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.

(WTOP)   Maryland discovers that they can increase the $afety generated by red light cameras if they expand the net a bit. Potential new customers: people who didn't run a red light, people who might have thought about running a red light   (wtop.com) divider line 142
    More: Stupid, Rockville, red light cameras, red lights, camera tickets, WTOP, Cameras Ticket  
•       •       •

10975 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2013 at 12:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-11 02:59:09 PM
As someone who was just slammed into by a woman who ran a red light, I'm actually OK with this. I was "lucky" that she slammed me into somebody else so that person could act as my witness. It would have really sucked if the third party wasn't involved because the car behind me at the light just took off.


So yeah, I can safely say that I am not against red light cameras.

And if all four of your tires go past the white lines... you probably aren't paying enough attention.
 
2013-02-11 03:06:46 PM
As someone who has seen 3 near misses for people breaking suddenly for yellows (and one where it actually caused a minor collision), I can safely say I'm against Red Light Cameras.

That's in the last 30 days. US HWY 41 in Illinois is a major road and should be treated as such.
 
2013-02-11 03:07:51 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: If you nitwits would STOP at red lights, you wouldn't have a problem. Also, if you weren't so damn "NO TAXES EVAR !!!!" then traffic fines and other government money-collecting schemes would go away. But, since taxes are bad, we get huge fees and fines. Which of course don't bother rich people, so they get to flout the law. Only the poors actually get in trouble.


Don't kid yourself - cops are pretty much like any government so-called "service".  They can NEVER have enough money or officers. It's human nature to build up your empire if you can just keep asking for and getting more every time.
 
2013-02-11 03:16:23 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: If you nitwits would STOP at red lights, you wouldn't have a problem. Also, if you weren't so damn "NO TAXES EVAR !!!!" then traffic fines and other government money-collecting schemes would go away. But, since taxes are bad, we get huge fees and fines. Which of course don't bother rich people, so they get to flout the law. Only the poors actually get in trouble.


Sigh. You'll learn, young grasshopper.
 
2013-02-11 03:17:43 PM
The signal was yellow, sir.
 
2013-02-11 03:19:28 PM
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ IT'S ALL ABOUT TRAFFIC SAFETY $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

/Think of the children???
 
2013-02-11 03:27:09 PM

doglover: Send them a picture of your money.


I read of someone who did that...

The police sent them a picture of a pair of handcuffs.

They paid the fine.
 
2013-02-11 03:38:53 PM

shaunmark: Yeah, she goes through the red light, with some speed, on a right turn. But you can clearly see from the intersection the lane in front of her has a leading green and is turning left. Therefore, there is no where else a car can be coming from to enter her lane. What they should do is put up a green arrow for turning right, but they won't do that. They should change the law to yield when turning right on red, because really, everyone rolls though. I don't think I've seen a car come to a full stop in a while. Just because "IT IS A LAW" is a bad reason to ticket, especially when the traffic system isn't designed in a way to expedite all traffic as quickly as possible.


Also, if pedestrians are the question:  No pedestrian should be in the intersection in that configuration.  It could be safer than actually stopping because of rear ending.

I would love to follow around one of the "*smug* don't break the law then" people around for a day with the authority to ticket/arrest them.  Unfortunately, it's the only thing that changes the "NOT ME" crowds point of view.
 
2013-02-11 03:41:07 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: If you nitwits would STOP at red lights, you wouldn't have a problem. Also, if you weren't so damn "NO TAXES EVAR !!!!" then traffic fines and other government money-collecting schemes would go away. But, since taxes are bad, we get huge fees and fines. Which of course don't bother rich people, so they get to flout the law. Only the poors actually get in trouble.


Meh, 1/10. You'll get a bite or two.
 
2013-02-11 03:45:26 PM

jmr61: I have no problems with this. As a pedestrian I've had to walk around MANY cars that were way too far into the intersection and when I look at them they either are playing on their phone or feign not understanding what the problem is.  Or they are that stupid.  FARK THEM.

As to rolling stops and turns, FARKING STOP. It takes two seconds.

Been driving almost 40 years with one speeding ticket when I was about 20.

/And get off my lawn.


This.  If you stop completely blocking the crosswalk, I will march right across the hood of your car rather than detour into traffic.  And your "rolling stop" is not a stop of any kind.  While you're looking left, you're running over me.. Fark you sideways with a large Mexican cactus!
 
2013-02-11 03:45:50 PM

arghyematey: As someone who was just slammed into by a woman who ran a red light, I'm actually OK with this. I was "lucky" that she slammed me into somebody else so that person could act as my witness. It would have really sucked if the third party wasn't involved because the car behind me at the light just took off.


So yeah, I can safely say that I am not against red light cameras.

And if all four of your tires go past the white lines... you probably aren't paying enough attention.


Serious question.  Do you honestly believe a red light camera would have prevented that accident?  Do you think the person who isn't paying attention enough to avoid running into you would have noticed a little box on the corner?  Do you think that ROR is inherently dangerous or the people who aren't paying attention?

Have you read any of the more in-depth studies of red-light cameras?  Or does it just sound like a good idea?
 
2013-02-11 03:50:16 PM

Nutsac_Jim: "I was floored. I am a safe and careful driver and as I approached this particular three-way intersection at West Gude Drive and Gaither Road on Aug. 7, I made the judgment that, since no traffic was coming from my left because the opposite intersection was turning left, this was a safe turn, " says driver Maggie Lora in an email to WTOP.

What the hell.. she didnt even get anywhere close to stopping.  Didnt compress her struts...nothing.
She looked just like she would have, if the light was green and she turned right.

She deserves the ticket.


She deserves to die in a fiery crash.

"Safe and careful," my pretty, pink rosebud.
 
2013-02-11 04:07:51 PM

IRQ12: arghyematey: As someone who was just slammed into by a woman who ran a red light, I'm actually OK with this. I was "lucky" that she slammed me into somebody else so that person could act as my witness. It would have really sucked if the third party wasn't involved because the car behind me at the light just took off.


So yeah, I can safely say that I am not against red light cameras.

And if all four of your tires go past the white lines... you probably aren't paying enough attention.

Serious question.  Do you honestly believe a red light camera would have prevented that accident?  Do you think the person who isn't paying attention enough to avoid running into you would have noticed a little box on the corner?  Do you think that ROR is inherently dangerous or the people who aren't paying attention?

Have you read any of the more in-depth studies of red-light cameras?  Or does it just sound like a good idea?


Who knows if it would have been prevented? Probably not. Really, I just would have liked to have a record of the fact that it wasn't my fault. Like I said, luckily I didn't need it because there was another witness involved, but I could have been screwed. Or not, who knows.

I don't think a lot of people really pay attention to the cameras. I know that I don't, unless there is a sign in the area. I do think there are some areas that could benefit from having red light cameras- such as the intersection where I was hit. I personally have seen a different car run through that intersection before, and a few friends have seen the same thing. It might not hurt to crack down on that area a little bit- I hardly ever even see police presence there, and it's the street that I live on.

As far as how the city officials handle the red light ticketing, I think it can vary from city to city whether it is used for safety or $afety. I have no doubt that for many cities, it is purely profit. I doubt that would be the case for every city though.

I've never really looked into studies of red light cameras but I don't think they are necessarily a bad thing. I don't think that ROR is bad either but if there is a sign that says not to do it, I don't do it.
 
2013-02-11 04:08:50 PM

Tricky Chicken: But as a training tool, punishment weeks after an infraction is much less effective than immediate punishment.


You have no reason to say that. You're comparing training animals to conform to a certain unknown norm to punishing humans for deviating from the norm they knew they were expected to conform to in the first place.

In fact, I think your idea of immediate reinforcement would be less effective overall. When people get hit with a speeding ticket, do you think they tend to actually slow down, or do you think they just learn to watch for a cop at that specific spot?
 
2013-02-11 04:31:58 PM

CliChe Guevara: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: If you nitwits would STOP at red lights, you wouldn't have a problem.

If it wasn't for the fact that this specific setup also happens by definition to nail people making a legal right-turn-on-red, I would agree with you.


That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
If you're making a right on red, you have to stop first. As is explained in the article.
 
2013-02-11 04:32:49 PM

JackieRabbit: FTFA: "Rockville City Police argue officers are simply enforcing the law enhancing city revenues."


If it were me, revenue from citations would be remanded to the public, (government sends you a check every year) the state wouldn't be able to keep a dime.
 
2013-02-11 04:34:32 PM
Easy solution: no money is allowed to be involved in issues of crime.

Done.
 
2013-02-11 04:37:51 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: If you nitwits would STOP at red lights, you wouldn't have a problem. Also, if you weren't so damn "NO TAXES EVAR !!!!" then traffic fines and other government money-collecting schemes would go away. But, since taxes are bad, we get huge fees and fines. Which of course don't bother rich people, so they get to flout the law. Only the poors actually get in trouble.


Yeah, ok. Or the more likely scenario: they'd just spend the new tax money and the keep the fines.
 
2013-02-11 04:47:38 PM
It has been many years since I took any psychology classes, but I think this would fall into the realm of operant conditioning (probably totally wrong here).  I think that is the one where you perform

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Tricky Chicken: But as a training tool, punishment weeks after an infraction is much less effective than immediate punishment.

You have no reason to say that. You're comparing training animals to conform to a certain unknown norm to punishing humans for deviating from the norm they knew they were expected to conform to in the first place.

In fact, I think your idea of immediate reinforcement would be less effective overall. When people get hit with a speeding ticket, do you think they tend to actually slow down, or do you think they just learn to watch for a cop at that specific spot?


He has plenty of reason to say that. Operant conditioning is well established in human psychology. In fact, while I'm writing this, I'm listening to a therapist using it on my son, as part of a program that has been very effective.

I do, however, disagree with

Tricky Chicken: Red light and speed cameras are supposed to be around to 'train' us to obey the law through the use of punishment.


These laws were made by lawyers, not by trained psychologists. And they are effective in getting a subset of people to stop. I drove carefully when I was broke, because I couldn't afford a ticket. But that wasn't because of a behavior correction, it was because a cost benefit analysis said the cost was too high and the gain was too little.

And, as always, whether tickets are about revenue or behavior correction remains irrelevant. The law is what the law is. If you don't like it, change it.
 
2013-02-11 04:49:08 PM
Eh, I screwed up the quoting in that previous post. Ignore everything before "Vegan Meat Popsicle:"
 
2013-02-11 04:53:46 PM

arghyematey:  I don't think that ROR is bad either but if there is a sign that says not to do it, I don't do it. ...


I concur and there are definitely places where it is generally unsafe to do so.  I have no problem with sane minded enforcement to improve safety.  Usually improved safety comes from better lighting, road design, etc anyway.  Every city has those select intersections that are death traps on a daily basis while most of the others have little incident.

As for the video in this incident it is basically displaying a completely reasonable ROR without a complete stop.  It is a right turn only, with the opposing traffic blocked by a left turn single and a clear and unobstructed view of the upcoming lane of travel and the crosswalks.  Someone coming to a complete and full stop before the line in that scenario would be a nuisance, impeding traffic flow.

Ever follow behind a student driver driving 'perfectly'?
 
2013-02-11 05:32:15 PM
A second new violation in Rockville is the rolling right turn, or when a driver doesn't come to a complete stop before turning right on red.

Are there any statistics that show that rolling-rights-on-red kill people?
 
2013-02-11 05:34:25 PM
As a resident of Rockville, fark that camera on Gude Dr (The one shown in the video). That POS seems to trigger at random, even when people are fully stopped there.

That said, I have no sympathy for the woman who rolled right through it like that.
 
2013-02-11 05:53:35 PM
It's RIGHT TURN ON RED AFTER STOP. What is so hard about that?
Quit sniveling and obey the law.
 
2013-02-11 07:15:01 PM

Krieghund: Operant conditioning is well established in human psychology


And I'm arguing that's not, fundamentally, what's happening here nor is it what's supposed to be happening. Punishment and classical conditioning are not inherently the same thing.
 
2013-02-11 07:16:10 PM

Bendal: yves0010: Endive Wombat: I fail to understand why they do not increase yellow light times and put in a visible yellow timer.  I have no idea if this will increase safety, but I like to think it would.

Simple. That makes sense, it takes money they either do not have or do not want to spend and it will cut into their money making schemes using the Red Light cams.

Never, ever, seen a yellow light countdown timer. Why bother? Yellow times are typically only 2-4 seconds long. By the time you recognized what it was doing, the timer would be nearly over and changing to red anyway.

/got a ticket making a right turn on red, didn't stop
//motorcycle police was in the lane next to me when I did it
///just pulled over and waited on him


My comments will be about replacing the yellow with a countdown timer displayed when the green is before it goes yellow.  There may be other types of count down lights too.  It will show green on the top (or bottom) and the middle globe will have a countdown starting at something between 5 and 19 seconds and at a count of 2 to 4 it will turn yellow and the number will disappear.  (The ones I've seen count down to the red at zero but some count down to so zero is when the yellow turns on)

The yellow count down timers have been shown to decrease red light camera revenue to close to zero.  They are showing up in more and more SE Asian traffic lights as well as in China and they seem to work.
Our local traffic department found a survey that say the pedestrian count downs don't work but they used a bunch of university kids as subjects and not elderly people so their stats are all bogus.

My traffic department also sent a very nice letter full of lies to my local elected official saying the same thing about the yellows being only 2 to 4 seconds long.  While the yellow is only a few seconds, the controller may know how long the yellow will be long before it switches.  In complex intersections, you may have a secondary light that turns red but has to give enough time for the cars with greens to clear a second intersection and that green can have a count down that could be 12 or more seconds.  Complex intersections are also the ones that have the most accidents with people running the red lights.  They are also are the places were more frustrated drivers are willing to break the rules.

/Also can anyone name a company that makes cameras that can be used as drop in replacements for the current loop sensors used to trigger the signals?  I'm hunting for ones that can detect emergency lights as well but I've had no luck.
 
2013-02-11 07:19:28 PM

wambu: A second new violation in Rockville is the rolling right turn, or when a driver doesn't come to a complete stop before turning right on red.

Are there any statistics that show that rolling-rights-on-red kill people?


I am sure there are, most of which are probably people speeding around corners and not paying attention to what they are doing.

Here is an article from Montreal they had 5 deaths over 7 years, we can assume they were all rolling (probably a lot more than rolling, drunk etc):

http://spacing.ca/montreal/2010/08/19/no-right-on-red-was-a-good-cho ic e-for-montreal-mtq/
 
2013-02-11 07:21:30 PM
The article stated that it caught every car going faster than 13 mph, and I think we have our solution.  When you see a yellow light, hit brakes and drop to 8 or 10 mph before continuing on through without notice by the cameras.  I am sure it will irritate more than a few folks who has to wait for you to clear the intersection, but no ticket for you.
 
2013-02-11 07:31:51 PM

jmr61: I have no problems with this. As a pedestrian I've had to walk around MANY cars that were way too far into the intersection and when I look at them they either are playing on their phone or feign not understanding what the problem is.  Or they are that stupid.  FARK THEM.

As to rolling stops and turns, FARKING STOP. It takes two seconds.

Been driving almost 40 years with one speeding ticket when I was about 20.

/And get off my lawn.


I haven't had a ticket in decades. My problem is that the cameras degrade the quality of life for all drivers, even safe drivers like me.

Dangerous drivers overcorrect at intersections or whenever they think they see a speed camera and now I have to deal with their over braking. Not only that but I'm always under a constant feeling of nervousness that what I think is safe driving might still trigger a camera.

If we were instantly ticketed for every infraction possible by a flawless computer, even the best driver in the US would rack up thousands in fines over a 100 mile trip. Traffic laws are not written with 100% enforcement of even the slightest infraction in mind.
 
2013-02-11 07:35:46 PM

lack of warmth: The article stated that it caught every car going faster than 13 mph, and I think we have our solution.  When you see a yellow light, hit brakes and drop to 8 or 10 mph before continuing on through without notice by the cameras.  I am sure it will irritate more than a few folks who has to wait for you to clear the intersection, but no ticket for you.


Its a trap. At that speed you won't clear the intersection in time and they will bust you for the regular red light running instead of the slipped too far parts the white line infraction.

When the photo shows a red light and your car in the intersection, the judge who hates his life for being stuck in traffic court will side with the machine because it is easier to do that.
 
2013-02-11 07:35:49 PM
Again, people, the woman in TFA was not doing a rolling, or California, stop. She blew that light. A rolling stop is when your speed is just barely over zero: "stopped" enough to satisfy all definitions of stop except the legal one. You can even argue that people slowing down to a couple of MPH for a second before resuming travel are close enough to stopped that they should receive a warning rather than a ticket. I don't agree, but you could argue it. This lady met absolutely no definition of "stopped".
 
2013-02-11 07:47:09 PM
FTA:
"First, they capture drivers who are going more than 13 mph and stop with all four tires ahead of the white line, regardless of whether the driver backed up behind the line afterward.  "

Anyone who backs up on the road should be shot on sight.  The only exception is if they are backing into a parallel space or backing out of one of those roadside angled spaces.
 
2013-02-11 07:50:49 PM

Warthog: I got one of these rolling right turn tickets in Delaware a couple months ago, at about 7:00 AM on a Sunday morning when there was zero traffic around.  But I viewed the video, said "yup, that's me," and paid the ticket.  Is it stupid?  Yes.  Is it technically illegal?  Yes.

the moral of this story?  Wilmington, Delaware blows donkey dick.


Don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration and it sucks that you got a ticket.  But for as long as I have been driving a rolling right turn has always been illegal, and that's been over 20 years now.  What I don't get is how many people think this is not the case.  If there had been a police officer standing there instead of the camera would it make a difference?

And while we're on that subject, would you pay increased taxes to support that police officer standing there?  Or would you rather have a camera which is much cheaper in the long run and doesn't increase taxes?  Or, as I feel, would you much rather have these stupid drivers obey the farking law and stop at the damn red light like they're farking supposed to?

/mostly rhetorical
 
2013-02-11 07:58:52 PM

IRQ12: wambu: A second new violation in Rockville is the rolling right turn, or when a driver doesn't come to a complete stop before turning right on red.

Are there any statistics that show that rolling-rights-on-red kill people?

I am sure there are, most of which are probably people speeding around corners and not paying attention to what they are doing.

Here is an article from Montreal they had 5 deaths over 7 years, we can assume they were all rolling (probably a lot more than rolling, drunk etc):

http://spacing.ca/montreal/2010/08/19/no-right-on-red-was-a-good-cho ic e-for-montreal-mtq/


Well, that's my argument. The normal slow-speed rolling right on red is not some God-awful threat to public safety the camera-mongers make it out to be. I would be better with the damn cameras if the police and city leaders would just admit that they are all about the revenue and not some BS about safety. Not that they should manipulate light timing to increase violations or anything, but if people are stupid or careless  enough to egregiously violate the law, they deserve a ticket. A real ticket.
 
2013-02-11 08:53:34 PM
These threads always amaze me with the number of posters who try to justify their breaking of traffic laws and poor driving.

My amazement aside, I was amused by this tidbit FTA: However, Rockville police say it's about protecting pedestrians, bicyclists and others who use the crosswalk.

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out who else would be using the crosswalk besides pedestrians, and why are there cyclists there? (unless they are walking their bikes which was the rule where I grew up back in the days when we all had onions on our handlebars.)
 
2013-02-11 09:07:45 PM

Kaenneth: doglover: Send them a picture of your money.

I read of someone who did that...

The police sent them a picture of a pair of handcuffs.

They paid the fine.


In most if not all places, Red Light Camera citations are a civil violation, not a criminal.  You're not going to get arrested for it.  Treat them like parking tickets.
 
2013-02-11 09:26:31 PM
When I was taking traffic engineering classes in the late 80s, the concept that everyone would never exceed the speed limit was an engineers wet dream.  Victoria Australia used to have one of the highest compliance rates in the world with their 3% tolerance tickets.  The result of that little experiment was that the number of deaths stayed about the same yet the congestion went way up and the total km driven went down.  So their death rate per mile increased.  The cops had a strike (much like the one in Okla in the 80's) and when people thought they wouldn't get a ticket, they drove faster.  Road congestion eased a bit and the accident rate dropped.  The cops started issuing tickets again and the accident rate went back up.  The tight tolerance has been lifted a bit and the accident rate is once again dropping slowly.  The interesting thing is the accident rate should have dropped far more because more newer cars are on the road with more safety features but the expected drop from that hasn't been seen in nearly 5 years.   So maybe giving tickets out for 2 mph over the limit on highways isn't such a good idea.
 
2013-02-11 09:30:50 PM

ShamanGator: I have no problems with this. As a pedestrian I've had to walk around MANY cars that were way too far into the intersection and when I look at them they either are playing on their phone or feign not understanding what the problem is.  Or they are that stupid.  FARK THEM.

I fully agree. The best look I ever got was the old lady trying to figure out why I walked over the hood of her car. Made more sense than walking into oncoming cars.


You sound like a self-righteous dick. Are you from Portland, perchance? Is it impossible to walk behind the vehicle? Have you ever heard of a concept called line-of-sight? The traffic engineers willfully disregard that concept here so drivers are forced to pull way up just to see the cross-traffic.
 
2013-02-11 11:25:59 PM
sheep,

burn the cameras, oust the politicos who voted for them.

V
 
2013-02-12 12:44:21 AM
As someone who has driven across the Mad Max expanse of suicide asphalt we call the Baltimore - DC area many times, I'm definitely OK with this.

FTA:
"It's not intentional. If the driver were being intentional, they would go completely through the intersection. They were trying to do the right thing, but misjudged when the light would turn red. And to slap them with a $75 ticket, that's patently unfair," says Townsend.

Bullshiat, I see this on a daily basis.  Those lines that are about 20' feet from a tight intersection?  Those are so cars, buses, and trucks can turn without turning your snowflake's SUV into giant wads of failure.  A light can sit red for 2 seconds or 45 seconds, and some asshat will inevitably cross the white line, the crosswalk, and nose into the cross street's right lane just to be the first 'off the line' when the light changes.  Welcome to Fark Maryland DC Ah, fark it.

Asshats get tickets?
img853.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-12 11:10:37 AM

Krieghund: It has been many years since I took any psychology classes, but I think this would fall into the realm of operant conditioning (probably totally wrong here).  I think that is the one where you perform Vegan Meat Popsicle: Tricky Chicken: But as a training tool, punishment weeks after an infraction is much less effective than immediate punishment.

You have no reason to say that. You're comparing training animals to conform to a certain unknown norm to punishing humans for deviating from the norm they knew they were expected to conform to in the first place.

In fact, I think your idea of immediate reinforcement would be less effective overall. When people get hit with a speeding ticket, do you think they tend to actually slow down, or do you think they just learn to watch for a cop at that specific spot?

He has plenty of reason to say that. Operant conditioning is well established in human psychology. In fact, while I'm writing this, I'm listening to a therapist using it on my son, as part of a program that has been very effective.

I do, however, disagree with
Tricky Chicken: Red light and speed cameras are supposed to be around to 'train' us to obey the law through the use of punishment.

These laws were made by lawyers, not by trained psychologists. And they are effective in getting a subset of people to stop. I drove carefully when I was broke, because I couldn't afford a ticket. But that wasn't because of a behavior correction, it was because a cost benefit analysis said the cost was too high and the gain was too little.

And, as always, whether tickets are about revenue or behavior correction remains irrelevant. The law is what the law is. If you don't like it, change it.


I liked how he kept trying to credit me with coming up with the theory behind operant conditioning though.  Obviously I don't have a strong understanding of conditioning in general.
 
2013-02-12 11:30:28 AM

Tricky Chicken: Krieghund: It has been many years since I took any psychology classes, but I think this would fall into the realm of operant conditioning (probably totally wrong here).  I think that is the one where you perform Vegan Meat Popsicle: Tricky Chicken: But as a training tool, punishment weeks after an infraction is much less effective than immediate punishment.

You have no reason to say that. You're comparing training animals to conform to a certain unknown norm to punishing humans for deviating from the norm they knew they were expected to conform to in the first place.

In fact, I think your idea of immediate reinforcement would be less effective overall. When people get hit with a speeding ticket, do you think they tend to actually slow down, or do you think they just learn to watch for a cop at that specific spot?

He has plenty of reason to say that. Operant conditioning is well established in human psychology. In fact, while I'm writing this, I'm listening to a therapist using it on my son, as part of a program that has been very effective.

I do, however, disagree with
Tricky Chicken: Red light and speed cameras are supposed to be around to 'train' us to obey the law through the use of punishment.

These laws were made by lawyers, not by trained psychologists. And they are effective in getting a subset of people to stop. I drove carefully when I was broke, because I couldn't afford a ticket. But that wasn't because of a behavior correction, it was because a cost benefit analysis said the cost was too high and the gain was too little.

And, as always, whether tickets are about revenue or behavior correction remains irrelevant. The law is what the law is. If you don't like it, change it.

I liked how he kept trying to credit me with coming up with the theory behind operant conditioning though.  Obviously I don't have a strong understanding of conditioning in general.


I'll give you a dollar if you can teach me the basics late this afternoon.
 
Displayed 42 of 142 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report