So Stupid

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...cmp=latestnews

I really don't care if the government does make money of off criminals. Don't run red lights - don't put people at risk. This isn't government too far - this is exactly what government should be deployed for. Keeping innocent people who have done nothing wrong SAFE from idiots who want to run red lights, drink and drive or any other negligent behavior. I'm not really sure how anyone can look the camera in the eye and say, "I support people's rights to drive through red lights." Serious? This is embarrassing - I'm typically a big Tea Party fan but this is a joke.

Keep the cameras but quit playing around with the timings just to make more money

On a side note, "This is a corporate money making enterprise trying to influence a campaign," added Rivera - look who's complaining now about corporations using money to influence politics.

I live by a red light camera, I can see it flash at night from my windows :\

The cameras aren't there to stop red light runners, cause you can roll through them doing under 12mph and not set them off. They also appear to be a distraction because drivers pay more attention to the painted line than to the rest of their surroundings, making the intersections less safe for pedestrians; a car thats going to speed through an intersection is pretty easy to spot, but one that stops then goes without checking the intersection is much harder to peg. A study of Chicago's system showed that overall accident rates didn't decrease, just changed. Nothing like shortening a yellow light down its absolute minimum (and then some) to put some distrust and fear into your everyday driver. The cameras, since they are stationary, also encourage drivers to use side streets to reduce their risk of accidentally getting tagged (which can be a bitch of a process to fight). So you end up with more cars on streets without sidewalks, without proper signage, and more pedestrians, making everything that much more unsafe. At least with police, the fines all go back to the city, but with these systems far to much of the money fills the pockets of whatever company bribed their way into the city first.

Its a shit system, operated in a shitty way, by shitty people. But this is lewk posting a fox link in D&D, so i'm doubtful this is going to go anywhere constructive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...cmp=latestnews

I really don't care if the government does make money of off criminals. Don't run red lights - don't put people at risk. This isn't government too far - this is exactly what government should be deployed for. Keeping innocent people who have done nothing wrong SAFE from idiots who want to run red lights, drink and drive or any other negligent behavior. I'm not really sure how anyone can look the camera in the eye and say, "I support people's rights to drive through red lights." Serious? This is embarrassing - I'm typically a big Tea Party fan but this is a joke.

---

Scenario: I come to a red light intersection at 1am in the morning. I stop and see there is no visible traffic in any direction. Since there is no possible danger to anyone by doing it, rather than wait for the green I drive through the red. A camera sees me, or maybe a cop is watching the intersection from a nearby parking lot. Does it make any sense to cite me for a traffic violation? Should I be imprisoned or shot for knowingly disregarding the law?

Note- I routinely do this and not because I have contempt for the law and the safety of everyone around me, but because I'm not a fucking robot that can't think for myself. Traffic does not need to be regulated when there is no traffic. And nobody should have to sit at an empty intersection waiting for a light to change. It's idiotic.

Interestingly the article you linked to doesn't address time of day the tickets are issued - that's THE KEY piece of information. Are people being ticketed for not being total fucking robotic idiots? Or for doing something genuinely dangerous? If it's the former, it's worth fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I really don't care if the government does make money of off criminals. Don't run red lights - don't put people at risk. This isn't government too far - this is exactly what government should be deployed for. Keeping innocent people who have done nothing wrong SAFE from idiots who want to run red lights, drink and drive or any other negligent behavior. I'm not really sure how anyone can look the camera in the eye and say, "I support people's rights to drive through red lights." Serious? This is embarrassing - I'm typically a big Tea Party fan but this is a joke.

---

No, the "joke" is on you. You like to pose as a freedom-loving, small government conservative....until right-wing and left-wing groups converge on a principle. It just blows your mind that the Tea Party can agree with those damn liberals. :picard:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Scenario: I come to a red light intersection at 1am in the morning. I stop and see there is no visible traffic in any direction. Since there is no possible danger to anyone by doing it, rather than wait for the green I drive through the red. A camera sees me, or maybe a cop is watching the intersection from a nearby parking lot. Does it make any sense to cite me for a traffic violation? Should I be imprisoned or shot for knowingly disregarding the law?

Note- I routinely do this and not because I have contempt for the law and the safety of everyone around me, but because I'm not a fucking robot that can't think for myself. Traffic does not need to be regulated when there is no traffic. And nobody should have to sit at an empty intersection waiting for a light to change. It's idiotic.

Interestingly the article you linked to doesn't address time of day the tickets are issued - that's THE KEY piece of information. Are people being ticketed for not being total fucking robotic idiots? Or for doing something genuinely dangerous? If it's the former, it's worth fighting.

---

Sounds like those intersections should have blinking yellow/red lights during off peak hours. It's an easy fix if the goal is really traffic safety, and not using minor traffic violations to fund police departments (vs raising taxes).

Turning Right-on-Red used be 'controversial', too. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I live by a red light camera, I can see it flash at night from my windows :\

The cameras aren't there to stop red light runners, cause you can roll through them doing under 12mph and not set them off. They also appear to be a distraction because drivers pay more attention to the painted line than to the rest of their surroundings, making the intersections less safe for pedestrians; a car thats going to speed through an intersection is pretty easy to spot, but one that stops then goes without checking the intersection is much harder to peg. A study of Chicago's system showed that overall accident rates didn't decrease, just changed. Nothing like shortening a yellow light down its absolute minimum (and then some) to put some distrust and fear into your everyday driver. The cameras, since they are stationary, also encourage drivers to use side streets to reduce their risk of accidentally getting tagged (which can be a bitch of a process to fight). So you end up with more cars on streets without sidewalks, without proper signage, and more pedestrians, making everything that much more unsafe. At least with police, the fines all go back to the city, but with these systems far to much of the money fills the pockets of whatever company bribed their way into the city first.

Its a shit system, operated in a shitty way, by shitty people. But this is lewk posting a fox link in D&D, so i'm doubtful this is going to go anywhere constructive.

---

You'r not supposed to speed up on yellow.

As far as the camera flash... yeah that could be a problem and I'm sure that can be fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

You'r not supposed to speed up on yellow.

As far as the camera flash... yeah that could be a problem and I'm sure that can be fixed.

---

We're not supposed to do lots of things, like driving through a yellow light, but it happens all the time. If you're concerned about public safety and public policy, I'm not sure how you can give the benefit of doubt to computer programs, as a replacement for human judgement.

<I recently drove on an interstate turnpike but didn't exit correctly. I got a bill from a state agency, and they included a picture of my car and its license plate. I sent them a check for the toll, less than ten bucks. But if I hadn't saved the tickets/receipts it would have been a much larger bill.>

Question for Lewk: how should we pay for local or interstate road/highway construction, its maintenance or oversight? If you don't want to use tax revenues, how can you complain about stupid fines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

You'r not supposed to speed up on yellow.

---

Who said anything about speeding up on yellow? :confused: What does that have to do with anything I said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

like driving through a yellow light,

---

Its perfectly legal to drive through a yellow. Thats why its yellow. Its telling people that hey, if you can't reach me at your current speed, you need to start stopping. One of the shitty ways cities profit from the cameras is that they screw with the yellow timings, making some lights shorter than others, changing the yellow time based on the day or the hour, or even reducing them to periods shorter than whats legally allowed.

This creates uncertainty with drivers, and that makes them more likely to slam on their brakes (causing accidents) when they would otherwise have had plenty of time to make it through the intersection.

This is anecdotal but I almost never see people slam on their brakes when the light turns yellow. The majority hit the accelerator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

This is anecdotal but I almost never see people slam on their brakes when the light turns yellow. The majority hit the accelerator.

---

http://time.com/3643077/red-light-ca...sions-chicago/
22% increase in rear end collisions

So lets clarify here. Someone slams on their brakes and are being hit by the car behind them? Eh? Aren't drivers supposed to leave room for that? Seems like we need more officers on the streets nabbing tailgaters and reckless drivers.

On a side note I guess liberals will finally admit that deterrence in fact works? If drivers are changing their braking behavior due to tickets then clearly things like harsher penalties would also deter criminal activity. :) Where you at Khen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So lets clarify here. Someone slams on their brakes and are being hit by the car behind them?

---

A cash grab that requires emergency braking at intersections is not a safety feature. No one being kept safe, thus your original point is ruled invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

If drivers are changing their braking behavior due to tickets then clearly things like harsher penalties would also deter criminal activity.

---

You're ignoring to many factors here. People being afraid of being ticketed may not be the same people who would have run the light to begin with. Its the shady business of the cameras that makes them cautious of not being caught up in their bullshit. Better safe than sorry, the same people who would stop regularly in case there was a cop watching the intersection instead of a camera. The people who you think the cameras would deter would simply spend a few bucks on a plate sleeve or paint that blocks the camera from working.

Ah yes you're talking about the people who welcome a future American police state :o

Soon(er or later) none of this will matter. Self-driving cars, yo. Maybe then traffic cops can be assigned useful tasks instead of acting like leaches on the local community.

Just a clarification, it's politicians making police be leeches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Soon(er or later) none of this will matter. Self-driving cars, yo. Maybe then traffic cops can be assigned useful tasks instead of acting like leaches on the local community.

---

That's your 2nd post about the awesomeness of self-driving cars....in the future. That doesn't mean our current problems don't need immediate attention, with sensible answers.

How much we want to spend on Police, and how we want to raise those funds, largely depends on how we define a Public good or service, and what we think about taxes, doesn't it?

Local paper put out the numbers for our cameras today. City is planning to get ~10% of the fines from red light runners, with 90% going to the company who owns/operates the cameras (American Traffic Solutions). A quarter of that 10% is supposed to go towards improving conditions at the intersections that are deemed so hazardous that cameras are required. Thats going to amount to about ~$25,000 for driver and pedestrian improvement, city wide.

What a crock of shit.

:bulb: how the fuck can 90% of government fines go to a private company?

contracts greased in bribes?

The red light program guarantees X amount to the company, and the city only gets a percentage of whats left after that amount is reached.

I don't understand how the government can outsource giving fines to begin with.

Its a shady area that courts are still fighting over. In my city the "evidence" is sent to an officer to approve the citation. So some guy/girl sits at a computer clicking approve all day long. Everything else is handled by the camera company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

:bulb: how the fuck can 90% of government fines go to a private company?

---

It does cost money to place/maintain the cameras.

You'd think they'd have recouped those costs by now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You'd think they'd have recouped those costs by now

---

And they may have - though keep in mind they didn't go into the camera business to help make the roads safe. Just like if the government wants to construct something - the construction company is not doing it for free they are going to make a profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

And they may have - though keep in mind they didn't go into the camera business to help make the roads safe. Just like if the government wants to construct something - the construction company is not doing it for free they are going to make a profit.

---

No, but the government also shouldn't be overpaying for construction. But more to the point I think what is basically law enforcement should not be done by private companies - enforcement for the sake of revenue is already a problem (and, I think, wrong), but handing it over to the private sector sounds like it would make things only worse, and with less accountability. If you ask me, certain tasks should be kept by the government and not subcontracted to companies (for example, privatized prisons are something I think should not exist either, and privatizing, say, the IRS or the military also seems like a bad idea to me).