Like sure it is excusable if your in an emergency to speed and it can be rationalized that sure its OKAY to speed in the sense that everyone does it and people get annoyed at you for driving slow but of course it must be understood that the law is the law and yes while you CAN speed if your CAUGHT you should understand 1) you were speeding 2) You knew you were speeding and 3) You know there are ramifications for speeding.
My dad was caught speeding is is trying to pull the argument that because the people infront of him were speeding he shouldn't get a ticket.
I tried to tell him "dad, there is no valid excuse for speeding, you speeded, you were caught speeding it is time to pay the piper. It doesn't mater if the 5000 people infront of you were speeding the police caught YOU you are only responsible for yourself."
Sure, if I had a car ild probly drive that ~10 mile beyond the speed limit but I wouldn't try to pull the "everyone else was doin' it" defense.
Which brings me to my next thought.
They should put unhackable illegal to uninstall speed systems with wi-fi in your car that deducts from your bank account $$$ if you go past the speed limit. People would start driving slower really fast.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
My wife was in labor.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Blayne, you must never hold elected office.
You're right on the "everybody was doing it" defense. Doesn't work. I went to traffic court and waited behind about 15 people in a row trying that one with the judge, and usually he wouldn't even let them finish the "matching the flow of traffic" argument. I'm not sure why everybody kept trying after they saw everyone else get shot down.
From what I can tell, your only hope for getting out of a speeding ticket, barring truly exceptional circumstances, is to ask the officer for a warning before he writes the ticket. Once it's on paper...you're paying the fine.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
unless you get the court date changed, then the cop will be a no show and you win by default.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There are certain roadways around the DC area where it would have been profoundly unsafe to drive the speed limit and I would have tried to use that as a defense if I were to be fined for 'going with the flow' on them.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Speeding is not inherently unsafe nor reckless.
There are plenty of defenses for speeding.
Speed limits are not always appropriate.
I can safely drive above the speed limit in many situations.
A device like the one you proposed is absurd, Blayne.
That said, drive reasonably, folks.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Or if you live in a remote County in a remote State, and the Sheriff has you on a "do-not-stop list and the new deputy hasn't done his homework.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When you go fishing, you don't expect to catch all the fish. Cops don't expect to catch every speeder. But in the case of speeding, you chose to be in the target population.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Who in this discussion actually drives a car? Raise your hand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blayne, why are you antagonizing your father over this? Pick your battles.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
<me>
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: From what I can tell, your only hope for getting out of a speeding ticket, barring truly exceptional circumstances, is to ask the officer for a warning before he writes the ticket...
...while being very civil and polite. (very important)
I've always thought the punishment should fit the crime. It kind of seems strange to me that the penalty for driving to fast is to cough up money. I think it would be interesting if they could make cars so that the maximum speed is adjustable. If you're caught doing 15 mph over the speed limit, then they fix your car so that for the next 60 days, you can only drive a maximum of 15 mph *under* the speed limit. Leaving for work a hour earlier every day and getiing home an hour later would be much more of a deterrant for me than a fine.
btw, I make this suggestion in jest; even if this were possible, it wouldn't be practical. It's just fun to think about.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
OK; Sean for Grand Poobah! Let the punishment fit the crime. (Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK; Sean for Grand Poobah! Let the punishment fit the crime. (Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado)
(except that was the object [all sublime] of the Mikado himself, if I recall correctly.)
<----sang Pitti Sing many, many years ago.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
That the people ahead of your are speeding isn't a particularly reasonable defense. That the people behind you are speeding, particularly if they seem to be driving in an otherwise reckless manner and there's no reasonable way to get away from them and no safe way for them to pass you, seems like an excellent excuse for speeding.
Frankly, I wish the police would catch fewer people just for speeding and more people for reckless driving (weaving in and out of lanes, cutting into narrow gaps other people are leaving for safety, using shoulders as their own personal high-speed lane...) But that requires being in traffic and watching cars over time, not just staying in one place with a laser or a radar gun.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:From what I can tell, your only hope for getting out of a speeding ticket, barring truly exceptional circumstances, is to ask the officer for a warning before he writes the ticket. Once it's on paper...you're paying the fine.
I have a friend who has successfully gotten out of at least one ticket by arguing that the radar gun that recorded his speed was unlikely to be correct due to angles and density of traffic.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Frankly, I wish the police would catch fewer people just for speeding and more people for reckless driving (weaving in and out of lanes, cutting into narrow gaps other people are leaving for safety, using shoulders as their own personal high-speed lane...) But that requires being in traffic and watching cars over time, not just staying in one place with a laser or a radar gun.
I have often voiced the idea that we should have an entirely new department of law enforcement, totally separate from the police, solely dedicated to traffic (living in Vegas gives one such ideas). All these people would do is drive around all day long and give people tickets for traffic infractions. And it would free up the police to focus on real crime. I suppose the feasibility of such an idea would depend on the area; but in Vegas, such a department would pay for itself.
When I suggested this idea to my father, he said, "I would do that for free."
I suppose the obvious drawback to such a department would be that if it was effective in deterring traffic violations, it would eventually *stop* paying for itself.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I suppose the obvious drawback to such a department would be that if it was effective in deterring traffic violations, it would eventually *stop* paying for itself.
Yup. Some cities with red light cameras have considered turning them off because when people became aware of them and stopped running red lights city revenue went down.
It would reach a natural equilibrium I think. I'd guess there'd be bigger organizational hurdles.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Yeah, I think it was the Mikado himself. But isn't the election for Lord High Poobah this year? I asked a CHP officer, once, how he decided when to make speeding stops when the average speed on the CA freeways seems to be in excess of 15 miles over the posted limit. He said that he imagined himself as a shark swimming in a large school of fish. Every now and then, he would just swallow one at random. EDIT: because the world didn't stop while I was typing. Mexico city had a system differentiated police. The "tan" police did the traffic enforcement. The "brown" guys did the parking and crowd control and the "blue" officers were the neighborhood patrol. Detectives wore cowboy boots and pressed shirts. It all worked out fine.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I'm always astounded by your spelling, Blayne. :-p
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think there should be a civilian organization which allowed people to get safe driver certification, and then allowed those people to give tickets for reckless driving infractions.
It would encourage people to drive more safely, because you never know who around you has the power to ticket you for cutting people off or tailgating.
Of course, there would be oversight, training, and if you got a ticket yourself you'd lose your certification for a period of time, but I think it would make the roads a much safer place to drive.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Making a safe traffic stop would probably require having a sidearm and training in how to use it and how to react to others who might be armed or violent. It's hard for me to imagine how a civilian traffic enforcement could safely pull people over to give citations.
Of course, there's the option of having them issue citations without pulling people over - kind of a mobile, intelligent substitute for enforcement cameras. Could even use cameras. Yeah.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
That's more along the lines of what I was thinking, non-stop citations.
Maybe have cameras mounted in the cars, and when the infraction occurred, the driver would push a button, which would flag the recording for that previous minute until the driver finished recording.
The video would then be electronically forwarded to local law enforcement, who could issue the citation by mail, just like red-light cameras. The recording would be used as evidence if the citation was contested.
Full due process, but a much wider reaching long arm of the law. The people who had the system would also have to voluntarily have GPS systems in their car, to insure that they are driving safely and legally.
Tickets would be limited to obvious infractions such as reckless driving and unsafe following distance, so there would be no debate about the accuracy of speed recordings.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
it all sounds a bit on the big brother side, but i've often wished i had a way to nail the idiots having races on the freeway.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I've only received one speeding ticket. In my defense, which I did not offer at the time, I will say that I was going downhill. And, there was a relatively large uphill directly in front of me.
Waiting to bust speeders at the bottom of a hill is a good strategy for cops. However, it takes no skill. Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
I had one friend get out of a ticket by arguing that his dash lights had recently failed, it was at night and that he was keeping pace with traffic. It just so happens that the traffic consisted of 4 police cars, all going 15 mph over the limit. The judge agreed that that constituted entrapment and let him off the hook.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Funny, when the dash lights failed in my car, the headlights failed also. This made for a simple fix - new headlights. Or maybe that was one of the times the multifunction lever in the steering column failed? I forget. The mechanic said something about an intentional design to tell people, "Hey, stupid! Something's not working right!" Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
What Fusiachi said.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
the unfortunate thing that leads to lots more speeding tickets than reckless driving tickets (even though the latter is certainly more important) is that speeding is easy to diagnose and prove.
"hey look, this radar gun says you were going 10 mph over, case closed."
vs.
"Well, according to my very subjective view of things, while I was distracted avoiding traffic in my own lane, it looked like you were following that car too closely."
The first is a slam-dunk in court, the second is a lot harder to pin.
Actually a decent example is a former roomate who was pulled over for going ~25 over, but this was based on an officer "pacing" him while the officer merged on to a highway. While the roomate was definitively speeding, and at a speed that could be considered reckless, he got off because the officer couldn't prove anything. While this is less than ideal in terms of safety, it's closer to ideal in terms of legal rights.
Also, while the 15 mph under limit would probably serve as an effective punishment for the speeder, it would also likely create a safety hazard in many situations. While claiming you were speeding for safety might be dicey, it certainly can be dangerous to go well under the speed limit as well.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Reckless driving could be an open and shut case with a simple video camera.
Pacing used to be considered an open and shut case, since the officer verified the speed of the individual car.
I'd like to see a lot more tickets for yacking on a cell phone. But I'm not sure cops are even bothering to enforce it.
quote:I had one friend get out of a ticket by arguing that his dash lights had recently failed
I would think he should have gotten a ticket for equipment failure.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Great post, rivka.
To me there is nothing inherently wrong with speeding. For instance, doing 49 in a 45 does not make you the devil.
Reckless driving, however, is another matter, and the argument can be made (to me) that doing 60 in a 45 is inherently reckless.
Also, swerving between cars to gain more speed, or tailgating to make someone go faster, etc... all reckless actions - because as "in control" as the speeder may feel, they are increasing the risk of accidents by those who react nervously/awkwardly to their non-standard actions.
Cops that give tickets for going 49 in a 45, or even for going 55 in a 45 on a straight, nonresidential road with no other traffic, are simply trying to generate money from ticket revenue.
And, by the way, the "I had to speed because people behind me were speeding" is no defense, either - as you should have pulled over to let them pass. And the "road speed" argument is also inappropriate - as everyone driving 20 mph over the limit is as reckless as one person doing it.
That said, I am an offender - though, as rivka put it, it is my choice to put myself in the target population.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I suppose the obvious drawback to such a department would be that if it was effective in deterring traffic violations, it would eventually *stop* paying for itself.
Yup. Some cities with red light cameras have considered turning them off because when people became aware of them and stopped running red lights city revenue went down.
I love the irony of this statement. It's almost like the cops want people to break the law, because then they'll be able to fund their department. No one else finds this funny?
As for speeding, there are good times and bad times to speed. I believe that going with the flow of traffic is a good thing. But if someone is being reckless and tailgating and swerving in and out of traffic, it's not safe.
For instance, in Massachusetts, the land of horrible drivers, on my highway the speed limit is 55. No one, and I mean NO ONE goes 55. The normal flow of traffic is at least 65, more likely 70. When the highway's speed limit turns into 65, the normal flow is 75. If you go any slower, it really is dangerous. At night it changes, but during the day, that's what it is. If you go slower, it's not safe. Now, the cops know that we're all ridiculous drivers and so you can go 10 miles over the speed limit next to a cop and not get pulled over. They only pull over the crazy ones. It honestly depends on the situation.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: I love the irony of this statement. It's almost like the cops want people to break the law, because then they'll be able to fund their department. No one else finds this funny?
Yes, this occurred to me as well. But if they turn the cameras off, how will they get caught to generate revenue? Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
There are several defenses for speeding.
There is no defense for failing to proofread.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: I love the irony of this statement. It's almost like the cops want people to break the law, because then they'll be able to fund their department. No one else finds this funny?
Yes, this occurred to me as well. But if they turn the cameras off, how will they get caught to generate revenue?
The cameras cost money to operate and in some cases they were generating less revenue than the cost of running them..
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
"You want people to drive safer? Take out the airbags and install a machete pointed at the throat".
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If you are referring to "defence", that's actually how they spell it in Canada, AFAIK.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Did you read the OP? There were at least a dozen spelling and grammatical errors, and legitimate national spelling variations are not among them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
nazi.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Pick your battles.
( ) none ( ) some (●) all
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:For instance, in Massachusetts, the land of horrible drivers, on my highway the speed limit is 55. No one, and I mean NO ONE goes 55. The normal flow of traffic is at least 65, more likely 70. When the highway's speed limit turns into 65, the normal flow is 75. If you go any slower, it really is dangerous. At night it changes, but during the day, that's what it is. If you go slower, it's not safe. Now, the cops know that we're all ridiculous drivers and so you can go 10 miles over the speed limit next to a cop and not get pulled over. They only pull over the crazy ones. It honestly depends on the situation.
I know of situations like this, particularly a few stretches of I-35 in Kansas City. However, I wouldn't necessarily want to take chances on this. Periodically (a few times a month, seemingly at random), the police run speed traps that involve at least half a dozen cars and bikes. There's no shortage of targets, and I'm pretty sure they nail anyone doing 10MPH over. (Provided they have a bike or car free... )
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Did you read the OP?
Nope.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Sure, if I had a car ild probly drive that ~10 mile beyond the speed limit but I wouldn't try to pull the "everyone else was doin' it" defense.
Which brings me to my next thought.
They should put unhackable illegal to uninstall speed systems with wi-fi in your car that deducts from your bank account $$$ if you go past the speed limit. People would start driving slower really fast.
People would drive slower because they'd be living in a fascist wasteland.
Hey, we should put microchips in everyone's shoulders to track their movements and make sure they don't associate with bad people, or go anywhere they have no business going, and we shold deduct $$ from their bank accounts if they do. After all, no one who isn't hiding anything has ANNNY reason to fear the social effects of that kind of power over the individual.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Sure, if I had a car ild probly drive that ~10 mile beyond the speed limit but I wouldn't try to pull the "everyone else was doin' it" defense.
Which brings me to my next thought.
They should put unhackable illegal to uninstall speed systems with wi-fi in your car that deducts from your bank account $$$ if you go past the speed limit. People would start driving slower really fast.
People would drive slower because they'd be living in a fascist wasteland.
Hey, we should put microchips in everyone's shoulders to track their movements and make sure they don't associate with bad people, or go anywhere they have no business going, and we shold deduct $$ from their bank accounts if they do. After all, no one who isn't hiding anything has ANNNY reason to fear the social effects of that kind of power over the individual.
Also, the hyper-rich would have no incentive to slow down. The poor, on the other hand, might find it difficult to get to work on time.
I guess you could scale it, somehow...
Another problem with Blayne's "solution"--people without bank accounts.
Edit: Although, I guess, in Blaynelândia, you'd just mandate that people keep a bank account. I mean, you're looking out for their own good, right? (This also applies to healthcare, but that's another issue for another time...)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
... I thought it was Soviet Blaynestan
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
While they're installing those devices, they should go ahead and install software on Blayne's computer to deduct money from his account every time he downloads pirated software.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While they're installing those devices, they should go ahead and install software on Blayne's computer to deduct money from his account every time he downloads pirated software.
Actually, in a previous thread, he proposed a bandwidth tax to address the issue of piracy.
Edit: Link Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... I thought it was Soviet Blaynestan
Actually the Maoist, People's Republic of Blaynea
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While they're installing those devices, they should go ahead and install software on Blayne's computer to deduct money from his account every time he downloads pirated software.
Hush...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Did you read the OP?
Nope.
You're a wiser man than I.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I suppose the obvious drawback to such a department would be that if it was effective in deterring traffic violations, it would eventually *stop* paying for itself.
Yup. Some cities with red light cameras have considered turning them off because when people became aware of them and stopped running red lights city revenue went down.
I love the irony of this statement. It's almost like the cops want people to break the law, because then they'll be able to fund their department. No one else finds this funny?
Except, of course, it's not the police department making the choice. It's general the city council, mayor, and/or some advisement board.
And as has been noted, they cost money to run. While reducing red-light running is an excellent thing, I have seen no studies that indicate that such lights do so overall -- just at the specific intersections with the lights. I know people who take alternate routes to avoid the lights. They're not running fewer reds; they're just changing the locations.
Given that, it makes perfect sense to remove the cameras from intersections that were only somewhat problematic to start with, if they're not bringing in enough revenue to pay for their own operation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This is similar to my basic problem with unmarked police cars. I see no legitimate use for an unmarked car. In my opinion, police are there to prevent crime, to be available to the public, and to respond to situations. It should never be to their benefit to not be seen by the populace at large, so that they can nab people and shake them down for revenue.
The only argument in favor of unmarked cars is that their possible presence prevents crime through the establishment of a fear state. I don't want to live that way. I have nothing against undercover work against organized crime... but on the other hand I would very concerned if the cops were, say, going undercover among us just in order to catch us at whatever random mischief we might get up to.
The cops need to be a presence, not a watchword or a boogyman. And as for the cameras, I feel the same way- the idea that they are out there at intersection, that there may even be speed cameras you are not aware of is too much to expect us to accept.
And as was pointed out before, this kind of intrusion is only going to escalate if it produces revenue. I railed last year about a cop who gave me a ticket outside my house in a secluded residential circle for being 18 inches off of a soft curb, IN FRONT OF MY OWN HOUSE. I felt that this kind of thing was what you must come to expect from a city that has grown used to papering all the cars downtown, and has begun to look with interest on the possible revenue stream its tax-paying citizens might provide. This can all be done under the guise of "keeping order," but in what way does the letter of the law necessarily express its spirit? What does it do for me to have a portion of the police department my taxes are paying for driving around papering windshields for 18 inches? It's not as if their "needing" the revenue is an excuse for that kind of nonsense. If the ticket was useless and pointless yesterday, it is the same today- and I can assure that long term residents of the city complain far louder than I do that the police take more and more liberty to appropriate their money.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While they're installing those devices, they should go ahead and install software on Blayne's computer to deduct money from his account every time he downloads pirated software.
Its legal in Canada to download stuff.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also use my middle name, Gordongrad.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, Canada's like international waters. Anything goes up there.
I once bet on a Mountie in a firecracker fight against a moose that was at the same time being married by a 50 year old man and his 13 year old daughter and in the background someone was showing films that they had physically stolen from MGM. And no one had a problem with this.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yeah, Canada's like international waters. Anything goes up there.
I once bet on a Mountie in a firecracker fight against a moose that was at the same time being married by a 50 year old man and his 13 year old daughter and in the background someone was showing films that they had physically stolen from MGM. And no one had a problem with this.
Awesome, I totally need to check Canada out now.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
While I'm sure that the red light cameras are a deterrent to some people, others just take different routes (as noted above by rivka). However, while they do cost money to run, the reason some cities are considering removing them has a lot to do with the problems that they cause. Red light cameras don't discriminate. They start taking pictures when the light turns red and anyone who crosses the intersection during that time is issued a ticket. The problem is that some of the people receiving tickets may have been in the intersection before the light changed (and in some places, this means they should not be ticketed) or perhaps they have a reason, such as a funeral procession, which permits them to run the red light. The city then has to spend time and resources dealing with people who should not have been ticketed, determining if they were or were not in violation of the law at the time their picture was taken, and either enforcing the ticket, or removing it from the records of the drivers.
The cameras also ticket the registered owner of the vehicle, not the driver of the car. Which means that if I loan my car to a friend because I have a station wagon and she has a mini cooper, and needs to haul something that won't fit in her car, I get the ticket and it goes on my record, unless she either admits to the city that she did it, or I can somehow prove that I was not driving the car at the time of the infraction.
These problems are common across the board in cities that use these cameras, and it's a major reason for why the governments in some places are removing them. Unless the city can afford to maintain cameras at every traffic light they aren't a true deterrent, and they cause a lot of problems and extra work.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And as has been noted, they cost money to run. While reducing red-light running is an excellent thing, I have seen no studies that indicate that such lights do so overall -- just at the specific intersections with the lights. I know people who take alternate routes to avoid the lights. They're not running fewer reds; they're just changing the locations.
Wait a minute, people actually go to the trouble of finding alternate routes just to avoid cameras on traffic lights?? So, what, they set out intending to run red lights? It's actually more convenient for them to take an entirely different route than to simply stop at red lights?
[ May 01, 2008, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: neo-dragon ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: So, what, they set out intending to run red lights?
I would totally believe people in Vegas do this.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
As for the effectiveness of the cameras, I saw a report on the news some weeks ago about how the numbers in my area show that the cameras decrease the number of fatal collisions, but also greatly increase the number of fender-benders, as people are prone to slam on their breaks suddenly to avoid running the red.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yep. This is according to my spouse, who works in traffic saftey research -- red light cameras are very effective at reducing fatalities at intersections that have a high rate of T-bone collisions. They consistently reduce these types of crashes. They also consistently increase rear-end collisions, which typically don't involve serious injuries or fatalities.
That is actually why a lot of cities are removing them -- if they're there just to catch casual red light-runners and increase ticket revenue it's usually not worth the increase in minor accidents. But at the intersections that really need them they save lives.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: While I'm sure that the red light cameras are a deterrent to some people, others just take different routes (as noted above by rivka). However, while they do cost money to run, the reason some cities are considering removing them has a lot to do with the problems that they cause. Red light cameras don't discriminate. They start taking pictures when the light turns red and anyone who crosses the intersection during that time is issued a ticket. The problem is that some of the people receiving tickets may have been in the intersection before the light changed (and in some places, this means they should not be ticketed) or perhaps they have a reason, such as a funeral procession, which permits them to run the red light. The city then has to spend time and resources dealing with people who should not have been ticketed, determining if they were or were not in violation of the law at the time their picture was taken, and either enforcing the ticket, or removing it from the records of the drivers.
Although I agree in principle, there are a few misconceptions or over-generalizations I need to address here. When the cameras were going up in my city, I read the articles about it with these concerns in mind.
The cameras, at least the ones near me, do not in fact "start taking pictures" when the light turns red. They use a computer and motion detector to sense whether or not it appears a car will cross an intersection after the light is red. This actually means that you can, at least in my case, avoid a ticket by stopping at the light, and then crossing slowly, without priming the detection system.
As for the second part, I agree that the logistical problems are various. I would go a step further, and the legalistas can confirm or disconfirm, but I believe that the margin for error with these systems presents a threat to 4th amendment rights– the right to confront one's accuser.
Amazingly, the framers built a legal language so useful through our history that it deals with a device and a function for that device that they had never imagined- and yet they had prepared for it. We should never live in a world where our value judgments are being made by machines.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In Illinois the department of transportation will not allow traffic cameras to be on state routes, because while it may reduce the number of fatalities, increasing the number of fender benders is exactly contrary to what they want. I don't think the state of IL discriminates in the "accident" statistics from fender benders vs. fatalities, in the same way that dkw just did, because the politicians tend not to.
However they *do* have mobile speed enforcement vans, that they have started putting in construction zones, where the minimum fine is $375, and the IL DOT is extremely happy with these, because it protects the lives of construction workers. The vans have to be operated by an actual cop. He chooses when to pull the trigger and he has the ability to ticket all of the lanes of traffic at once, if he wants.
The other night when my bf was on the road and the cop was running the van, one guy actually did pull over, after the speed limit got flashed up, and started to walk towards the van. The officer got out with his hand on his holster, and the situation was diffused. But, the guy knew that there actually had to be a cop in the van in order for it to be legal to ticket him.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
Not funny, exactly, but it does make me wonder how they do their calculus. They are probably also taking into account resulting traffic congestion and delays.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
neo-dragon: somewhat, but then, anyone who drives at all says something similar vs extra time due to walking. Many trade-offs people make every day lead to a definite increase in the amount of death in the world.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
That's not what anyone is saying. The point is that putting redlight cameras at intersections that don't have a problem with fatal accidents increases small accidents with no corresponding benefit in lives saved. So the reccommendation is to use them only at intersections that have a significant rate of T-bone accidents.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And as has been noted, they cost money to run. While reducing red-light running is an excellent thing, I have seen no studies that indicate that such lights do so overall -- just at the specific intersections with the lights. I know people who take alternate routes to avoid the lights. They're not running fewer reds; they're just changing the locations.
Wait a minute, people actually go to the trouble of finding alternate routes just to avoid cameras on traffic lights?? So, what, they set out intending to run red lights? It's actually more convenient for them to take an entirely different route than to simply stop at red lights?
Don't ask me. I take the route with all the cameras. Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
That's not what anyone is saying. The point is that putting redlight cameras at intersections that don't have a problem with fatal accidents increases small accidents with no corresponding benefit in lives saved. So the reccommendation is to use them only at intersections that have a significant rate of T-bone accidents.
That's what you're saying, but I've heard the stats used as an argument against using cameras all together. I'm just curious as to where one draws the line. If there are 1000 fender-benders for every 1 life saved, would that be considered worth the expense and the trouble?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
No, because that's a distortion. The point was that in certain cases, the cameras prevent T-bone collisions in problem intersections.
The point is valid because the people who are now getting involved in fender benders are not the people who are running lights and killing people otherwise- at least most of them aren't, if the incidence of fender benders is increasing. So the question is, why would you create a generally unsafe situation for all commuters in order to deter (read also: not to prevent) blatant violations of the law? It is also very very hard for me to believe that T-bone accidents involving red light running are not alcohol related almost 100% of the time. If you want to deter people from driving drunk, why not put breathalysers in every car? That would have no negative safety impact.
But you can't equate x number of fender benders as acceptable collateral damage for preventing y number of T-bone collisions. At the very least, you cannot do so without being unsettled by it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: That's what you're saying, but I've heard the stats used as an argument against using cameras all together. I'm just curious as to where one draws the line. If there are 1000 fender-benders for every 1 life saved, would that be considered worth the expense and the trouble?
I don't see a particular need to draw a line in cosmological sand over the issue either. I'll simply say that the four camera'd intersections I know about in my town went up "to prevent accidents," after a three year period where no serious accidents had occurred. What really, REALLY, steamed my blood was when a camera went up on a 5 way intersection downtown where the speed of traffic is always under 20 miles an hour. The paper reported that there had NEVER been a fatal accident in that intersection, and if you could see what it looks like, you'd realize that the chances of a T-bone at that spot are disproportionately low.
And then last week I slowed my bike in a zebra intersection to watch a moron in a sportscar make a left from a parallel street across my path while speeding without looking. I yelled as loud as I could, standing in the middle of the intersection, but it didn't make me feel any better about having just saved my own life.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
On the highway I uset oget to work, there's a seriously tight curve, before they installed speed camaras you could guarantee a lorry jackknife about once every six weeks, with the associated traffic chaos.
Since the camaras, I haven't seen a single accident (in about 12 months so far - touch wood).
I am a reformed speeder - I got hammered by massive fine (350€, about $525) for being more than 50% above the limit. No excuses, it was a fiar cop, but from then on my foot is significantly lighter on the accelerator...
On the topic of speeding, I also read a cool (if unattributed) quote "If you drive 5mph below the speed limit, the road is empty. If you drive 5 mph over you will always be stcuk behind someone".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Maven, you do realize that for whatever reason, your last post contained more britishisms than the sum total of your posting history?
Lorry, touch wood, hammered, pounds, accelerator, and is "camara" a british spelling variant or a mistake?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)