Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

xwesx

Oh, absolutely and I am certainly not advocating a massive program for that any more than I am for inspections. What it really comes down to is this: "Driving is a privilege, not a right." So, how does one gain the privilege to do something? One earns it - at least that is how it was/is in my life. We have a hypocritical mantra listed above, in that driving is a privilege, yet it does not have to be earned. As such, people view it as a right. Require people to earn the privilege and they will have investment in it. If they have invested in it, they will tend to educate themselves (at least better... I am not that naïve!). :P

xwesx

I am certainly not going to drive further down the road of silliness we are on here, but getting back to the point....

Cameras do have a place in intersection control. I do not think that ticketing cameras do, because they have no discretion and that is a very important part of daily life, but cameras can be a great tool. Think about it - where do the majority of two-or-more car collisions take place every day in your area? In my area, it is most certainly intersections (could be partly because of 6+ months of slick roads, but I doubt it). So, you are in a collision. Okay, it happens. Somebody calls in an officer via cellphone and things start to roll. There are, most unfortunately, injuries. The officer asks you what happened. You reply, "I was turning right on a green light when the other driver turned left into me." The other driver says, "I was driving straight across the intersection on a green light when the other driver made a right turn in front of me on his red." Depending on the version, the other driver is at fault or you are at fault. Who to believe? Turns out, the other driver was REALLY at fault, but the officer has to make that determination and she has conflicting reports with no third-party witnesses. So, the officer has to shut the area down quite a bit and for a couple hours in order to log all the evidence and determine who is the inconsiderate *bleep* that is lying to her. We all suffer the time lost for this act of selfishness on the at-fault driver's part. The next day, it is determined that you were at fault. AARGH!!! Had a camera been there, it would have been a cut and dry determination with no investigative best-guess work and the mess could have been cleared up to get the roadway back in action so much quicker.

oldharry

Actually, a "murder" is a large number of crows. A large number of ravens is a "suspicion".

Harry, a collector of useless information

euphonium

"Red light cameras are kinda OK. And they have been known to cause more "rear enders" here"

How can a camera rear end somebody? "Rear enders" are caused by people following too close for conditions.

The extremely aggressive driver doesn't cause road rage either. Road rage is the result of a driver making a concious decision to get mad and get even. The agressive driver may provoke another driver, but the red light camera provokes no one and does nothing, but good.

snakeweasel

From the Chicago Tribune.

"Mayra Ramirez scored an A in driver's education this year, but sitting through the 10-week class felt like a bad joke to the Curie Metropolitan High School sophomore. Ramirez is blind."

Now I know why some people drive the way they do, they are blind.

gee35coupe

I didn't get into the specifics about WHY there were more rear enders. Obviously it's the drivers' fault. I thought I made it obvious I was just mentioning that with the red-light cameras they were trading one type of accident for another. Both types of accidents are caused by careless/aggressive driving.

euphonium

There was a man in this locality who had a pilots and drivers license. I used to see him drive, but he was legally blind, thus collecting a lot of Social Security $$$ during his lifetime. He was an active member of the local ski club, but didn't wear a "Blind Skier" sign on his jacket. Ramirez may be legally blind, but still have some vision, not being totally blind.

snakeweasel

I used to see him drive, but he was legally blind,

Someone who is legally blind cannot drive, they simply cannot pass the vision part.

Ramirez may be legally blind, but still have some vision, not being totally blind.

Its a requirement for graduation in the Chicago city schools that you pass a driving course. Even if they are totally blind they still have to pass the drivers ed course.

xwesx

Very interesting, Harry. You got me to thinking about how seemingly random the term for "flock" can be for different types of birds... so I went to looking and found this:

http://birding.about.com/library/weekly/aa032700a.htm

Too much. :P

Oh, and darn those inconsiderate drivers.

snakeweasel

Yeah your right too much.

BTW that link has A covey of partridges. That means The Partridge Family wasn't a musical group but a musical covey.

OK I had my fun for today :P

redmaxx

How can a camera rear end somebody? "Rear enders" are caused by people following too close for conditions.

Unexpected behavior. People will go to the opposite extreme with red camera lights and that results in the accident.

snakeweasel

Still the rear ending is caused by someone following to closely. You cannot blame it on the camera.

imidazol97

The tailgater expects to yellow-light on through behind the person who just catches the beginning of the yellow light. When the first person stops quickly since the light turned yello, the tailgater hits them claiming it's their fault for stopping.

If the red-light thief weren't there, they wouldn't have stomped on the brakes. However the stopping quickly instead of going on through the yellow is the desired outcome of the people wanting the cameras instead of real policemen doing their job.

The camera business reminds me of the retired cops after 20 years who open their own security and private detective agency and do all kinds of work for pay related to their past work. I recall the ones who plant people into schools and businesses and try to entrap others into selling them drugs so they can bust them. If they hadn't been there asking about where to buy drugs and who to buy from, the buys wouldn't have occurred.

Redlight cameras are a business not a safety item. When the camera company keeps most of the money, it's a business; it's just a little bit of easy money for the city allowing the business to put them up.

Perhaps we should have police agencies contract out for crime investigations. Your car gets stolen, your house gets broken into, the police will have the contract company stop in.

snakeweasel

When the first person stops quickly since the light turned yello, the tailgater hits them claiming it's their fault for stopping.

Legally if at the time the light turns yellow you can reasonably stop you must. The accident was not caused by anything but the tailgater following to closely.

If the red-light thief weren't there, they wouldn't have stomped on the brakes.

Pure conjecture with no proof whatsoever to support it. Stop trying to fault the camera for someone elses mistake.

Redlight cameras are a business not a safety item. When the camera company keeps most of the money,

Source please.

gee35coupe

Yes you are supposed to follow at a reasonable distance. We all know that. But when the car in front goes into an unexpected full panic stop because of the red-light cameras it can cause accidents. No matter who is at fault. The purpose of the cameras is to enhance safety. The only safety enhancement is changing the type of accident. Accidents are still occuring though. And instead of the red-light runner being at fault, now you have tailgaters. Just another type of careless/aggressive driver.

I have also read the articles where the camera operator gets most of the ticket money. i have also read repoerts where cities decreased the yellow light time to increase the number of tickets. the have been studies that show simply increasing the yellow light time actually is the most effective way to increase intersection safety.

fintail

Yeah, I thought it was pretty well known that the camera operating companies get a share of the proceeds. Talk about unjust legislation. Some poeple will just go out of their way to defer 'n conform. Not surprising, given the source.

Here's something - a law isn't just simply because it's a law.

snakeweasel

Here is the thing, if you are following at a safe distance you will be able to stop before hitting the car infront of you regardless of how they stop.

Now unless you can provide some type of proof that cameras at lights cause rear end collisions your are making false arguments. Now stop blaming cameras for others bad driving habits.

I have also read the articles where the camera operator gets most of the ticket money.

Again I would like to see the source of that infomation

xrunner2

"Driving is a privilege, not a right." So, how does one gain the privilege to do something? One earns it - at least that is how it was/is in my life.

So, what would you do if you were Secretary of State in your state?

fintail

Here's something about all the nonsense:

Click here

Or here

Or here

An that's just for starters. Google is a wonderful thing, check it out sometime.

redmaxx

Legally if at the time the light turns yellow you can reasonably stop you must. The accident was not caused by anything but the tailgater following to closely.

But you end up with lead cars that can't stop but try to anyway. Its been proven in court that not all rear-enders are caused by drivers following too close. One time there was a case where someone cut in line of cars and slammed on the brakes to make a turn. Totally unexpected behavior. If the lead car tries to stop when it should go through, other drivers expect that car to go through and don't react in the same way.

210delray

...is that rear-enders tend to be much less injurious than right-angle (side-impact) collisions. So even if rear-enders increase because of the presence of red-light cameras, the incidence of more serious injury-producing right-angle crashes decreases.

210delray

Your third source said this:

While studies have shown that locations that have red light cameras do reduce side impact accidents, they increase rear impact accidents, because people slam on the brakes to avoid getting caught by the camera. The net effect, however, is in dispute. Some say that the reduction in side impact crashes outweighs slower rear impact crashes -- which may be true. Of course, if officials really want to stop side impact crashes from people running red lights, it seems there's a much simpler and more effective solution. Some locations do this, but I've never understood why it's not more popular: have a period of time when lights in both directions are red [emphasis added]. That is, when the lights for one roadway turns red, don't immediately turn the cross traffic lights green.

Well, I don't know what planet the writer lives on, but in my recent experience (including a cross-country drive in December), you get the all-red interval he's talking about everywhere I've been, with one glaring exception, though not at all intersections there: Los Angeles, the car capital of the nation.

Also, though he alludes to it in passing, side-impact crashes on average produce far more serious injuries than rear-enders. Ponder the IIHS's side tests, where the simulated SUV/large pickup T-bones the test car at only 31 mph. In many cases in these tests (especially if the test car doesn't have side curtain airbags), the driver dummy receives the equivalent of a fatal blow to the head. That's a lot worse than whiplash, I'd say (coffin vs. chiropractor).

210delray

In some cases, such as in San Diego, it turned out that officials reduced the length of the yellow light on traffic lights where speed cameras were positioned, in order to create more violations.

This is one of those urban legends perpetuated so often that people accept it as gospel. Why would city officials purposely make intersections more dangerous? It's hard for me to believe they'd do that, given the legal liability they'd expose themselves to if some major injury and resulting lawsuit occurred. There are plenty of lawyers who'd jump on this, and a large judgment against the city would more than negate any extra revenue generated by more fines.

Urban legends like these are spread by anti-scientific groups like the National Motorists Association, whose current spokesman is a certain Eric Skrum. Now this group could provide a real service, because everyone knows of stupid speed limits, stupid traffic light timing, stupidly designed intersections, etc. in their areas.

Instead though, this group uses a battering ram instead of a scapel to attack all kinds of proven highway and auto safety measures. Their "research" is about on par with the shamans and witch doctors I mentioned earlier.

What a shame, because I do think a motorists' advocacy group could provide a very useful service. Forget AAA -- they're more into selling cruise packages and insurance.

snakeweasel

Nice links but they didn't answer my questions on the stop light cameras.

snakeweasel

If the lead car tries to stop when it should go through, other drivers expect that car to go through and don't react in the same way.

Is this an issue of the lead car stopping when it should go through or when the other cars behind him/her want to run the light? Remember at the time the light turns yellow if you can stop reasonably before the intersection you should not go through regardless of what those behind you think you should do. Now if the lead car stops for any reason then it is the responsibility of the cars following him/her to stop before hitting them, this is called following at a safe distance.

We are not discussing cutting in front of someone and slamming on their brakes.

Yesterday I was on a two lane road (one lane in each direction) I was doing maybe 5 over the limit and I noticed some idiot coming up on me real fast. Before they even approached me I started to slow down to make a left turn and I had my left turn signal on. This idiot started to flash their brights at me as they got close to me. :mad: You're showing the same mentality, get out of my way regardless of the circumstances.

Again quit trying to blame the cameras for someone elses bad driving habits.

snakeweasel

You should also notice that while they mention studies they give no details at all. Details such as the data the study shows, methodology, results, where the study was done, who did the study, nothing other than "studies show". So I would take it with a grain of salt.

snakeweasel

This is one of those urban legends perpetuated so often that people accept it as gospel. Why would city officials purposely make intersections more dangerous?

While it wasn't an intersection with a camera there was one near where I used to live that had a yellow light that was 1/8th of a second long (someone filed it and counted the number of frames that the yellow light was visable). Luckily the intersection was at a service road and had very little traffic but that light barely flashed yellow.

imidazol97

>Pure conjecture with no proof whatsoever to support it. Stop trying to fault the camera for someone elses mistake.

Please don't try to make the redlight cameras into an innocent money-maker for the political divisions that they aren't. Since it's conjecture you'll have to tell all those people who have reported it in newspapers and other sources they're wrong. You go look them up; I'm not doing your work for you.

>Redlight cameras are a business not a safety item. When the camera company keeps most of the money,

Go use the internet and search for articles about the agreements where the political divisions diverge the public data. Do your own work for sources. I know what I've read.

imidazol97

Since some want DATA, I can personally give data. It hit the letters-editor in local rag and I pass the intersection once per week so I time the yellow. It was one second shorter than others on the main thoroughfare into center city; all lights I could time in center city and on same thorofare toward suburbs were 4 seconds; the one on a T-street barely used most of the day was 3 seconds. Guess it wasn't getting enough revenue for the "company" so they retimed the light so that people who were used to the 4-second yellow would find themselves caught if they didn't slam on the brakes at the first yellow rather than roll on through since the time at all other lights in the area are 4-seconds.

BTW the street is Salem Avenue at North Street in Dayton, Ohio. You hardly notice it when driving with any traffic around as you drive in or out because it's low volume most of the time; it's a block away from a high volume cross street in a drug/alcohol and crime infested neighborhood. But that intersection didn't get cameras-I wonder why not. I drive through that area as if I'm in a bumper derby trying to be extra careful.

For those that want proof yahoo it yourself
with the info given. You'll also be able to find the $85 fines give city may $20.

snakeweasel

Please don't try to make the redlight cameras into an innocent money-maker for the political divisions that they aren't.

I am not trying to make them into anything but red light cameras.

Since it's conjecture you'll have to tell all those people who have reported it in newspapers and other sources they're wrong.

I haven't seen anything that gives any actual figures, and the ones I have seen that say that the operators get most of the money are regular joe posters on the internet. Not much to go on with that.

Do your own work for sources.

I didn't make the claim, I don't need to support it.

imidazol97

>I haven't seen anything that gives any actual figures, and the ones I have seen that say that the operators get most of the money are regular joe posters on the internet. Not much to go on with that.

Meet Joe Enquirer.
"For each $85 ticket, Redflex and Dayton split the proceeds - 65 percent for the company and 35 percent for the city."

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/12/loc_redlights12.html

The math says $55.25 business; $29.75, city. That was easy. All you had to do was yahoo it.

What's even more hilarious is 30% of the first year tickets in Dayton are unpaid. The inept city management hasn't been able to collect their "free money" they thought they found to run their city instead of taxes and other methods of funding their own businesses and residents rather than partly those from out-of-town who don't know the redlight cameras are there.

snakeweasel

"For each $85 ticket, Redflex and Dayton split the proceeds - 65 percent for the company and 35 percent for the city."

Is that just that one city or is that common to the industry?

PF_Flyer

Is that just that one city or is that common to the industry?
It wouldn't surprise me if that's common since it's the company that's doing the "work".

murphydog

SW -

There have been many studies and news stories on reducing red light running.
link title

This is just one of many, and while ABC does not list all their sources ( I wish they would!) they make mention of multiple studies. Even the Texas studies mentions adding 1.5 seconds to the yellow light time.

snakeweasel

The reason I asked is that I worked for a municipality not to long ago and we were looking into one or two of these. We were quoted a flat amount and percentage. We figured that we would have gotten anywhere from 65-70% of the fines.

fintail

I posted them about the revenue dispersal. That's it.

It's a crooked scheme.

euphonium

For the parked car, the parking meter.

For the moving car, the red light camera.

imidazol97

quotes from city folks about redlight cameras (and speed cameras)

"We need to generate revenue, and what this does - if it works right - is catch people we should be catching anyway."
Lemmie said it's safety - and not money - driving her decision. The cameras act as a deterrent, and free up police officers to deal with serious crime, she said.

"This is probably one of the most satisfying assignments I've had," said Dayton police Detective Carol Johnson, who oversees the city's red light camera system. "The system basically runs itself at this point."
_______________________________________________
No work like putting police cars around the area to catch other things as well as redlight running, just sit back and let the money roll in. That's why they are so willing to accept such a small percentage of the money--it's all free!!!

Except in Dayton one-third of the tickets are paid and they can't go after them as a police matter because to circumvent state laws they made them nontraffic tickets--just civil matters!!! Hoist on their own pitard!!! Gotta love it.

murphydog

Urban legand? You kill me! City officials will do anything to get more money!!! did you fall off the turnip truck yesterday?

imidazol97

That Urban Legend is at the address given in the post.
imidazol97, "Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)" #7586, 12 Mar 2006 6:48 am
It has been retimed within a week of the letter to the editor about it in the Dayton Daily News (Cox newspapers).

I just wonder how many others are retimed around the country.

A new camera in a suburb of the city was knocked over a few weeks ago. Supposedly in an accident. I wondered if someone used a Hummer and put it out-of-service.

210delray

My point was that they'd end up LOSING a lot more money if they short-timed a yellow light and someone was seriously injured or killed because of it, and then were successfully sued by an enterprising lawyer.

imidazol97

>"In most states there's no reduction for rain or snow or even when it's dark. You can't tell me 70 in the day time is just as safe as it is at night."

>Actually, I'm sure that in many states there are written laws, but not posted signs that take into account for road conditions. I know for a fact that if I am going 75 MPH in a 75 MPH

I agree with you. It's a little more difficult for the cop to say that 40 was too fast in the hood ornament hiding fog because it's all subject then when the speed limit is 60. I'll bet a lot of those are written as reckless driving rather than unsafe speed. It's up to a judge if it goes to court.

I had a local cop lecture me about tailgating because he couldn't write tickets that the adjacent municipal court judge wouldn't throw out if there wasn't contact between the vehicles. I had complained about tailgating in our municipality.

snakeweasel

MPH. I don't know about your driving skills, but if you wreck at 90 MPH it's gonna hurt! Maybe not much more than if at 75 MPH, but still at that speed you have less reaction time, less time to remanuver your vehicle, less time to compensate, take evasive action or what ever than you do at a lesser speed.

at 90 is going to be a lot worse than 75, there is a lot more kinetic energy and the braking distance increases dramatically. Both kinetic energy and braking distance has the square of the speed as a function. Therefore increasing speed by 20% (90 MPH as opposed to 75 MPH) increases the kinetic energy and braking distance by far more than 20%. It seem lost on many people on these forums that while driving 90 MPH in todays cars is safer than driving 90 MPH in cars of the 60's or 70's its still not safer than driving 75 MPH in todays cars.

imidazol97

Besides the momentum and kinetic energy differences at 90 and up, the steering control is not the same. There's a lot more lag time in distance between turning the wheel and the reaction. Even though time may be the same the car is covering many more feet before the effect starts to work to change the direction of the car's momentum!

It ain't the same folks. Physics'laws can't be repealed.

snakeweasel

Not only that but the wheels act as gyros and are harder to turn, plus the faster the car goes the less manuevarablity you have (i.e. it takes a longer and bigger arch to make a 90% turn the faster you go).

euphonium

Speaking of Physics Laws, I read recently that wind resistance is much more considerable at higher speeds, thus lower MPG. I remember that to compare the effect, you square the MPH and compare.

90 MPH = 8100
75 = 5625
55 = 3025
50 = 2500

There is a significant increase in the wind factor above 55 and that may be the voluntary speed limit when gasoline costs $5 a gallon.

ruking1

Right, they are are doing a volunteer sign up list and I notice your name was missing!?

xwesx

Hmmm... challenging question, xrunner! I will have to consider it a bit before responding. Between all those red light camera posts, this one was all but lost... :P

gee35coupe

And the host has already told us to chill with the speed limit stuff. Since I already do 90 when I see fit, I really don't care what they do with the speed limit. The places where it's most safe to speed are usually hard to enforce. Long straight interstate with lots of clear land on either side of the road. Just the type of roads we have here in Ga and Fla. As long as they don't invent the invisible police car, I'm fine. those of you in the NE though. I can see where you may be a little paranoid speeding. It's like tunnel vision with the trees so close.

The same physics apply everywhere on earth and many places allow 75 mph travel and more so that argument is moot. Even Arizona had a "reasonable and prudent" until a few idiots abused the priveledge.

The only valid argument against higher speed limits is that someone will abuse the higher speed limits. But doesn't that apply to any rule?

xwesx

Yep, that darn title just continues to drag along, does it not? Haha. The post to which I was responding had nothing to do with speed limits. :sick: