Photo Enforced Speeding Tickets

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I bet you're a barrel of laughs at parties.

Yeah, he comes across as a lil nerdy to me also.

Not much of a party animal and never have been. The drinking, smoking, loud music, and other things going on at most of those events has never been a real big interest of mine. I've discussed that around here in the past.

As for coming off a little nerdy, I don't doubt that, nor do I see it as a problem. In fact I take it as something of a compliment. Then again if you've seen me around ES previously you know that I march to the beat of a different drummer than most other people anyway.

This crusade against speeding, how did you get started? It all sounds fascinating to me.

There really isn't one, unfortunately. Though I wouldn't mind seeing one started.

[Sarge]

Dude, calm down. I was mainly saying that its perfectly alright to do 10 over. Only grandmas always do the posted speed limits. Those, or like the one poster said, driver ed students. You are a being a nuisance if you always drive the speed limit wherever you go. You might not be important and have places to be. But there are a lot of people out there that do. Further, no cop I know, at least where im from, is gonna give you a ticket for doing 10 over. That was even quoted in my local paper the other day. If you wanna be a grandma and drive slow just make damn sure you don't do the speed limit in the fast lane when im behind you on the highway. Seriously, you don't wanna be that guy.

Are you a nerd? Because that's about the only people I know that always drive the speed limit. Dude, you must not be very cool. And im not saying you have to be Dale Jr out on the road. But even the cops will tell ya, that if you're not doing over MPH (on the hwy, anyway) they won't even bother pulling you over.

You all need to come to VA and tell that to the State Police

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Dude, calm down. I was mainly saying that its perfectly alright to do 10 over. Only grandmas always do the posted speed limits. Those, or like the one poster said, driver ed students. You are a being a nuisance if you always drive the speed limit wherever you go. You might not be important and have places to be. But there are a lot of people out there that do. Further, no cop I know, at least where im from, is gonna give you a ticket for doing 10 over. That was even quoted in my local paper the other day. If you wanna be a grandma and drive slow just make damn sure you don't do the speed limit in the fast lane when im behind you on the highway. Seriously, you don't wanna be that guy.

We'll disagree on whether doing 10 mph over the speed limit is appropiate or not. I've already said I don't always adhere to the posted limits. The difference is that I'm not going to whine like a 2 year old if I get a ticket for doing it.

Believe me, my schedule is as full as the next persons. The difference being that I try to plan things far enough ahead of time that I don't need to fly down the road at 20 mph over the speed limit to get there on time.

It's pretty rare that I drive in the passing lane at all, at any speed.

As for pissing off other drivers, the back of my Jeep says it all pretty well... "You say THUG like it's a BAD thing."; "Prey should know it is Prey"; and "Driver only carries $20 worth of ammunition" (which isn't quite true, it's generally about $35, but who's really counting).

[Slacky McSlackAss]

What ticks me off about this is that they are using the excuse that this will reduce the amount of pedestrian deaths. Ummmm, until you get the beggars off the medians and enforce the laws against jaywalking, we'll have to all ride bicycles to avoid pedestrian deaths.

Even then, well have some guy on his cell phone that runs over a guy.

[Larry]

Yeah, he comes across as a lil nerdy to me also.

Says the guy (nice avatar, by the way. How'd you get it?) who's contribution to this thread is "Look how many ways I can repeat the sentence 'Anybody who obeys the law is a (insert insult)'".

I've got an idea: How about you try coming up with just one reason why (in your opinion) society should not enforce the law, and why people should not obey it?

To help you get started, I'll provide you with one reason why (IMO) society should enforce the law. All of them. The reason is because if society doesn't enforce the law, then that society quickly becomes hip deep in, shall I say, people with unusual anatomical characteristics who somehow thing that this lack of enforcement equals entitlement. People who think that breaking the law is a right.

[Predicto]

these are so annoying I live right next to a school in montgomery county and cant go more than 25 mph leaving or coming to my house.

Speed thru and hit a couple of the little kids. Their blood and guts will obscure your license plate number from the cameras.

[Predicto]

Yes, but there IS another side to this issue.

These things are marketed as something that increases safety, but they also provide revenue for the state. There have been documented cases of cities actually lowering the yellow-light time after red light cameras were installed to increase the revenue flow.

Allegations or proven cases? Just curious - there are a lot of stories going around and a lot of them are false or the people misunderstand what is going on.

[Sarge]

Says the guy (nice avatar, by the way. How'd you get it?) who's contribution to this thread is "Look how many ways I can repeat the sentence 'Anybody who obeys the law is a (insert insult)'".

I've got an idea: How about you try coming up with just one reason why (in your opinion) society should not enforce the law, and why people should not obey it?

To help you get started, I'll provide you with one reason why (IMO) society should enforce the law. All of them. The reason is because if society doesn't enforce the law, then that society quickly becomes hip deep in, shall I say, people with unusual anatomical characteristics who somehow thing that this lack of enforcement equals entitlement. People who think that breaking the law is a right.

Wait!

A flaming commie pinko liberal is in favor of enforcing the law?

[Predicto]

Are you a nerd? Because that's about the only people I know that always drive the speed limit. Dude, you must not be very cool.

ooh ohh he called you a nerd!

How biting.

[skinsdude]

There's something very un-American about these unmanned speeding ticket generators.

I kept a Redskins tag on the front of my old truck, with the MD tag underneath it. Maybe that helped. I never got a speeding ticket in the mail.

Hey Mark, that's my blue Jeep Grand Cherokee to the right of you in the picture. Come over sometime and have a beer while we're waiting to get in the parking lot.

[alexey]

Allegations or proven cases? Just curious - there are a lot of stories going around and a lot of them are false or the people misunderstand what is going on.

The most public case on this is Union City, California:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/670.asp

Union City, California has been caught trapping motorists with a yellow signal time 1.3 seconds below the minimum established by state law. As a result, the city is now forced to refund more than $1 million in red light camera fines.

Here is some other info:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2420766.html

This problem can be aggravated by jurisdictions that shorten the duration of yellow lights, apparently to generate more ticket revenue. Last year, CBS News reported on an especially egregious case in Maryland: A traffic-camera intersection had a 2.7-second yellow light, while nearby intersections had 4-second times. Shorter yellow lights are more dangerous--but shorter yellow lights plus traffic cameras generate revenue.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/12/eveningnews/main558431.shtml

John Irving knew he had been caught. He knew a traffic camera had seen him run a red light, but he also thought the yellow light had turned red too fast. So he returned to the busy intersection and timed it.

His findings: 2.7 seconds.

"Not even three seconds," he says.

Three seconds, when every other yellow light on the stretch of road was four seconds long. In other words, as he drove the street, the yellow lights in order lasted four, four, four and out of nowhere three seconds.

[alexey]

more stuff

http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/georgiacenter.html

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) recently called for congressional hearings in the wake of a report that claims local governments have progressively shortened yellow-lights since 1985 to maximize fines, and have endangered motorists in the process. The study, released in a 23-page report by Armey's office to The Washington Times, shows that since 1985, yellow traffic light timing has been cut from an average of five seconds to three seconds in duration and that revenue collected from intersections with these shorter durations have become a mainstay of many local governments.

It'd be interesting to see that report...

Here is more stuff from there:

The answer to the "rash" of red-light violations is relatively simple. Increase yellow light duration. Almost 80 percent of red light entries occur within the first second of the red light indication. Studies in Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, and Maryland have shown a reduction of 73 percent to nearly 100 percent in red light entries after an increase in yellow light duration. Several cities have dropped their red-light camera programs after adding only one second to yellow light durations at intersections because infractions were "virtually eliminated."

[alexey]

So are bicycle helmets, gun locks, and anti-lock brakes. I think we all know that most of the things that are marketed to us as increasing safety do nothing of the sort.

Well sure ALL safety things can be written off as such... people wouldn't need any safety stuff if they were more responsible... Seatbelts and airbags would not be needed if people didn't crash into each other, right? The thing is, we cannot realistically consider "dont get into accidents" to be a sufficient replacement for those features. Some of these safety things actually perform as intended and are actually needed.

Of course part of the motivation for these things is to increase revenue. I'm sure we both know that without anyone having to point it out to us. However, the problem comes in that if we stick a Police Officer at every intersection to stop people from going through Red Lights or Speeding, we either need quite a few more officers or we have to accept that the rapes, robberies and murders in town aren't going to get investigated. Something tells me the cameras don't do as good of a job enforcing those laws as they do traffic violations. They can couch the arguement for these things however they want... if you aren't speeding or running a red light, it shouldn't make a big difference to you.

There are ways of addressing that problem without Having Police Officers at every intersection or red light cameras at every intersection.

Having that revenue stream readily available to local governments is dangerous, as evidenced by yellow light times mysteriously shortening in places where red light camera usage increased.

Red light cameras are meant to prevent people from running red lights, yet people who install them reap benefits from people running red lights. Sounds like a conflict of interest, does it not??

You just hit on the biggest issue... the fact that most American drivers blatantly and intentionally flaunt the vast majority of our traffic laws, and whine about it like chollicy 2 year olds who don't have their binky when they get held accountable for it. Personally, I wish we WOULD start enforcing the traffic laws much more severely.

Sure, as long as we adjust our laws accordingly... You want people to follow laws out of respect, rather than a fear of enforcement. Having reasonable laws is a big part of cultivating people's respect for the law. Strongly enforcing unreasonable laws is not a good way to go.

[Predicto]

The most public case on this is Union City, California:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/670.asp

Here is some other info:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2420766.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/12/eveningnews/main558431.shtml

Works for me, and thanks for the effort you put in.

[Larry]

Actually, from what I've read, red-light cameras also lead to a vast increase in rear-end collisions. (When people slam on their brakes to avoid running the three-second yellow.)

[alexey]

Works for me, and thanks for the effort you put in.

No problem!

I was surprised that our Federal Government actually did something about it... Here is that Armey report btw, made in May 2001:

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRedCamArmeysfinalreport.pdf

Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man.

Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he was a top transportation

official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction

in the country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in

America is the same individual offering the “objective” testimony that they are effective.

and the extended list of references:

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRedCamArmeyBiblio.asp

[Larry]

Now, I don't doubt that red light cameras lead to decreased numbers of people running red lights.

I just don't have trouble believing that it leads to an increase in other kinds of problems.

(Although I wonder if anybody's tried installing the cameras and not shortening the yellows. Does that still lead to increased accidents?)

(Actually, my big complaint about photo enforcement of traffic laws is that The State is now deciding that they can punish a person (the owner of a car) for the actions of a car. I have a problem with "we don't know if it was you who broke the law last week, and we're not even going to bother trying to find out, we're just going to punish you because you're easy to find."

(I think that, to punish somebody, The State needs to prove that that person, personally, broke the law.)

-----

On further thought,

I don't know if I'd object if, say, the cameras were privately owned and operated, and if all that happened when you ran a red light/sped was that the photo went to your insurance company, who raised your rates. Since the insurance company is insuring your car, not an individual driver, I'd say it's OK for them to say "we don't know if it was you, your wife, or your bowling buddy, all we care about is 'What's the odds of this car having an accident?'"

[Skins247]

The last person you wanna go big balls on is Mass, he is packing and will use it. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I have no idea what this mean. Can you say it again. This time in English.

[Skins247]

We'll disagree on whether doing 10 mph over the speed limit is appropiate or not. I've already said I don't always adhere to the posted limits. The difference is that I'm not going to whine like a 2 year old if I get a ticket for doing it.

Believe me, my schedule is as full as the next persons. The difference being that I try to plan things far enough ahead of time that I don't need to fly down the road at 20 mph over the speed limit to get there on time.

It's pretty rare that I drive in the passing lane at all, at any speed.

As for pissing off other drivers, the back of my Jeep says it all pretty well... "You say THUG like it's a BAD thing."; "Prey should know it is Prey"; and "Driver only carries $20 worth of ammunition" (which isn't quite true, it's generally about $35, but who's really counting).

No, down here if you're doing 10 over on the hwy the state troopers won't even bother with you. That was just posted in the local paper the other day in an article they had about speeding. And who said anything about whining when they get a ticket? I certainly didn't. I've gotten a handful of tickets in my lifetime. And if I remember correctly, all were at least 15 over. Therefore I had no excuse. I took the ticket then paid a lawyer $100 and never had to worry another second about the ticket. Btw, is that bumper sticker of yours supposed to scare someone? If you get in the passing lane driving slow im gonna ride your ass hard until you get over. And if you don't im gonna ride by you and flip you off, as im cutting sharply in front of you. Ok, just kidding. Although I have done that before. Idiots that ride slowly in the passing lane deserve whatever happens. That is one of the stupidest things a person can do on the road.

[Skins247]

Says the guy (nice avatar, by the way. How'd you get it?) who's contribution to this thread is "Look how many ways I can repeat the sentence 'Anybody who obeys the law is a (insert insult)'".

I've got an idea: How about you try coming up with just one reason why (in your opinion) society should not enforce the law, and why people should not obey it?

To help you get started, I'll provide you with one reason why (IMO) society should enforce the law. All of them. The reason is because if society doesn't enforce the law, then that society quickly becomes hip deep in, shall I say, people with unusual anatomical characteristics who somehow thing that this lack of enforcement equals entitlement. People who think that breaking the law is a right.

Get off your high-horse old man. There is nothing wrong with going 10 over. And if cops where you live don't enforce it when someone does 10 over, then is it really disobeying the law? If you wanna be a grandpa and drive slow everywhere then fine. But don't get on your soapbox when others wanna drive a lil faster. It's life. Deal with it, pops.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Get off your high-horse old man. There is nothing wrong with going 10 over. And if cops where you live don't enforce it when someone does 10 over, then is it really disobeying the law? If you wanna be a grandpa and drive slow everywhere then fine. But don't get on your soapbox when others wanna drive a lil faster. It's life. Deal with it, pops.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Dude....you're almost 40....if that's your REAL age :laugh:

[SkinnedAussie]

I have no idea what this mean. Can you say it again. This time in English.

It means that if you insist on going toe-to-toe with MSF, your avatar will become a self portrait!

[IONTOP]

It means that if you insist on going toe-to-toe with MSF, your avatar will become a self portrait!

Seriously, as much as most of us disagree with MSF from time to time, we know better than to challenge him to a fight to the death.... We would LOSE!!!! And MSF probably wouldn't feel bad because we agreed to it...

[notoriouslyKEN]

A little off topic here, but....Does anyone know how long it takes for the speed tickets to reach you by mail? I might of gotten one yesterday but I am not sure. I was driving by one of those things that report your speed and it said I was 14 over. I heard some of those have cameras built in. I didn't see a flash, but it was daytime. I hope I didn't get caught b/c that's some BS

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Well sure ALL safety things can be written off as such... people wouldn't need any safety stuff if they were more responsible... Seatbelts and airbags would not be needed if people didn't crash into each other, right? The thing is, we cannot realistically consider "dont get into accidents" to be a sufficient replacement for those features. Some of these safety things actually perform as intended and are actually needed.

The problem is that we tell people "use this and you'll be safe" when, in fact, most of the items are of marginal value, and most often focus on the wrong way of fixing the problem.

In my work and hobbies I deal with a number of very dangerous things... high voltage electricity, firearms, full-contact martial arts, and horses. I've been injured by several of them at one time or another, even when using proper safety devices and practices. I've learned that putting too much reliance on those devices and practices is as stupid as not using them at all.

Having that revenue stream readily available to local governments is dangerous, as evidenced by yellow light times mysteriously shortening in places where red light camera usage increased.

Red light cameras are meant to prevent people from running red lights, yet people who install them reap benefits from people running red lights. Sounds like a conflict of interest, does it not??

The problem with your arguement is that to believe it, you have to accept the idea that local governments are more interested in getting the revenue than in the accidents and potential deaths that are going to occur when people blow through the unexpected red light. I don't doubt that some places have reduced the yellow light time at these lights. Believe it or not, they're legally allowed to do that. If more of us remembered that the yellow light is supposed to be a reminder to apply the BRAKES, not the ACCELERATOR, it wouldn't be so much of an issue.

Sure, as long as we adjust our laws accordingly... You want people to follow laws out of respect, rather than a fear of enforcement. Having reasonable laws is a big part of cultivating people's respect for the law. Strongly enforcing unreasonable laws is not a good way to go.

No, actually, I want people to FEAR the PUNISHMENT for not following the law. I've always found that FEAR is a much greater motivating factor than respect when it comes to getting people to do what they're supposed to. I'd also seriously disagree with your assertion that our driving laws are unreasonable.