Nevada system. The static signs didn't provide the driver with useful information. The flashing signs provide excellent information that markedly reduces the driver's workload, namely the need to make a split-second decision about whether to proceed through the light. The drivers aren't complaining about the flashing warnings because they are _useful_. I sincerely wish that we had them here in my town where there are numerous traffic lights on 45-55MPH roads. It would make life a lot easier.

I disagree that the intentional light runners are a serious problem. There just aren't enough of them. Such violators weed themselves out pretty quickly, either through accidents or by being observed by a traffic officer. The real red light problem is that people tend to stretch the yellows more and more and pretty soon are entering the intersection after the red. Even this is minor compared to the real traffic safety problem, drunken driving.

If you like cameras that create unavoidable consequences for traffic violations, you will probably be happy in a world in which your every driving action is photographed and judged by a machine. How many of us can say that we break absolutely no traffic rules? How would you like to receive a $200 ticket every time you drift to one side of the lane and touch the line without signaling? Cameras are getting cheaper and cities would love to reap the free money they can provide. Personally, I would rather be judged by a human.

 

A camera cannot be examined in court. The chain of evidence is very shaky, since the photographs exist only in electronic form and are transmitted throught non-secure means before any humans (who can be questioned) see them. Nobody can testify that the camera was working properly at the time of the alleged violation, only that it was working properly at some time before and after the violation.

Anyone who knows the business knows that a video could be created showing anyone running a red light while steering with his knees, waving a beer bottle out the window and fondling Angelina Jolie with his other hand. Such falsification is unlikely, but the fact that it is possible puts all such evidence under suspicion unless there is an actual human witness at the scene. That's the policeman's job, not sitting at a computer "reviewing" red light photos at the rate of 30 per minute.

George

 

Well, if you can prove Angelina Jolie was in my car, I'd want that print framed and I'd gladly pay the ticket....

 

[quote="oldmanateeI don't think stating your case is arguing.
And it seems that unlike you, those of us that work for a living and have a life, don't have time to go to court.[/quote]

So if a cop gives you a ticket you do have time for court, but not when a camera gives the ticket? How about if the cop took video with his dashboard camera?

Wrong. And what does that have to do with camera tickets anyway?

 

You're not from Dallas (or Houston, the locale of these particular cameras). I didn't think they were that bad until I moved here. The ONLY place drivers here follow laws is inside school zones, and that's because its about the only place the law is enforced.

Ha! Actual humans are just as likely to deliberately or unintentionally falsify facts regarding what they witnessed. I don't think anyone's said cameras are 100% foolproof. But I don't see them as being worse than a cop's or a witness's testimony. Its one reason why a lot of police departments even have video cameras on the dashboards of all or most of their police cars.

 

And you are willing to give up your civil rights, and those of everyone else, in return for the promise of some temporary security. Benjamin Franklin would not approve.

Yes, and those cameras are directly operated by the policemen involved, who can verify by their presence on camera that they were there and personally observed the violation. This does not apply to automated cameras. The policeman who reviews the automated photos was _not_ there, did _not_ personally observe the violation, and is _not_ qualifed to judge whether the equipment was operating properly at the time it took the picture. He is merely a rubber-stamp to give an unconstitutional process a veneer of legitimacy.

 

You missed a very good point that George made. . . in that the majority of accidents and "problems" that occur at intersections result from unintended running of red lights (due to misjudgment). It's more logical (and effective) to prevent the accident than to punish their occurance.

Doing so would be similar to the police issuing you a $300 citation for every collision you have. Such a policy might reduce accidents, but it's a poor way of going about it. . . unfortunately, there is no easy remedy to prevent accidents. However, a secondary signal indicating whether or not you could clear an intersection would definitely prevent nearly all accidental running of lights. . . you know. . . a count down timer would be even better (I've seen them in other countries), but hey, that doesn't pull in any money at all. . .

 

I would love to hear a police officer's input on this subject.

 

Please read the information at the following site carefully:

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/co...onst=13_amd_06

It is what ensures that you can get a fair trial. Don't throw it away.

 

Please read the information at the following site carefully:

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/co...onst=13_amd_06

It is what ensures that you can get a fair trial. Don't throw it away.

It's what my forefathers died for....that is why I am so against an automated judge and jury.

 

Many police officers aren't big on that constitutional rights thing, since it gets in the way of their job fairly often. As part of the system, they aren't as subject to the abuses that the constitution prohibits.

However, it will be interesting in that the red light cameras aren't subject to the violator flashing a badge like a normal traffic officer is. No free ride for a cop caught by a camera unless he can get to the "reviewing officer" and have him find their photo "invalid" in some way. Even so, there will still be a record of the violation that can be reviewed if someone decides to raise a fuss over it.

 

Around here, all the FOP'ers have little badges that conviently cover part of their tag.....

 

"And you are willing to give up your civil rights, and those of everyone else, in return for the promise of some temporary security. Benjamin Franklin would not approve."

Okay, educate me. What right to not be on a public camera when I'm on a public road do I have?

"that is why I am so against an automated judge and jury."

Its not an automated judge and jury. Its automated evidence.

 

mf, how can you be so sure that the "automated evidence" is all looked at fairly?

Second, it is NOT a public camera. It is owned either by the company that gets a cut of every fine they issue, or they are owned by the city that gets a cut of every fine issued.
Why are you so quick to give away our rights to a trail by jury?