[92tripleblack]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1238...?mod=yhoofront
Link to a story about how people are fighting back at the cams. It also notes to all you speeding Nazis that speed accounts for only 5% of accidents, running red lights less than 2% and running off the road, crossing the median, and falling asleep at the wheel account for the bulk of accidents.

[ragingclue]

Yup I never would have argued that the inherent retardedness of Americans was the leading cause of accidents. However, it is still true that the risk of fatality increases as speed and delta speed between cars increases.

[blue2fire]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Yup I never would have argued that the inherent retardedness of Americans was the leading cause of accidents. However, it is still true that the risk of fatality increases as speed and delta speed between cars increases.

Yeah, Gatsos are good. Nice to see America being all techy for a change.

[92tripleblack]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Yup I never would have argued that the inherent retardedness of Americans was the leading cause of accidents. However, it is still true that the risk of fatality increases as speed and delta speed between cars increases.

I'll go along with delta speed more than speed. Also, I think that all the running off the road, etc. is probably from things like phones and texting more than anything. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a teenager girl swirving down the road and pulled up next to them to see them texting their friends.

[Bluesummer]

another reason for running dealer plates alap

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

They're everywhere in MD.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

They're everywhere in MD.

I don't notice too many speed cameras in MD. Mainly in D.C.

[John 070]

I'm all for red light cams, IF... This is a big IF.

The yellow has to be of a sufficient time for motorists to either proceed through it on yellow, or stop safely without being rear-ended, AND the camera must not photograph anyone unless they cross the line after the light has changed. If you're turning left, you are allowed to proceed on red as you're already in the intersection.

Now I have gone through red light cams with the above scenarios, and I haven't been sent a ticket. My GPS has all the red light and speed cams in North America loaded as POI's with proximity alerts.

Everyone I have spoken to says cams work--a coworker says he has gone through yellow dozens upon dozens of times with no ticket in the mail, as there was an intersection by his previous job.

As long as the system works as designed, then it is odd to insist that motorists should have the right to run red lights as they so choose.

[poiney]

When cops are giving tickets, folks complain that shouldn't cops be out trying to fight crime and not waste their time on victimless traffic tickets. So we develop technology to solve this problem and save tax payer money, and people still complain.

I also love it that the camera warnings cause accidents by rear end collisions -- that's because there aren't enough cops giving tickets to bumper riders! And if the point is to catch speeders, then why is there a warning to begin with?

[ejazbmw]

hmm good thing i don't have a front plate lol i see these things all over NJ now....

[montreal red]

Originally Posted by John 070

I'm all for red light cams, IF... This is a big IF.

The yellow has to be of a sufficient time for motorists to either proceed through it on yellow, or stop safely without being rear-ended, AND the camera must not photograph anyone unless they cross the line after the light has changed. If you're turning left, you are allowed to proceed on red as you're already in the intersection.

Now I have gone through red light cams with the above scenarios, and I haven't been sent a ticket. My GPS has all the red light and speed cams in North America loaded as POI's with proximity alerts.

Everyone I have spoken to says cams work--a coworker says he has gone through yellow dozens upon dozens of times with no ticket in the mail, as there was an intersection by his previous job.

As long as the system works as designed, then it is odd to insist that motorists should have the right to run red lights as they so choose.

well said... i agree that red light cameras can work well but they have to be implemented properly... also a lot of intersections all over canada do not have sufficient yellow time which means more "offenders" wrongly accused of running the red.

[VanM3Lover]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Yup I never would have argued that the inherent retardedness of Americans was the leading cause of accidents. However, it is still true that the risk of fatality increases as speed and delta speed between cars increases.

"Speed has never kill anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you..." - Jeremy Clarkson.

[Pedal2Floor]

Originally Posted by montreal red

well said... i agree that red light cameras can work well but they have to be implemented properly... also a lot of intersections all over canada do not have sufficient yellow time which means more "offenders" wrongly accused of running the red.

I guess you don't get it!

It is not that they have not been implemented properly for yellow, they are designed that way to get more tickets on purpose so that the company that runs those cameras can get more revenue and same for that town that owns those lights.

The problem is not when they work, they problem is the companies that run those cameras and the local politicians abuse that technology to get revenue. There are plenty of stories that you can google about the abuse which is why so many people hate them -- few people argue when something adds value -- the major issue is that this system is abused over and over again.

Finally, there are plenty of studies that have shown that on bad intersections, they have not significantly helped to prevent accidents and on intersections that where there was no problem before, there were actually an increase in accidents because of people afraid to pass under yellow and causing a rear end collision.

In the end it is just a revenue grab with no significant benefit -- much like a lottery ticket!

[ENINTY]

+1

Nail squarely hit.

[poiney]

Originally Posted by Pedal2Floor

I guess you don't get it!

It is not that they have not been implemented properly for yellow, they are designed that way to get more tickets on purpose so that the company that runs those cameras can get more revenue and same for that town that owns those lights.

The problem is not when they work, they problem is the companies that run those cameras and the local politicians abuse that technology to get revenue. There are plenty of stories that you can google about the abuse which is why so many people hate them -- few people argue when something adds value -- the major issue is that this system is abused over and over again.

Finally, there are plenty of studies that have shown that on bad intersections, they have not significantly helped to prevent accidents and on intersections that where there was no problem before, there were actually an increase in accidents because of people afraid to pass under yellow and causing a rear end collision.

In the end it is just a revenue grab with no significant benefit -- much like a lottery ticket!

I can't comment on whether cameras are any better/worse than cops regarding abuse for revenue. I have my suspicions.

I'll be the first to admit that it is frustrating when someone in front of me stops on a yellow and I have no way to make the light. But if some idiot rear ends me because I need to stop for a camera, a light, pedestrian, a dog, whatever, then the fault IMO falls squarely on their sholders.

[E92-Lighting]

gov needs money...

[92tripleblack]

It's a pure money grab. Studies show more accidents when they are present than not and that it is a ridiculously low percentage of accidents. We had 6 cams in orlando that generated 13000 tickets in 3 months. Just a tax on drivers and drives up insurance costs due to more accidents.

[ukthunderace]

Conflict of interest if you ask me....
Revenue goes up; nothing really happens to accident reduction. I've lived in England long enough to know this story. England is full of them, and they are ridiculous.

[dreamnmotion]

I got a fine for 75 bucks last month because of these stupid lights. I thought I could make it, I passed the intersection and the light turned red and they still count that as running a red light, ridiculous.

[John 070]

Originally Posted by dreamnmotion

I got a fine for 75 bucks last month because of these stupid lights. I thought I could make it, I passed the intersection and the light turned red and they still count that as running a red light, ridiculous.

What did the picture(s) show? Either you did not reach the line before the light turned red, or you were over the line when the light turned red. There aren't two sides to the coin. Where there is two sides to the coin is why you decided to go, when ultimately you couldn't cross the line before the light turned red (if that's what happened). Maybe the yellow light was too short, for example. If the speed limit is 40, and you are driving 40, if you see the light turn yellow, you by design are supposed to be able to make a rational decision as to whether or not to stop. In theory. If you sped up and went 60 to beat the red, that should also show on the ticket that is mailed to you...

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

I don't notice too many speed cameras in MD. Mainly in D.C.

Well, mostly in my area and a few other places that I have seen.

If you check out the MA section of the forums, I put up 2 graphs of where they are located. You probably have to go back a page or 3.

[n5160u]

I would rather get a ticket from a cop if I deserved one. Out here the traffic cams are simply a revenue source for the city and the vendor. A ticket from the traffic cam includes almost $80 in "processing fees" that go straight to the vendor in addition to the same penalties charged for a real ticket from a cop.
The local traffic judge in Southern Alameda County is so pissed at the vendors that he advises any ticket holders who wish to plead not guilty that if they were wearing sunglasses or had the sun visor down when the picture was taken he would be inclined to dismiss the ticket because the driver could not be properly identified. You still pay the court costs but that is all. He also has a hard on for one motorcycle cop in Fremont that has made it his life's work to stop and write up asian drivers with modded cars and a CHP officer that lurks near an improperly marked fast pass lane near a toll bridge. He will dismiss any ticket written by that pair if you plead not guilty. Those that plead guilty get to pay first and generally have left the court before he makes the offer to dismiss to the people waiting to plead not guilty. Been there, done that.
My kind of judge!