General > General Technical Chat
Man fined for criticizing govt using science, without a license
<< < (61/63) > >>
DrG:

--- Quote from: james_s on March 03, 2020, 10:18:23 pm ---But is the camera accusing anyone of the system relies on a human police officer to review the photos? The camera in that case is a passive observer.

I'm not against the concept of red light cameras however I am against the way they are frequently implemented not to improve safety but as a source of revenue. I'm some areas rear end collisions increased sharply as people slam on their brakes to avoid a trigger happy camera that is automated to the point that it's difficult and risky to fight the ticket.

--- End quote ---

YES, in some cases (at least one state in the US), a police officer, by law, has to review the photo before it can be sent (only for school zone violations) https://www.southernmarylandlaw.com/blog/dui-dwi-criminal/what-about-marylands-speed-camera-law-4/. Seems to me that they do decrease accidents and they are used for revenue (and sometimes their placement seems to be chosen for revenue generation more than safety). I also think that there is a small risk of increased collisions in the case of red light cameras.

The amount of revenue is impressive but they don't say how much (I have not found it after some searching) is pure profit. That it does not count toward points on your license is philosophically absurd in my opinion, but it is an obvious placating [of] the electorate so that they (the officials) don't get thrown out of the local Government.

Look at this list of "claims" to support fighting them http://www.mddriversalliance.org/p/fighting-speed-camera-tickets.html .

Fighting them is possible, but I sure do not hear about too many folks that have done so successfully.

A notable exception, of course, is this guy who shows exactly how he has beat them [please forgive me if this has already been posted]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a_D3jn2jKw&feature=youtu.be

I especially dislike the mobile ones, but I am happy to say that I have never had my picture taken.
james_s:
The specific incident that really turned me against them around here is when a citizen initiative in a city near mine attempted to get rid of the red light cameras and it was shot down with a city official quoting "we need the revenue." That right there tells me their primary purpose in that city at least is to generate revenue, and I've noticed the amber light intervals seem excessively short.
rsjsouza:

--- Quote from: james_s on March 04, 2020, 12:23:04 am ---The specific incident that really turned me against them around here is when a citizen initiative in a city near mine attempted to get rid of the red light cameras and it was shot down with a city official quoting "we need the revenue." That right there tells me their primary purpose in that city at least is to generate revenue, and I've noticed the amber light intervals seem excessively short.

--- End quote ---
In this particular case, I agree this is an idiotic reason. The problem is that this one idiot spews that justification and then it suddenly becomes gospel across any other more serious attempts to educate the population through this.

Regarding the rear end accidents due to brake slamming, I would say that I prefer that than the near death experiences I and other neighbours have gone through when cars and trucks recklessly cross a deep red light at our neighbourhood exit. :--
Brumby:

--- Quote from: james_s on March 03, 2020, 10:18:23 pm ---I'm not against the concept of red light cameras however I am against the way they are frequently implemented not to improve safety but as a source of revenue. I'm some areas rear end collisions increased sharply as people slam on their brakes to avoid a trigger happy camera that is automated to the point that it's difficult and risky to fight the ticket.

--- End quote ---
While the action of the person slamming on the brakes might be questionable - the fact that the person behind them runs into the back of them has nothing really to do with that action.  It is the direct fault of the driver behind either not paying attention and/or not travelling at a safe distance from the first vehicle - both of which are something about which the driver of the first vehicle cannot control (nor need to for that matter).  They have those responsibilities for the vehicle in front of them.



--- Quote from: rsjsouza on March 04, 2020, 01:25:58 am ---Regarding the rear end accidents due to brake slamming, I would say that I prefer that than the near death experiences I and other neighbours have gone through when cars and trucks recklessly cross a deep red light at our neighbourhood exit. :--

--- End quote ---
It would seem to me that rear enders represent a much lower personal injury risk than getting t-boned.
james_s:

--- Quote from: Brumby on March 04, 2020, 04:58:00 am ---While the action of the person slamming on the brakes might be questionable - the fact that the person behind them runs into the back of them has nothing really to do with that action.  It is the direct fault of the driver behind either not paying attention and/or not travelling at a safe distance from the first vehicle - both of which are something about which the driver of the first vehicle cannot control (nor need to for that matter).  They have those responsibilities for the vehicle in front of them.

--- End quote ---

I don't give a damn whose fault it is if an accident happens that shouldn't have. I've been rear ended numerous times, had one car totaled and others damaged, it was entirely the fault of the person who hit me in every case but it was also a huge pain in the ass for me, a frustrating and expensive ordeal. Having someone to blame doesn't restore my car or my body. Yes I'd rather get rear ended than t-boned, but data suggests that the overall number of accidents increases https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/studies/

Now like I said, I'm not against the concept of red light cameras, but the way they are currently deployed in most areas is very obviously aimed at increasing revenue. There is a delay between when one phase turns red and the other turns green therefore it is impossible for a t-bone accident to occur unless a car enters the intersection on red, or the light turns green and somebody accelerates toward a car that is stopped in the intersection. There is no reason for a camera to trigger on a car that is already out in the intersection when the light turns red other than revenue. The cases people mentioned where 5 or 6 cars stream through are impossible without several of these cars entering the intersection when the light is already red. The unusually short amber intervals such as that which triggered this whole discussion are again 100% about revenue, there is NO safety justification for using the shortest possible amber. It needs to be long enough to give cars ample time to safely stop at the speeds involved, accounting for vehicles that may be towing a trailer or hauling heavy loads and need longer to stop safely.

Unfortunately I think the damage has already been done, rampant abuse of red light cameras as revenue generating machines have soiled them in the minds of the public so any possible safety improvement they could bring is not going to matter anymore, people hate them *because they have been and continue to be abused.*
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod