paco3131

Man those cameras suck!!!

350zDCalb

iTrader: (21)

woh, i've unleased a political debate here...
let's see where this goes (*eating popcorn*)

arejohn

Society gets all the crime it is willing to tolerate. Most of the free world tolerates much less crime this often requires sacrifice. Have you not notice how well London
is tracking down the murderers. Our police investigate with their hands tied as did our solders in VN. Remember how well it worked.

If you are not charged points, pay the fine as owner of the car. I do question the logic of assessing points on the assumption you were the driver. Where's the beef? You are guilty. You confessed. Feel fortunate you could not be charged with aggressive driving.

VO...

iTrader: (25)

All Americans should always stand up for their rights. This is true. But, of course there is always the ethical standpoint. Unfortunately many Americans lack the sensible ethics(not implying that you do). Getting caught red-handed doing something is one thing. On the other hand, being acused of a crime where "reasonable doubt" exist is another. To many Americans take their right and ability to fight acusations, in court, for granted. For example, years back the lady who sued McDonald's for not telling her the coffee was hot. She spilled coffee on her lap and sued. She was clumsy, spilled coffee on her lap, & got burnt. Everyone knows that coffee is hot. Because of her "right" to take McDonald's to court and a greedy lawyer that saw an opportunity to make a quick buck, she won a settlement. Rediculous case that she have never wasted the courts time.
I believe that driving is on a different scale that going to target or recreational sports. It is like comparing apples to oranges. Motor vehicle accidents are one of the highest causes of fatalities in the U.S., caused by human error. I would say that it is a high priority priviledge vs. going to the store or recreational sports.
I do not believe we are speaking of the same cameras. I might have seen a different documentary. Camera's used for traffic violatiors are different from sercurity cameras used to monitor what is going on at any specific time. The cameras used for traffic violators are just that. To take snap shots of traffic violators. They're used to generate revenue for the city, and at the same time deter people from breaking the law.

tware

iTrader: (12)

from that second pic, they made about $600 on that one light change. Probably happens 100x a day.

While I *hate* people who run red lights (not accidentally, but habitual runners), its clear that when you leave cars in the intersection like that, you've got a traffic problem somewhere else. Poor city planning.

Although in this case, you prolly earned the ticket on your side of the turn

arejohn

Oh yeah, it does. I have the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness." And driving the Z definitely makes me happy.

The phrase "pursuit of happyness" does not give you the right to do as you please. This is immunity which leads to chaos. "Persuit of happyness" is a felicitious phrase covering individual liberty, freedom of vocational choice, and full property rights.

Life is full of rules. We don't choose to stop for red lights or drive on the right side of the street- it's a rule. You broke it. Who's the bastard here? Certainly not society, not police power. It's you. You don't have the right to run that red light because it would interfer with the rest of society's right to safe passage. But you still have the freedom to run that light and accept the consiquences. It's your choice.

VO...

iTrader: (25)

^^^Well said^^^

desiZ

iTrader: (2)

100 bucks is cheap.. here in LA the minimum red-light-camera ticket is 270$.

mrgraphics:- just a short real-life story of my friend who did the same thing. the pic he got looked garbled so he said it wasn't him , he went to court, and at his court day, when he plead it wasn't him, the officer walked up to him and showed him a 5x7 glossy picture of his FACE taken by the camera. he just shrugged and plead guilty.

Bertg

My wife got caught by a red-light camera in Gardena. The ticket was $351!!!

B-Unit

iTrader: (21)

dang you did run that hardcore.

desiZ

iTrader: (2)

OUCH! i guess we pay for the weather rite bert

tmb

I was getting ready to make a comment commending you for a very concise summary of the Hillary party,oops, I mean the dems but then I spotted your name for the House of Representives.

We almost got a member of that 5% group you refer to as a new commander in chief in the last election. Whew, Close call on that one

350zDCalb

iTrader: (21)

I assume you are referring to my title of the thread...ever see southpark "they killed kenny, you bastards"...it was a joke..but while on the subject (and your lack of a sense of humor) this intersection--along with half of our town, is under construction--this would make even more of an arguement for being careful, not running lights, etc...i don't even remember what happened that day...it was over a month ago...hell, i don't even remember what i had for breakfast yesterday!....

many streets here are poorly planned, this city grew in size/population much quicker than they had planned for...this is not my "excuse" , more of an explanation as to how hectic and poorly developed some of these intersections are..add some construction, and there ya go...
i admitted i was caught "breaking the law"..i added that i paid the fine..i posted this for others' amusement at my expense, not to have somebody question my ethics

bamyi

iTrader: (2)

Cameras are NOT watching our every move. It doesn't have legs and chase after you and peek in your bedroom. it only watches a selected intersection and is only activated when someone runs a red light. I was on a committe to help find a location to set up a these cameras. we didn't asked which intersection had the most traffic so that we can spy on ppl, instead we asked for the stats on which intersection had the most accident caused by red light runners. If you don't want to be "spy" on, stop running the red lights, speeding etc...!

As for your second quote, it clearly seems like you're a democrat, and I'm not dissing on that cuase I don't prescribe to any party. But it also seems like you're so far left that you're irrational and so full of hate that you only want to see things that will fit in with your believes. These people have jobs prior to politics. True, bush makes $300,000 but he also owns a baseball team, owns stocks in other company etc.... Whether he's corrupt or not I don't know, I was never there so I can't say and I don't trust any of the media since they too have an agenda of thier own. To say that all politicians are corrupt is like saying all Z owners are spoil 17 year old whos' daddy got them a Z for getting a C+ in P.E. Can you also say for 100% that our founding fathers were NOT corrupt? I'm pretty sure some of them were, hell probably even more than the current politicians since they didn'thave so many ppl watching their every move.

And just to let you know, its the Democrats who are fighting to have the cameras install.

The whole point of this thread is that this guy got caught running a red light. Juding by the volume of traffic and his speed, he could of caused a serious accident and possible killed someone. I hope he stands up as a American, say, "me bad" to the judge, pay the fine and learn his lesson.

Chicken

iTrader: (3)

Hmmm, so the committee was set up to "help find a location to set up these cameras." Sounds as if the cameras were inevitable and the only decision that had to be made was where. This is the problem.

Were you also on the committee that researched the actual effectiveness of these cameras? No, and I highly doubt there was such a committee. Did you see the data that in some cases accidents increased at intersections with red-light cameras? Guess the revenue is worth that gamble, eh? If the cameras were ineffective, what was the time-line for their removal? I already know the answers to these questions.

Were you also on the committee (or was there even a committee in the first place) which extensively researched other ways in which these intersections could be made safer? Was there any consideration given to the timing of the yellow lights, restructuring the intersection, etc. in order to make the intersection safer? Again, I already know the answer to these questions.

If you look over the history of these cameras, you'd find that cities knew that it was a huge revenue generator, and cameras were installed for that purpose, often in less accident-prone intersections. They were installed in busy (read: more money) intersections.

These cameras catch people who misjudge the length of the yellow light (which isn't standard and varies from light to light). There's no way for a human to know the exact length of the yellow, however the computer checks their speed and calculates the distance and knows. The result is the ticket.

If you were to shorten the yellow, there would be many more people caught "running red lights."

Honestly, anyone remotely involved in setting these up disgusts me. Next you'll tell us you were on the committee to place cameras on the street that will give tickets for people going 0.27 MPH over the speed limit.

I've seen people blow red lights. They are dangerous. If you watch the news in L.A., you can also see people who blow red lights during chases. Those people are extremely dangerous. IMHO There's a big difference between them and people who mistakenly misjudge the length of the yellow by 0.27 seconds. If a quarter of a second error by a driver causes an accident due to a light change for on coming cars, then the intersection is problematic and something else needs to happen.

So how did this committee of yours work? Were you told to find locations for X cameras (to most dangerous intersections), or told to review intersection data and place cameras at locations with more than X accidents (of course reviewing the accidents to see if running the light was indeed the cause) ? Or was the whole thing significantly less scientific?

-Chicken (forms a committee to place stop signs every 30 feet for a one mile radius around the homes of people who are on red light committees and cameras to ensure that they stop FULLY for each one -to prevent accidents of course)

VO...

iTrader: (25)

I thought yellow meant to slow down, because a red light was soon to come, not speed up and hurry through the light before it turns red.

350zDCalb

iTrader: (21)

well said!

350zDCalb

iTrader: (21)

many of these comments sound like they are coming from some old lady..WTF?

I explained clearly what had happened (i've heard about the yellow light being reduced to geberate more tickets)...i didn't run a light and get close to anybody, actually, the construction on that road really changes the dynamics of the intersection...i don't remember why i "had" to get through that light when i did, as i said it was over a month agao..if these BASTARDS really wanted to prevent this type of behavior, they'd send these things out in a more timely matter so that one can recollect their error and make future ammends...not suprise me over a month later when i can't remember what the circumstances were (to possible even defend my innocence..like i said, i am not one to blatantly run a light...contruction was present, i'm not sure what the context was of that entire situation)

so....everyone who wants to agree with me, post their comments...all others..biteth the tongueth

The Mike

my only complaint is that you weren't drifting through the intersection... You clearly had some speed built up.. why not go in sideways It would of made for a great picture.

Chicken

iTrader: (3)

Unless you've never driven a car or been in a car, you've come across this scenario...

You are approaching a light. At some point, before you cross the line, it turns yellow. You don't SLAM on your brakes, but instead you go through the intersection. Has this NOT happened to you before?

While these cameras might catch a small percentage of people who deliberately and knowingly run a red light, the majority of what they catch are people with their tires literally inches away from the line when the light turns red. People who thought they went through a YELLOW light, until a ~$350 ticket comes in the mail.

The thread starter (and many others like him) did not see a red light and decide to run it (as many seem to make it out to be).

Here are two interesting web sites to read. The first is an article from 2002...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...ftoqz.asp?pg=1

The second is a site in which you can get information, especially if you live in L.A. and whose operator will help you if you email him....
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/

People who DELIBERATELY run red lights should be fined, but this goes beyond that, and why I have a problem with the program. Additionally, in some cases the number of accidents INCREASE, and enginerring improvements weren't considered first.