| Author | Message | ||
     Froggy |
Obviously they don't arbitrarily change the speed limits on some roads in the UK and happen to put up a speed camera right where the speed limit drops. I've seen it on open roads in the middle of nowhere, 55 for miles, suddenly a 45 zone, then back to 55 a mile later. No schools, no towns, no changes in road conditions, just open farm land as far as the eye can see. It is just a perfect trap for a cop or a camera to hide and pick off tourists.
Here ya go, here is one situation where a city was caught and had to refund every ticket. http://jalopnik.com/127487/bay-area-city-must-refu nd-red-light-camera-tickets
Safety and courtesy. Many times I've seen various warnings the speed limit is going to drop so you have a chance to adjust accordingly, but often times they don't warn you to increase the chances of revenue generation.
I do, but I don't have the psychic ability to know the speed limit is lowing without seeing the intentionally poorly placed signs that let me know I am already speeding. Oh look, a cop sitting hiding in the woods right after that sign, I better jam on the brakes to scrub off the 10-15mph difference and then hopefully the cars behind me will do the same. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
The revenue enhancement thing is proven by the fact that most if not all the red light cameras have the yellow delay reduced to catch more people. Also, a lot of these tickets are not issued from the government,county,state but by a private company that shared a cut with the government. I have seen also that parking meters are no longer owned by the cities but more and more being operated by a private company. What's going on here? | ||
| Sifo |
Here ya go, here is one situation where a city was caught and had to refund every ticket. http://jalopnik.com/127487/bay-area-city-must-refu nd-red-light-camera-tickets If you re-read what I said, it was about local lights. I have little doubt that through the nation there are short yellows, some I'm sure at camera patrolled intersections. Interesting that your example shows that it was identified, fixed, and refunds being made. Sounds like the system is working. We have lots of red light cameras in our area and they don't seem to have short yellows. Do you object to this? From what I can tell the short yellow thing is the exception, not the rule, but becomes the number one complaint about red light cameras. From what I can gather people simply want to be able to get away with running red lights. | ||
| Sifo |
Safety and courtesy. Many times I've seen various warnings the speed limit is going to drop so you have a chance to adjust accordingly, but often times they don't warn you to increase the chances of revenue generation. I see this on highways where the limit hasn't changed for a long period of time, but that's about it. You seem to be complaining that warnings aren't provided at all changes. There is such a thing as information overload. Too many signs on the road leads to confusion when trying to navigate an unfamiliar area. Your example of jamming on the brakes when seeing a cop after a speed limit change simply means that you have ignored a sign that you saw. Don't expect a lot of sympathy on that from me. | ||
| Sifo |
The revenue enhancement thing is proven by the fact that most if not all the red light cameras have the yellow delay reduced to catch more people. Also, a lot of these tickets are not issued from the government,county,state but by a private company that shared a cut with the government. Where did you get your information that "most if not all" of these intersection have a shortened yellow? I go through these intersections daily as part of my job and have not seen evidence of this. The reason the municipalities hire this sort of thing out is the same reason that any technology isn't developed by each municipality. It's just cost effective to purchase/lease this sort of thing. That doesn't point to anything nefarious going on though. | ||
| Sifo |
It's interesting to look at actual numbers to see what's going on. Here's an interesting scientific study of the effects of lengthening the yellow duration and red light cameras on red light violations. http://www.stopredlightrunning.com/pdfs/ReduceRedLt_IIHS_.pdf For those that don't care to read it here's some of the results in table form. Notice that the addition of red light cameras reduced violations anywhere from 87 to 100 percent. That's an example of personal responsibility when the person has "skin in the game". Just as true with driving as it is with health care costs, or anything else.  | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
hey Sifo they tell you in the study itself that the data they collected is worthless. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
way way to many factors beyond the scope of that shotgun style study. not to mention that they spell out that it was done in philly the comparatives didn't have nearly the traffic flow they only studied one intersection in philly(granted a large and complex one) and that prior to these red light cams there were non in all of PA and that only 9 highly publicized intersections got them.....completely worthless data. and they had to apply a regression algorithm to make the %%%'s jump.... lies, damn lies and statistics........ | ||
| Hootowl |
That study may be unreliable, but my observations about the intersection near my home fall right in line with what the study found. Before the camera, 5 cars go through on red, drivers block the intersection during rush hour when their light turns red but they can't make it through due to backed up traffic. Now the intersection is blocked and the cross traffic can't move. Sucks all the way around. After the camera was installed, there are no red light runners (that I've ever seen) and people don't block the intersection, they wait until there's room on the other side before proceeding across. It is amazing how polite folks get when the cops are watching. | ||
| Scooter808484 |
Sorry if someone else mentioned a similar comment earlier, but here's one of my problem with the camera enforcement issue: These systems almost always come with a deal that the company providing the camera equipment gets a cut of the revenue, in return for free or reduced price equipment. So that company has the incentive to reduce speed deadbands, reduce yellow light times, etc. and puts the local gov't in the position of perhaps having to decide whether to shorten the yellow, or risk having the company pull the cameras. To me, the mere fact that there is an appearance that that sort of thing could be going on puts the government in a place it shouldn't be, i.e. profiting from crime and having an incentive to INCREASE crime. Word parsers and fact checkers may now proceed. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
Hoot i have no problem with your casual observations being stated as such. i take issue with a government agency taking BS data like that and championing it as fact on the face of it. when if you read the full report, which i am sure most don't/won't it tells you the real truth. then there is the issue that scooter has brought up which i hadn't even touched yet, corporations taking a direct role in the 'enforcement' of the law.... personal and property security sure. doing the job that sworn LEO's are supposed to be doing? not acceptable. and that is coming from someone who truly hates cops as a general rule and is willing to make exception to the few i have personally found to be human beings(no not the ones that let me go, i mean off duty) | ||
| Hootowl |
"and that is coming from someone who truly hates cops as a general rule" Your distain for the red light cameras makes perfect sense now. The camera works for the police department. The private company that owns the camera just passes the data long. If they're getting a percentage of each ticket, that's great. How else would you suggest that municipalities pay for the cameras? Taxes? No thanks. I'd rather have the folks causing the problem that the camera solves pay for the camera. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
i have no issue with the trouble makers paying for the cameras i have a problem with the cameras and that's compounded by a non LEO doing the job of a LEO | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
and yes that statement should explain a good bit about my general attitude here in cyberspace as well as in the real world. it's not just keyboard courage | ||
| Hootowl |
Where is the non-LEO involved? The camera company doesn't issue the citation, they simply forward the evidence to the police department, as they've been contracted to do. I get that you don't like getting tickets in the mail. Who would? But I'm not seeing how traffic cameras are simply revenue generators. Not to say there aren't any placed for that reason, but the ones I have seen are in large, busy, problem intersections, and after they're put up, the craziness disappears. | ||
| Scooter808484 |
How else would you suggest that municipalities pay for the cameras? Taxes? No thanks. I'd rather have the folks causing the problem that the camera solves pay for the camera. My personal preference would be too use taxpayer money to hire more cops, instead of buying cameras, who could then do something useful, besides hassle the citzenry for going 28 in a 25. Those cops could then be relocated to troublesome traffic areas, then reassigned when the problem is cleared up. | ||
| Hootowl |
I hear you. But then, I've always been of the opinion that if a city has enough cops for them to sit on the side of the road and hassle people for going 28 in a 25, then they have too many cops. Or a mayor with his/her priorities out of whack. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
i must have misunderstood on the non-LEO i was under impression that the company put the cams out and did the citations too. if im wrong my apologies | ||
| Sifo |
hey Sifo they tell you in the study itself that the data they collected is worthless. Boogiman, can you quote where they say the data is worthless? Of course not. Pretty much any study of this sort is going to have fairly severe limitations, but that doesn't make it worthless. If the success of the cameras in changing habits had been marginal then you would have a better case. The success rate is rather astounding though, so even with the flaws in the study, the general results are hard to refute. Even if the results had a 50% margin of error the results are impressive. then there is the issue that scooter has brought up which i hadn't even touched yet, corporations taking a direct role in the 'enforcement' of the law I'm curious what aspect of this you object to. Is it the collection of photos? The forwarding of incriminating photos to law enforcement? That is the extent of what they do, collect and forward photos. Do you also object to people calling the police when the see a crime in progress? I'm really curious where you stand on this. Scooter too. These results are not an exception. You can easily find many studies that show the effectiveness of these systems. Another example... http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa0009.htm More... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ns/us_news-cr ime_and_courts/t/red-light-cameras-too-good-their- own-good/ I can keep providing links, but I think you get the idea. For what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of this sort of thing. The thing is that I'm less of a fan of getting creamed by some a$$hole who doesn't care who he kills. Years back when a light changed to red, the opposing light would turn green. Because of assholes running red lights they started to delay the green. That makes it so that less traffic can get through an intersection per hour because you have all directions of traffic looking at red lights. The problem is that red light runners adjust to the delay and will run the red even later. The result was even longer delays before getting a green light and even less traffic getting through the intersection. The only conclusion I can come to is that a person who is against enforcing red light must be a person to tends to run them. I have no other explanation for being in favor of making intersections both more dangerous and less efficient. | ||
| Sifo |
i must have misunderstood on the non-LEO i was under impression that the company put the cams out and did the citations too. if im wrong my apologies Speaking for my area, that is wrong. The photos/video are reviewed to screen out non-offenses, then forwarded to the municipality. The municipality then has active duty traffic cops give them another review to ensure that you really did make the offense. The ones that make it through are blatant offenses. | ||
| Scooter808484 |
I'm curious what aspect of this you object to. Is it the collection of photos? The fact that the corporation, who's only true objective is to make a profit, has an incentive to change the "rules" i.e. shorter yellow lights etc. to increase the violations. This results in an increase in violations, and revenue, when in fact no material change in driver behavior has occurred. Doesn't even matter if this occurs, IMO. The fact that that the incentive is there makes it somewhere a public entity should not tread. The gov't should not have an incentive to profit from increasing crime. | ||
| Preybird1 |
We had some of those here in Utah and they lasted like 1 year. All the local political leaders were getting the tickets as they were speeding around between meetings. and they didn't like that at all so away they went. | ||
| Sifo |
The fact that the corporation, who's only true objective is to make a profit, has an incentive to change the "rules" i.e. shorter yellow lights etc. to increase the violations. This results in an increase in violations, and revenue, when in fact no material change in driver behavior has occurred. Doesn't even matter if this occurs, IMO. The fact that that the incentive is there makes it somewhere a public entity should not tread. The gov't should not have an incentive to profit from increasing crime. They may have the incentive, but they lack the ability. It is government that has that ability. There are very few areas where short yellows have even been shown to be an issue. I haven't seen any documentation that any of these cases actually had the yellow lights shortened in conjunction with photo enforcement. I have read (and linked above) examples where the yellow has been lengthened in conjunction with photo enforcement however. That facts I've seen seem to run counter to the popular hand wringing. Don't worry about the government making a profit BTW. I don't think this has ever happened in the history of the world. | ||
| Scooter808484 |
Again it doesn't matter IF it occurs, just that the appearance of a possible conflict of interest is there. I read in the newspaper, without having any way to verify, that the Arizona "immigration papers" law was first pushed by the private contractor responsible for running AZ prisons. Again, potential conflict of interest. It is my firmly held opinion that government needs far less corporate influence, not more. I also think there are privacy and/or unlawful search without probable cause issues that we give up a little too easily. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I can't comment with any legal authority, however. If the public thinks the streets need to be safer, then hire more cops and pay for them. At the very least pay for the cameras with tax money and keep the private profit conflict out of the equation. The fact that they get installed for nearly nothing just insures that the "revenuing" argument will come up. | ||
| Sifo |
Again, the appearance of a possible conflict of interest only exists to the uninformed/misinformed. With misinformation anything can appear to be problematic. Misinformation is a poor foundation for sound decision making though. Do you have a problem with municipalities contracting with private companies for snow removal? That was going on around here this winter. I'm sure those companies profited from that too. Is that bad? Is that different? It seems that your issue is that you don't like private industries finding ways to help government do it's job more efficiently. I fail to understand that. It's a win-win situation. If government was known to be an innovator, finding more efficient solutions to problems then I might be slightly inclined to agree with your stance about keeping corporate influence out of government. When your example is a corporation applying pressure to control our borders, it starts to seem like a good idea. Same with a corporation that can keep our streets safer. Same with getting private industry into designing the next generation of space vehicles. When it comes to the marriage of government and corporations to pick the best ways to generate electricity I'm skeptical. For picking how to power our vehicles, I'm skeptical. Just for fun, let's do a short list where law enforcement uses private corporations to help them provide the law enforcement services. The building they work out of. The cars they drive. The uniforms they wear. The guns they use. The ammunition for the guns. The power to light and heat the stations. The gas to power the cars they drive. Repairs for the cars they drive (I've done that one personally). The radar guns they use. The roads they drive on. The makers of traffic lights and traffic signs. The makers of highway safety devices. (Guard rails, K-rails, botz dots, reflective paint, etc.) I'm just getting started and haven't come to any difficult thinking yet. Bottom line is that corporations provide all sorts of things that make law enforcement possible, much less more efficient. The fact that they profit from this shouldn't be cause for concern. It's how our system works. | ||
| Aesquire |
Turnabout is, I guess, not fair play. http://www.pixiq.com/article/rochester-police-arre st-woman-for-videotaping-them I have issues with robots giving me tickets. Perhaps I've just never seen the movie or read the book where the Robots are perfect servants, infallible, incorruptible. Never read the story where the Robots cannot be programmed by dishonest humans for personal or ideological gain. I have read R.U.R. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R. Seen Westworld, Battlestar Galactica, and the Terminator series. Can't recall a story where building the unstoppable killing machine was a good idea. I'm not afraid the speed camera is going to try and kill me...... Though I do worry about the idiot in the Accura in panic mode as he tries to avoid a ticket. And of course...I've been given tickets by humans that I thought bogus. I could argue them before a judge, and hope the body language of the LEO would help me with my case. The Cylon on a pole gives no sign of dishonesty. Now.... I understand why police don't want to be photographed. There are even a few real good reasons. And a few...not so noble. Do not, please, trot out the bromide.."if you're not guilty you have nothing to worry about" "if you're not a terrorist...." etc. Bogus. Untrue. http://motherjones.com/transition/inter10.php?dest =http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-80 00-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly That said. Keep up on the dishonest companies, and be prepared to challenge wrongs. It's the right thing to do for a citizen. While you're at it? Don't run red lights, and be very careful when you choose to ignore a traffic law. Sometimes, it's possible, maybe, that your judgment is better than the rules. ( but not often )Challenge and protest rules that are bad. And grow up and pay the stupid tax when you get caught. | ||
| Scooter808484 |
Do you have a problem with municipalities contracting with private companies for snow removal? No. That is not the same thing in the slightest. Everyone involved wants the snow cleaned. They are selling a service. Same as every other thing on your list. A corporation is selling a product or service to the gov't. Would you want the gov't to contract out it's law enforcement officers? I wouldn't. Would you want the supplier of law enforcement officers to also be a the same company that is paid, by the head, for prisoners. How about judges and courts. We could have the Wal-Mart of local gov't service. Then some brilliant CEO would say, "Hey if we arrest some more folks, then have the courts convict a lot more of them, we can have a lot more prisoners, and make a whole bunch more money. And since Americans cost a lot to hire, we'll import the cops from Malaysia, the judges from Pakistan, and send the prisoners to VietNam." Now there's some innovation for you. And WalMart has done just about that with everything they've touched. It's a win win baby, unless you're one of the poor schmucks that gets nabbed unfairly. You'll surely say, " There's no way we'd ever do that" but really it's only a matter of degree. If it's OK to hire corporation to enforce traffic laws, how is that different than hiring corporations to enforce burglary, or murder laws?? And on the off chance that you think that all of the above would be OK, then I don't want to live in you vision of this country. Just My opinion | ||
| Sifo |
No. That is not the same thing in the slightest. Everyone involved wants the snow cleaned. They are selling a service. They are doing exactly the same thing. They are selling a service. They contract to provide evidence of the law being broken. The police are still responsible to verify the information and enforce the law. If it's OK to hire corporation to enforce traffic laws, how is that different than hiring corporations to enforce burglary, or murder laws?? It's already being done to about the same degree with security systems that contact the police when the alarm goes off. Again they only notify the police. The police are still responsible to enforce the law. If a corporation could figure out a way to notify the police of murders being committed I think that too would be a good thing. Then the police could get a head start on cleaning those up too. | ||
| Scooter808484 |
Still different... Glock doesn't get a check everytime a cop shoots someone with one of their guns. If they did, maybe that thing might misfire a little more often. With a security system, the cop still has to show up and catch the guy. Maybe he was a deliveryman at the wrong address. If his story is good enough, the cop can use his judgement to let him go. In at least some locales the camera company sends the ticket directly. OK how about due process? If I'm being charged with speeding, does not the fact that the picture contains absolutely no evidence of my driving the car provide reasonable doubt?????? | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
end of the day sifo- if you won't see it i can't show it to you. i read the report word for word and no the word 'worthless' wasn't used that was my word to describe what the authors of the report stated. i've studied enough math and statistical analysis to know a bs report based on fuzzy math when i see one. as for not being rear ended. yep that sucks for sure. however the intrusion into the lives of the populace of this country is insane further it's complete madness that we the people have allowed and are continuing to allow this course. esp when it's under the garbage guise "it's for your own good" or a similar mantra "it's for the children"(yes i am a parent 4x's over) bottom line is that it stinks of a rat a big fat rotten rat. |
