Complaining about being caught speeding

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Kevbo]
My problem with the red light cameras is in the implementation:

-The lights are timed with short amber durations. cite In my city, the cross traffic does not get a green for approximately 1.5-2 seconds after the light changes from yellow to red. Just “pushing the yellow” is not at all dangerous.

[/quote]

In my town, also in California, the yellow lights are plenty long, and the red light camera does not trigger unless you enter the intersection after the light is red.

-The fines are totally out of whack. Though asterion is, I think mistaken, the fine for the traffic infraction of running a red light is $15 rather than $10. Yet the fine for the same action established by the camera is $100, $200, $400 for the first, second, third offenses.

I agree with mhendo - raise the non camera fine. It sure isn’t $15 here. Assuming that the cameras were bid, it might cost around $70 for the contractor to handle each “hit” worth pursuing - I’m sure there are false alarms. I don’t think any town is going to get rich on $30 a violation. As for funding, who should be paying besides the people whom are violating the law? If no run ran red lights, there would be no need for cameras.

We are told that this is to pay for the cameras. Yet we are also told that the cameras replace 8-12 police officers worth of enforcement. I fail to see how those 8-12 officers can be supported for 7-15% of the revenue generated by the cameras. (I’m assuming some repeat offenders to come up with that #) Because there is a compelling public safety concern, it is not expected that the fine compensate the city for the expense of maintaining a police force, yet somehow that same concern can’t justify the expense of a few cameras.

For the camera to be replacing officers, officers would have to be spending a lot of their time sitting at intersections looking for red light runners. I don’t buy it.

[/QUOTE]

I do know that at the intersections near me, the number of red light runners I see has gone down by a lot since the cameras were put in. That’s both from statistics on accidents and from my perception. I’'m a bit biased - one of these scumbags ran a light and smashed into the driver side door of my car when my wife was driving it. She got away with an emergency room visit and some physical therapy thanks to the construction of my Saturn, but it was close. I’ll give them one violation, since anyone makes mistakes, but for the second I’d shoot them and leave them for the vultures.

[Kiros]

I feel very, very strongly that it should be illegal to drive less than ten miles over the posted legal speed limit. There’s a certain irony there, but I am completely serious - you could put literally 90% of the dangerous driving that I see during my daily commute (an hour each way on mostly two-lane roads with a 45mph speed limit that are quite safely travelled at 60-65) into two categories: cell phones, and people actually driving 45mph. Not kidding at all.

[John_DiFool]

[QUOTE=Veuve_ClicquotNJ]
Ditto, ditto, ditto re: the unholy triumverate of Waldo/Starke/Lawtey.

Jacksonville native & UF attendee. That’s the first thing you learn on your way down to UF

VCNJ~
[/QUOTE]

Did that commute quite often-usually was someone pulled over. I mean Triple Effin’
A has that speed trap warning 300 yards from the first 45 MPH sign, and the local
cops still got their $$$ from people too inattentive to notice the warnings (or pooh-
poohed them).

[Max_Torque]

[QUOTE=Kevbo]
My problem with the red light cameras is in the implementation:

-The lights are timed with short amber durations. cite In my city, the cross traffic does not get a green for approximately 1.5-2 seconds after the light changes from yellow to red. Just “pushing the yellow” is not at all dangerous.
[/QUOTE]

Your city isn’t the only one. Within the past two months, one of our local news channels has done their own investigation about whether the yellow lights are long enough before a camera system is implemented. Here’s what they found:

{I}n this report we found in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal dated December 20th 2006, {City Traffic Engineer Jere} Hart said that our yellow light times in Lubbock follow the national standard of one second of yellow for every 10 miles per hour of the posted speed limit.

“But what happens is, if you set that (yellow light) too short, people don’t get enough time to safely get through the intersection,” said Hart.
…
We found 8 out of those 12 intersections {where red light cameras are to be installed} where the yellow light was not long enough.

One intersection’s yellow light was more than a second shorter than the traffic engineer’s stated standard.

[essell]

Thanks to everyone who agreed with me for reminding me why I love this board so much!

And to all the people who think it’s okay to speed because you’re driving within the limits of safety, but not the law, I agree there are many places where the speed limit should be changed. I don’t think speeding is the best way of convincing people you’re right!

[Hypno-Toad]

Speeding is not unto itself the cause of wrecks. But it does affect the severity of accidents. It has been noted above about the effect of speed on energy at impact. But speeding also reduces a persons opportunity to react to sudden events and magnifies small problems like a tire blowout into big problems. So speed enforcement may not be reducing the number of accidents, but it may be reducing their severity.

[Harriet_the_Spry]

[QUOTE=Kiros]
I feel very, very strongly that it should be illegal to drive less than ten miles over the posted legal speed limit. There’s a certain irony there, but I am completely serious - you could put literally 90% of the dangerous driving that I see during my daily commute (an hour each way on mostly two-lane roads with a 45mph speed limit that are quite safely travelled at 60-65) into two categories: cell phones, and people actually driving 45mph. Not kidding at all.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sure this is based on your extensive experience as a traffic engineer, no? If you like irony, note that these roads can also be driven safely at 45 mph. Maybe you should talk with your actual DOT about how those speed limits were set. Maybe you are bringing an accidental oversight to their attention, or maybe they will have the chance to fight some ignorance.

[Quartz]

If an unreasonable speed limit is posted and enforced, can’t someone be done for extortion?

[Declan]

[QUOTE=Quartz]
If an unreasonable speed limit is posted and enforced, can’t someone be done for extortion?
[/QUOTE]

They make the rules , its called entrapment , not extortion.

Declan

[Rayne_Man]

Several villages round here have a large illuminated board which shows you your actual speed as you enter the 30 mph zone. If you are below 30mph it thanks you for not speeding, and if you are over the limit it tells you to slow down. The police and local councils reckon that these devices are more effective in slowing down the traffic then speed cameras. Also they show that my speedo is running about 4 mph fast.

[Cat_Whisperer]

[QUOTE=Rayne Man]
<snip> my speedo is running about 4 mph fast.
[/QUOTE]

That’s quite the image, there. :eek:

[Rayne_Man]

[QUOTE=featherlou]
That’s quite the image, there. :eek:
[/QUOTE]

In retrospect that was a stupid phrase. In my defence I had just woken up when I wrote that. What I meant to say was that when the roadside sign flashes up and says “30 mph”, my speedo reads 34 mph.

[Malacandra]

I like those flashing speed limit signs. I always cooperate with them, right the way through the limit, although I find it fascinating that according to the 30mph signs my speedo is perfectly calibrated. :dubious:

Coupla things:

ISTR (checks forum, it’s IMHO) that maybe 5% of road fatalities can be blamed on exceeding the speed limit. So speed cameras aren’t about saving lives, or not to any great extent.

I may have told my own red-light-camera story before, but to reiterate, I got nailed 15 years ago for running a red at 5:59am on a Saturday morning with no other traffic my side of the horizon. The camera didn’t care and I dare say the officials processing the picture just viewed it as a bonus that there was nothing else in shot that might possibly have confused the issue. But I feel to this day that a real, live policeman would have wagged a finger at me and sent me on my way. 'Course, once you’re paying for the camera you have to justify the cost, obviously.

[Rick]

[QUOTE=Kevbo]
My problem with the red light cameras is in the implementation:

-The lights are timed with short amber durations. cite In my city, the cross traffic does not get a green for approximately 1.5-2 seconds after the light changes from yellow to red. Just “pushing the yellow” is not at all dangerous.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you would like to explain pushing the yellow was is not dangerous to the family of the guy that sitting at the light waiting for the green. Light turned green, he entered the intersection, and was hit by a red light runner. He died. Happened four doors down from my house. :dubious:
The problem is that people start pushing the yellow, then they push it harder and harder until they are flat entering the intersection on the red.

I think red light cameras should be taken down and replaced with stinger missiles.

[UTEPMiners]

You can still see when someone is going to fast to be able to stop. Regardless of if the light was green, you still need to check to make sure no one is coming.

[mhendo]

[QUOTE=UTEPMiners]
You can still see when someone is going to fast to be able to stop. Regardless of if the light was green, you still need to check to make sure no one is coming.
[/QUOTE]

No, that’s what the orange is for—to allow through those people who are too close to the intersection to stop when the lights change. If you’re going so fast that you have to barrel through the light after it actually turns red, then:

(a) the orange light isn’t active for long enough (a possibility, but rather unusual)

or

(b) you’re going too fast, period.

While i agree that it’s always prudent to check the cross traffic before advancing on the green, the fact is that it’s the responsibility of those people to stop on the red.

[scr4]

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
ISTR (checks forum, it’s IMHO) that maybe 5% of road fatalities can be blamed on exceeding the speed limit. So speed cameras aren’t about saving lives, or not to any great extent.
[/QUOTE]

5% would be about 2000 people per year in the USA. I’d say that’s a pretty significant.

[Kevbo]

[QUOTE=Rick]
Perhaps you would like to explain pushing the yellow was is not dangerous to the family of the guy that sitting at the light waiting for the green.
[/QUOTE]

The time required to react to the light change, and to move into the intersection, and (in my city, which is the context of the bit you quoted) the second or two all-red cycle before this fellow got his green meant that the oncoming driver probably had room to stop even if he had waited until after his light had turned red to start braking. Either that driver failed to see the light at all, or consciously decided to run it. I wasn’t there of course, but I was here. Believe me, I have no sympathy for flagrant violators.

The cameras though, don’t make a distinction between such heinous behavior, and another type of red light violation. A driver has a lot to keep track of, even without self inflicted distractions, and making the call to proceed or stop correctly every single time is asking for a lot. I claim that with some experience, when these drivers misjudge the light timing, and end up running a red light, it will be only by a fraction of a second. When I have done such, I use it as a feedback source, and I am likely to error on the other (safer) side for a while. And that is what I meant by “pushing the yellow”. In my city, the lights are set up so that this type of violation is NOT a hazard, as the lights show red in all directions for 1.5-2 seconds before changing to green in any direction.

Such violations are clearly in another class of driver than those “in a hurry” or feel themselves “too important to wait”. Even though they have plenty of time to stop, they choose instead to accelerate, and often end up entering the intersection several seconds after the light has changed to red, increasing the hazard with excessive speed.

A police officer observing an offending driver will have a good idea as to whether a driver simply misjudged the timing of the light, or made a conscious “f**k it, I’m going through” decision. If the driver accelerated hard when the light turned yellow would be a good clue. The officer, and possibly later a judge based on the officers testimony, can deal appropriately with the two classes of offender.

Cameras, beyond not making such “fine” distinctions, will probably influence the behavior of the flagrant violators. These folks have plenty of time to stop, given the motivation of well known camera intersections. This is of course a good thing, but not all intersections have cameras, and several interviews have indicated the people ARE choosing routes with a mind to avoiding the camera intersections based on privacy concerns…certainly flagrant violators have the information and motivation to do the same.

The cameras do nothing, though, to improve the time-distance-speed judgment skill of the other “I misjudged it” type of violator. So it is going to be these folks who pay the tab for curbing the bad behavior of the flagrant violators.

The all-red-for-2-second lights allow the city to shorten the yellow, making error-of-judgment violations more common and increasing revenue. At the same time, this light timing encourages the flagrant violators (at non camera intersections) by giving them the expectation of a time cushion to accommodate their reckless behavior.

[kanicbird]

[QUOTE=sc4]
I agree with the OP. But it still amazes me that so many people think think speeding is normal -
[/QUOTE]

Actually it’s not ‘speeding’ that is normal but the speed limit is usually set artificially low - which is immoral IMHO - setting the limit lower then a reasonable level allows you to be pulled over for no real violation as there is no safety issue.

[Malacandra]

[QUOTE=scr4]
5% would be about 2000 people per year in the USA. I’d say that’s a pretty significant.
[/QUOTE]

Making a dent in the 95% would cut down on the other 38,000, and might be a better application of effort, wouldn’t you say?