Making a right turn on red without coming to a complete stop. 2x. Am i fucked?
#21
06-02-2011, 08:57 AM
Wow, you have some hi-tech cameras in Cali. Here in NY, the cameras only take a pic of the back of your car for the license plate to show that you past a red light. And it's not video, but pic only. I was once stopped at a red light that everyone knew had a camera...an ambulance came with sirens blaring, and no one wanted to move out of the way because of the camera...LOL....
#22
06-02-2011, 10:22 AM
But, I always come to a stop on red lights, flashing reds and stop signs... no matter what I'm doing (ie turning right). There's ONE exception. The intersection of Green Bay and Tower. 99% of the time, I'm on GB, turning onto Tower, only to turn onto GB again (GB shifts over at that intersection). The thing is... there's a full sequence for Green Bay (GB uses green and yellow arrows on the right-turn part, which is the second half of the intersection)... followed by a full sequence for Tower Rd. In between, there's a second between the yellow arrow and the normal green light. I'm turning right... both sequences give me the right to turn... except for that one damn second in between. That's the light I normally blow through without stopping. After Tower gets its sequence, sometimes, there's a walk sequence (ALL stop, only walk allowed, push button or "random" winter programming)... then I actually stop for that light. But, the thing about that part... 99% of the time that I'm caught on a walk light, I'm stuck at the left turn section... so I can't do anything anyway.
#23
06-02-2011, 01:31 PM
Trog Say...
Red mean Stop...
Green mean Go...
You screwed...
The only thing I don't quite understand is how a "photo" determines you were "rolling"? It wouldn't be worth the time and effort...but I think your only defense would be to say you DID come to a complete stop...then ask them to prove you didn't. I don't think a photo of you...at the corner or even going through the corner IS proof you didn't stop.
But the courts are going to back their system. It would be a fight NOT worth fighting.
Red mean Stop...
Green mean Go...
You screwed...
The only thing I don't quite understand is how a "photo" determines you were "rolling"? It wouldn't be worth the time and effort...but I think your only defense would be to say you DID come to a complete stop...then ask them to prove you didn't. I don't think a photo of you...at the corner or even going through the corner IS proof you didn't stop.
But the courts are going to back their system. It would be a fight NOT worth fighting.
#24
06-02-2011, 07:13 PM
Trog Say...
Red mean Stop...
Green mean Go...
You screwed...
The only thing I don't quite understand is how a "photo" determines you were "rolling"? It wouldn't be worth the time and effort...but I think your only defense would be to say you DID come to a complete stop...then ask them to prove you didn't. I don't think a photo of you...at the corner or even going through the corner IS proof you didn't stop.
But the courts are going to back their system. It would be a fight NOT worth fighting.
Red mean Stop...
Green mean Go...
You screwed...
The only thing I don't quite understand is how a "photo" determines you were "rolling"? It wouldn't be worth the time and effort...but I think your only defense would be to say you DID come to a complete stop...then ask them to prove you didn't. I don't think a photo of you...at the corner or even going through the corner IS proof you didn't stop.
But the courts are going to back their system. It would be a fight NOT worth fighting.
Even two pictures is enough sometimes, because from those two, a person can calculate your speed between the two shots. Most cars, can't achieve more than a certain speed within a few feet. So, if you're going above it, they'll assume you didn't stop (at or near the line).
This is my reasoning for NOT getting those two tickets, between the first two shots, I was travelling slow, between then second and third shot, I was even slower, despite the camera triggering.
Re cowboy_fit
They should change the light for the right turn... green arrow straight into solid green, no pause and no yellow. Leave the rest as is... well, maybe make the initial stop for Tower side more "obvious" since I've seen a couple go through on their red, because they were confused by the green arrow further down.
#25
06-02-2011, 07:32 PM
not the end of the world like if you got arrested for a misdemeanor crime on your record and not just a Traffic Infraction. It's just money.
Read through the links listed.
You can go to court and either try to fight it, or plead for mercy and see if they will reduce your fine.
Read through the links listed.
You can go to court and either try to fight it, or plead for mercy and see if they will reduce your fine.
#27
06-02-2011, 11:06 PM
California camera is pretty high tech i would say. It takes 3 photos, and has a 5-10second video clip.
#28
06-03-2011, 01:37 AM
We have a stretch of 12 miles by me littered with cameras. One intersection you go through at a posted speed limit of 55. But you can imagine the hesitation it causes approaching those cameras at that speed. You just never know when it's gonna turn on you. I've been caught up a number of times having to slam on my brakes to avoid even TEMPTING to continue through what would be a perfectly exceptable change to yellow. How those cameras haven't caused MORE crashes yet I don't know. And on the opposite side of that same intersection is a double lane for left turn. At rush hour, imagine how much fun it is to be about the last car in the line, dancing with that yellow light change, while people are up your ASS trying to push through. What a mess, all for more money.
Dan
Dan
#29
06-03-2011, 01:12 PM
I was told they take three pictures at some of the cameras here.
Even two pictures is enough sometimes, because from those two, a person can calculate your speed between the two shots. Most cars, can't achieve more than a certain speed within a few feet. So, if you're going above it, they'll assume you didn't stop (at or near the line).
This is my reasoning for NOT getting those two tickets, between the first two shots, I was travelling slow, between then second and third shot, I was even slower, despite the camera triggering.
Re cowboy_fit
They should change the light for the right turn... green arrow straight into solid green, no pause and no yellow. Leave the rest as is... well, maybe make the initial stop for Tower side more "obvious" since I've seen a couple go through on their red, because they were confused by the green arrow further down.
Even two pictures is enough sometimes, because from those two, a person can calculate your speed between the two shots. Most cars, can't achieve more than a certain speed within a few feet. So, if you're going above it, they'll assume you didn't stop (at or near the line).
This is my reasoning for NOT getting those two tickets, between the first two shots, I was travelling slow, between then second and third shot, I was even slower, despite the camera triggering.
Re cowboy_fit
They should change the light for the right turn... green arrow straight into solid green, no pause and no yellow. Leave the rest as is... well, maybe make the initial stop for Tower side more "obvious" since I've seen a couple go through on their red, because they were confused by the green arrow further down.
Oh well, I think the OP is stuck.
#32
06-03-2011, 05:12 PM
We called them St. Louis stops. I believe there is an amendment to the Missouri constitution that permits them. At any rate, when I get a ticket at the @#$$#$@# traffic cameras in Hannibal, Missouri, I'm going to try that defense. Can you believe the two-bit towns that can't get junk cars off the streets put up cameras to gouge the passersby? That's their way of saying "Welcome to our town." Why not just set up a tollbooth and save the points?
I remember the first time I saw one of the @#$ things in Cupertino, CA. Had no idea what it was. The flash strobed when I cruised by. I think it was to trap innocent speeders like me just out minding my own business. It was a rental with out of state plates and I never heard from them.
These things just mess up the rhythm and flow of a lifetime of driving habits. They are unAmerican and redolent of a socialist state.
Oh, and
Cheers.
I remember the first time I saw one of the @#$ things in Cupertino, CA. Had no idea what it was. The flash strobed when I cruised by. I think it was to trap innocent speeders like me just out minding my own business. It was a rental with out of state plates and I never heard from them.
These things just mess up the rhythm and flow of a lifetime of driving habits. They are unAmerican and redolent of a socialist state.
Oh, and
Cheers.
#34
06-03-2011, 05:24 PM
We called them St. Louis stops. I believe there is an amendment to the Missouri constitution that permits them. At any rate, when I get a ticket at the @#$$#$@# traffic cameras in Hannibal, Missouri, I'm going to try that defense. Can you believe the two-bit towns that can't get junk cars off the streets put up cameras to gouge the passersby? That's their way of saying "Welcome to our town." Why not just set up a tollbooth and save the points?
I remember the first time I saw one of the @#$ things in Cupertino, CA. Had no idea what it was. The flash strobed when I cruised by. I think it was to trap innocent speeders like me just out minding my own business. It was a rental with out of state plates and I never heard from them.
These things just mess up the rhythm and flow of a lifetime of driving habits. They are unAmerican and redolent of a socialist state.
Oh, and
Cheers.
I remember the first time I saw one of the @#$ things in Cupertino, CA. Had no idea what it was. The flash strobed when I cruised by. I think it was to trap innocent speeders like me just out minding my own business. It was a rental with out of state plates and I never heard from them.
These things just mess up the rhythm and flow of a lifetime of driving habits. They are unAmerican and redolent of a socialist state.
Oh, and
Cheers.
The cameras are put up by private for-profit companies at their expense and they get a cut of the action with the remainder going to the city/county that allows it. The "tickets" are generated and mailed by the same companies. It's free enterprise and entrepreneurship. It's the epitome of Americanism.
#35
06-03-2011, 05:42 PM
Why don't we just get rid of traffic lights entirely? They just slow us down.
Okay, maybe it's silly to give tickets for people who don't go to ZERO mph at a red light, but red light cameras that catch people who go through red lights- you can argue they're a tax but they save lives. And like the lottery it's a voluntary tax. And probably mostly on those idiots who are so busy talking on the phone they don't see where they're going.
Okay, maybe it's silly to give tickets for people who don't go to ZERO mph at a red light, but red light cameras that catch people who go through red lights- you can argue they're a tax but they save lives. And like the lottery it's a voluntary tax. And probably mostly on those idiots who are so busy talking on the phone they don't see where they're going.
#36
06-03-2011, 06:03 PM
This from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about the experience of the town of Washington, MO:
"They were sold to us that they would eliminate or reduce accidents at the intersections," said Washington Councilman John Rhodes, who voted to end the contract. "When you look at what we were getting for it, the accidents did not go down."
Rhodes, who opposed the original contract with ATS, said he studied accidents at the two intersections and determined that most were caused by following too closely or inattentive driving. Very few, he added, were caused by a signal violation.
In addition, Rhodes said, by the time the contract ends, the red-light cameras will have generated $534,000 in fines, with American Traffic Solutions receiving a little more than 91 percent of the revenue. He said he would have preferred to hire an extra police officer to enforce traffic laws.
In 2009 alone, the city listed its total fine income minus court costs ($43,649) as $142,345; ATS was paid $141,550."
Here is my solution:
I'm sure this would work. What do you think?
Cheers.
"They were sold to us that they would eliminate or reduce accidents at the intersections," said Washington Councilman John Rhodes, who voted to end the contract. "When you look at what we were getting for it, the accidents did not go down."
Rhodes, who opposed the original contract with ATS, said he studied accidents at the two intersections and determined that most were caused by following too closely or inattentive driving. Very few, he added, were caused by a signal violation.
In addition, Rhodes said, by the time the contract ends, the red-light cameras will have generated $534,000 in fines, with American Traffic Solutions receiving a little more than 91 percent of the revenue. He said he would have preferred to hire an extra police officer to enforce traffic laws.
In 2009 alone, the city listed its total fine income minus court costs ($43,649) as $142,345; ATS was paid $141,550."
Here is my solution:
I'm sure this would work. What do you think?
Cheers.
#37
06-03-2011, 06:45 PM
I can't speak for specific intersections or poorly-negotiated contracts, but people who run red lights cause accidents. And it's silly to look at accidents at two specific intersections rather than as a whole- because when you put in cameras people probably pay more attention at ALL intersections- at least, the people who got nailed probably do, at least for a while.
#39
06-05-2011, 09:45 PM
While I do agree that people running stoplights/ signs cause accidents. I do believe that these cameras will cause accidents as well. All the intersections in town that has them I try to avoid. Instead of one or two people going through the yellow light now everyone slams there brakes because they don't want a ticket. (Yes the argument could be made that everyone should be driving a safe distance behind the person in front of you; but that doesn't always happen).
I think that if people followed all the traffic rules and didn't run lights we wouldn't need them in the first place but not everyone knows all the rules(they should, each state is different thou).
The ambulance thing someone mentioned is pretty funny. I have heard there are either a few pictures taken or video so they should know that you were pictured because you moved out of an ambulances way but I understand people being worried about that.
I think that if people followed all the traffic rules and didn't run lights we wouldn't need them in the first place but not everyone knows all the rules(they should, each state is different thou).
The ambulance thing someone mentioned is pretty funny. I have heard there are either a few pictures taken or video so they should know that you were pictured because you moved out of an ambulances way but I understand people being worried about that.