• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Red light cameras gone wild video

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Do any of those claims of cameras increasing crashes discuss the cost and injury comparison between the rear-end crash (which yes, probably does increase, but costs less and has less-severe injuries) and the T-bone (which from what I understand usually drops in number/%/rate)?

This is a good question.

Also, red light cameras are one of those things that were designed with a good intention and have either been manipulated by people (yellow light stuff) or just hasn't worked in some places.

The point is people don't stop at red lights when they don't see a cop there (hmmm crime prevention? Lol) so they put a camera so people know they can't run it. Well the point is to keep people from running the red light. Instead of people just doing the right thing they need to "beat the light" and try to go fast. Well they realize they can't so they jack their brakes (like they do if a cop is sitting there). If people just stopped trying to beat the light they wouldn't get a ticket or have to jack their brakes and cause an accident.

Again its bad that they try to manipulate the lights. But that doesn't happen at every place.

Also with the numbers.... if a small town has 2 crashes a month at an intersection and it goes up to 4 crashes.... well this a 100% increase! But just 2 more accidents..... my point is those numbers seem insane but its just more stats. The ones that actually count the incidents show they really aren't that many more.

So good I intentions (safer intersection) maybe bad execution and manipulation.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Grapeshot

But if it saves one child.............................
......in the limit, at the expense of all children's liberty. (Think slippery slope if an inferential limit is too academic).
Unseen sarcasm employed on prior post.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Apart from your personal lack of credibility with me, I simply don't believe you because of my personal experience with the intersection of Vaughn Road and the Eastern Boulevard in Montgomery. The red light camera simply worked. Fewer people ran the light and there were FAR fewer accidents. I am glad they put that camera in--even though my daughter got caught by it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Huh, interesting. Must be why the Fl dpt of Insurance has said that these cameras INCREASE accidents at intersections. Regardless, your anecdotal N=1 sample space is completely irrelevant. Luckily, these unsafe cameras are illegal in my state.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Would be interesting to see if accidents increased at that location.

In general, Allstate insurance believes they do (photo enforcement), and so did the Fl dpt of Ins. I used to work for them (Allstate) before changing careers. Ins companies are always a powerful lobby and they did not endorse these laws, when I expected them to. I remember reading an intracompany/intraindustry email (it was also in the local paper) about how they increased accidents, to a statistically significant degree, according to the actuaries. The theory was (is?) that people lock up the brakes instead of just uneventfully going through before other traffic had time to hit the violator.
 
Last edited:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
If "not me" is an absolute defense to the ticket then there is no affront to our justice system. If a red-light camera law is written in such a way as simply saying "not me" doesn't dispose of the ticket, then I am with you. Otherwise, based on personal experience of how these cameras can reduce accidents at intersections, I am all for red-light cameras.


Forcing an individual to respond in court to a summons mailed to the registered owner of a vehicle and making that person prove they were not the operator of a specific vehicle on a specif date at a specific location IS AN AFFRONT TO JUSTICE. Basically, it is the State throwing the pasta on the wall and seeing what sticks!

Requiring me to go to court even to say "NOT ME" deprives me of my time, liberty, impedes my freedom of association, lost income from taking time off work,--- and the list goes on!
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
In Virginia the vehicle owner wins by not responding to mailed red light scammera tickets - no penalty can arise unless they serve you personally. as a result, this deters localities from installing red light scammeras as Fairfax County just decided - NOT - to erect red light scammeras.

This is great! Just one question---- How many of those receiving this mailed "scammera" ticket KNOW that they don't have a legal obligation to appear in this situation?
 

Shovelhead

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
315
Location
NO VA, ,
Yeah, they're all about safety..........


WASHINGTON, DC (WUSA) -- The District's Red Light cameras are not doing their jobs, according to DC officials.
They have not produced the projected $20 million in traffic ticket revenue that city leaders had projected.

The traffic fines from red light cameras came in at only $8.5 million.

The cameras attached to street sweepers also fell short. According to city officials, 237 million tickets should have been written. Only 13,000 were actually produced.

Mayor Vincent Gray joked at his weekly press conference that too few people are breaking the law.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/1...h-People-Ticket-Revenue-Lower-Than-Projection
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Forcing an individual to respond in court to a summons mailed to the registered owner of a vehicle and making that person prove they were not the operator of a specific vehicle on a specif date at a specific location IS AN AFFRONT TO JUSTICE. Basically, it is the State throwing the pasta on the wall and seeing what sticks!

Requiring me to go to court even to say "NOT ME" deprives me of my time, liberty, impedes my freedom of association, lost income from taking time off work,--- and the list goes on!

Its probable cause. The violation was committed. The only question is, "Who committed it?" The almost certain answer is the person to whom the vehicle is registered. Just mail the thing back, with a not-me, and get on with your life.

Like I said, we got one of these. It wasn't either of us. We did the adult thing and requested the violator pay the thing. She did the adult thing and paid it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Its probable cause. The violation was committed. The only question is, "Who committed it?" The almost certain answer is the person to whom the vehicle is registered. Just mail the thing back, with a not-me, and get on with your life.

Like I said, we got one of these. It wasn't either of us. We did the adult thing and requested the violator pay the thing. She did the adult thing and paid it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

So, to save YOUR finances and your driving record, you coerced your daughter into giving up HER Constitutional right against self incrimination! And this is a good thing?:shocker:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No constitutional rights were given up. There was irrefutable evidence that she committed the violation, collected perfectly lawfully.

Like I said, she did the adult thing and accepted the responsibility for the consequences of her actions--a concept foreign to many here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
No constitutional rights were given up. There was irrefutable evidence that she committed the violation, collected perfectly lawfully.

Like I said, she did the adult thing and accepted the responsibility for the consequences of her actions--a concept foreign to many here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

But, SHE wasn't the one charged with offense, YOU WERE!
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
No constitutional rights were given up. There was irrefutable evidence that she committed the violation, collected perfectly lawfully.

Like I said, she did the adult thing and accepted the responsibility for the consequences of her actions--a concept foreign to many here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Irrefutable eh? Did you go and measure the yellow time? No? Well then, it looks like you sold your own daughter out. Nice. You don't know the defenses for such a ticket.
 
Last edited:

Reasonable

New member
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
54
Location
Provo
Nothing about guns here.
Just whining about traffic laws.

Edit to add,

I am not as unlucky as several of you.

Only traffic tickets I ever was issued I earned by violating the laws.

Only negative experience with an Officer on the street was getting caught for violating the law and being a punk teenager. I ran my mouth and he shut me up with words only.

But there are whiners everywhere.

I don't think "eye" sold anyone out. The violation was committed and the proper person was held accountable.

More parents should have this integrity when it comes to kids.
 
Last edited:

Kopis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
674
Location
Nashville, TN
red light cameras make people overreact and smash their brakes for a light that is about to turn yellow or just does as they are way past the safe stopping point. Countless studies have shown that red light cameras increase rear end collisions. Multiple cities have been caught hiding that data to justify their money printing camera scam.

If a red light camera acted as a force field... sure i would be in favor of it. I realized they were bogus when i was driving next to a guy who wasnt from this small town, i glanced over and saw him texting. We were approaching a light that turned red a LONG LONG way off but he literally was so engrossed in his phone, he never looked up, i stayed with him as long as i could but he blew right through it. Sure, he got a ticket in the mail but did that stop that potential accident from happening? No....
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
How does RED light camera work?
Hi,

They work with sensors.sensors are in the pavement which detects when a vehicle crosses the stop line after the traffic signal has turned red.
It helps to take footage in two steps:
1)It helps to take violation photo as the vehicle crosses the stop line.
2)The second photo takes after the vehicle enters the intersection.
It is the traffic monitor camera which usually places on the signal traffic lights to monitor the traffic and flowing through the intersection on the highway.

Remember: They don't take pictures of vehicles that run red lights or issues citations.
Thank you!
You resurrect a three year old post and then you post superfluous information. Your explanation would fail in Ohio. Ohio law does not mandate you stop behind a stop line. What is your point?
 
Top