Now We Have Stop Sign Cameras!

 
--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav
Page 1>>

Not Redflex

The one linked to does not look like a Redflex camera so must be another vendor

http://www.redflex.com/index.php/en/solutions/redflex-stop-s...

This was announced earlier
http://washingtonexaminer.com/stop-sign-crosswalk-cameras-co...

I guess we'll have to start

I guess we'll have to start a POI file like redlight or speed cameras on stop sign cameras!!!

Fred

What the ????

Very clever to generate money again.

another weird location

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.13519+-118.55018&hl=en&ll=...
Jonathon posted this link a year ago. The stop sign & camera are now gone.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

Stop signs

dtran1 wrote:

Very clever to generate money again.

You as a citizen of the USA according to the Supreme Court Of The USA do not have the right of privacy while in public places.
Any right not given to the Federal Government shall be retained by the states according to the US Constitution.
As far as I can understand this, the states have the right to set laws within their borders of how local traffic laws are set.
I have yet to find a state that does not say "YOU MUST STOP AT A STOP SIGN IRREGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION"
If you choose to disregard this law then the police have the right to catch you any way possible and fine you for being stupid.

Not the Same

spokybob wrote:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.13519+-118.55018&hl=en&ll=...
Jonathon posted this link a year ago. The stop sign & camera are now gone.

This camera is in Washington DC. It was posted in today's news. Surely not the same one you referenced.

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

Sorry

My link was off topic

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

Illegal stop signs and red lights

I saw something similar decades ago in south Pittsburgh, minus the camera. A rich neighborhood on a major road (US19) decided that they had "too much" traffic going through it. Not in violation of the speed limit, which could have been easily enforced, but just more than they would like. They managed to get someone in local government to put up a red light on the road. Just in one direction, entering the neighborhood. There was no cross street where they put it. The local news covered this and pointed out that the law was pretty clear, a red light could only be installed at an intersection. But the light stayed up and operated for years (it may still be there for all I know, although that seems unlikely).

The camera was only up to inconvenience drivers and try to convince some to find an alternate route. Didn't help much since there were no good alternate routes.

I actually enjoyed that light if I had a passenger in the car. I would say something like "Oh. look, the light turned red!" and then I would continue right through it. I would even speed up if I wasn't already at the legal limit. The passengers were a little put back until I pointed out the lack of a cross street and what was really going on.

Well,

we knew it was going to happen. (Eventually.)

--
With God, all things are possible. ——State motto of the Great State of Ohio

Come the revolution >>>

These things will make great target practice.

--
"You can't get there from here"

.

kurzemnieks wrote:
dtran1 wrote:

Very clever to generate money again.

You as a citizen of the USA according to the Supreme Court Of The USA do not have the right of privacy while in public places.
Any right not given to the Federal Government shall be retained by the states according to the US Constitution.

Now-a-days, we don't have rights to privacy anywhere, along with others rights being silently taken away.

But I must agree. A Stop means means Stop, not roll on slowly through, forcing traffic which has the right of way to swerve into the opposite lane to avoid you.

west coast

dtran1 wrote:

Very clever to generate money again.

While I don't like the idea of stop sign cameras (there are times I'm going 1-3 mph through them), I don't see how it's "to generate money."

If you go to the west coast, I know it's unbelievable, but people actually do not run red lights, they do not roll stop signs, pedestrians do not cross on red even when there is nobody around.

It's all about enforcement--when rules are enforced, behavior changes.

People used to shoplift, it's pretty rare now because the entire area of retail outlet is covered with HD cams.

I would say on the east coast, people should feel that breaking the law or being careless comes at a discount. Routinely the fines are in the $100-$130 ballpark. It's $480 in San Francisco, I heard $440'ish all over CA.

What we need next...

... are YIELD cameras. Yield means to "slow down and prepare to stop if necessary". If someone doesn't slow down/stop properly, according the official behind camera, they should get a ticket.

Since this type of enforcement would be the **most** subjective, the local officials would certainly ring in TONS of fines. Really don't know what's stopping them.

And YES, I'm being facetious.

--
Amazing GPS: I once was lost but now am found.

Just saw another camera on news in DC

To catch oversize vehicles. Looks like a speed camera.

Stop sign camera

Could sure use one of these where I live in Maryland. Residential street where the speed is 25 mph and a 4 way stop sign at the corner. Daily I see people blasting down the street at 50+ mph and they don't even touch their brakes for the stop sign. I got tired of complaining to the town and Montgomery County police because they could care less. Some child is going to get hurt or killed.

thanks for spreading the

thanks for spreading the word! learn something new everyday

Difference of Degree

b_chapman wrote:

Could sure use one of these where I live in Maryland. Residential street where the speed is 25 mph and a 4 way stop sign at the corner. Daily I see people blasting down the street at 50+ mph and they don't even touch their brakes for the stop sign. I got tired of complaining to the town and Montgomery County police because they could care less. Some child is going to get hurt or killed.

I believe there's an important difference between folks who blow through stop signs and those who make a rolling stop. Or those who don't come to a complete stop for at least 3 seconds. Once the camera is set up, it treats all the above in the same manner.

And, yes, those who completely ignore stop signs may someday kill someone. They need to be prosecuted before that happens, as a deterrent.

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

Just think of it as outsourcing ...

Just think of it as outsourcing traffic enforcement to machines! I'd fully expect any judicial interaction as a result of this quality of enforcement will also become an interaction with faceless computers!

Guilty?: Payoverthere->/Not guilty?: Payoverthere->

coulda shoulda woulda

imho things are cut and dry, not coming to a complete stop, counting to 3, is a violation. rolling through at 1 mph, is a violation. Driving through at 30 mph, is a violation. We seem to sometimes have this expectation, well, I don't follow the law, but I don't break the law as egregiously as some, so the law doesn't apply to me.

I will say up front, that I have rolled a stop sign at 1 mph, or actually tapped my brakes and stopped for 1/2 sec, at 5:30 am, with nobody around. It doesn't make it right. If there is a stop sign cam, the 5:30 AM with nobody around, means I stop, count to 3, and go.

People who continually debate this as if it's gray, like I've pointed out, do not live in California. imho a $480 fine is enough to get me to follow the law, not to mention, that laws are enforced by meter maids, police officers, etc. People don't even jaywalk there.

Acronyms for stop

Slight Tap On Pedal
Spin Tires On Pavement
Some Thought Of Pausing

Those folks just don't realize that there are no periods on the STOP sign. grin

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

Money, Money and more Money

Next will be car Black Box readers to check your BB info for violations as you drive by!

Definition;....

I think the definition of "stop" says it....
"to cease activity or operation" Don't understand why people are so upset...Let the cameras get those that do not want to stop or can't read...Quit complaining about such stupid things and just obey the law....

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

Stop sign camera

If they want to really rake it in, they can blanket the neighborhood where my sister-in-law lives. She's the Queen of the Rolling Stop and treats neighborhood stop signs like yield signs. She has been ticketed by police for this, but that hasn't changed her behavior, as she thinks they're being mean and picky. Sometimes she even honks at cars right in front of her that come to a legal, complete stop for not doing a rolling stop like she does.

--
JMoo On

Come The Revolution

TMK wrote:

These things will make great target practice.

Years ago I heard The Revolution Will Not Be Televised...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS3QOtbW4m0

Probably no traffic cameras of any kind.

Ron

----

"When you make your peace with authority, you become authority."
Jim Morrison

Hope she doesn't live on Long Island....

dagarmin wrote:

If they want to really rake it in, they can blanket the neighborhood where my sister-in-law lives. She's the Queen of the Rolling Stop and treats neighborhood stop signs like yield signs. She has been ticketed by police for this, but that hasn't changed her behavior, as she thinks they're being mean and picky. Sometimes she even honks at cars right in front of her that come to a legal, complete stop for not doing a rolling stop like she does.

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

The reason...

dagarmin wrote:

If they want to really rake it in, they can blanket the neighborhood where my sister-in-law lives. She's the Queen of the Rolling Stop and treats neighborhood stop signs like yield signs. She has been ticketed by police for this, but that hasn't changed her behavior, as she thinks they're being mean and picky. Sometimes she even honks at cars right in front of her that come to a legal, complete stop for not doing a rolling stop like she does.

She is one of the reasons they need the cameras!!!!

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

Or go to Philadelphia ...

dagarmin wrote:

If they want to really rake it in, they can blanket the neighborhood where my sister-in-law lives. She's the Queen of the Rolling Stop and treats neighborhood stop signs like yield signs. She has been ticketed by police for this, but that hasn't changed her behavior, as she thinks they're being mean and picky. Sometimes she even honks at cars right in front of her that come to a legal, complete stop for not doing a rolling stop like she does.

... where, as I recall, if they stop at all, it's half way into the intersection. Seems endemic to the area. smile

--
Nuvi 2460

What is the Confusion About a STOP Sign

As far as I can tell, a STOP sign is self-explanatory. It does not mean yield, it does not mean slow down, it doesn't even mean stop if there is traffic coming... it means STOP.

I have no problem if someone wants to donate money to a municipality for rolling through a STOP sign. My concern is they might kill someone.

Complain?

farrissr wrote:

I think the definition of "stop" says it....
"to cease activity or operation" Don't understand why people are so upset...Let the cameras get those that do not want to stop or can't read...Quit complaining about such stupid things and just obey the law....

You might think it's stupid, but others have different experiences than you. I could say that I don't really understand why you complain about people complaining?

It's not as easy to follow the law when there are so many variables. Such as, are the stop sign cameras going to issue tickets to those that don't stop precisely at the white line? How about those that don't stop for 3 1/2 seconds? What if the pavement is slippery? What if someone is about to be rear-ended by the car behind them, and an accident would be avoided if they went through the stop sign instead of stopping? Is it going to cost extra to fight an erroneous ticket? What about if you stop at the white line properly, but can't see if traffic is coming because the white line is too far back. So you creep up and stop, or roll through. Is that going to cause a ticket?

those are the exceptions

twix wrote:
farrissr wrote:

I think the definition of "stop" says it....
"to cease activity or operation" Don't understand why people are so upset...Let the cameras get those that do not want to stop or can't read...Quit complaining about such stupid things and just obey the law....

You might think it's stupid, but others have different experiences than you. I could say that I don't really understand why you complain about people complaining?

It's not as easy to follow the law when there are so many variables. Such as, are the stop sign cameras going to issue tickets to those that don't stop precisely at the white line? How about those that don't stop for 3 1/2 seconds? What if the pavement is slippery? What if someone is about to be rear-ended by the car behind them, and an accident would be avoided if they went through the stop sign instead of stopping? Is it going to cost extra to fight an erroneous ticket? What about if you stop at the white line properly, but can't see if traffic is coming because the white line is too far back. So you creep up and stop, or roll through. Is that going to cause a ticket?

You keep bringing in what can only be described as exceptions. The sign says STOP and you are to come to a complete stop before you pass the sign. That means the before putting your wheels across the white line if present or your bumper goes past the post the sign is mounted on. If the roads are slick, wet or whatever, take some responsibility for your actions and SLOW DOWN. If you are about to be rear-ended it's their fault and if you were driving responsibly in the first place you would have been going slow when you approached the sign. It's not like these things are like those in The Dukes of Hazard where Sheriff John P. Coltrane had them spring up from the ground.

Face it, there is no law or anything that can be cited as requiring a stop of "3 1/2 seconds." That's another piece of FUD you are spouting. The only thing that come close to being a candidate for that amount of time is the defensive driving rule of "before entering an intersection, look left, then right, then look left again."

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

you're thinking of

windwalker wrote:

Next will be car Black Box readers to check your BB info for violations as you drive by!

Rental cars, they are tracked and there is notification if you leave a designated area, exceed a certain mph.

On*Star, BMW Assist, these things continue to function regardless of if you subscribe or not. Some go as far as following internet directions on removing the devices (watch too many movies/Sci Fi imho).

Again, if you're not breaking the law, who cares what's being tracked? Your passport is being read in the airport as you walk through it, your car is being tracked as you drive whether you like it or not, having to follow the law does not necessarily lower the quality of life. I cite San Francisco and Toronto as two examples.

EZPass is a perfect example, it started out with the premise none of the info would ever be used, and yet how many people have been put away based on those records? Same thing with posting her or emailing from gmail etc. These are not private, everybody and his uncle can see it. It's astounding to complain incessantly about the way things are, yet not do anything about it, what's the point? smile

visibility

twix wrote:

What about if you stop at the white line properly, but can't see if traffic is coming because the white line is too far back. So you creep up and stop, or roll through. Is that going to cause a ticket?

I frequently drive through just such an intersection. There is a main street with a 30mph speed limit, but routinely has much faster traffic because it's a wide straight-ish road with no crossings (all the other roads come in from the south and do not continue across). There is one place where two side streets meet the main road at the same point. Due to the way the streets are laid out, there is no visibility whatsoever to the left from either side street. If you were to stop at the stop lines, look as best you could, then make a turn, you'd end up in an accident in no time. You have to stop at the ridiculously placed stop line, then roll ahead to somewhere you can actually see oncoming traffic and stop again, then turn. What would the stop camera do when you're stopping - albeit for a second time - *way* past the stop line? I can tell you what the police do if you mess up at that intersection - they kindly tell you where the poorly placed stop line is, tell you not to roll through (ie. you should double stop), then let you go because even they know the layout is horrible and the stop line is so far back that many people easily miss it.

Table pounders

Box Car wrote:

You keep bringing in what can only be described as exceptions. The sign says STOP and you are to come to a complete stop before you pass the sign. That means the before putting your wheels across the white line if present or your bumper goes past the post the sign is mounted on. If the roads are slick, wet or whatever, take some responsibility for your actions and SLOW DOWN. If you are about to be rear-ended it's their fault and if you were driving responsibly in the first place you would have been going slow when you approached the sign. It's not like these things are like those in The Dukes of Hazard where Sheriff John P. Coltrane had them spring up from the ground.

Face it, there is no law or anything that can be cited as requiring a stop of "3 1/2 seconds." That's another piece of FUD you are spouting. The only thing that come close to being a candidate for that amount of time is the defensive driving rule of "before entering an intersection, look left, then right, then look left again."

So you're going to proudly send your check in, no arguments, the first time and every time you're nailed by camera enforcement?? 'Cause if there's one thing I've learned in this short sweet life mostly when a parent of young children it's that karma targets table pounders.

By the way I've learned to look *right* twice, at least once at a dead stop. My Camry has a nasty blind spot on the right post when slowing down just before a stop sign. Won't Get Fooled Again.

--
JMoo On

cut and dry

dagarmin wrote:
Box Car wrote:

You keep bringing in what can only be described as exceptions. The sign says STOP and you are to come to a complete stop before you pass the sign. That means the before putting your wheels across the white line if present or your bumper goes past the post the sign is mounted on. If the roads are slick, wet or whatever, take some responsibility for your actions and SLOW DOWN. If you are about to be rear-ended it's their fault and if you were driving responsibly in the first place you would have been going slow when you approached the sign. It's not like these things are like those in The Dukes of Hazard where Sheriff John P. Coltrane had them spring up from the ground.

Face it, there is no law or anything that can be cited as requiring a stop of "3 1/2 seconds." That's another piece of FUD you are spouting. The only thing that come close to being a candidate for that amount of time is the defensive driving rule of "before entering an intersection, look left, then right, then look left again."

So you're going to proudly send your check in, no arguments, the first time and every time you're nailed by camera enforcement?? 'Cause if there's one thing I've learned in this short sweet life mostly when a parent of young children it's that karma targets table pounders.

By the way I've learned to look *right* twice, at least once at a dead stop. My Camry has a nasty blind spot on the right post when slowing down just before a stop sign. Won't Get Fooled Again.

Either a violation took place, or it didn't. If you run a red light, the man-up version is to pay and move on. There's such a thing as learning a lesson and adjusting behavior.

Picture 1--light red and car hasn't reached the stop line. Picture 2--car proceeds through the intersection on red Picture 3--close up of license plate of the vehicle in question, in pictures 1 and 2

It's pretty cut and dry.

i heard it differently - and did not understand your meaning

dagarmin wrote:

Table Pounders
...
So you're going to proudly send your check in, no arguments, the first time and every time you're nailed by camera enforcement?? 'Cause if there's one thing I've learned in this short sweet life mostly when a parent of young children it's that karma targets table pounders.

Concerning Table Pounding, I have heard that subject in relation to the advice giving a new lawyer by an elder. It goes something like - If you have the law, pound the law; if you have the facts, pound the facts; if you have neither, pound the table.

While I have not been caught by a traffic camera, my grandson has. He was presented with three pictures

johnnatash4 wrote:

Picture 1--light red and car hasn't reached the stop line. Picture 2--car proceeds through the intersection on red Picture 3--close up of license plate of the vehicle in question, in pictures 1 and 2

The law was clear - Stop at red lights
The facts were clear - my grandson had run it

@dagarmin - how does table pounding fit this situation in your opinion?

Ban them

Whether it is a red light, speed, or stop sign camera, they need to be banned. The only reason they exist is to take money from motorists and put it in to the coffers of those who own or operate the cameras.

Disagree

tomturtle wrote:

Whether it is a red light, speed, or stop sign camera, they need to be banned. The only reason they exist is to take money from motorists and put it in to the coffers of those who own or operate the cameras.

The correct statement should read: "The only reason they exist is to take money from motorists that are breaking the law and put it into the coffers of those who own or operate the cameras." With that I agree, and don't mind because I am not a member of that population. If they want to feed the coffers, have at it.

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

Not correct

camerabob wrote:
tomturtle wrote:

Whether it is a red light, speed, or stop sign camera, they need to be banned. The only reason they exist is to take money from motorists and put it in to the coffers of those who own or operate the cameras.

The correct statement should read: "The only reason they exist is to take money from motorists that are breaking the law and put it into the coffers of those who own or operate the cameras." With that I agree, and don't mind because I am not a member of that population. If they want to feed the coffers, have at it.

They may or may not be breaking the law. There have been numerous problems reported with these devices. The one constant is that they want to take in money.

FUD?

Box Car wrote:
twix wrote:
farrissr wrote:

I think the definition of "stop" says it....
"to cease activity or operation" Don't understand why people are so upset...Let the cameras get those that do not want to stop or can't read...Quit complaining about such stupid things and just obey the law....

You might think it's stupid, but others have different experiences than you. I could say that I don't really understand why you complain about people complaining?

It's not as easy to follow the law when there are so many variables. Such as, are the stop sign cameras going to issue tickets to those that don't stop precisely at the white line? How about those that don't stop for 3 1/2 seconds? What if the pavement is slippery? What if someone is about to be rear-ended by the car behind them, and an accident would be avoided if they went through the stop sign instead of stopping? Is it going to cost extra to fight an erroneous ticket? What about if you stop at the white line properly, but can't see if traffic is coming because the white line is too far back. So you creep up and stop, or roll through. Is that going to cause a ticket?

You keep bringing in what can only be described as exceptions. The sign says STOP and you are to come to a complete stop before you pass the sign. That means the before putting your wheels across the white line if present or your bumper goes past the post the sign is mounted on. If the roads are slick, wet or whatever, take some responsibility for your actions and SLOW DOWN. If you are about to be rear-ended it's their fault and if you were driving responsibly in the first place you would have been going slow when you approached the sign. It's not like these things are like those in The Dukes of Hazard where Sheriff John P. Coltrane had them spring up from the ground.

Face it, there is no law or anything that can be cited as requiring a stop of "3 1/2 seconds." That's another piece of FUD you are spouting. The only thing that come close to being a candidate for that amount of time is the defensive driving rule of "before entering an intersection, look left, then right, then look left again."

Sorry, I don't know what FUD means. I know there is no law requiring a 3 second stop, but when people get red light camera tickets for not stopping for that long, it begs the question if the same would happen with the stop sign cameras. Sorry if you don't like my points of argument, but it's not all cut and dry like the people spouting "just stop."

Also, please don't confuse what I'm saying with how I drive. I don't complain because I get tickets every three days or something. I complain because I don't like the cameras. I think they're a safety issue, just as much as people NOT stopping at stop signs.

a few but not numerous

tomturtle wrote:

They may or may not be breaking the law. There have been numerous problems reported with these devices. The one constant is that they want to take in money.

In another thread

tomturtle wrote:

I don't trust these cameras to be fair or accurate at all, so I avoid them wherever possible. If you are confident that they are fair and accurate, by all means go...

@tom - would you give us your estimate of the percentage of Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) tickets that you believe were issued to someone who did not actually break the law?

There are several websites that actively look for and report on problems found with ATE devices. Over time, it seems, the number of problems has significantly diminished. However, the people who believe there are problems do not seem to notice this.

When you say that [t]here have been numerous problems reported with these devices would you hazard a guess as to the percentage of ATE devices that currently have a problem?

Let's pose this hypothetical question. If there were a municipality whose ATE were perfectly administered with yellow light timings that were slightly above those recommended, would you still object to a result of the municipality making money?

FUD

[Twix]

FUD stands for Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, big with companies that want to destroy others

Thank you

blake7mstr wrote:

[Twix]

FUD stands for Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, big with companies that want to destroy others

I may have misinterpreted your statements

twix wrote:

Also, please don't confuse what I'm saying with how I drive. I don't complain because I get tickets every three days or something. I complain because I don't like the cameras. I think they're a safety issue, just as much as people NOT stopping at stop signs.

I may have misinterpreted your statements and I didn't mean to come across as stating anything regarding your driving habits. Part of the problem is the English language isn't always the best when attempting to generalize using pronouns which are both personal and plural.

I will state your arguments regarding the "issues" with rear-end collisions and people receiving citations for rolling stops are entirely preventable. The requirements are that the vehicle has to come to a full and complete stop when directed by a traffic control device before entering an intersection. That is the only requirement. It is also documented that crossing the marked stop line before coming to a complete stop is an infraction as the vehicle has entered the intersection.

Granted, the machine sees everything in terms of black and white. You either came to a complete stop before entering the intersection or you didn't. I also grant that a human observing the actions of the operator may grant additional leeway as to compliance the machine would not. However, the judgement of the human does not negate the law.

If there is not a clear sight path for oncoming traffic, the law still requires the person to come to a full and complete stop before moving forward to where they may better observe approaching traffic. That doesn't mean it's correct to roll past the stop line blocking a crosswalk without coming to a complete stop just because you can't see.It also doesn't mean it's perfectly alright to slow down and make that right turn just because there isn't approaching traffic.

Drivers today are not taught the rules of the road nor common courtesy. If they are taught by a driving school more than likely they are taught only enough to pass the written exam and receive enough time behind the wheel to pass the skills portion. Learners are not instructed in defensive driving nor do they receive enough time operating a vehicle to do much more than herd the vehicle in a somewhat straight manner between the painted lines. The only "skill" many learn is how to perform the parallel parking maneuver. They do not learn how to merge onto freeways nor do they learn how to handle lane reductions and a great many other maneuvers drivers are routinely required to execute.

Many never hear of rules regarding safe following distances nor do they ever hear of average stopping distances, what the different traffic control devices mean and how they should react.

Now, are all automated devices fair and just, heavens no. Just as there are enforcers that are not fair and just. There are two things inherently wrong with the automated devices with the first being the fact they do not make judgement calls. The second being they are often improperly installed or maintained. There will always be instances where the machines are manipulated by the unscrupulous. The machines are often pitched to cities and towns as generating "free money" as there is no cost to the governing authority to install the units and they do receive revenue from the citations issued. IMHO the number of units installed in the past few years has increased tremendously, not necessarily to "increase safety" but to meet budget shortfalls due to decreased tax revenue. But then again, to whom does the burden of paying the citations fall?

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Next Camera

Yield

Justification

tomturtle wrote:

Whether it is a red light, speed, or stop sign camera, they need to be banned. The only reason they exist is to take money from motorists and put it in to the coffers of those who own or operate the cameras.

It seems to me that the rationale for the red light intersection cameras and the speed cameras in school zones, etc. was safety and not money. If so, it seems that every intersection or speed zone with a camera should be justified by proponents of the cameras via a safety rationale along with evidence to prove or substantiate efficacy.

The stop sign cameras seem excessive, however.

I'm not a fan of red light

I'm not a fan of red light cameras, but this got me thinking.
The City of Long Beach, NY could make a fortune.

Around here far too many people think that STOP is an acronym for Slight Tap on the Pedal.

Even worse, these drivers get pissed when they are interrupted by crossing pedestrians already in the crosswalk.

--
Maps -> Wife -> Garmin 12XL -> StreetPilot 2610 -> Nuvi 660 (blown speaker) -> Nuvi 3790LMT

Table pounders and being careful what you wish for

jgermann wrote:
dagarmin wrote:

Table Pounders
...
So you're going to proudly send your check in, no arguments, the first time and every time you're nailed by camera enforcement?? 'Cause if there's one thing I've learned in this short sweet life mostly when a parent of young children it's that karma targets table pounders.

Concerning Table Pounding, I have heard that subject in relation to the advice giving a new lawyer by an elder. It goes something like - If you have the law, pound the law; if you have the facts, pound the facts; if you have neither, pound the table.

While I have not been caught by a traffic camera, my grandson has. He was presented with three pictures

johnnatash4 wrote:

Picture 1--light red and car hasn't reached the stop line. Picture 2--car proceeds through the intersection on red Picture 3--close up of license plate of the vehicle in question, in pictures 1 and 2

The law was clear - Stop at red lights
The facts were clear - my grandson had run it

@dagarmin - how does table pounding fit this situation in your opinion?

I would hope your grandson would accept responsibility and pay quietly. That's what I would do. I do try to obey the law and succeed most times. Every once in a while I catch myself not succeeding. It would be nice if I didn't get an $X ticket in the mail every time that happened.

In the context I was using the term, table pounders are people who make it their business to loudly proclaim everyone should obey the law.

In my experience people who complain loudest about other people breaking a traffic law are often guilty of the same thing though they may not recognize they have the same issue. I've used the true example on POI before of someone who wrote a letter to our local chief of police demanding action be taken about people speeding down his block. The police set up surveillance, and guess who got the first ticket? The guy who wrote the letter. The chief's point in telling this story: be careful what you wish for.

Obeying a stop sign law is not just coming to a complete stop one-mississippi, two-mississippi, three-mississippi. No I know counting to three isn't part of the law, but the point is that coming to a complete stop means not stopping and then going as your car rocks forward off the momentum of the stop. There are other gotchas to stop sign law as well. You have to stop with your entire vehicle behind the stop line. Sometimes the line has faded and is difficult to see in the dark or in bad weather. Sometimes you're trying to stop in a position to see traffic and go past the line. Sometimes there is snow, rain, or wet leaves and you slide a bit past. I know: drive for conditions so that you can stop with your entire vehicle behind the stop line. I get it. I do try to do this. Do you really want to get an $X ticket in the mail every time you make a mistake? If you did, would that really do more to improve traffic safety, or would it do more to improve city revenue?

--
JMoo On

are you...

Are you frickin kidding me...here we go again with the communist state!

@dagarmin

dagarmin wrote:

...
I would hope your grandson would accept responsibility and pay quietly. That's what I would do. I do try to obey the law and succeed most times. Every once in a while I catch myself not succeeding. It would be nice if I didn't get an $X ticket in the mail every time that happened.

In the context I was using the term, table pounders are people who make it their business to loudly proclaim everyone should obey the law.

In my experience people who complain loudest about other people breaking a traffic law are often guilty of the same thing though they may not recognize they have the same issue. I've used the true example on POI before of someone who wrote a letter to our local chief of police demanding action be taken about people speeding down his block. The police set up surveillance, and guess who got the first ticket? The guy who wrote the letter. The chief's point in telling this story: be careful what you wish for.
...

Thanks for the reply. I asked the question because I was not sure where you were going.

Your point is well taken. Too many people carp about [whatever} but think that they should not be held accountable for the same thing.

My grandson paid up - he did not dispute that he was guilty. Hopefully, some behavior modification will take place.

???

allbizz wrote:

Are you [...] kidding me...here we go again with the communist state!

@allbizz, they was some comment in posts above that prompted you to post this reply. What was it?

Page 1>>