By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I swing around the truck do a U-turn and pull up to the other side. I get out and start fueling when I notice the truck is still running with no one in it. This was not a pay before fueling store so I'm wondering what's up. I figure maybe the guy has to buy something before he fuels. He HAS to be there to get gas because there are plenty of parking spaces.
I'm almost done when Mr. Tow comes out chomping on a ring ding gets in his truck and drives away. I just shook my head at the three cars waiting behind this boob.
I guess for some people the rest of the world doesn't exist.
(It would have been funny if someone took his running truck for a joyride.) :P
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
using that logic we should stop enforcing the law altogether as nothing is infallible. People get falsely accused all the time and some even get falsely convicted.
The major difference is that red light cameras are widely believed to be infallible, hence the post that had quoted. People think that if you're snapped, you're guilty. Whereas with a radar gun, you've got a fighting chance in court.
For most of what you say they are not supposed to do those things, but they can free up resources that can go after those. But let me address a couple of them.
They don't free up resources, they have replaced resources. There are fewer police patrolling now in areas with red light and speed cameras than prior to the camera's installation.
All the ones I have seen have them in every direction.
That never happens here in Phoenix. They only place them on the most heavily traveled road in the intersection.
You have a constitutional right to run red lights? I think that argument is a stretch.
I have a constitutional right not to be falsely accused and to face my accuser. That does not happen with the red light cameras.
miles a year. Another study by the American Beer Institute found
that the average American drinks 22 gallons of beer a year.
This means, on average, Americans get approximately 41 miles per
gallon.
Not bad!!!
I love statistics
I have a feeling Alaskans tend to bump that average up a bit (22 gallons), but they tend to walk it off.
Except me, of course, as one of the lone outliers - no beer and probably quite a few more miles. That means I get thrown out though, just as my wife wants to do to me nearly every day. Just yesterday my neighbor asks me, after we had spent a couple hours discussing water and septic systems, "Hey, do you drink beer?!" I said "no," and he comes back with, "darn." :confuse: I said, "I do drink other beverages as long as they are without alcohol, so don't be so disappointed!"
I guess we will not be having those "guy" conversations as much any more.
So what you are saying is that red light cameras signal police cars to stop and do nothing for 5-10 minutes every time they take someones picture so that the police officers time is used up when someone runs a red light.
That's not what he said.
He said it violated his constitutional rights, if he was not saying he had a right to run red lights what rights are being violated?
Suggesting that the accused retains the right of due process and the right to confront the accuser, even for a relatively minor offense, is not the same thing as saying that the accused has a right to commit the offense.
Ah but he has the right to due process and confront the accuser (thats why you can go to court). None of that is violated by red light cameras, you still retain all the rights that everyone else has.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not sure about where you are but here police presence has not dropped at all after the placement of the red light cameras. Just as many police now as before.
I have a constitutional right not to be falsely accused and to face my accuser. That does not happen with the red light cameras.
It does happen with red light cameras, you can go to court and face you accuser and exercise your rights.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not sure about where you are but here police presence has not dropped at all after the placement of the red light cameras. Just as many police now as before.
Since installing the cameras, the City of Phoenix no longer stations motorcycle officers at intersections to pull over red light runners, speeders, drunks, etc. Now they have cameras for the express purpose of issuing tickets in 30 days for running a red light. Again, this method lacks expediency and breadth of enforcement.
Same story on the 101. Huge crackdown has turned into very light "pass through" (meaning officers are on the 101 when they're on their way somewhere) enforcement.
When will you realize that in this case the accuser is the municipality that issued the ticket and is represented by the prosecuting attorney? If you want to question those who calibrated and operate the equipment you cab supeona them. Since this is the case your constitutional rights have not been violated.
Since installing the cameras, the City of Phoenix no longer stations motorcycle officers at intersections to pull over red light runners, speeders, drunks, etc.
Since when is not stationing police at certain areas a reduction in police presence? Shifting how assets are allocated is not the same thing as reducing that asset.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Those photo radar camera that catch speeders are similar. There's one in Washington DC on New York Avenue going westbound, near the railroad yards. Basically, everybody just learns that you can speed along, and then you see the signs warning of the photo radar. Then you go under the overpass, and after you pass by the homeless guy who's always out there waving what looks like a marijuana leaf at the traffic, you slow down to 25-30 (speed limit's actually 35). Then, once you're past the cameras and all the white lines in the road, you speed up to however fast you want to go and are on your merry way.
These cameras are just a revenue device. They really don't deter red light running or speeding overall, just at whatever particular point they happen to be at. And in many cases they don't reduce accidents, but rather, increase them! Accidents from running red lights may go down, but rear-enders often skyrocket.
Actually, whether your rights have been violated or not is open to discussion. Pennsylvania, for example, determined that these cameras ARE a violation of your rights and banned them. In Maryland, they've determined that red light cameras are okay, but photo radar cameras aren't. I'm not sure of the rationale there, except that some political bigwig from either Maryland or DC got caught by one in Maryland a few years back, and he made them take 'em down.
Anyway, I digress.... It is interesting that you mention New York Avenue... just went back to my files and I see I have a nice pic of my car's rear license plate, going back to 1/18/06 saying that i was doing 50 in a 35. Actually it is 3 pics, showing lines on road etc, taken at the "600 blk New York Ave NE w/b"
Here's the thing - I was probably speeding. The problem I have with this is that the offense happened on 1/18; the letter was mailed on 3/03. For someone who drives as much as I do, there is no reasonable way to prove much of a defense - witnesses? recollection? circumstance? So of course, I paid the fine and moved on. I would not necessarily have done that with a ticket handed to me on the spot.
Another thing that comes to mind is purpose - frankly if the point is to deter speeding, then I was not deterred.... Since I was not a local, obviously missed the "photo radar" signs, the road was clear, and did not have any reason to feel that 50 was an unreasonable speed, ticketing me in this fashion did not help protect the local citizenry any, except it got a few bucks into the coffers.
Instead the money doesn't pay for extra policing in other locations. Municipalities view it as discretionary income to pay for other things. Or to replace income their can't get from their voters. The logic given for placing these usually comes from the brochure and presentation by the real money-makers who put up and process the bills from them.
I heard that there's a case in the Ohio Supreme Court about these. That's even though our out-going convicted Governor Taft vetoed the bill to require a policeman present at each location where one of these was working (apparently Ohio law doesn't allow the legislature to forbid having these things, so they were making it the way it should be by requiring a policeman's presence for each fake ticket (bill)),
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
In every community there's a group of people clamoring for "the authorities" to do something about speeders or red light runners. Getting Redflex to set something up is more palatable to many of these communities than raising taxes to afford more cops or pay more overtime. Especially if Redflex or ATS agrees to pay any legal costs associated with the inevitable lawsuits.
The pols get hammered from all sides - if they hire more cops, people yell because their taxes go up. If they do nothing, people yell because their friend/neighbor/Cub Scout leader got T-Boned by a red light runner. If they put a red light camera up, they get yelled at by the speeders and red light runners and privacy mavens. Then they get recalled. :P
What works and what doesn't work is another interesting question. Anchorage had an awful problem with red light runners when I lived there. Boise has a few, but the drivers here seem a bit calmer and more courteous in general. I don't notice more cops here than I did in Anchorage.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I've driven in every state and all the provinces/territories (except Nunavat) and the worse (most aggressive) drivers I've seen anywhere were in Quebec heading east out of Montreal.
You still don't get that it's really screwed up? The accuser has little information regarding the claim being made and has virtually no say in whether or not the ticket was issued. The accuser is a poor police officer who gets to sit in court all day and read from a Redflex marketing manual. The real accusers are the people working for Redflex issuing the tickets. It has been shown (and you were in the conversation) that judges do not allow the subpoena of anyone. They have a whole slew of traffic court cases on any given day and they refuse to let anything hold them up.
It's like this. You punch me in the face. 30 days later, you get a lawsuit from my brother, who claims you punched me in the face, without provocation. You and him show up in court, with 100 other cases of people's brothers getting punched in the face. You plead with the judge to let you question me, but because my brother sued you and the judge has a busy day (every day), he refuses. How do you prove that I actually provoked you? My brother wasn't there, so he is useless for questioning.
Since when is not stationing police at certain areas a reduction in police presence? Shifting how assets are allocated is not the same thing as reducing that asset.
I said that they are reducing officers and gave that as a singular example. You ignored the case of the Loop 101 where police presence has all but disappeared. It is a fact that new police hires are not keeping up with population growth.
Plus you're ignoring the fact that they're falsely accusing people.
Still does, and so does Fairbanks for that matter.
Yesterday I was headed home by a different route due to an earlier appointment. I was at the intersection of Cushman and Airport Way wanting to turn left onto Airport from Cushman, with a general green light for Cushman traffic. There are two oncoming lanes of traffic with one being a straight or right and the other being a straight or left. Well, there are about 3 vehicles in a row (both left AND right lanes) which turned their respective directions without using blinkers (meaning I missed an opportunity to go as there are two lanes headed my intended direction on Airport). Then a couple vehicles went straight across. Finally, the light turns yellow (I was sitting in the midst of the intersection this whole time). I prepare to go after the next set of vehicles passes me. But, then, after the light is already red, not one vehicle but two in each lane went through the light anyway... and they were only traveling at perhaps 15 mph before the change! I was dumbfounded! Here I am, in the intersection for nearly 6 seconds or more after the light had turned green for opposing traffic, trying to avoid a collision with four red light runners. Talk about feeling vulnerable. And in Alaska, lights even have a 3-second delay between red for one and green for the next! I wish I could say that was unusual, but from all the drivers' lack of reaction to it, I would guess it is just another light change.
However, I am still of the mindset that I would rather wait and be as safe as possible than be right and delayed, injured, or dead. *shrugs* I would never make it in a city for long.
I never said that. Please do not put words into my mouth.
You alleged that red light cameras free up police to do other things. I said that this has not been the case.
I also said that even when a police officer has a car pulled over for running a red light, his or her mere presence serves as a deterrent effect on not just red light running, but other offenses.
snakeweasel: He said it violated his constitutional rights, if he was not saying he had a right to run red lights what rights are being violated?
Please do not put words into his mouth, either.
He never said that he, or anyone else, has a constitutional right to run red lights. He said that the use of red light cameras violates the right to face one's accuser and the right to due process.
I'll repeat what I posted previously: Suggesting that the accused retains the right of due process and the right to confront the accuser, even for a relatively minor offense, is not the same thing as saying that the accused has a right to commit the offense.
snakeweasel: Ah but he has the right to due process and confront the accuser (thats why you can go to court). None of that is violated by red light cameras, you still retain all the rights that everyone else has.
Which is not the same thing as being immediately notified of the violation (which is what happens when you are pulled over by the police). This gives one the opportunity to take mental notes while the situation is fresh, if one desires to later contest the charges.
(And please note that I said "later contest the charges." I am not advocating an on-the-spot argument with the police.)
Actually it is open to discussion since you are bringing it up. Show me one court case that states that red light cameras are a violation of your rights, you can't because they are not.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't because it really isn't screwed up.
The accuser has little information regarding the claim being made and has virtually no say in whether or not the ticket was issued.
The accuser is the municipality that has the ticket issued and has a say so in if the ticket is issued and if a case is persured.
It has been shown (and you were in the conversation) that judges do not allow the subpoena of anyone.
Really? I have had judges issued subpoenas every time I asked for one.
They have a whole slew of traffic court cases on any given day and they refuse to let anything hold them up.
While they have a whole slew of cases they will and do allow for proper court proceedings to occur. If they don't a judge can lose their seat on the bench. Come on over here sometime and we will sit in traffic court and you can actually hear the judge with your own two ears explain to those in the court what to do if you want a trial. Your whole argument is false.
It's like this....
Your example is useless for this argument. But since your brother was not injured in the case a motion to dismiss would be presented and most likely accepted by the judge.
Plus you're ignoring the fact that they're falsely accusing people.
I think that statement is a false accusation in and of itself. If you have evidence that they ran a red light then it is not a false accusation. You seem to be ignoring that fact.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
No you never said that but you are implying it. The only way that there is not a corresponding increase in police patrols is if they take police off the streets. If they keep the police on the streets and they are not tied up watching intersections then they have to be out patrolling. It only makes sense.
He never said that he, or anyone else, has a constitutional right to run red lights. He said that the use of red light cameras violates the right to face one's accuser and the right to due process.
No he said only that it violated his Constitutional rights, since it does not violate his rights to face ones accuser (they do that if they show up in court) nor does it violate his right to due process (the courts will let him take due process) so it must be something else.
Which is not the same thing as being immediately notified of the violation (which is what happens when you are pulled over by the police).
The constitution does not give you the right to be immediately notified of the violation, it just states that the timing must be reasonable.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It is not a crime to be cited for running a Red light, that's a Civil offense so don't expect Criminal Law rules to apply. Just pay the ticket and move on.
Bottom Line: The Red light runner gets busted and that is good.
Here's one link. (CBS)
Me thinks it is you that may be confusing criminal law and civil law. Civil law are laws governing relationships between individuals. Hence if the two of us would enter into a contract the laws governing that contract and our obligations to each other are governed under civil law.
Criminal law pertains more to individuals and society as a whole.
Running a red light is under criminal law not civil law. Hence all the rules for criminal law are valid for red light running cases. Many times such things as running a red light, speeding and the like are labeled "quasi-laws" as they don't hold the severity and penalties of other laws, but it is a violation of criminal law.
Just pay the ticket and move on.
I agree its really a minor amount and beating it would cost more in time and effort.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Another link gleaned from the blog on the CBS article is here. Fraud and indictments
It's about the quality of salespeople used by RedFlex and ACS a competitor. Lots of indictments.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, red light cameras work. They have reduced side impact accidents by an average of 24 percent and accident injuries by 16 percent. (
at the intersection where the cameras are located).Notice figures never lie but liars always (use) figures. They left off the words "at the intersection where the cameras are located."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If the use of cameras meant more policing elsewhere, I'd be for it.
If the use of cameras meant fewer traffic offenses by some drivers and safer streets and roads, I'd be for it.
It doesn't work that way.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That pretty much says what's wrong with cameras: they don't check ID and warrant list for drivers along with impairment by alcohol or drugs.
From daily Standard on DC photocop ridealong--intersting linked to Steve's CBS article above.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I know there is a difference in the weight of some traffic laws. I forget what they call the categories, but it's not "criminal" versus "civil". Things like speeding, running a red light, etc, are in one category, but things like letting your parking meter run out, parking in a no parking zone, etc, are classified differently. Basically, some infractions go against the driver. Others go against the vehicle, and by default, the vehicle owner.
If your friend borrows your car and a cop sees him run a red light, HE gets the ticket. HE being the perpetrator. If he runs a red light and gets caught on camera, YOU get the ticket. YOU being the owner, NOT the perpetrator.
Basically that's been my issue with red light cameras all along. They punish the vehicle owner, NOT the driver. And the two aren't always the same person. Basically, the camera turns the infraction into a parking ticket.
Also, there was a case where the camera only got a partial license plate on a pickup truck. They did the closest match they could and found a 1984 or so Celebrity a hundred or more miles away that hadn't been on the road in years. The owner still had to pay it. Now, I guess there's always the chance that someone took the plate off that Celebrity and threw it on a pickup, was driving illegally, and got busted by a red light camera. But I think the actuality is that the jurisdiction, and the company that owned the camera, just wanted to get paid, and didn't care who paid it.
Almost makes me want to drop the tailgate on my pickup and go trigger a few red light cameras! :P
"There are a multitude of INDEPENDENT studies which show that the cameras have absolutely NO EFFECT on changing driver behavior. This include admissions from officials in the UK and Australia where they have been in use for years. The person performing the "studies" for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (which is FUNDED by INSURANCE COMPANIES) is a man named Richard Rettig. This man worked as the head of the transportation dept of New York, and is credited with being the father of the red light cameras because he is the one which brought the cameras to NY. Having him do a "study" is like having the CEO of Ford doing a crash test study and claiming that Ford has the best numbers.
Plus, a recent study shows that 85% of infractions were within one tenth of a second after the light turns red."
link title
Go down reader posts to
"Posted by socrates577 at 08:40 AM : Jan 23, 2007"
And do I understand Redflex is an Australian company? What! We don't have a US company capable of billing its own citizens?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Making Treads: New Tire Technology (The Driving Woman)
Would you be an inconsiderate driver if you drove your perfumed tires to the house of someone who was sensitive to perfume scents??? :confuse:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Agree on these points. But, road in my area always floods by the river when periods of lots of rain. Use the road often (over 19 years), so know about its condition. Only drive in water in daylight. Ditches on either side are shallow. In daylight, can see extent of current if any. Also, usually traffic coming and going on road in daylight and driving in water and don't see them being swept off of road. Never seen anyone turning around to avoid the water.
Would not drive into water at night or on unfamiliar road in daylight or night. I will not use this road at night when water is on the road. Use alternatives.
Probably more dangerous to drive on this bridge at any time as opposed to driving in water near it. This bridge was rated very low, of all bridges in my county, after the I35 bridge collapse.
So by extension, wouldn't that make it dangerous to drive on the bridge? If the bridge collapsed, it would wipe your car out as it went down the river, right?
Driving naked with jelly hands
"Nearly half of all flash flood fatalities are auto related. While driving in flood prone areas, be on the look out for flooding at highway dips, bridges and low areas. Never attempt to drive over a flooded road where you could be stranded or trapped by rushing water. If your vehicle stalls, leave it immediately and seek higher ground. Rising water can engulf the vehicle and sweep it away."
Idaho Statesman - may require registration
I'm not sure about the rushing water part - check out this photo on Sylvia's CarSpace page.
Now there's a public service announcement from a Kentucky department threatening motorists if they cut off a truck they will be cited because that's dangerous. :sick: Even a morning talk show host on WLW 700 radio mentioned he was run out of his left lane when driving with a trailer south on I75 into Kentucky recently by a trucker who looked in his mirror, made eye contact, put on his turn signal and came over into the left lane.
The ad is running on Cincinnati radio occasionally. Amazing because the dangerous driving comes from the truckers, many showing Kentucky locations on their door and trailers.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Or go for the locomotive model.