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.

(CBS8 San Diego)   City shuts down red-light cameras. Crashes go down. You can't explain that   (cbs8.com) divider line 24
    More: Obvious, Poway  
•       •       •

1973 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Oct 2013 at 10:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-17 10:33:12 AM  
Of course there are fewer accidents. The camera's are there to cause accidents. When people are so pants-shiatting afraid of getting a ticket from the camera they're more likely to do stupid shiat like slam on their brakes when they could make it through, or put the pedal to the floor to race it.

Accidents were really the goal in the first place, accidents make cops jobs easier. They get to inspect your shiat w/o a warrant cause it's all over the road.
 
2013-10-17 10:42:11 AM  
kasmel:
Accidents were really the goal in the first place

So you're saying they were purpose-dents, right?  Axidents often tend to be more like axi-holes.  Kinda like the axiholes who put up the cameras in the first place.
 
2013-10-17 10:47:49 AM  
Sure I can explain it. People drive like blind retards with their hair on fire whether the cameras are there or not. So they race toward the intersection too fast, not paying attention, slam on the brakes when it goes yellow, and the moron behind them who was following too closely rear-ends them. The only thing that changes when the cameras aren't there is that the retard in front blows the red light now and the retard in back doesn't hit him.

Using red light cameras to try and reduce accidents is not wise. You can't fix people's stupid driving habits with technology, you can only punish them for those habits, which should be the real point if you're going to put the cameras up.

If you want to reduce light-related crashes at intersections make the delay between one side going red and the other going green longer and just occasionally sit some cops out there to collect some easy money off the dumbasses who still blow through the red.
 
2013-10-17 10:49:14 AM  

kasmel: Of course there are fewer accidents. The camera's are there to cause accidents. When people are so pants-shiatting afraid of getting a ticket from the camera they're more likely to do stupid shiat like slam on their brakes when they could make it through, or put the pedal to the floor to race it.

Accidents were really the goal in the first place, accidents make cops jobs easier. They get to inspect your shiat w/o a warrant cause it's all over the road.


You want to get rid of accidents, just get rid of the redlights, and the speed limits.  Then people won't be pants-shiatting afraid of getting a ticket, and they won't slam on the brakes, they'll just speed on up and zoom through.  Everybody wins.

EXCEPT THE PIGS OINK OINK
 
2013-10-17 10:59:20 AM  
Way back around 2000, when San Diego first set up red light cameras at a few intersections (such as Grape & Harbor), the incidence of rear-end crashes at those intersections went way, way up. Drivers would stand on the brakes the moment the light turned yellow.

/Predictable consequence is predictable.
 
2013-10-17 11:34:07 AM  

Cybernetic: Way back around 2000, when San Diego first set up red light cameras at a few intersections (such as Grape & Harbor), the incidence of rear-end crashes at those intersections went way, way up. Drivers would stand on the brakes the moment the light turned yellow.

/Predictable consequence is predictable.


Progressive is taking that in the opposite direction.  I have one of those Progressive devices in my car, and I live out in a sort-of-rural area.  The speed limits are mostly 45, with many lights.  The problem is the Progressive device beeps at you if you 'brake hard', and often when going @50, and the light turns yellow, I know I can't make it but the damn thing beeps at me because it thinks I'm braking hard. It's not hard, but it's definitely a 'solid' brake.  My front-end doesn't dip. So technically I may be getting charged more - I wonder how many yellows will be run by people trying to get better insurance rates.
 
2013-10-17 11:52:39 AM  
I demand that Congress take up the Legal Right Turn Rolling Stop on Red Light legislation or I will burn down the Arby's on Route 55.

Mmm, maybe I shoudl get Arby's for lunch today.
 
2013-10-17 12:09:26 PM  
Same thing happened when they removed the cameras from the girls' gym showers.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-10-17 12:09:44 PM  

skozlaw: Sure I can explain it. People drive like blind retards with their hair on fire whether the cameras are there or not. So they race toward the intersection too fast, not paying attention, slam on the brakes when it goes yellow, and the moron behind them who was following too closely rear-ends them. The only thing that changes when the cameras aren't there is that the retard in front blows the red light now and the retard in back doesn't hit him.

Using red light cameras to try and reduce accidents is not wise. You can't fix people's stupid driving habits with technology, you can only punish them for those habits, which should be the real point if you're going to put the cameras up.

If you want to reduce light-related crashes at intersections make the delay between one side going red and the other going green longer and just occasionally sit some cops out there to collect some easy money off the dumbasses who still blow through the red.


Correct. Longer red lights, and a cruiser or two = proper enforcement, reduction of unsafe retards, and appropriate penalties. I don't mind traffic cameras, but they should be keyed to excessively high speeding, and never to generate profits. A city should not run a law enforcement agency like a profit-making venture - that is wrong on a bunch of levels...
 
2013-10-17 12:11:11 PM  

skozlaw: you can only punish them for those habits, which should be the real point if you're going to put the cameras up.


See, that's the problem with cameras.  The best way to stop bad driving behavior is to stop the driver in the act and issue an appropriate punishment.  It's kind of like disciplining a dog or small child; you have to get on them right as it happens (or right after) so that they associate the punishment with the bad behavior and will think twice about doing it next time.

Getting a ticket in the mail a week or so after running a red light doesn't have nearly the same impact as being pulled over by a cop right after doing it.  Cameras don't prevent accidents, they just earn income.  If you want to have any hope of reducing bad driving habits you need an actual police officer pulling over the offenders.  But cities don't want to do that because it's less efficient and brings in less money.
 
2013-10-17 12:29:21 PM  

skozlaw: Sure I can explain it. People drive like blind retards with their hair on fire whether the cameras are there or not. So they race toward the intersection too fast, not paying attention, slam on the brakes when it goes yellow, and the moron behind them who was following too closely rear-ends them. The only thing that changes when the cameras aren't there is that the retard in front blows the red light now and the retard in back doesn't hit him.

Using red light cameras to try and reduce accidents is not wise. You can't fix people's stupid driving habits with technology, you can only punish them for those habits, which should be the real point if you're going to put the cameras up.

If you want to reduce light-related crashes at intersections make the delay between one side going red and the other going green longer and just occasionally sit some cops out there to collect some easy money off the dumbasses who still blow through the red.


I believe the Internet Standard, when wishing to emphasize something, is to block quote it and shout, in big Bold Letters...

THIS
 
2013-10-17 12:37:22 PM  

skozlaw: If you want to reduce light-related crashes at intersections make the delay between one side going red and the other going green longer and just occasionally sit some cops out there to collect some easy money off the dumbasses who still blow through the red.


Or just turn every intersection into a roundabout.
 
2013-10-17 12:42:05 PM  

Dinjiin: skozlaw: If you want to reduce light-related crashes at intersections make the delay between one side going red and the other going green longer and just occasionally sit some cops out there to collect some easy money off the dumbasses who still blow through the red.

Or just turn every intersection into a roundabout.


I love the roundabouts here. It only sucks when a person who doesn't know how to drive through one comes to a complete stop when no traffic is coming.
 
2013-10-17 12:43:46 PM  
The problem is not "hard stops" to avoid a ticket.

The real problem is that the ticket companies intentionally shorten the yellow light and/or refuse to lengthen it.

You see, if the yellow light is too short, they get more tickets, which means more profit.

If you don't have a red light camera, then the police lengthen the light if their are issues, and the corners become safe.

But once you put up a red light camera, this doesn't happen anymore.   Instead, they just let it ticket away.

The problem is compounded in that with more traffic at an intersection, you need a longer yellow light, allowing people waiting to turn to actually turn.

The honest truth is that red light cameras are NOT profitable if the timing of the light is set appropriately for the intersection.   So when you have them there, they either go broke, or create an unsafe situation.
 
2013-10-17 12:52:52 PM  

Dinjiin: skozlaw: If you want to reduce light-related crashes at intersections make the delay between one side going red and the other going green longer and just occasionally sit some cops out there to collect some easy money off the dumbasses who still blow through the red.

Or just turn every intersection into a roundabout.


Not sure if serious - but regardless: THIS!!!

Ok, maybe not every intersection, but at lower volume ones they should at least be considered.

If the intersection is known to be dangerous and there are constanly crashes, maybe the problem is with the intersection.
 
2013-10-17 01:47:53 PM  

skozlaw: Sure I can explain it. People drive like blind retards with their hair on fire whether the cameras are there or not. So they race toward the intersection too fast, not paying attention, slam on the brakes when it goes yellow, and the moron behind them who was following too closely rear-ends them. The only thing that changes when the cameras aren't there is that the retard in front blows the red light now and the retard in back doesn't hit him.

Using red light cameras to try and reduce accidents is not wise. You can't fix people's stupid driving habits with technology, you can only punish them for those habits, which should be the real point if you're going to put the cameras up.

If you want to reduce light-related crashes at intersections make the delay between one side going red and the other going green longer and just occasionally sit some cops out there to collect some easy money off the dumbasses who still blow through the red.


better yet, put up timers informing drivers how long until the light turns yellow...then they know if they should start to prepare to stop or if they have enough time to easily make it.  The more information available to a driver, the better decisions they can make.
 
2013-10-17 02:07:32 PM  
skozlaw:

There you go talking sense again. Silly farker.
 
2013-10-17 02:12:28 PM  
Red light cameras are a huge racket and have nothing to do with safety. A company came in and lobbied our city council to put them in a couple years ago. They had a guy come up and tearfully testify about his daughter that was killed by someone running a red light. sad story until the local newspaper revealed the next day that this guy never had a daughter and just happened to be a majority stockholder in the company installing the cameras.

Needless to say, by throwing money at the local politicians they got their red light cameras installed. Now with each $150 ticket, half of the money goes to this private company located in a different state and half the money the city keeps.

Meanwhile, accidents at red lights have not gone down.


BTW, what I find most disgusting about the cameras is that they make the majority of their money on people who are turning right on red but don't come to a complete stop. That has nothing to do with safety.
 
2013-10-17 03:18:05 PM  
Amazingly, lenghtening the yellow light time made a lot of red light cameras unprofitable. 
Also most states have guidelines about said lenght of yellow and many cities were caught making them illegally short, and had to pay back millions in tickets. 

My town has one photo radar for speeding. At the top of a hill. Simply because people were not slowing down enough for the coming traffic light. Accidents between the radar and said light went from few a week to almost none. Those are the the cameras that work. Not those who print out tickets in a place where the speed limit is artificially low.
 
2013-10-17 06:51:50 PM  
I hate these, I swear there are at least 30 of these I go threw each and everyday and they are NOT accurate.  I got a $70 ticket a month ago when I was clearly behind a white van stopped at a red light.  Taking off work and going to court (not to mention wasting a whole day being bored *cough* no cellphones) would have been way more than $70 so I just paid it but it still pisses me off.
 
2013-10-18 07:41:23 AM  

wesmon: Red light cameras are a huge racket and have nothing to do with safety. A company came in and lobbied our city council to put them in a couple years ago. They had a guy come up and tearfully testify about his daughter that was killed by someone running a red light. sad story until the local newspaper revealed the next day that this guy never had a daughter and just happened to be a majority stockholder in the company installing the cameras.

Needless to say, by throwing money at the local politicians they got their red light cameras installed. Now with each $150 ticket, half of the money goes to this private company located in a different state and half the money the city keeps.

Meanwhile, accidents at red lights have not gone down.


BTW, what I find most disgusting about the cameras is that they make the majority of their money on people who are turning right on red but don't come to a complete stop. That has nothing to do with safety.


Right on red without stopping has "nothing to do with safety"? I can tell you never walk anywhere, since it's one of the more common ways for drivers to hit pedestrians. Pedestrians sometimes cross from the right, but RoR motorists mostly pay attention to what is on their left (looking for a gap in traffic). Rolling the red light compounds this by reducing the time to assess the situation.

Getting nailed for RoR is entirely appropriate and IS related to safety. It's still running a red light, and it's pointless. They would put up a yield sign instead if rolling it is okay.
 
2013-10-18 08:09:20 AM  

tarkin1: The problem is not "hard stops" to avoid a ticket.

The real problem is that the ticket companies intentionally shorten the yellow light and/or refuse to lengthen it.

You see, if the yellow light is too short, they get more tickets, which means more profit.

If you don't have a red light camera, then the police lengthen the light if their are issues, and the corners become safe.

But once you put up a red light camera, this doesn't happen anymore.   Instead, they just let it ticket away.

The problem is compounded in that with more traffic at an intersection, you need a longer yellow light, allowing people waiting to turn to actually turn.

The honest truth is that red light cameras are NOT profitable if the timing of the light is set appropriately for the intersection.   So when you have them there, they either go broke, or create an unsafe situation.


Where I live, not only did they shorten the yellow lights, they changed the light pattern.  For instance, on my way to work there is an intersection that would have a right turn arrow when all the other lights facing that direction were red.  The arrow would stay green into the next cycle where the other lane's lights turned green.  Well, now that arrow cycles to red, pauses for about 2 seconds, then turns green with the other lights.  A friend I work with got 2 right on red letters within a week because he thought he wasn't doing anything wrong.

Oh, another thing.  Here the cameras don't actually issue tickets, they send bills.  You don't get anything on your driver's record if you don't pay, it just goes on your credit history.  I'm sure that has something to do with a third party analyzing the cameras rather than the police.
 
2013-10-18 08:37:34 AM  
Where I live, those tickets aren't legally enforceable so people just throw them in the trash, according to some of my coworkers.
 
2013-10-18 02:03:29 PM  
Mnemia: Right on red without stopping has "nothing to do with safety"? I can tell you never walk anywhere, since it's one of the more common ways for drivers to hit pedestrians. Pedestrians sometimes cross from the right, but RoR motorists mostly pay attention to what is on their left (looking for a gap in traffic).

1) You're assuming there is traffic.

2) You're assuming that the driver didn't check for pedestrians "most" is not a reason to penalize everyone.

// But in your favor though, people are supposed to stop before making a right on red. However, IMO, this is one of those letter of the law vs spirit of the law things. It's one thing to turn right on red when pedestrians are clearly present. But there are other situations where there are obviously no peds around.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report