If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Newspaper) Interesting South San Francisco will refund $3.1 million to drivers because Simon didn't say "use cameras to ticket drivers who run red lights"   (thenewspaper.com) divider line 114
More: Interesting, webcams, ATS, San Francisco, refunds, court cases, tickets, councils  
•       •       •

6656 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2010 at 3:32 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
RottNDude
2010-03-13 05:05:56 PM
Hoopy Frood:
Um, what?

VC14600(A) = Drivers license change of address
VC 4159 = Registered vehicle owner change of address
 
3rdLostPassword
2010-03-13 05:07:46 PM
Fano: FTFY

Uh huh.

Derp indeed.
 
mud_shark
2010-03-13 05:11:18 PM
ramblinwreck: 3rdLostPassword: ramblinwreck: stopping completely at a red light

So you thought that was optional?

Every time you take a right at an intersection when the light is red, you stop completely? RIGHT. Did you even read the rest of my description of the intersection? The right hand lane by-passed the light, creating its own lane...

Actually yes I do always come to a complete and full stop when turning right on red. It's the one thing I've found that I can do to keep cops from pulling me over for failing to some to a complete and full stop.

As for blowing mindlessly through red lights like most people think is acceptable that is insane and should carry an even heavier fine than mentioned.

Ever seen an 18-wheeler run over a Kia? That goddammed Kia driver made me late to work because she ran a red light. But that's okay because I'm sure she was a really nice person.
 
tbyte
2010-03-13 05:12:39 PM
rga184: I'm sorry, I guess I don't often go into red light camera threads. I haven't seen a reason why they're inherently bad. Do they ticket people who didn't run the red light or something?


Sometimes. The biggest issue though is that several cities have been caught shortening the yellow light and increasing the rate of accidents so they can increase revenue from the tickets. Lots of other cities have put in place systems where you cannot contest the ticket, despite the constitution. Plus other issues.
 
Fano
2010-03-13 05:12:46 PM
DayTripperIntro: Aren't a high crime rate and a potential for lots of tickets issued based on that crime synonymous?

Not if you calibrate the yellow light to ensure it. It seems municipalities keep getting in trouble for doing that. And for some reason the placement of the lights does not always correspond to the "most dangerous intersections."
 
TheZorker
2010-03-13 05:17:35 PM
Fact: If you want to make streets safer, lengthen the yellows.

Strong Rumor: Cities with red light cameras shorten yellows.

Here's WGN's Milt Rosenburg on Extention: 720 with a round table on the idea.

Pop the popcorn first

Link (new window)
 
Non-evil Monkey
2010-03-13 05:20:47 PM
Fano: DayTripperIntro: Aren't a high crime rate and a potential for lots of tickets issued based on that crime synonymous?

Not if you calibrate the yellow light to ensure it. It seems municipalities keep getting in trouble for doing that. And for some reason the placement of the lights does not always correspond to the "most dangerous intersections."

Pretty much this.

If all the cameras did was ticket people who blatantly ran the red light, I would have no objection. However often they are rigged with a shorter yellow and ticket people who just barely clip the yellow light.

Personally I think they need to standardize the yellow light(say 1 seconds for every 10 mph of the speed limit), and have camera-enforced intersections 1 second greater then a similar unenforced intersection. That should keep people from being ticketed for simply miscalculating how long the yellow lasts.
 
just_dis_guy
2010-03-13 05:22:00 PM
Typical of many camera installations.

Supporters of RLC's always say "if you obey the law what's the problem" but very few RLC installations are perfectly legal to begin with. The only reason this one is different is because it's not the short yellow thing, it's a different way that the authorities and the contractor just couldn't be bothered to obey the farking law.
 
3rdLostPassword
2010-03-13 05:22:46 PM
TheZorker: Strong Rumor: Cities with red light cameras shorten yellows.

This actually does happen. (new window)

Municipalities are rightfully called out for it.
 
just_dis_guy
2010-03-13 05:24:53 PM
Non-evil Monkey: Fano: DayTripperIntro: Aren't a high crime rate and a potential for lots of tickets issued based on that crime synonymous?

Not if you calibrate the yellow light to ensure it. It seems municipalities keep getting in trouble for doing that. And for some reason the placement of the lights does not always correspond to the "most dangerous intersections."

Pretty much this.

If all the cameras did was ticket people who blatantly ran the red light, I would have no objection. However often they are rigged with a shorter yellow and ticket people who just barely clip the yellow light.

Personally I think they need to standardize the yellow light(say 1 seconds for every 10 mph of the speed limit), and have camera-enforced intersections 1 second greater then a similar unenforced intersection. That should keep people from being ticketed for simply miscalculating how long the yellow lasts.

there are standards for yellow light interval. To any farker who gets a RLC ticket, DAGS for the ITE guidelines for yellow interval. Then check the width, speed limit, and yellow interval for the intersection at which you were ticketed. Go to court, make a big deal about it.

Seriously, this shiat has to stop.

/I would take one for the team, but if I *deliberately* got a RLC ticket, I'd probably have to take a remedial driving class to keep my job, because the ticket would be mailed to fleet services, not to me.
 
3rdLostPassword
2010-03-13 05:25:03 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If you have a valid complaint about a jurisdiction's use of traffic enforcement, by all means pursue it.

If you're ignoring laws and get caught, STFU.
 
Fano
2010-03-13 05:26:10 PM
just_dis_guy: Typical of many camera installations.

Supporters of RLC's always say "if you obey the law what's the problem" but very few RLC installations are perfectly legal to begin with. The only reason this one is different is because it's not the short yellow thing, it's a different way that the authorities and the contractor just couldn't be bothered to obey the farking law.

Yeah, according to the article the lawmakers apparently have 3000 counts of violating the law.
 
CrossEyed
2010-03-13 05:26:58 PM
I'll just drop this in here as informational, with the only commentary being that I apparently live around an intelligent population:

I live in a medium-sized city in east Tennessee. A year or so ago, red-light cameras were installed at selected high-traffic intersections, marked with warning signs. The program is now being discontinued. It seems that not only did traffic accidents decrease, but citations were so few that the system could not be financially supported. The monitoring company was losing money.
 
just_dis_guy
2010-03-13 05:32:58 PM
rga184: I'm sorry, I guess I don't often go into red light camera threads. I haven't seen a reason why they're inherently bad. Do they ticket people who didn't run the red light or something?

otherwise, what's the problem? you run a red light in front of a cop, you get a ticket. you run a light in front of a camera, you get the same.

/I'm sure I'm missing something, and I'm sure whoever points it out will be very civil about it.

That's how they get away with installing them, because they do seem like they would only catch people who you'd like to see fined anyway. But read this, then make up your mind.

Armey report (new window)

Sadly, that report is now nine years old, but not a whole lot has been done to correct the issues mentioned in said report. One notable exception is Virginia, which unfortunately *is* using RLCs again, but has actually attempted to correct some of the more egregious issues with typical RLC contracts and installations.

There's another report, actually conducted in Virginia (and most sites not far from where I live) that conclusively demonstrated that extending the yellow interval at problem intersections provided far greater safety benefits than installing RLCs, without the consequent increase in rear-enders that is common with RLC installations.
 
GaryPDX [TotalFark]
2010-03-13 05:34:24 PM
3rdLostPassword: GaryPDX: They monitor real time video feeds.

Most places that use these cameras actually indicate that the machines only upload the video if an infraction was triggered. It is then usually reviewed by employees of the camera company before being passed on to authorities.

You may or may not believe this, depending on your level of tinfoil-hattedness.

Since I worked for the ISP providing the DSL connections for the local police department, I have a more acute understanding than you do.
 
Glendale
2010-03-13 05:34:56 PM
Oh California, is it's like you and your local governments just want to keep piling on the debt for the lulz.
 
just_dis_guy
2010-03-13 05:35:54 PM
CrossEyed: I'll just drop this in here as informational, with the only commentary being that I apparently live around an intelligent population:

I live in a medium-sized city in east Tennessee. A year or so ago, red-light cameras were installed at selected high-traffic intersections, marked with warning signs. The program is now being discontinued. It seems that not only did traffic accidents decrease, but citations were so few that the system could not be financially supported. The monitoring company was losing money.

Amusingly, that is typically the case when the yellow interval at an intersection conforms to the old ITE guidelines. The lesson you can take from this is that most people really do not deliberately run red lights, but it is possible to trick them into doing so.

Obviously, the latter should not be tolerated.

This is the main reason why I am opposed to RLCs across the board - when everything is set up for maximum safety, the RLC *will not be profitable.* Therefore, if you *see* a RLC, either a) the municipality is losing money or b) something is wrong with the intersection (usually a too-short yellow light)
 
legion_of_doo
2010-03-13 05:40:21 PM
just_dis_guy: There's another report, actually conducted in Virginia (and most sites not far from where I live) that conclusively demonstrated that extending the yellow interval at problem intersections provided far greater safety benefits than installing RLCs, without the consequent increase in rear-enders that is common with RLC installations.

Also, why not jigger the timing on the red-to-green interval?

Here, in my bumpkinland part of the People's Republic (Californistan), on the intersection between a side road and a main road, there's a delay from when the light turns red going one way to when the lights go green for the other way. Thus, it takes some serious red runnage to cause OMFGBBQ.

/California uses fee income to make up for the "low" taxes & the problem of raising taxes in the People's Republic
 
genner
2010-03-13 05:40:55 PM
bhcompy: ramblinwreck: 3rdLostPassword: ramblinwreck: stopping completely at a red light

So you thought that was optional?

Every time you take a right at an intersection when the light is red, you stop completely? RIGHT. Did you even read the rest of my description of the intersection? The right hand lane by-passed the light, creating its own lane...

Doesn't matter if you always obey the rules or not, the rules exist and if you break them you can get caught. Crying about it doesn't change that. Pleading ignorance doesn't help either

Crying about it just got a whole bunch of people in California their money back. That's how our government works. If you don't like it, try complaining.
 
just_dis_guy
2010-03-13 05:43:31 PM
legion_of_doo: just_dis_guy: There's another report, actually conducted in Virginia (and most sites not far from where I live) that conclusively demonstrated that extending the yellow interval at problem intersections provided far greater safety benefits than installing RLCs, without the consequent increase in rear-enders that is common with RLC installations.

Also, why not jigger the timing on the red-to-green interval?

Here, in my bumpkinland part of the People's Republic (Californistan), on the intersection between a side road and a main road, there's a delay from when the light turns red going one way to when the lights go green for the other way. Thus, it takes some serious red runnage to cause OMFGBBQ.

/California uses fee income to make up for the "low" taxes & the problem of raising taxes in the People's Republic

You could do that too (that's referred to as an "all-red clearance interval" in case you really cared) but I still prefer to have the yellow light timing set consistently, so drivers have a reasonable expectation of how long the yellow is going to last so they can make the appropriate go/no go decision. And really, there's no reason for that not to be the case, because the ITE has published guidelines for exactly that for decades now.

But still, you have intersections with cameras where if the light turns yellow and you're too close, you have a choice between panic stopping or flooring it and hoping for the best. That shoudn't happen.
 
just_dis_guy
2010-03-13 05:45:30 PM
genner: bhcompy: ramblinwreck: 3rdLostPassword: ramblinwreck: stopping completely at a red light

So you thought that was optional?

Every time you take a right at an intersection when the light is red, you stop completely? RIGHT. Did you even read the rest of my description of the intersection? The right hand lane by-passed the light, creating its own lane...

Doesn't matter if you always obey the rules or not, the rules exist and if you break them you can get caught. Crying about it doesn't change that. Pleading ignorance doesn't help either

Crying about it just got a whole bunch of people in California their money back. That's how our government works. If you don't like it, try complaining.

I thought he was referring to the City of South SF and ATS. They got caught breaking the law, so they should suck it up and deal.
 
GaryPDX [TotalFark]
2010-03-13 05:46:55 PM
genner: Crying about it just got a whole bunch of people in California their money back. That's how our government works. If you don't like it, try complaining.

It seems to me that the State would be liable for greater amounts than the actual fines. All those people had their driving records sullied therefore raising insurance costs as well. Not to mention anyone who might be a commercial driver that potentially could have lost their jobs because of bogus shiat on their driving records. It's a pretty big mess when this shiat happens.
 
nostudme
2010-03-13 05:47:12 PM
Cameras the rectal cancer of enforcement.
 
3rdLostPassword
2010-03-13 05:47:43 PM
GaryPDX: a more acute understanding

Hmmm... on closer inspection it does seem that most systems shoot video continuously but trigger higher resolution still cameras in the event of a violation.

Regardless, I'm hesitant to jump on the Big Brother bandwagon.
 
GaryPDX [TotalFark]
2010-03-13 05:56:20 PM
3rdLostPassword: GaryPDX: a more acute understanding

Hmmm... on closer inspection it does seem that most systems shoot video continuously but trigger higher resolution still cameras in the event of a violation.

Regardless, I'm hesitant to jump on the Big Brother bandwagon.

lol..I used to feel the same way 20 years ago. But I've made my living in the IT Network world over the last couple of decades. The infrastructure is there, all that's missing is the tags. Wait until they start putting RFID chips on your drivers license so anytime you walk by a scanner your location is pinged. Or GPS units on cars for so called "mileage taxes". Your cell phones already track your ass within 9 meters at any given moment, they broadcast locations. That was for IGPS, the 911 emergency network. All cell phones today have it.

All for your safety and convenience, of course. I used to think technology was a cool thing, nowadays, not so much. It's already being way to abused.
 
GaryPDX [TotalFark]
2010-03-13 05:59:56 PM
3rdLostPassword: Regardless, I'm hesitant to jump on the Big Brother bandwagon.

Oh and better yet, Smart Grid technology. They will be monitoring the devices that use electricity in your home and telling you to turn off that TV after 10 oclock..lol.
 
Fano
2010-03-13 06:01:26 PM
GaryPDX: 3rdLostPassword: Regardless, I'm hesitant to jump on the Big Brother bandwagon.

Oh and better yet, Smart Grid technology. They will be monitoring the devices that use electricity in your home and telling you to turn off that TV after 10 oclock..lol.

Personally, I'm going to hate reporting in for reNedufication every time I have a glum thought.
 
Oznog
2010-03-13 06:04:52 PM
ramblinwreck: 3rdLostPassword: ramblinwreck: stopping completely at a red light

So you thought that was optional?

Every time you take a right at an intersection when the light is red, you stop completely? RIGHT. Did you even read the rest of my description of the intersection? The right hand lane by-passed the light, creating its own lane...

It didn't. It really didn't. The law is perfectly clear: stop shy of the stop bar if there's a stop bar. If not, stop shy of the crosswalk. If no crosswalk, stop shy of the intersection.

Dawg47: You remind me of the guy that called me to complain about his speeding ticket. He sounded like Kenneth from '30 Rock' and went into this long, ridiculous explanation: "I'm from Cobb County, but I was using surface streets because of work being done on the connector. There were two 30mph speed limit signs, but you couldn't see either one, and I took pictures. He said I was going 52 but I wasn't driving any faster than anyone else."

Me: "What's the speed limit in urban and residential areas in the state of Georgia unless posted otherwise?"

Him: "Huh?"

Me: "Right. 30 miles per hour."

Him: (Incredulous) "How am I supposed to know that?"

Me: (cutting my wrists with a letter opener)

Actually, he has a VERY valid point. These can be unposted, LOCAL laws. If you took Driver's Ed in one state, that may not be valid in another.

Default residential could be anything. It's 25 mph here in Austin, which is absurdly slow. It's like a school zone. Nobody does 25 mph.

I'd say YOU were being a dick except for the fact that 52 mph is just obviously "too fast" for residential. Even still, there's not always a clear telling of what IS residential. If you've got a paved, straight road with no stop signs which appears to be a main artery, it still COULD be a residential even though it looks like part of the highway.

Plano, Tx dicked around with Park Blvd... thing's a major thoroughfare, 6 lanes. There are houses along it. The residents all have garages going to an alley in back, but they fought the city and got a parking lane in front too. So now it's down to 4 lanes, but it's still a wide, 4-lane thoroughfare with medians and left-turn lanes. But they got the speed limit down to... like 30mph, IIRC. And the cops see it as their cash cow.
 
Resin33
2010-03-13 06:14:35 PM
GaryPDX: genner: Crying about it just got a whole bunch of people in California their money back. That's how our government works. If you don't like it, try complaining.

It seems to me that the State would be liable for greater amounts than the actual fines. All those people had their driving records sullied therefore raising insurance costs as well. Not to mention anyone who might be a commercial driver that potentially could have lost their jobs because of bogus shiat on their driving records. It's a pretty big mess when this shiat happens.

Maybe it is different in California, but my wife wracked up 7 of these tickets when they put a redlight camera on the main drag outside our neighborhood. Since I own the car, I got the tickets. But they can't prove it was me driving so I didn't getGaryPDX: genner: Crying about it just got a whole bunch of people in California their money back. That's how our government works. If you don't like it, try complaining.

It seems to me that the State would be liable for greater amounts than the actual fines. All those people had their driving records sullied therefore raising insurance costs as well. Not to mention anyone who might be a commercial driver that potentially could have lost their jobs because of bogus shiat on their driving records. It's a pretty big mess when this shiat happens.

Not sure how it works in California, but when they put a red light camera on my street last year, my wife earned 7 of these tickets. It was my car, so they were addressed to me. Neither of us got points on our records or insurance hikes. I guess cause they can't prove who is driving... at least the cameras on my street don't have that angle.
 
3rdLostPassword
2010-03-13 06:16:08 PM
GaryPDX: The infrastructure is there, all that's missing is the tags.

Oh, I know. I think, however, that as long as this information is accessible to the public (which it generally is through FOI or leaks,) it's more difficult for 'secret societies' to get away with Big Brother type activities.

It's usually in their interests for there to be less information about someone they'd like to mess with rather than more.

I'm not trying to say that some groups wouldn't like to have fascist control over society, just that it's unlikely they'll succeed given individuals' tendencies towards self-interested action especially in a highly fragmented nation like the USA.

Of note is that 1984 is about Britain, where they've pretty much given up the ghost to this kind of shiat.
 
zahadum party planner
2010-03-13 06:29:35 PM
RottNDude: California Traffic Tickets Fines (Effective 01/06/2010)

Violation / Total Fine Due

VC 12814.6 $214
Failure to obey license provisions.

VC 14600(A) $214
Failure to notify DMV of address change within 10 days
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.

etc, etc, etc

Sweet jesus. First thoguht is "do they kiss you first?" and second thought is: how the fark is that state nearly bankrupt with fines like that?
 
GaryPDX [TotalFark]
2010-03-13 06:31:36 PM
3rdLostPassword: I'm not trying to say that some groups wouldn't like to have fascist control over society, just that it's unlikely they'll succeed given individuals' tendencies towards self-interested action especially in a highly fragmented nation like the USA.

Oh I hear ya. This is the only real saving grace. But it does pay to be aware and know how to "disappear" if necessary.
 
zepplinrules
2010-03-13 06:39:30 PM
In other news, the collective state of California went into even deeper debt today...
 
3rdLostPassword
2010-03-13 06:48:02 PM
GaryPDX: know how to "disappear"

You must not have seen "Ninja Assassin" then. ;)
 
fatassbastard
2010-03-13 07:01:17 PM
95629: $446 per ticket???

That's what I was thinking. Damn... I got a camera ticket in the mail for running a red light in Lynnwood, WA for $128.

$446? Unreal.

StoneColdAtheist: I set my speed control at 9 mph over the posted limit and never even get looked at by cops...

Don't do that on I-5 in Snohomish County, WA. I've seen people get pulled over for 66-68 in a 60 on a couple of occasions.
 
foxo
2010-03-13 07:06:05 PM
Time to end once and for all the "Privatization"racket.
Put those public servants back to work and as a bonus cut their wages 30%,including the ridiculously overpaid flunkies at the top!!
 
foxo
2010-03-13 07:15:18 PM
So, a camera saw a crime committed,which could have ended in death of an innocent person.
With a logic like that I wonder why anybody is still locked up in prison.
(except for the idiot judge and shyster lawyers)
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2010-03-13 07:16:39 PM
Resin33

Ticket cameras issue either real tickets or pure revenue tickets. California has real tickets. There's a revenue motive, of course, but they are real tickets. Arizona used to send out real tickets. Camera got you going 80 worked the same as cop got you going 80. If the camera got you going 120 city police were likely to file reckless driving charges based on the camera ticket. (This happened, and I think it made Fark.)

Cities usually don't want real tickets. Real tickets mean the state takes a big chunk of the revenue and drivers' insurance rates go up and eventually they lose their licenses. Voters don't like that. Drivers don't like that. They go to court to avoid being found guilty and the city ends up doing more work for less money. Much better to make $50 per violation via the parking ticket process, no state surcharge, nothing on your record, nothing on your insurance, no defenses allowed in the hearing that substitutes for traffic court, no reason to fight and every reason to pay up and with luck you'll do it again soon.

As a general rule the systems take pictures of the driver if and only if they are sending real tickets. Real tickets allege that Billy Bob ran a red light. It's important to show that Billy Bob was driving. Pure revenue tickets allege that Billy Bob's car ran a red light and taking a picture of the driver could only distract from the real issue, which is whether Billy Bob would like to pay with cash, money order, or credit card.
 
Britney Spear's Speculum
2010-03-13 07:28:47 PM
AntiNorm: Typical flow of a traffic camera thread on Fark:

* Anti: "Good. Those things are revenue generators.don't stop accidents"
* Pro: "Too bad. Don't want to pay the fine? Don't run the light.yes they do"
* Anti: "But...but...my rights!here's some sources backing up my argument. And these sources actually say the number of accidents are increased"
* Pro: "You don't have the right to run red lights.But...but...but...the constitution guarantees I have the right to say you're wrong!"
* Anti: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAH WHAAARRRRGARBL"pwn


more like it
 
3rdLostPassword
2010-03-13 07:39:25 PM
Britney Spear's Speculum: "here's some sources backing up my argument. And these sources actually say the number of accidents are increased"

There is no consensus on this. In some places accidents decrease after the installation of red light cameras in some places accidents increase.

Personally, I'd prefer if people realized that the minute or two they had to wait for a light or the tiny effort required to be conscious on the road is insignificant compared to the human cost of being in an accident.

Unfortunately folks still have the attitude that they're the only ones not responsible for their actions as well as tying their use of a car to some kind of macho expression of their personality.
 
Nadnerbus
2010-03-13 07:41:10 PM
John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

I don't see how this kind of technology could possibly be used to reduce us to good cogs in a social machine. I mean, if you're not breaking a law, you have nothing to be afraid of, right? And everyone knows every law on the book, so we are all safe.

I personally don't care much about red light cameras. The issues with them bother me, but red light runners are a-holes, so I don't really lose too much sleep. It's the move towards absolute rules enforced with mechanical precision and heartlessness that bothers me. Taking sides early and making it known that we aren't going to be "governed" by computerized law enforcement seems important to me.
 
Britney Spear's Speculum
2010-03-13 07:44:32 PM
3rdLostPassword: Personally, I'd prefer if people realized that the minute or two they had to wait for a light or the tiny effort required to be conscious on the road is insignificant compared to the human cost of being in an accident.

T-bones are the most deadly accident to occur at an intersection besides some asshat speeding 100mph in a 25 zone.

Barely running a red light, the 'supposed' reason these cameras exist in the first place, does not cause these kinds of accidents.

It's the inattentive drivers that cause t-bones.
 
justoneznot
2010-03-13 07:45:05 PM
Whatever happened to that spray stuff you can put on your license plate that's supposed to prevent the cameras from reading your license plate?
 
Fano
2010-03-13 07:45:59 PM
Nadnerbus: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

I don't see how this kind of technology could possibly be used to reduce us to good cogs in a social machine. I mean, if you're not breaking a law, you have nothing to be afraid of, right? And everyone knows every law on the book, so we are all safe.

I personally don't care much about red light cameras. The issues with them bother me, but red light runners are a-holes, so I don't really lose too much sleep. It's the move towards absolute rules enforced with mechanical precision and heartlessness that bothers me. Taking sides early and making it known that we aren't going to be "governed" by computerized law enforcement seems important to me.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Not to worry comrade. We are building a BETTER world. A world without crime. You'll get used to constant surveillance. It is for everyone's protection.


As far as I've watched these threads, the "slippery slope fallacy" has proven not to be a fallacy.
 
3rdLostPassword
2010-03-13 08:03:20 PM
Britney Spear's Speculum: Barely running a red light, the 'supposed' reason these cameras exist in the first place, does not cause these kinds of accidents.

Whatever the case, I don't see any real justification for running red lights beyond "fark this I can't wait two minutes at this intersection."

It's a poor attitude towards driving.
 
SepticSkeptic
2010-03-13 08:07:49 PM
Ummm...

What about the points taken off their licenses?
What about the insurance costs accrued as result?
What about the time and fees lost for those who attended traffic school to remove the points?

Carry on with the lawsuit.
 
3rdLostPassword
2010-03-13 08:14:58 PM
Fano: You'll get used to constant surveillance.

Hyperbole much?

We live in a world with nearly seven billion people. Our Western concept of privacy is one which most of these people have no ability to understand or experience. They would laugh at you for suggesting that these minute intrusions represent anything beyond an example of the luxury you take for granted.

If you are seriously concerned about people horning in on your shiat, man up and live like this guy. (new window)

Otherwise, get used to the fact that we live around other people who do not always act in the best way.
 
Loren
2010-03-13 08:24:35 PM
AntiNorm: Typical flow of a traffic camera thread on Fark:

* Anti: "Good. Those things are revenue generators."
* Pro: "Too bad. Don't want to pay the fine? Don't run the light."
* Anti: "But...but...my rights!"
* Pro: "You don't have the right to run red lights."
* Anti: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAH WHAAARRRRGARBL"

That doesn't sound like it at all.

* Anti: "Good. Those things are just revenue generators."
* Pro: "Too bad. Don't want to pay the fine? Don't run the light."
* Anti:
* Pro: "It reduces crashes."
* Anti:
* Pro: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAH WHAAARRRRGARBL"

rga184: I'm sorry, I guess I don't often go into red light camera threads. I haven't seen a reason why they're inherently bad. Do they ticket people who didn't run the red light or something?

otherwise, what's the problem? you run a red light in front of a cop, you get a ticket. you run a light in front of a camera, you get the same.

/I'm sure I'm missing something, and I'm sure whoever points it out will be very civil about it.

The problem is that red light cameras are used in place of setting the yellow appropriately. A red light camera won't make money at an intersection with a proper yellow.

There's also the problem that they write a lot of tickets for an imperfect right on red. I'm not talking about blowing the light, but rather the guy who slowly rolls up to the point where there is enough visibility to consider a turn, or who stops at the line but doesn't remain stationary for long enough there before rolling forward.

The right-on-red guy who rolls across the stop line at a couple of mph and then stops before the intersection is *NOT* a hazard!

3rdLostPassword: Two wrongs don't make a right.

If you have a valid complaint about a jurisdiction's use of traffic enforcement, by all means pursue it.

If you're ignoring laws and get caught, STFU.

There are no RLCs where I normally drive or in the area I vote in so there's nothing for me to do personally. I can still object to the scam, though.

3rdLostPassword: Britney Spear's Speculum: "here's some sources backing up my argument. And these sources actually say the number of accidents are increased"

There is no consensus on this. In some places accidents decrease after the installation of red light cameras in some places accidents increase.

Personally, I'd prefer if people realized that the minute or two they had to wait for a light or the tiny effort required to be conscious on the road is insignificant compared to the human cost of being in an accident.

Unfortunately folks still have the attitude that they're the only ones not responsible for their actions as well as tying their use of a car to some kind of macho expression of their personality.

Many of those "decreases" are bad data, though.
 
UseLessHuman
2010-03-13 09:03:16 PM
No unmanned machine should be in charge of deciding if a human has broken a law, ever. Haven't we learned anything from Terminator? Cmon people, think!
 
JPINFV
2010-03-13 09:17:46 PM
Joan of Fark: 95629: $446 per ticket???

My speeding ticket in California, 81mph on a highway, was the same amount. I was going the same speed as everyone else. Outfarkingrageous.

I got a ticket (ended up being found "not responsible" at trial) when I was in grad school in Massachusetts for something similar. I spend the next 7 months before I left in the number 2 lane going 55 mph (the speed limit) with cruise control set. I swear, as God as my witness, if I ever get a speeding ticket in California, I'm going to do the same damn thing.

/California native
//65mph speed limit really means 80-85
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
From the Fark Shop:
More from the Fark Shop »