Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Photo Radar

15657585961

Comments

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    larsb said:

    The latest Phoenix-area photo radar stats were announced.

    Injury accidents - down 17%
    Fatalities - down 29%

    In the first 80 days of the program, about 7 fewer people died than usual.

    Photo radar CAN save lives and DOES reduce speeds.

    See my recent post regarding this one.
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    larsb said:

    There you go with the personal attacks again.

    I've been an adult for 27 years, and am an owner of two college degrees. Spent 6 years in the Marine Corps. Make my living with my brain.

    I'm not saying 80-85 is unsafe. I said it's less safe than 70-75 mpg, and if you are unable to grasp the truth of that statement, then I feel for you.

    If you are unable to grasp the fact that more damage is done to human tissue in a higher speed wreck than in a lower speed wreck, then again, I feel for you.

    I'm finished discussing it with you, because it's obvious that only life experience will convince you of the error of your position.

    You get the last word. I'm man enough to let you have it. I'll not comment further on the issue with you.

    To retort, if you brake two bones because you get into an accident at 85, and only one bone due to an accident at 65, but you are likely to have 10 times more accidents at 65 per million miles travelled, I'd rather take my chances with the 1/10th as likely scenario of having double the damage. At least I won't break one bone as often. I could go my whole life without breaking any bones, and that's the whole point.
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    euphonium said:

    I've only one degree and spent four years in the Army followed by 40 years in the casualty insurance business and the later enabled me to agree with you 100%.

    Others who claim statistics of safety may be correct only because crashes are safer to endure due to the advent of air bags, belts, & other devices not available fifty years ago.

    Opposing advocates of your/our position regarding photo radar will continue to violate the law, pay their fines, but never learn driving discipline while forgetting the speed limit sign trumps the keep right sign.

    In summary, your opinion represents the silent majority, not represented in these posts. ;)

    Speed limit signs no more trump the keep right signs than the "do not rob" laws trump "do not assault" laws. They are independent of each other, and enforcing one does not infringe on enforcing the other.
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    larsb said:

    cz75 says, "Speeding doesn't CAUSE accidents. Rather, it exacerbates them."

    Well, as a rule, yes you are correct. Speeding makes an accident worse in almost every case.

    But speeding CAN be a CAUSE also.

    Example: You are driving 40 in a 25 zone. A kid's ball bounces in front of you, and you brake and swerve toward the curb to avoid it. At 25 mph, you might stop before the curb or just bump it. At 40 mph, you more than likely will jump the curb and plow into whatever is there. Thus an accident which would not have occurred without speeding now has occurred because of speeding.

    That's one example that just came to me, but you know there are many others.

    But yes, as a rule, SPEEDING BY ITSELF rarely causes accidents. True.

    The cause of the accident you described is the ball entering your right of way illegally, and driver error for swerving for a ball that I imagine wouldn't cause damage running over it. You are just as likely to avoid that accident by speeding (hence you'd be past the ball before it gets in your way) as you are by going slower.

    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    xrunner2 said:

    Would agree that one should pass in left, move to right to let faster drivers move on in left lane. BUT, there are exceptions. Such as in 3 lane interstate with brisk moving traffic in all lanes at tail end of rush hours, but left lane a little faster then middle and right. If I am in left lane and satisifed with speed AND line of cars ahead of me, there will be intimidators who will tailgate and want me to move over to slower lanes. There are many cars ahead of me and I am keeping a tight, but not tailgater small gap with car ahead of me. My opiinion is that initimidator will not be able to go faster than I am, and I will usually not move over for this situation.

    Sounds like you believe in mob mentality to me. Everyone's looting in Ferguson, so it's OK for me to loot in Ferguson. 19 cars are LLCing in front of me, so it's OK for me to LLC too, making it 20

    Two wrongs don't make a right. 19 Wrongs don't make it right either. :)
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    euphonium said:

    My opiinion is that initimidator will not be able to go faster than I am, and I will usually not move over for this situation.

    And why should you? I agree with your opinion.

    Have you noticed the proponents of driving too fast use all kinds of non applicable reasons for you to get out of their way? They resent you playing "speed cop", expect you to "get out of their way". They imply it is discourteous to prevent them from breaking the speed limit law. They mention "lane discipline" while ignoring "speed discipline".

    Well, their attitude gives me courage to stay at the speed limit in the Left, fast, lane.

    If you don't do your duty by blocking the speeder and he crashes down the road and kills himself, you have aided and abetted his reckless driving by contributing to his selfish and reckless driving style.

    Using your logic, why should I drive the speed limit if EVERYONE Is going over it? Since everyone else is speeding, it makes it okay for me to speed too! But your logic fails the court test, as no judge will accept the "I was just going with the flow" argument to combat a speeding ticket.
    ·
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 46,526
    There are times when personal and legal freedoms are worth a few casualties, and this is, in my personal opinion, one of those times.

    This reminds me of that science fiction...book? movie? about "pre-crime". Remember that, where in some dark future time you can be convicted of a crime based on your profile and your propensity/predictability for committing that crime.

    These speed cameras are a slippery slope that's not going anywhere good. Think about it. A machine is your accuser---not an eye witness. So who do you cross-examine? The camera maintenance person?

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482

    There are times when personal and legal freedoms are worth a few casualties, and this is, in my personal opinion, one of those times.

    This reminds me of that science fiction...book? movie? about "pre-crime". Remember that, where in some dark future time you can be convicted of a crime based on your profile and your propensity/predictability for committing that crime.

    These speed cameras are a slippery slope that's not going anywhere good. Think about it. A machine is your accuser---not an eye witness. So who do you cross-examine? The camera maintenance person?

    Excellent post. I know in CA there are a few greedy camera companies using bribed politicians to try and pass legislation that would effectively take away your due process and right to bring in your accuser "the camera/operator/maintainer, or at a minimum, some rep from RED FLEX and their ilk" These rights seem to reduce the margins with which the system of profit against motorists is running.
    ·
  • berriberri Posts: 4,408
    I read recently that Chicago shortened the yellow for camera intersections and sure enough, accidents increased!
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    larsb said:

    Well, at least in one state, speeding is the number one cause of accidents:

    In fact, reports by the New York State Police show that the following factors (in order) cause the most accidents - and all of them are under the driver's control:

    1. Speeding
    2. Unsafe or too-frequent lane changing
    3. Not using turn signals
    4. Tailgating
    5. Not yielding the right of way
    6. Ignoring traffic signals
    7. Driving while impaired by alcohol or chemicals.


    from this page:

    link title

    More?

    Reckless driving and speeding resulted in 508 deaths in Alabama. The economic cost of speeding related accidents was approximately $534 million in 2004. Source: State Traffic Safety Information – NHTSA – March 2006

    from this page:

    link title

    More?

    Over two-thirds of all drivers felt it was a good idea to use photo enforcement devices to reduce speeding, not obeying stop signs and running red lights. Those who thought photo enforcement was a good idea said it would decrease the occurrence of these unsafe actions and that it would provide solid proof of the violation. Conversely, those who thought it was a bad idea in these three situations, cited privacy concerns and a preference for personal interaction. When asked about using photo enforcement in specific locations, over two-thirds felt the devices would curtail added congestion from the "pullover" scene, particularly in places where it is hazardous to stop. An even higher number of drivers supported the implementation of the photo enforcement devices in locations where crashes frequently occurred (four in five) and in school zones (nine in ten).


    link title

    Those links offer a lot of Insurance Company propaganda and malarkey. No facts or true data.
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    euphonium said:

    Again, OB you have displayed screwed logic. Neither exceeding the SL or robbery is OK.

    Trump = ranks more important. Conforming to the Speed Limit is more important than Keeping Right.

    How do you figure that? Failure to keep right except to pass is responsible for exponentially more accidents than speed limit violations. Also, the Slower traffic keep Right signs all over CA are in BLACK & WHITE!
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    berri said:

    I read recently that Chicago shortened the yellow for camera intersections and sure enough, accidents increased!

    Studies have shown that longer yellow lights are FAR MORE effective at reducing red light collisions than cameras, and furthermore, the yellow lights do not cause a "learning effect" that uniformed people often argue. The "learning effect" I am referring to is the insanely wrong argument that longer yellow lights will cause yellow light runners to be more aggressive knowing the yellow lights are longer.
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    stever said:

    I think reasonable & prudent is on the books so the cops can ticket you if you are driving too fast for conditions but still below the speed limit. The California Highway Patrol stopped a guy I know three times while he was doing the limit during a rain storm - I suppose because when it rarely rains, people forget that the oils on the road make for slick driving. I guess the cops would rather pull you over and tell you to slow down instead of pulling your carcass out with the Jaws of Death tool.

    I think most of those dumb law sites are either apocryphal or they make sense in context. It's not dumb to forbid sweeping litter into the street or keeping bikes off the sidewalks in the city core.

    Reasonable and prudent should be part of any speed law, and the argument that you can get a ticket for going slower than the speed limit is the same for justifying going higher than the speed limit. However, the argument doesn't work for MAXIMUM Speed Limits, which are Absolute. IMO no speed law should exist w/o the reasonable and prudent clause, for a ticket given to someone that didn't create a safety hazard in some way is a waste of resources.

    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    xrunner2 said:

    Re: Post 514

    Photo radar comparison to communism tactic makes no sense. We lose our freedoms when we don't oppose injustice? Where is the injustice?

    Do not see connection between losing a feedom because of photo radar. Are we "free" to drive our vehicles on roads that use photo radar? Has any government authority banned certain individual drivers from driving on roads that employ photo radar?

    Yes, you lose life and liberty. You are detained when you are forced to read the non-sense photo ticket sent to you by mail. You waste time having to go to court to contest and defeat it. Time and money. Life, and Liberty are all lost due to the unjust tickets photo radar are responsible for.

    Also, if speed limits aren't set at 85th percentile, it is basically Entrapment.

    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    larsb said:

    boaz47 says, "Like when you are rushing to the hospital with a family member."

    Those exact same arguments are valid with a Photo Radar ticket also.

    Take your documentation from the hospital with the date and time of the event, and when it matches to the ticket, then BOOM it will be dismissed.

    You are just arguing them with a judge rather than an officer.

    I don't want to have to waste time in my life arguing over complete non-sense with an officer or a judge (which would be EVEN more time consuming). Also, you are not guaranteed a reasonable officer or reasonable judge, so no, having a good excuse or defense won't always work.
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    larsb said:

    Well, since I don't have an ounce of paranoia in my body, I of course feel like it's OK for the police to take what other more paranoid citizens might consider "invasive" tactics.

    If that guy in the case you mentioned had not been growing pot in his house, then he would have never got the attention of the agent who pushed the limits in his desire to get the guy off the street.

    The GOAL was correct. The TACTIC was ruled "no fair!" But in the end, the agent was correct about the pot garden.

    Too often agents are incorrect in their assessments. For example, I would consider a flash bang being thrown in the crib of my infant or toddler right next to their head to be "invasive," and they had the wrong home in that one! Happens way too often
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    larsb said:

    You first of all have one thing in this post COMPLETELY WRONG.

    When you say "Thousands deprived of their due process rights, one at a time." I cannot adequately in this type of forum more strongly state that this is completely untrue.

    You are allowed every possible legal opportunity to defend yourself from any photo radar ticket. You can argue with a judge. You can request a jury trial. You can make every feasible argument.

    Your defense is not hampered ONE IOTA.

    In CA you can't get a jury for traffic court. Your best bet is dragging a real person in for cross examination as to the reliability of that camera's operation.

    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    vcheng said:

    This is a position paper by the IIHS, which is funded by the Insurance companies. It is not a Supreme Court decision as claimed by larsb.

    The author is Shari Kendall, a lawyer working for the IIHS, with a stated goal (per Amicus Curiae briefs filed with the Supreme Court) of "a humanitarian and financial interest in reducing the deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes".

    Hmm, where have I heard this scam before?

    This paper merely tries to lay out strategies using which the use of photo radar may be justified for the benefit of the Insurance Industry, just like they fund the donation of radar guns to police forces by surcharges on insurance premiums caused by speeding tickets.

    It clearly states that To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on an issue directly related to automated traffic enforcement.

    I would think that this falls far short of the airtight logic espoused here as the basis of a firm belief that the use of photo radar has been ruled as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Once all the ramifications are played out in lower courts, and finally are adjudicated before the Supreme Court, then, and only then can the matter be regarded as settled.

    Like I said before, Q.E.D.

    As I get older and older I'm amazed how often the IIHS and other Insurance based organizations are responsible for the spread of misinformation, creating uninformed and uneducated motoring public with incorrect views on traffic safety. The misinformation spread is deliberate, evil, sinister, and calculated.
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    larsb said:

    I may need to clarify something.

    Because I am on the side of what most people here think is a "privacy rights violation" let me say a couple of things.

    I'm just as adamant as anyone else that:

    Laws should reflect the will of the people.
    And those laws should abide by the Constitution.
    And that no police agency has the right to violate anyone's Constitutional rights.
    And that nothing should be allowed which violates those rights.

    I'm just as protective of my personal rights as anyone.

    Where I apparently "part ways" with many on this board is:

    I don't feel ( and it has been shown by repeated court cases ) that anyone has a right to "privacy" while in the public domain. So that alone eliminates the "privacy" complaint of the photo radar opponents.

    I don't feel that getting a photo radar ticket is any different in DUE PROCESS than getting a human-issued ticket. Either way, to win your case, you have to PROVE to a judge that either you were not speeding or that your speed was legally justified. That eliminates the "due process" argument of the photo radar opponents.

    The only conclusion that I can come to is that the REAL reason behind opposition of photo radar systems is that speeders want to be able to speed unimpeded.

    Now, a separate issue, near and dear to the heart of grbeck, is that "speed limits on limited access highways are too slow" meaning that excessive enforcement is a sham.

    I would agree that speed limits in some areas COULD SAFELY be raised. But on one condition: Enforcement, whether by human or machine, should take place at 5+ MPH or greater over the newly higher-set speed limits.

    If traffic engineering study data shows that 85% of the drivers think a particular section of hwy should have a speed limit of 85 mph, then anyone going 90+ should get ticketed. No exceptions. Safe flow 85, then you should be satisfied going 85.

    Give us higher speed limits where it is SAFE to do so, but enforce better to keep drivers in line better.

    If traffic engineering study data shows that 85% of the drivers think a particular section of hwy should have a speed limit of 85 mph, then anyone going 90+ should get ticketed. No exceptions. Safe flow 85, then you should be satisfied going 85.

    I'm all for speed limits set appropriately based on sound traffic engineering principles. Heck, I'd rather the speed limit be set at 90 and ticket anyone going 91. Why allow leeway? The maximum speed is the maximum speed; why is it so hard for people to realize that by definition, that means the highest speed that you can go? You can get a ticket in CA for going 65.0000001 MPH as it currently stands. Real maximum speed limits would be an improvement.
    ·
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 46,526
    Andres3 said: "The misinformation spread is deliberate, evil, sinister, and calculated." (by insurance companies)

    I wouldn't include evil, because that implies that the insurance companies are including a moral component in their strategy, or some agenda toward social experimentation. Their strategy is very unemotional in fact. It is amoral and asocial, not immoral. They don't CARE if you win sometimes and they lose sometimes...they only care that they win most of the time and have black ink at the end of the year. They don't want to punish you, nor do they revel in it--they just want to make money.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    Are their not laws that they should attempt to act in good faith instead of bad faith. Just because they feel it would be hard to convict them (or win a civil judgment on bad faith), doesn't make it right to take advantage of that fact. Otherwise, OJ (if you think he's guilty) wasn't "evil" in killing his ex-wife because he probably knew the "Dream Team" would save him.
    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    larsb said:



    I don't know where you people get off thinking speed does not kill? That's just crazy talk.

    1) http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp (US Dept. of Transportation Study confirms Speed not a significant Causal factor in collisions). Crazy study by Gov't proving what an unbiased study will always show, speed isn't a significant factor in nearly all collisions.

    People going too fast for the conditions or the traffic flow have less time to react to a problem.

    The problem is at fault for the crash, not the "speed."

    Their SPEED being too fast is what allows them to NOT be able to steer out of a problem or stop in time to avoid a problem.

    The problem is to blame, not the speed. Or should we blame the parents of the speeding driver for conceiving the person in the first place?



    ·
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,482
    I haven't heard mention in this forum of the Camera companies sinister attempt to bypass the voters (since photo enforcement always loses a vote of the people), first they fight it getting on the ballot, second, they fight the people over having "jurisdiction" over traffic matters and laws. So when they get voted down, they claim "no fair" that people shouldn't have the right to vote on traffic laws.
    ·
  • eliaselias Posts: 1,992
    edited January 30
    surely the Virginia approach reduces speeding and probably helps keep local/county jails justify their budgets. The Virginia approach sure does slow me : from warp-speed down to barely-idling impulse-power.

    in VA, the legislature & courts have decided to jail people for a few days if they get bagged driving above 81 (?) mph on the highway.

    ... detectors are illegal in VA, and the cops have detector-detectors. yet i have driven past many of them while operating my V1. never faster than 75 however!
    ·
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 46,526
    Nonetheless, whatever occurs at 50 mph will be worse at 75 mph.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

    ·
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,870
    And whatever occurs at 25 will be worse at 50. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Maybe not at limits that are as low or lower than a half century ago.
    ·
  • berriberri Posts: 4,408
    That VA stuff sounds even more ridiculous than all the tax dollars blown on Ohio State Patrol aircraft. I know enough of Virginia to know there are very few places where 81mph is reckless driving territory. Law enforcement in these states has been reduced to cowboys having fun in uniform. Sadly, what it really accomplishes is disrespect for the police and state laws.
    ·
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,870
    When you can't get fired, you can do as you please. Especially when what you do funds your toys and your nice pension and bennies. Respect has to be earned - some of these guys both behind the badge and behind the bench don't seem to grasp that.
    ·
  • berriberri Posts: 4,408
    Arrogance in the courtroom - surely you jest!
    ·
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 46,526
    Pretty soon people who own cars like Dodge Hellcats will have to install treadmills in their backyard to give their cars exercise. What with dashcams and speed traps and cameras, you'll have to wear camouflage paint and sneak out at 3 am and speed on a bridge somewhere, or in a tunnel.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

    ·
Sign In or Register to comment.
Photo Radar - Page 61 - Car Forums at Edmunds.com