Cameras Could Soon Ticket School Bus Passers

Keep us posted.

Interesting that it passed the senate without opposition.

Interesting that opponents of cameras would even attempt to stop this seemingly logical use of cameras.

I recall a long discussion we had on when it would be permissible to run a red light. We got into snow situations with a log truck skidding on the ice and about to rear-end us as one reason.

Maybe the opponents of this kind of camera use would want to set forth reasons why it would be permissible to disregard the school bus stop signals.

http://bancams.com/school-bus-camera/#idc-container

"The only difference (we have found) between this proposed bill and current law regarding red light & speed cameras is that if you don’t pay school bus tickets you won’t be able to renew your license until you do."

Plans were to have 250 school bus cameras by Jan. 2011 in Dallas.

See article from Aug. 2010:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/back-to-school/20100822-Dalla...

This actually has the potential to make a lot of money for the state. If they take a play from what White Plains, NY did many years ago they can set up empty school buses on busy roads and periodically turn on the stop lights and catch everyone who doesn't stop. Easy work for the officer flipping the lights. It seemed to catch a lot of unsuspecting people in White Plains. Even better if they do it on major highways near workplaces during rush hour as traffic has to stop in both directions.

(sarcasm)

That discussion was not saying it was "permissible" to run a red light, but necessary. There is a difference. And it wasn't a log truck skidding on the ice. It was if there was a semi behind you, and it was snowing. Stopping at a red light would be deadly in that situation, but according to you, there would already be other cars and pedestrians in the intersection. There were several other examples given, and that topic really has no bearing on this discussion anyway.

Your points on the discussion in the other thread are accurate - except on the permissible vs. necessary point - the starting point was actually "better". Later in the thread,
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/30318,
we came up with some "permissible" situations - getting out of the way of emergency vehicles, for example.

All the reasons may have been prompted by my statement

I had hoped to use the other discussion as a way to remind readers that there are some people who try to find any reason at all (however "far out") to oppose Automated Traffic Enforcement

Now since you have accurately commented on the other discussion, would you please give your response to

Substitute "better" or "necessary", if you like.

If you have no objections to this kind of camera use, I would like to know that also.

Many years ago I drove school bus. It used to REALLY irritate me when someone would blow on past my bus when I had the lights flashing.

However, I ONLY put the flashing lights on when students had to cross the street. Kids stepping out into the road from behind the bus are at major risk. Blowing past the bus at those times can kill a kid.

I knew my bus route well and, where kids never had to cross the road, I left the flashers off because it was safe to pass the bus. I put in time and effort to train the kids to tell if there was ever a change in plans and, for some unexpected reason, they would be crossing the road at a stop where it was not the norm.

It worked well for me. I had a radio in the bus and I did call in a violation on vehicles that blew on past when I had the lights on.

I am not obligated to answer questions regarding the topic. You're the one that brought a different discussion to this thread. I was just clarifying what was discussed, since you were way off target.

I think I was on target and you were the one who did not go back and carefully read the words used in the other discussion - which indeed I did bring up as a means of encouraging comments on passing a school bus with its stop signs out.

I provided you with the quotes from the other discussion that supported my comments. If you had wanted to show that I was "way off target", you could have disputed that the quotes actually were written, but you did not.

I had already granted you the the fact that I had changed “It's snowing, and the trucker behind you with a full load is sliding towards you laying on the horn....”. to "log truck" (which I did not think was that different from your paraphrase of "semi/full load/snow"). I should not have given anyone the chance to use "clarification" as a way of distracting others from my wondering

You are not obligated to answer any question. You usually do not.

If you can not think of any reasons why it might be permissible to pass a school bus with its stop sign out, that is OK.

I didn't think it was necessary to actually post the quote since anyone can go back and see what was written, but there it is to show how off target you were.

More quote clarification.

If trying to get at facts (and quotes) makes me a judge of your posts, then so be it.

I can not see how anything I write could be viewed as "know[ing] what everyone thinks" - especially when there are so many people like you who disagee with whatever I write.

I fail to see how encouraging additional discussion of the issue of cameras to catch people illegally passing a school bus with its stop sign out can in any way be characterized as "derail the threads in the first place"

I did try to "direct the conversation back ..." to seeing if anyone can offer reasons why it would be better/permissible/necessary to pass a school bus illegally - but that would have seemed to be what you wanted in the first place.

This whole camera thing is turning into "Enemy of the State" movie. Wow.

Surprised Phoenix hasn't thought of this first.

I wonder if this is similar to the cameras I have seen on Transit buses. Are there's for the fail to yield crowd or just for enhanced viewing to make sure the driver can merge into the lane....

This is how you come across as knowing what other people think. When you bring up a previous discussion, then link the two by saying,

"I recall a long discussion we had on when it would be permissible to run a red light.

Maybe the opponents of this kind of camera use would want to set forth reasons why it would be permissible to disregard the school bus stop signals."

Since I was part of that previous discussion, it appears to me that you already know what my stance would be. If that's not the case, do you expect the people in Washington to suddenly show up here and discuss with you why they oppose the cameras?

If you want to ask a question about the topic, just ask. By bringing other conversations, is how the topic gets derailed. Your wonderings do not help clarify the topic. You're basically using the information to twist what other people have said, and use it against them in an entirely new topic. An example is this thread.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/32207

It took me a minute to determine the intent of "do you expect the people in Washington to suddenly show up here and discuss with you why they oppose the cameras?" We are talking about Washington state where the Senate has passed the legislation requested by school bus drivers. A campaign has been mounted by those who oppose cameras in general, so I finally determined that you were likely speaking of those associated with the BanCams.com website. I think the most appropriate answer to your question is that no, I don't expect opponents from Washington state to show up here and discuss with me why they oppose cameras to catch violators of stop signs put out by school buses. I can assure them that twix and others will carry that load.

I see nothing wrong with bringing up another thread if it would assist someone in understanding what was being discussed in the current thread.

You have your right to your opinion as to whether something helps clarify a topic. So do I. In almost every instance I can think of, we have not agreed.

I fail to see how a quote from someone could be characterized as "twist[ing] what other people have said" unless you can demonstrate that I took quotes out of context. I went to the thread cited and feel that the quotes I used there were entirely in context. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

I'm a School Crossing Guard, and guess what, ticket them all if they pass a School Bus. Ticket them when they pass Red Lights as I'm walking out their with the kids and they kept on going.

It's not turning into "Enemy of the State", just stop your cars. I can't stand sh$t head drivers!!

I am not opposed to the cameras as long as there are limits written in the law on their use. For example, they can only be used on a bus actually carrying children while going to or from a school or school function. This will stop certain revenue generating scenarios I can envision:

1) Police set up an empty school bus on a blind curve during the day and randomly trigger the lights as cars approach. Kaching.

2) Here in New York State, there are no exemptions to stopping for a school bus including ambulances, police cars or other such emergency vehicles. Why not set up an empty bus trap near a hospital zone? You are bound to snag a few emergency vehicles or people rushing to the ER.

3) Not sure about other states but here in New York cars on a divided highway must stop in both directions for a stopped school bus. Even if there is a concrete barrier or other type barrier that would preclude people crossing. Not far from my office is the Suffolk County New York 1st Precinct and they are on a divided highway (NY-109). It is an ideal place to set up a rush hour trap catching cars on a 50MPH roadway who would have to jam on their brakes in heavy traffic to stop. (side note: this was a timely story as this morning I almost got rear-ended by a car, Jaguar no less, when I stopped on NY-109 for a school bus that suddenly went red. The Jaguar blew his horn at me. WTF?)

Again I am not opposed as long as "fishing expeditions" are prohibited in the law.

There is a school bus driver that always turns on the flashers so they can make a left turn which forces otherwise legally proceeding traffic to stop. And school bus drivers wonder why drivers don't obey the flashers? With irresponsible actions like this on the part of a bus driver...

The limits have to apply to the bus drivers as well.

Taking quotes from other threads, is taking things out of context. You are slanting the topic with the way you're asking your question. It's not my "opinion" in the matter. If you simply said, "Can anyone come up with a good reason to pass a school bus?" You get your question answered without having to bring up the previous conversation that has nothing to do with passing school buses.

We will have to agree to disagree about whether making my using a quote from another thread is taking things out of context. I certainly tried to establish the context. By your way of thinking anyone quoting "headlines" or media bites" from some article is taking things out of context.

That said, your point that I could have just asked a "question" is well taken. I wish that I had because the back and forth that you and I have had has obscured the question "Can anyone come up with a good reason to pass a school bus [with its stop sign out]?".

However, I wonder if anyone would have given an answer in any event.

When you're comparing blowing red lights to passing school buses, or giving a police force credit for reducing accidents to removing speed cameras, that is taking things out of context.

My way of thinking is not what you said. If the media bite or headline has anything to do with the actual subject, it's totally appropriate. If you're talking about turtles, and I quote something about voting, that doesn't work, does it?

I don't think it obscured anything. Boxcar answered the question. Anyone can choose to skip over our replies to each other.

Aardvark wrote

In Illinois, cars on other side of divided highways are not required to stop for a school bus, providing there is at least six feet of unpaved median or a barrier.
I wonder how an enforcement camera would work when the bus is on the opposite side of a divided highway.

Unrelated but we also have a law that doubles fines and points for speeding in a construction zone. A noble idea but I find the state seems to be using "Construction" signs on some highways as an excuse to snag people. I have seen stretches of NY-17 where there are construction signs in the late fall with reduced speed limits but no construction vehicles, barriers or any other indication of construction other than the sign and reduced limit.

Personally I like how Ontario does it. The warning signs state that fines and points are doubled "when workers are present". When there is nobody around, then it is a normal violation. At least it is honest in that it is meant to protect the workers and the province cannot go around randomly depositing "Construction" signs with the hope of enhancing revenue.

Can you (twix) come up with a good reason to pass a school bus with its stop sign out?.

i guess this is a good thing.

I can say this is a good thing. There is no reason to pass a bus that is stopped and picking up children.

I support is 100%

This is a good thing. Red light cameras, good and bad. But I wholeheartedly support ticketing school bus passers. Young children have learned that walking in front of a school bus stopped and lights flashing is a safe zone.

The idiot in the yellow stretch that puts out the stop sign and flashes his red stop lights so he can make a left turn from a turn lane on a 4 lane boulevard.

If it were me, I would first come to a stop to determine that there were no children disembarking. As the school bus would be in the turn lane and I would be able to see the door on the right side, and assuming that there was not a stop light or stop sign in front of me, I suppose I would proceed to then pass the bus.

I suppose each brand of school bus is different, but around here all the lights flash - some red and some yellow - when the stop sign is out on the left side of the bus. sure would be hard to determine if the bus was making a turn or not.

Passing a school bus is not the same as going thru a red light. You should be able to see a car coming the other way. How can you see the child that runs in front of the bus to cross the street. While neither is right, I think it would bother me a lot more to hit a child. My short wait is not worth the accident with a child.

It's exactly what the driver wants you to do so THEY can turn. As you so blithely stated, the passenger door is on the right side, the bus is in the center of a 4 lane road and the only bus stop is for the city transit along the right curb.

This driver is clearly in the wrong and is abusing the privileges of having traffic control devices.

The fact that someone is in the wrong does not mean that I should break the law and take a risk of hitting a child. I would still stop.

It will surely be true that bus drivers will abuse the fact that they can stop traffic and use that fact for their own benefit. HOWEVER, I do not intend to ever make that assumption. I will stop.

Perhaps splitting hairs here, but since an instance on a 4 lane divided is fresh on my mind, I wonder.

The other day I had to go to another city to get some information relative to one of the Estates I am probating and I was on a 4 lane divided highway. A school bus stopped in the middle of my two lanes to disembark kids. I stopped.

This highway has stretches where it becomes 4 lanes (and I think I recall some turn lanes). I assume (but did not see) that the bus would let kids off on the right hand side and have the stop sign out.

I am not sure what I would do if I were traveling in the other direction - that is, facing the oncoming bus. I think I "should" stop but would probably be advised by what the locals traveling in the same direction with me did.

I'll try to look up some ordinances about stopping for a school bus and see what they say. Perhaps we have someone reading this thread who knows.

This is what I found at Wikipedia.
It varies by state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_bus_traffic_stop_laws

"On divided highways, most American and Canadian jurisdictions do not require vehicular drivers to stop when on the opposite side of the road from a stopped school bus. Those that do require vehicles to stop are:

* West Virginia upon a non-controlled-access highway[citation needed]
* Arkansas in case a divider has less than 20 feet (6 m) in width (narrow divider)[citation needed]
* Mississippi[citation needed]
* New York State[citation needed]
* American Samoa[citation needed]
* Guam[citation needed]
* British Columbia[citation needed]
* Nova Scotia[citation needed]
* Prince Edward Island[citation needed]
* Northwest Territories[citation needed]
* Nunavut[citation needed]"

I have no problem with that as long as the cameras are deactivated while the bus is moving. This would mean that the bus must be stopped, & discharging or collecting children with it's flashers on.

Fred

Thanks for making clear what should have been obvious, but was left unsaid. It is the presence of a ticketing camera that we are discussing.

You still don't see the problem?

The bus is two lanes away from the curb where children would be if there was to be a pick-up. The driver wants to turn left at an intersection and doesn't want to wait for traffic to clear. Ergo, the driver, because his time is more important than anyone else's time, stops traffic so he can complete the left turn and proceed on. OBTW, there are no passengers on the bus nor on any corner of the intersection. The nearest school bus stop is 3 blocks down the street the driver wants to turn onto.

I do understand what you said (I see the problem, as you term it). However, I would still stop.

While we do not have "signed" school bus stops, I do think I have seen such on highways before. None around where I live.

When I noticed that the bus was empty, however, I would have attempted to get the county name and the bus number and whether the driver was male or female and then made a special point to call the appropriate person to report the driver.

Does anyone really have a problem with this since the law is designed to keep the kids safe that are getting off the bus?

While I agree that drivers that pass school buses with the stop flag up should be ticketed (very heavily, points and all), I don't like the idea of doing anything under the bleeding heart "it's for the children" agenda. I get suspicious of the real motives behind anything any time I hear or read that. Their twisted logic being "anyone who refuses something for the kids is evil, so they can't turn us down"

I've seen many morons pass me and another car in front of me(2 cars+bus length) who stopped when the bus was picking a kid up. Unfortunately, there is never a cop around when you really need one (not a green light of approval from me to install cameras anywhere btw, for those in the forum who like to push them) so I believe something needs to be done about it, cameras being the last thing in mind.

I have also seen (just this morning) a bus stop in a corner, half in the side street where he was and the nose of the bus in my avenue (half blocking the intersection) to get ALL traffic to stop, so he could make a right turn without having to wait for the heavier avenue traffic (there was no one in the side street behind the bus) Who controls those abuses? (yes, he is abusing the stop flag) Bus driver should be ticketed there.

When I feel that a bus driver has abused their privileges, I will call the county and report him/her. Whether it has ever done any good, I do not know.

I talked a local school bus driver today about our discussion. This is her first year of driving. She has not seen anyone drive past her stopped bus. She told me about all her training to insure the kids safety. Do not EVER open the door until all traffic has stopped. She mentioned delaying turning the lights when oncoming traffic is approaching rapidly. We don't want cars slamming on the brakes to stop.
The problem in Washington state may be exaggerated and might be the work of a company that sells and installs cameras. She makes a good point.

They should have inspectors from the town/police/whatever, checking on these people as soon as there is one complaint.

don't bet on it, the dealings I had the Davenport IA school district transportation office when they managed to lose my daughter when she was in elementary school was not fun, they made every excuse they could for the driver.

These kind of inspectors would be much more valuable that what we had here for a while. An inspector who went around looking to see if the brush piles were larger than 4 feet high by 4 feet deep by 8 feet wide. I had one come to my door when three adjoining neighbors at the end of my cul-de-sac had one pile. Fortunately for the taxpayers, the city has now decided there is a better use for that person's time.

Seems to me that watching (on some schedule) how a school bus driver performs ought to be a normal part of job performance - especially for the kid's safety.