lol, the other version I've hear is - are you happily married? A. No, but my wife is.
I agree that it's (generally) better to let the seller name the price - having this discussion right now about selling our house. I told the hot lead we have that we have a decorative viga (a "stick") that's rotten and needs replacement. My wife said I shouldn't be talking the house down.
But we knew about it from our home inspection, I intend to share our inspection with this couple, and I'll encourage them to get their own inspection (we're talking maybe a $300 repair). Why play hide the ball, especially with something that's obvious?
I dunno, it's a bit different because we don't have to sell and if the numbers don't work we won't.
The best negotiating tool anyone can have is the freedom to walk away from a deal.
lol, the other version I've hear is - are you happily married? A. No, but my wife is.
I agree that it's (generally) better to let the seller name the price - having this discussion right now about selling our house. I told the hot lead we have that we have a decorative viga (a "stick") that's rotten and needs replacement. My wife said I shouldn't be talking the house down.
But we knew about it from our home inspection, I intend to share our inspection with this couple, and I'll encourage them to get their own inspection (we're talking maybe a $300 repair). Why play hide the ball, especially with something that's obvious?
I dunno, it's a bit different because we don't have to sell and if the numbers don't work we won't.
The best negotiating tool anyone can have is the freedom to walk away from a deal.
I think it is best to face the issue and tell the buyer up front. They will trust you more and know you aren't trying to hide things from them. In these cases I always say, "Let the Chips Fall Where They May". You may even come out ahead....they may offer the price you want less $300, no big deal for you.
I was talking to a real estate agent today and he said there are more buyers than sellers in our area (Tampa Bay area). He said buyers have to pay full price or they will lose.
He said one house was offered for $210k. His buyer would only go as high as $202k...just couldn't pay full asking price. Well, the house sold for $210k and he would have got it if he paid full price up front. I said when you look back after 10 years $8k means almost nothing. I have paid more than I wanted to for a house but I have never been sorry about the price I paid.......a house is too important and you won't regret paying extra if that is the house you want. Now, the buyer will probably have to settle and won't want to lose another house, and will probably pay even more now that he has possibly learned his lesson.
Pardon the long absence. Have been sick as a dig for quite a while. Nothing earth shattering - just a horrific cold. Still not through with it but enough that I can ask, "Steve, You're selling your house again?" Is this a trick to guess your next move? I've been away long enough that you could have explained this ages ago and I wouldn't know.
We've been landlocked for two days with a couple of feet of snow. Three days for me because I've got no good reason to go out in that. Driveway is all cleared, the cars are all cleared - all with no help from me. I'll finally venture out tomorrow - PT. The Miata is safely undercover in the garage where it will stay until I'm pretty confident the salt is off the roads.
Meanwhile, gas is down to $1,41 at Costco.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Been doing it for years....find the car I want, look at the price, the (alleged) invoice, look up dealer incentives, (both manufacturer to consumer and manufacturer to dealer) what I think the real cost of the car is, check out stock levels, make note of the number of dealers in a 75 mile radius (sometimes more), add in some profit based on all of that, add in tax, add in license and title fees, put it all together, throw out my number.
Some want to stick to their "if we/will you?" scenario. At which time I say "no". Most of the time the dealer says..."well, you forgot this hidden fee, or the dealer doc fee, or this fee or that fee".
Which I reply..."no I didn't. It's all there in the number I gave you. That's what I'm writing the check for".
And yes, being willing to leave is the best negotiation tool you have.
Props to the Broncos, defense wins championships. The Pats D was very good, too. I thought it would be a low scoring affair, with the Pats winning 23-20. The Pats of the second half of the season were not the same team as the first half. Denver is their Waterloo. Darn. On to the Red Sox.
We got about 4" where I am, quite lovely. Gorgeous weather since. After last year's snows, nice to get "normal" snow amounts!
Toyota dealer just down the road from work has a '15 MB S-Coupe for sale, only ~4k miles. Just lowered the price to $106,995. Bargain? Man, it is a beauty...
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
All my electric power went out about 20 minutes ago. I reported it to Florida Power and Light - the Sao it's a main line that went down affecting 33,000 residences and businesses. I guess I won't be able to turn on the heat until power is restored. No TV, Internet, and when my phone needs recharging (pretty soon) I'll have to go down to the car to recharge it.
@graphicguy, that's a bit like the infamous @bobst method. He only gave the dealer one chance though with his take it or leave it number.
@fezo and @driver100, I'd like to be closer to town but it's hard finding the right house. My wife loves the current house but she's come to terms with moving. We did something similar after a year in our first Boise house (although she was the one wanting to move then). We have a potential buyer.
One of my kids just got out bid on a house in the west of Cleveland area. They went over asking but stuck to their budget. It's been fun doing facetime tours while they look at houses. Yesterday was the first time I really started to experience the boost part of the ecoboost in my F-150. It's going to get fast as it breaks in. @abacomike, Temperature depends on what you are used to. Went for a walk at lunch. It was 36 and sunny with no breeze, loved it. On the way home it was 42, so I drove home with the window down a few inches.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I thought they push all the cars in and out of the auction because of the emissions and fumes from the engines. I don't think they want to exfixiate their potential buyers. I could be wrong, but I see guys pushing the cars all the time. Yes?
Mike....I don't know. Usually, there's open garaged doors on both ends of the auctions for ventilation. Also, some they drive in, some they push in (assume they don't run). I could be wrong.
On one episode of Fast&Loud they had to turn the motor off due to fire regulations.
Vaguely remember that, OF. What were they trying to sell at auction? I remember Rawlings saying you always get more money at auction of you can drive the car on the podium vs pushing it.
There were actually two if IRC. One was a 1917 Reo that wouldn't start and the other was a custom 1976 C 10 with a dead battery.
The system is glitching tonight. Last post was missing the quote.
Anyway, my marriage joke:
An old man was being congratulated on his 50th wedding anniversary and was asked to what he owed his marital longevity.
He answered: "on my honeymoon I took my wife to Hawaii"...
..."and on my 49th I went and brought her back".
On negotiations I agree, the door is your most powerful tool. I got an extra $1700 for my trade doing that.
As you may recall they gave me $9,000 for my car and then overpriced it on their lot for $14,000. They got stuck with it all winter and now price it at $9,995.
They could have gotten $11k last July all day long. Just dumb. I can see trying for a home run but after a month why not price it honestly?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I thought they push all the cars in and out of the auction because of the emissions and fumes from the engines. I don't think they want to exfixiate their potential buyers. I could be wrong, but I see guys pushing the cars all the time. Yes?
Mike....I don't know. Usually, there's open garaged doors on both ends of the auctions for ventilation. Also, some they drive in, some they push in (assume they don't run). I could be wrong.
On one episode of Fast&Loud they had to turn the motor off due to fire regulations.
Vaguely remember that, OF. What were they trying to sell at auction? I remember Rawlings saying you always get more money at auction of you can drive the car on the podium vs pushing it.
There were actually two if IRC. One was a 1917 Reo that wouldn't start and the other was a custom 1976 C 10 with a dead battery.
That would make for a great truck....if the wheels were normal!
I don't understand why someone would do that to a great looking pick-up....it looks freaky.
btw...that car looks like it will need a lot of work done to it....getting it started is the least of that cars problems.
@graphicguy, that's a bit like the infamous @bobst method. He only gave the dealer one chance though with his take it or leave it number.
@fezo and @driver100, I'd like to be closer to town but it's hard finding the right house. My wife loves the current house but she's come to terms with moving. We did something similar after a year in our first Boise house (although she was the one wanting to move then). We have a potential buyer.
I remember bobst. We were in total agreement on negotiation. I just added tax, license, title fees for a one time offer. Wonder what happened to bobst?
"I've sure gotten old. I have outlived my feet and my teeth. I've had 2 bypass surgeries, a hip replacement, new knees, and fought prostate cancer and diabetes.
I'm half blind, can't hear anything quieter than a jet engine, take 10 different medications that make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts. I have bouts with dementia, poor circulation, and can hardly feel my hands and feet.
I have lost all my friends...but thank God I still have my drivers license."
The only part of the Bobst method that made no sense was the bump. When his offer was rejected, he went to the next dealer, but instead of repeating it, he upped it $100. Never seemed to show much confidence in his initial calculation!
I thought they push all the cars in and out of the auction because of the emissions and fumes from the engines. I don't think they want to exfixiate their potential buyers. I could be wrong, but I see guys pushing the cars all the time. Yes?
Mike....I don't know. Usually, there's open garaged doors on both ends of the auctions for ventilation. Also, some they drive in, some they push in (assume they don't run). I could be wrong.
On one episode of Fast&Loud they had to turn the motor off due to fire regulations.
Vaguely remember that, OF. What were they trying to sell at auction? I remember Rawlings saying you always get more money at auction of you can drive the car on the podium vs pushing it.
There were actually two if IRC. One was a 1917 Reo that wouldn't start and the other was a custom 1976 C 10 with a dead battery.
That would make for a great truck....if the wheels were normal!
I don't understand why someone would do that to a great looking pick-up....it looks freaky.
btw...that car looks like it will need a lot of work done to it....getting it started is the least of that cars problems.
Seems to be another trend...keep the antiques original. Nothing wrong with that. As they say, those vehicles are only original once. Still, some of them look fretty darned ratty, and probably not driveable (at least, not safely).
I agree about the pickup. Wheels don't do it any favors, nor does the lowering kit. I think that's the one I saw that caught on fire right before the auction.
Negotiations....yeah, I never could understand why bobst would raise his own offers, either. NO faith in his numbers, as stated.
I think it only happened to me once where I was so far off on an offer, no one would accept it. And, that was on an '04 RX8, which at the time, was selling for over MSRP. I came in $500 over invoice, and no one would touch the offer. I ended up buying for $100 off MSRP and had to visit 4 dealers to get that.
I agree about the pickup. Wheels don't do it any favors, nor does the lowering kit. I think that's the one I saw that caught on fire right before the auction.
A mysterious fire? Total loss for insurance purposes? Hmmm...
@graphicguy, that's a bit like the infamous @bobst method. He only gave the dealer one chance though with his take it or leave it number.
@fezo and @driver100, I'd like to be closer to town but it's hard finding the right house. My wife loves the current house but she's come to terms with moving. We did something similar after a year in our first Boise house (although she was the one wanting to move then). We have a potential buyer.
I remember bobst. We were in total agreement on negotiation. I just added tax, license, title fees for a one time offer. Wonder what happened to bobst?
I think he tried his method and the salesman jumped across his desk, and held him in a choke hold until he promised never to use his method or talk about it ever again.
I agree about the pickup. Wheels don't do it any favors, nor does the lowering kit. I think that's the one I saw that caught on fire right before the auction.
A mysterious fire? Total loss for insurance purposes? Hmmm...
Fast & Loud doing insurance fraud? Wouldn't think so. Why jeopardize that golden goose TV show. Besides, when some clown totaled his 67 Mustang a few seasons back he ate the loss rather than claim it on his insurance.
I have to say that I thought that truck was ugly as sin and never could understand the lowering air ride nonsense. For what's it's worth they took a bath on it at the auction.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I agree about the pickup. Wheels don't do it any favors, nor does the lowering kit. I think that's the one I saw that caught on fire right before the auction.
A mysterious fire? Total loss for insurance purposes? Hmmm...
I have to say that I thought that truck was ugly as sin and never could understand the lowering air ride nonsense. For what's it's worth they took a bath on it at the auction.
I agree about the pickup. Wheels don't do it any favors, nor does the lowering kit. I think that's the one I saw that caught on fire right before the auction.
A mysterious fire? Total loss for insurance purposes? Hmmm...
Fast & Loud doing insurance fraud? Wouldn't think so. Why jeopardize that golden goose TV show. Besides, when some clown totaled his 67 Mustang a few seasons back he ate the loss rather than claim it on his insurance.
I have to say that I thought that truck was ugly as sin and never could understand the lowering air ride nonsense. For what's it's worth they took a bath on it at the auction.
They DID take a bath on it at auction. They've taken a bath on quite a few vehicles. But, as was mentioned, Rawlings and Kaufman have parlayed a 3-4 bay garage into a TV reality show, a bar and grill, a much bigger garage, a race team, a concert venue and some memorabilia shops in and around Dallas (including Dallas International).
And, that's not including the upholstery shop Rawlings uses (Sue). I'm sure she gets a nice stipend from the show, and probably more business than she knows what to do with. Then there are the offshoots....some of the guys who Rawlings fired parlayed their misfortune into their own reality show. His chief body and paint guy opened up his own shop.
So, lots of success has surrounded Gas Monkee. I give them credit.
You might think so, but often the reserve is just an indication of how unrealistic the seller is. Quite a few cars are sold in the "post-sale" lot, where the seller, having put too high a reserve, now faces the prospect of towing his car all the way home, or cutting a deal for less. You often do better on "no reserve" because the bidder knows the car is going to sell. Down side of that is if you have the wrong car at the wrong auction, you won't get any decent bids, and you end up having to bid on your own car and buy it back for yourself--and that costs you the buyer's commission.
The only people who can't lose is the auction house itself---unless nobody shows up to bid. Otherwise, they make commissions no matter how beat up the sellers get, or how inept the buyers are.
A bit draconian to say the least. All that will do is what it does in Mexico. When there's an accident, the uninsured unregistered driver just runs away, and you have a wrecked car and an empty bag.
That wouldn't fly in the US, if an owner can be mailed a red light camera ticket, someone can be blamed. And you might at least own 2 wrecked cars, some value there.
Red light camera tickets have been stopped here in Broward County by a district court judge. I think a lawsuit was filed indicating that you have the right to "question" or "rebut" the "accuser". In this case, you cannot cross examine a picture taken by a camera at a specific intersection. So, until something is done to correct the "law" or to have the legislature pass a bill that permits cameras to "charge" an individual with a traffic violation, all the investment dollars in leasing or buying cameras at certain intersections is now a wasted taxpayer expense.
Should be interesting to find out what the higher court(s) rule and/or what the legislature does.
the problem with that argument is that the camera is not accusing you, the city is. You cannot cross examine the picture simply because the picture is not a witness but evidence. You do have the right to examine and refute the evidence though.
Not true. Most States won't let you bring in the camera operator, installer, or company officials into your traffic court case. With the 7-11 or home security camera, the operator/installer/owner can testify as to how the camera's were setup, installed, record, and function. You can't do that with the red light camera operators, installers, recorders. The courts generally just accept the traffic camera system as infallible and you are guilty until proven innocent. 100% unacceptable in America.
It's like this, if you break into my house and my security system records you doing that and I call the police it's not the security system making the accusation, it's me. The video is just evidence I use to make a determination.
If you cannot use red light cameras because you cannot confront it as your accuser then you have to let a lot of people out of prison because there are many who are there based simply on evidence.
See my above comments in bold. In fact, I'd say the redlight camera evidence is hearsay, since no one took the picture, and no one is claiming ownership of the picture. When I introduce pictures into the courtroom as a defendent, I must testify that I took the pictures, or testify as to how the pictures were obtained (which could be hearsay)
A picture is not hearsay, no one has to take the picture for it to exist. I do believe that ownership of the pictures wouldn't be an issue, the issue would be that they exist and what they show.
Testifying on how the pictures were obtained is not hearsay. Hearsay is stating what you claim you heard someone say.
If you didn't take the picture, how do you know it was taken at the scene of the alleged crime? How do you know the whole picture wasn't doctored, or worse yet, created and made up completely? Someone with Photoshop experience might easily try to pull one over on the Court. By testifying you took the photographs personally you can state when and where they were taken with certainty. Also, the chain of custody, Did the picture go from the Camera, to AZ, back to CA Police Dept. In that trail of travel (likely electronic travel), isn't it possible someone could have tainted the evidence? How secure is this system of transport? All good questions to ask of the "photographer" in the court room. Lots of opportunity for the evidence to be altered or tainted in its chain of custody towards the courtroom.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
A bit draconian to say the least. All that will do is what it does in Mexico. When there's an accident, the uninsured unregistered driver just runs away, and you have a wrecked car and an empty bag.
That wouldn't fly in the US, if an owner can be mailed a red light camera ticket, someone can be blamed. And you might at least own 2 wrecked cars, some value there.
Red light camera tickets have been stopped here in Broward County by a district court judge. I think a lawsuit was filed indicating that you have the right to "question" or "rebut" the "accuser". In this case, you cannot cross examine a picture taken by a camera at a specific intersection. So, until something is done to correct the "law" or to have the legislature pass a bill that permits cameras to "charge" an individual with a traffic violation, all the investment dollars in leasing or buying cameras at certain intersections is now a wasted taxpayer expense.
Should be interesting to find out what the higher court(s) rule and/or what the legislature does.
the problem with that argument is that the camera is not accusing you, the city is. You cannot cross examine the picture simply because the picture is not a witness but evidence. You do have the right to examine and refute the evidence though.
It's like this, if you break into my house and my security system records you doing that and I call the police it's not the security system making the accusation, it's me. The video is just evidence I use to make a determination.
If you cannot use red light cameras because you cannot confront it as your accuser then you have to let a lot of people out of prison because there are many who are there based simply on evidence.
I think the big problem is the camera can catch a picture of a car going through a red light....the problem is, how can you prove who was driving the car. Back home, the fine is given to the owner of the car...not sure if that is really the best example of safeguarding our right to fair justice.
Well it is your car and you are ultimately responsible for it's use. If it was you then just pay the ticket, if it was someone you let the car to then go after them for the funds.
It does remind me when Volvo was about to release one of their new cars (C30 IIRC) I got the opportunity to drive one before they hit the dealerships at some event near my home. As we approached a light that was turning red the representative warned me about a red light camera at the intersection. Well in my wise a@@ style I responded "What do I care, this car isn't registered to me", then I blew through the light. Just kidding I stopped nice and smoothly and safely.
The Courts disapprove (and rightfully so) of unequal and unfair enforcement of the law. With camera enforcement, the Chronic Car Buyers group here on Edmunds gets away with no camera tickets because they keep trading in their new cars while the license plate is still "in the mail." Those who keep their cars longer suffer with identification plates on their vehicles which makes them unfairly discriminated against by the cameras.
Actually the courts agree with it, say your car hits another car and drives away you are legally responsible for it unless you can show that someone else was driving it.
I would think a police report indicating your car was stolen would be sufficient to avoid legal prosecution (or Civil Prosecution) for an accident that occurred with your vehicle. Not so with the Camera system, you'll have to go to court and have a trial to show the judge the police report that your car was not in your possession or ownership at the time of the infraction. Then you'll have to pray the judge doesn't hold your draconian views that the owner should be responsible to secure their vehicle in Fort Knox under Secret Service protection or face the consequences!
What a waste of time and effort. Going to trial is not an acceptable way for defendants to "PROVE their innocence." They should be presumed innocent, until proven guilty. If you can't prove who was driving, you have no case.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
What's cruel is that you go through a red light (allegedly) and then you get a bill in the mail that adds up to, with various "fees" that have nothing to do with traffic, about $490 bucks. Some of these fees are for things like "court construction" and "emergency medical services". Not likely the legislature will reverse this trend for ever upward-spiraling bogus fines, because the revenue per annum is about $500 million...yeah, that's right...1/2 billion dollars.
Red light cameras are all about the money; that's why the private contractors shorten the yellow light interval- it snags more rubes. The municipalities like it because it automates their money grab. And all is cloaked under the the very best Safety [non-permissible content removed] justifications....
You know though, I have made it a policy to try and stop if I can if the light changes to amber, and if I can stop at all. Yesterday, I was about 4 car lengths from the intersection and the light turned amber...and the only thing I could possibly do was to go through the intersection.
I looked in my rear view mirror and 4 cars that were at least 10 car lengths behind me went through the amber light......I do think it is getting ridiculous and people think if I can make it through I will do whatever I have to - speed up, gun it etc., to get through an amber light.....and that is going to lead to accidents especially if someone is trying to complete a left turn ahead. That's why I think red light cameras may not be as bad as we make them out to be.
Actually, the camera's are shown to be the cause of increased accidents like the one you mention. They also cause people to slam on the brakes at the last minute so as to avoid the possibility of being mailed a $500 ticket, only to get rear-ended more often. Studies show that the rear-end collision increase coming from red-light cameras is higher than any accidents they happen to reduce.
Also, the reason people speed up (yours truly included) is because it is much cheaper and better to get a speeding ticket than a red light camera $500 ticket (at least in CA). So a yellow light now means either PUNCH IT, or SLAM the brakes, no ifs, ands, or buts in between. No hesitation, it is either or, because why risk a $500 ticket that could come down to a hundredth of a second on whether you legally crossed or not.
No sir, red light cameras is one of those things that definitely makes things worse than we were without them.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
What's cruel is that you go through a red light (allegedly) and then you get a bill in the mail that adds up to, with various "fees" that have nothing to do with traffic, about $490 bucks. Some of these fees are for things like "court construction" and "emergency medical services". Not likely the legislature will reverse this trend for ever upward-spiraling bogus fines, because the revenue per annum is about $500 million...yeah, that's right...1/2 billion dollars.
Red light cameras are all about the money; that's why the private contractors shorten the yellow light interval- it snags more rubes. The municipalities like it because it automates their money grab. And all is cloaked under the the very best Safety [non-permissible content removed] justifications....
You know though, I have made it a policy to try and stop if I can if the light changes to amber, and if I can stop at all. Yesterday, I was about 4 car lengths from the intersection and the light turned amber...and the only thing I could possibly do was to go through the intersection.
I looked in my rear view mirror and 4 cars that were at least 10 car lengths behind me went through the amber light......I do think it is getting ridiculous and people think if I can make it through I will do whatever I have to - speed up, gun it etc., to get through an amber light.....and that is going to lead to accidents especially if someone is trying to complete a left turn ahead. That's why I think red light cameras may not be as bad as we make them out to be.
Driver, here in Southeast Florida, most major artery streets/avenues/routes have a 45 mph speed limit. When you are traveling at that speed, it is not as easy as you think to stop your car at an amber light. There are several variables:
*you have to be aware of what is behind you and how close a vehicle might be to your rear. Stopping short might cause a rear end collision - especially with the older drivers whose reflexes are not as sharp as they once were.
*amber lights are not timed the same at each traffic light intersection. A road with a 45 mph speed limit could have a short amber light which can create havoc.
I agree that that municipalities and counties set drivers up for traffic violations by manipulating the timing of the amber lights at certain intersections to increase revenues. Determining what is a reasonable time frame for an amber light could be a good defense against a short amber light in traffic court. In my opinion, the higher the speed limit, the longer an amber light should remain on.
There are actually standards for yellow light times written by engineering authorities that makes sense, at the federal and national level. There are some contradictory sources, but the logical authorities agree yellow light time intervals should be set based on the prevailing 85th percentile speeds. This means longer yellow lights for faster traffic roadways, and minimum standards (3 seconds) for slower traffic roadways. It needs to be based upon real-world speeds, the 85th percentile, because speed limits are often under set in order to generate revenue in that way as well.
These standards exist in National Federal Traffic Manuals. The local crooks in charge are just ignoring and disobeying them.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
What's cruel is that you go through a red light (allegedly) and then you get a bill in the mail that adds up to, with various "fees" that have nothing to do with traffic, about $490 bucks. Some of these fees are for things like "court construction" and "emergency medical services". Not likely the legislature will reverse this trend for ever upward-spiraling bogus fines, because the revenue per annum is about $500 million...yeah, that's right...1/2 billion dollars.
Red light cameras are all about the money; that's why the private contractors shorten the yellow light interval- it snags more rubes. The municipalities like it because it automates their money grab. And all is cloaked under the the very best Safety [non-permissible content removed] justifications....
You know though, I have made it a policy to try and stop if I can if the light changes to amber, and if I can stop at all. Yesterday, I was about 4 car lengths from the intersection and the light turned amber...and the only thing I could possibly do was to go through the intersection.
I looked in my rear view mirror and 4 cars that were at least 10 car lengths behind me went through the amber light......I do think it is getting ridiculous and people think if I can make it through I will do whatever I have to - speed up, gun it etc., to get through an amber light.....and that is going to lead to accidents especially if someone is trying to complete a left turn ahead. That's why I think red light cameras may not be as bad as we make them out to be.
Driver, here in Southeast Florida, most major artery streets/avenues/routes have a 45 mph speed limit. When you are traveling at that speed, it is not as easy as you think to stop your car at an amber light. There are several variables:
*you have to be aware of what is behind you and how close a vehicle might be to your rear. Stopping short might cause a rear end collision - especially with the older drivers whose reflexes are not as sharp as they once were.
*amber lights are not timed the same at each traffic light intersection. A road with a 45 mph speed limit could have a short amber light which can create havoc.
I agree that that municipalities and counties set drivers up for traffic violations by manipulating the timing of the amber lights at certain intersections to increase revenues. Determining what is a reasonable time frame for an amber light could be a good defense against a short amber light in traffic court. In my opinion, the higher the speed limit, the longer an amber light should remain on.
There are actually standards for yellow light times written by engineering authorities that makes sense, at the federal and national level. There are some contradictory sources, but the logical authorities agree yellow light time intervals should be set based on the prevailing 85th percentile speeds. This means longer yellow lights for faster traffic roadways, and minimum standards (3 seconds) for slower traffic roadways. It needs to be based upon real-world speeds, the 85th percentile, because speed limits are often under set in order to generate revenue in that way as well.
These standards exist in National Federal Traffic Manuals. The local crooks in charge are just ignoring and disobeying them.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
one of the things that got the cameras tossed in Jersey was the timing issue. Not only were many checked and found to be too short (per code), leading to a lot of refunds, I think they found the company responsible for changing the cycle times.
I was amazed that in Jersey, anything that generated revenue into the pols pockets was removed. Very rare occurrence.
of course, if you just are worried about safety, adding the 2 second delay on the other direction turning green (so extending the red overlap) is much more effective.
one of the things that got the cameras tossed in Jersey was the timing issue. Not only were many checked and found to be too short (per code), leading to a lot of refunds, I think they found the company responsible for changing the cycle times.
I was amazed that in Jersey, anything that generated revenue into the pols pockets was removed. Very rare occurrence.
of course, if you just are worried about safety, adding the 2 second delay on the other direction turning green (so extending the red overlap) is much more effective.
Just lengthening the yellow light 1 second is about 95% effective. Meaning about 95% of would-be red-light runners are eliminated by lengthening the yellow light a lousy second! Extremely effective and a REAL safety benefit that doesn't cost tax payers tons of money like cameras do if they are not run profitably.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
one of the things that got the cameras tossed in Jersey was the timing issue. Not only were many checked and found to be too short (per code), leading to a lot of refunds, I think they found the company responsible for changing the cycle times.
I was amazed that in Jersey, anything that generated revenue into the pols pockets was removed. Very rare occurrence.
of course, if you just are worried about safety, adding the 2 second delay on the other direction turning green (so extending the red overlap) is much more effective.
I was surprised too. I can only imagine what the RLC right near the Deptford mall brought in. I know a few who got nabbed on it, making that right hand turn onto 42 without coming to a complete stop on red.
that is true. and why the company re timed the lights when the cameras went in.
I'm not undertanding why political entities would allow a commercial company to do the changing of the amber timing.
Our city employs a traffic engineer who is highly qualified. He works for several of the municipalities in the area and follows the laws and good engineering of the timing for the lights. E.g., a main traffic artery off the intertate with 35 mph limit and dual turn lanes onto another artery has a longer yellow than other 35 mph lights in our fair city and has a 2-second all red before the other lights turn green.
Red light cameras are all about the money; that's why the private contractors shorten the yellow light interval- it snags more rubes. The municipalities like it because it automates their money grab. And all is cloaked under the the very best Safety [non-permissible content removed] justifications....
I am not all to sure about that, it that were the case I know a few intersections where they could clean up with a red light camera. I once mentioned one to one of our local politicians who responded "yes a lot of people run the light there, but it's always at night and it's in an industrial park and we have no recorded accidents there.", or something to that effect.
Sounds like a "Why fix what ain't broke," scenario. Or in your case, why ruin what isn't broken? No accidents sounds safer than red-light camera to me.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
There have been lots of studies to see if red light cameras prevent accidents. Most show they don't, but, some show they do.
This was a very telling finding:
A 2007 Virginia Research Council study had more mixed results, finding that the “cameras are associated with an increase in rear-end crashes (about 27% or 42% depending on the statistical method used …) and a decrease in red light running crashes (about 8% or 42% depending on the statistical method …).”
Plus, researchers noted significant variation across intersections and geographical areas, with one area reporting increases in all crash types, while 2 others showed decreases in most types. Given the variable findings, these researches recommend evaluating the need for red-light cameras on a case-by-case basis. (Perhaps after trying to see if lengthening yellow-light times — a method that has proven effective in several cities — addresses the issue?)
A 2005 study by the Federal Highway Administration looked at red-light camera performance in 7 U.S. cities. It found that while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent. Since right-angle crashes tend to be more severe, the lowered incidence effectively offsets the increase in rear-end accidents, at least from a monetary perspective. Total crash costs decreased by a total of $18.5 million across the 7 communities studied.
What does it all mean? That is the question? My guess is people will learn to stop for red lights, and the most serious accidents that actually happen in intersections will be reduced.
The result of red light cameras is that rear end collisions increase because people slam on their brakes as soon as the light turns amber.
For years on my daily commute I would go through several intersections with red light cameras, not to mention multiple times weekly just doing my normal driving. Not once, not even once have I seen someone slam on their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow.
My little burb saw a slight decline in accidents at the intersections where they installed red light cameras. The City of Chicago reports a drop in accidents and the severity of accidents since installing cameras.
Fitting that a City that conceals and conspires a cop murdering a civilian for over a year would have been caught doctoring their claims of reduced accidents from red light cameras. They chose "specific" intersections favorable to their claims while ignoring the data from other intersections that didn't serve their corrupted interests. Taking the data as a whole fairly it is quite clear, red-light cameras DO NOT reduce accidents, and in some cases, have been shown to INCREASE accidents.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
In fact, in Roswell, Georgia, traffic cameras generated record revenues of $835,253 in 2008.
That’s nearly a million dollars the city stands to lose if they remove their cameras.
Taking the monetary argument a step further, the National Motorists Association has gone so far as to point the finger at corporate interests. According to the Association, Lockheed Martin (a major manufacturer of red light cameras) rakes in a quarter of the ticket cost ($70 of the $271 total) for each infraction in California.
Eric Skrum, Communications Director for the National Motorists Association, also notes that Lockheed Martin “has included clauses in their contracts that prohibit city engineers from applying engineering practices that improve compliance and reduce accidents.” So if the purpose of installing red-light cameras is to make the world a safer place, why prohibit other potentially effective countermeasures?
I know that RLC's produce revenue....lots of revenue. And, Lockheed is one of my major customers. So, it doesn't behoove me to irritate them. But, I will. Because RCL's are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!
Eric Skrum, Communications Director for the National Motorists Association, also notes that Lockheed Martin “has included clauses in their contracts that prohibit city engineers from applying engineering practices that improve compliance and reduce accidents.” So if the purpose of installing red-light cameras is to make the world a safer place, why prohibit other potentially effective countermeasures?
That's criminal in my evaluation. As criminal as defeating pollution testing by turning on reduction in the software while connected to a test device and then turning it off when the car is actually on the road. That's as criminal as not publicizing grenade-like airbags as soon as suspected. That's as criminal as not moving to mitigate the effects of weak detents on ignition switches as soon as discovered.
In case you don't think Chicago is a good representation, they aren't the only City to play games with red-light camera fraud (see above regarding Los Angeles). This is more typical I'm afraid.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
I agree that it's (generally) better to let the seller name the price - having this discussion right now about selling our house. I told the hot lead we have that we have a decorative viga (a "stick") that's rotten and needs replacement. My wife said I shouldn't be talking the house down.
But we knew about it from our home inspection, I intend to share our inspection with this couple, and I'll encourage them to get their own inspection (we're talking maybe a $300 repair). Why play hide the ball, especially with something that's obvious?
I dunno, it's a bit different because we don't have to sell and if the numbers don't work we won't.
The best negotiating tool anyone can have is the freedom to walk away from a deal.
I was talking to a real estate agent today and he said there are more buyers than sellers in our area (Tampa Bay area). He said buyers have to pay full price or they will lose.
He said one house was offered for $210k. His buyer would only go as high as $202k...just couldn't pay full asking price. Well, the house sold for $210k and he would have got it if he paid full price up front. I said when you look back after 10 years $8k means almost nothing. I have paid more than I wanted to for a house but I have never been sorry about the price I paid.......a house is too important and you won't regret paying extra if that is the house you want. Now, the buyer will probably have to settle and won't want to lose another house, and will probably pay even more now that he has possibly learned his lesson.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
We've been landlocked for two days with a couple of feet of snow. Three days for me because I've got no good reason to go out in that. Driveway is all cleared, the cars are all cleared - all with no help from me. I'll finally venture out tomorrow - PT. The Miata is safely undercover in the garage where it will stay until I'm pretty confident the salt is off the roads.
Meanwhile, gas is down to $1,41 at Costco.
Some want to stick to their "if we/will you?" scenario. At which time I say "no". Most of the time the dealer says..."well, you forgot this hidden fee, or the dealer doc fee, or this fee or that fee".
Which I reply..."no I didn't. It's all there in the number I gave you. That's what I'm writing the check for".
And yes, being willing to leave is the best negotiation tool you have.
We got about 4" where I am, quite lovely. Gorgeous weather since. After last year's snows, nice to get "normal" snow amounts!
Toyota dealer just down the road from work has a '15 MB S-Coupe for sale, only ~4k miles. Just lowered the price to $106,995. Bargain? Man, it is a beauty...
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
Always something!
2024 Genesis G90 Super-Charger
@fezo and @driver100, I'd like to be closer to town but it's hard finding the right house. My wife loves the current house but she's come to terms with moving. We did something similar after a year in our first Boise house (although she was the one wanting to move then). We have a potential buyer.
Yesterday was the first time I really started to experience the boost part of the ecoboost in my F-150.
It's going to get fast as it breaks in.
@abacomike,
Temperature depends on what you are used to.
Went for a walk at lunch. It was 36 and sunny with no breeze, loved it.
On the way home it was 42, so I drove home with the window down a few inches.
There were actually two if IRC. One was a 1917 Reo that wouldn't start and the other was a custom 1976 C 10 with a dead battery.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
at least step in height is nice and low!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Anyway, my marriage joke:
An old man was being congratulated on his 50th wedding anniversary and was asked to what he owed his marital longevity.
He answered: "on my honeymoon I took my wife to Hawaii"...
..."and on my 49th I went and brought her back".
On negotiations I agree, the door is your most powerful tool. I got an extra $1700 for my trade doing that.
As you may recall they gave me $9,000 for my car and then overpriced it on their lot for $14,000. They got stuck with it all winter and now price it at $9,995.
They could have gotten $11k last July all day long. Just dumb. I can see trying for a home run but after a month why not price it honestly?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I don't understand why someone would do that to a great looking pick-up....it looks freaky.
btw...that car looks like it will need a lot of work done to it....getting it started is the least of that cars problems.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Was that Irene Ryan's Reo pickup?
I'm half blind, can't hear anything quieter than a jet engine, take 10 different medications that make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts. I have bouts with dementia, poor circulation, and can hardly feel my hands and feet.
I have lost all my friends...but thank God I still have my drivers license."
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Forgot about @bobst... he was a regular on the now retired (and forever infamous) Stories from the Sales Frontlines thread.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Seems to be another trend...keep the antiques original. Nothing wrong with that. As they say, those vehicles are only original once. Still, some of them look fretty darned ratty, and probably not driveable (at least, not safely).
I agree about the pickup. Wheels don't do it any favors, nor does the lowering kit. I think that's the one I saw that caught on fire right before the auction.
Negotiations....yeah, I never could understand why bobst would raise his own offers, either. NO faith in his numbers, as stated.
I think it only happened to me once where I was so far off on an offer, no one would accept it. And, that was on an '04 RX8, which at the time, was selling for over MSRP. I came in $500 over invoice, and no one would touch the offer. I ended up buying for $100 off MSRP and had to visit 4 dealers to get that.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I have to say that I thought that truck was ugly as sin and never could understand the lowering air ride nonsense. For what's it's worth they took a bath on it at the auction.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
And, that's not including the upholstery shop Rawlings uses (Sue). I'm sure she gets a nice stipend from the show, and probably more business than she knows what to do with. Then there are the offshoots....some of the guys who Rawlings fired parlayed their misfortune into their own reality show. His chief body and paint guy opened up his own shop.
So, lots of success has surrounded Gas Monkee. I give them credit.
The only people who can't lose is the auction house itself---unless nobody shows up to bid. Otherwise, they make commissions no matter how beat up the sellers get, or how inept the buyers are.
What a waste of time and effort. Going to trial is not an acceptable way for defendants to "PROVE their innocence." They should be presumed innocent, until proven guilty. If you can't prove who was driving, you have no case.
Also, the reason people speed up (yours truly included) is because it is much cheaper and better to get a speeding ticket than a red light camera $500 ticket (at least in CA). So a yellow light now means either PUNCH IT, or SLAM the brakes, no ifs, ands, or buts in between. No hesitation, it is either or, because why risk a $500 ticket that could come down to a hundredth of a second on whether you legally crossed or not.
No sir, red light cameras is one of those things that definitely makes things worse than we were without them.
*you have to be aware of what is behind you and how close a vehicle might be to your rear. Stopping short might cause a rear end collision - especially with the older drivers whose reflexes are not as sharp as they once were.
*amber lights are not timed the same at each traffic light intersection. A road with a 45 mph speed limit could have a short amber light which can create havoc.
I agree that that municipalities and counties set drivers up for traffic violations by manipulating the timing of the amber lights at certain intersections to increase revenues. Determining what is a reasonable time frame for an amber light could be a good defense against a short amber light in traffic court. In my opinion, the higher the speed limit, the longer an amber light should remain on.
There are actually standards for yellow light times written by engineering authorities that makes sense, at the federal and national level. There are some contradictory sources, but the logical authorities agree yellow light time intervals should be set based on the prevailing 85th percentile speeds. This means longer yellow lights for faster traffic roadways, and minimum standards (3 seconds) for slower traffic roadways. It needs to be based upon real-world speeds, the 85th percentile, because speed limits are often under set in order to generate revenue in that way as well.
These standards exist in National Federal Traffic Manuals. The local crooks in charge are just ignoring and disobeying them.
*you have to be aware of what is behind you and how close a vehicle might be to your rear. Stopping short might cause a rear end collision - especially with the older drivers whose reflexes are not as sharp as they once were.
*amber lights are not timed the same at each traffic light intersection. A road with a 45 mph speed limit could have a short amber light which can create havoc.
I agree that that municipalities and counties set drivers up for traffic violations by manipulating the timing of the amber lights at certain intersections to increase revenues. Determining what is a reasonable time frame for an amber light could be a good defense against a short amber light in traffic court. In my opinion, the higher the speed limit, the longer an amber light should remain on.
There are actually standards for yellow light times written by engineering authorities that makes sense, at the federal and national level. There are some contradictory sources, but the logical authorities agree yellow light time intervals should be set based on the prevailing 85th percentile speeds. This means longer yellow lights for faster traffic roadways, and minimum standards (3 seconds) for slower traffic roadways. It needs to be based upon real-world speeds, the 85th percentile, because speed limits are often under set in order to generate revenue in that way as well.
These standards exist in National Federal Traffic Manuals. The local crooks in charge are just ignoring and disobeying them.
I was amazed that in Jersey, anything that generated revenue into the pols pockets was removed. Very rare occurrence.
of course, if you just are worried about safety, adding the 2 second delay on the other direction turning green (so extending the red overlap) is much more effective.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Our city employs a traffic engineer who is highly qualified. He works for several of the municipalities in the area and follows the laws and good engineering of the timing for the lights. E.g., a main traffic artery off the intertate with 35 mph limit and dual turn lanes onto another artery has a longer yellow than other 35 mph lights in our fair city and has a 2-second all red before the other lights turn green.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This was a very telling finding:
A 2007 Virginia Research Council study had more mixed results, finding that the “cameras are associated with an increase in rear-end crashes (about 27% or 42% depending on the statistical method used …) and a decrease in red light running crashes (about 8% or 42% depending on the statistical method …).”
Plus, researchers noted significant variation across intersections and geographical areas, with one area reporting increases in all crash types, while 2 others showed decreases in most types. Given the variable findings, these researches recommend evaluating the need for red-light cameras on a case-by-case basis. (Perhaps after trying to see if lengthening yellow-light times — a method that has proven effective in several cities — addresses the issue?)
A 2005 study by the Federal Highway Administration looked at red-light camera performance in 7 U.S. cities. It found that while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent. Since right-angle crashes tend to be more severe, the lowered incidence effectively offsets the increase in rear-end accidents, at least from a monetary perspective. Total crash costs decreased by a total of $18.5 million across the 7 communities studied.
What does it all mean? That is the question? My guess is people will learn to stop for red lights, and the most serious accidents that actually happen in intersections will be reduced.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
In fact, in Roswell, Georgia, traffic cameras generated record revenues of $835,253 in 2008.
That’s nearly a million dollars the city stands to lose if they remove their cameras.
Taking the monetary argument a step further, the National Motorists Association has gone so far as to point the finger at corporate interests. According to the Association, Lockheed Martin (a major manufacturer of red light cameras) rakes in a quarter of the ticket cost ($70 of the $271 total) for each infraction in California.
Eric Skrum, Communications Director for the National Motorists Association, also notes that Lockheed Martin “has included clauses in their contracts that prohibit city engineers from applying engineering practices that improve compliance and reduce accidents.” So if the purpose of installing red-light cameras is to make the world a safer place, why prohibit other potentially effective countermeasures?
ARE RED LIGHT CAMERAS ACTUALLY CAUSING ACCIDENTS?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
In case you don't think Chicago is a good representation, they aren't the only City to play games with red-light camera fraud (see above regarding Los Angeles). This is more typical I'm afraid.