Karen Finley, former head of US operations for Redflex Traffic Systems, will be going to jail for her role in a nationwide red light camera corruption scheme. Finley admitted her guilt to federal prosecutors on March 31, according documents that were unsealed on Friday.
The admission unexpectedly came not from the ongoing bribery trial in Chicago, Illinois, but from Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio. This is the first evidence that the US Department of Justice corruption probe is likely to extend to Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington state where local officials took bribes, according to testimony given by another executive from the Australian
Karen Finley, former head of US operations for Redflex Traffic Systems, will be going to jail for her role in a nationwide red light camera corruption scheme. Finley admitted her guilt to federal prosecutors on March 31, according documents that were unsealed on Friday.
The admission unexpectedly came not from the ongoing bribery trial in Chicago, Illinois, but from Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio. This is the first evidence that the US Department of Justice corruption probe is likely to extend to Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington state where local officials took bribes, according to testimony given by another executive from the Australian
At least 25 years to short and $4,750,000 USD to shy.
Whether it's stuff like this or, speeding / running red lights or whatever, the penalty must be of sufficient monitary severity it really hurts, not a mear slap on the wrist.
We now return you to the regularly scheduled pablum.
-- Never argue with a pig.
It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
-- Curiosity is the acquisition of knowledge. And the death of cats.
Is anybody surprised at this. There was never a doubt in my mind as the overriding concern is revenue generation. It is too tempting for government officials not to take a kick back. Now, if the officials that took the bribes could also go to jail, some of this would stop. That won't happen though.
Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
is to have normal citizens with the ability to upload violations captured by dash cams. There is no profit to be made.
On Sat. this guy crossed the double yellow because he wanted to get to TD Bank. He was in my left turn lane and I had a green arrow. So I manuevered so I could be in the cops position and I told him, you crossed a double yellow. He was yelling at me with curse words. The guy looked like he was 75 or so--at that age, he should be wise, and probably chill out. Ideally, I just upload a video of him and he gets a summons, that is, in a perfect world.
... Whether it's stuff like this or, speeding / running red lights or whatever, the penalty must be of sufficient monitary severity it really hurts, not a mear slap on the wrist.
...
Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
is to have normal citizens with the ability to upload violations captured by dash cams. There is no profit to be made.
On Sat. this guy crossed the double yellow because he wanted to get to TD Bank. He was in my left turn lane and I had a green arrow. So I manuevered so I could be in the cops position and I told him, you crossed a double yellow. He was yelling at me with curse words. The guy looked like he was 75 or so--at that age, he should be wise, and probably chill out. Ideally, I just upload a video of him and he gets a summons, that is, in a perfect world.
This perfect world of uploading to social media for the entire world to peruse would lead into the utopia of the perfect nanny state. Big Brother would be using us to catch our brethren in any indiscretion.
I agree that at times I wish I were a cop because of the stupidity I constantly see on the highway. The swerving from lane to lane, cutting people off, not knowing (or not caring) how to merge onto a high speed highway from an on ramp, tailgating and others. A dash cam is a great idea for your protection of who did what and because of insurance.
I also understand why road rage happens and people get shot. Roads and vehicles lower IQs by approximately 20 points.
-- Curiosity is the acquisition of knowledge. And the death of cats.
And people who received tickets, fines and surcharges for the rigged "yellow" cameras will never have that money returned or their driving records cleared either.
-- "Primum Non Nocere" 2595LMT Clear Channel and Navteq Traffic
It's pretty obvious, 4 y.o. kids can stay onside in soccer and ice hockey. Anyone who possesses a valid drivers license can stop for a red light, and judge whether it makes sense whether to stop or proceed on yellow. Again, I have gone through many many yellows this year, at the corner of Grays Ferry (don't stalk me), and have gotten no tickets.
If a yellow were rigged, it would be so obvious due to the number of flashes at any given intersection (now, you not only have the habitual runners, but you have ordinary people with good judgement getting slammed). A simple call to 311 should remedy the situation. I can't understand why everything needs to be hyped and amped up 24/7.
If a yellow were rigged, it would be so obvious due to the number of flashes at any given intersection (now, you not only have the habitual runners, but you have ordinary people with good judgement getting slammed). A simple call to 311 should remedy the situation. I can't understand why everything needs to be hyped and amped up 24/7.
Traffic cameras seem to be like politics... a VERY emotional issue. The fact that a company bribes municipal officials to utilize their equipment is seen as demonstrating that traffic cameras do not work. However, that type of argument addresses the ethics of the people involved, not the technology.
In my mind, opponents to automated traffic enforcement see the issue as black and white - we can't trust municipal officials with the technology because they will misuse it, so ban the technology. In reality there are only a small number of instances where the technology has actually been misused, but that seems to be sufficient to call for the outright ban of all traffic cameras.
Which is the same argument people use to oppose things like remote-control quadricopters and similar technology.
The argument is that we assume they're are set up honestly with rules or standards and we drive through them and obey the rules and think they are a good thing. Then revenues drop because after the "break-in" period where people get caught running reds and yellow, get punished by tickets in the mail and tow the line; less violators (what they want), less money coming in. (what they DON'T want) So you learn the limits of the system and one day the yellow obviously runs shorter, you don't make it through the intersection and here comes the ticket. Rigged system documented here and elsewhere. That is why people call for their removal: they are rigged and obviously put in place for: 1. Revenue generation and 2. (a distant second IMO): to improve safety. Yeah sure, as long as the money coming in doesn't dry up.
DanielT wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:
If a yellow were rigged, it would be so obvious due to the number of flashes at any given intersection (now, you not only have the habitual runners, but you have ordinary people with good judgement getting slammed). A simple call to 311 should remedy the situation. I can't understand why everything needs to be hyped and amped up 24/7.
Traffic cameras seem to be like politics... a VERY emotional issue. The fact that a company bribes municipal officials to utilize their equipment is seen as demonstrating that traffic cameras do not work. However, that type of argument addresses the ethics of the people involved, not the technology.
In my mind, opponents to automated traffic enforcement see the issue as black and white - we can't trust municipal officials with the technology because they will misuse it, so ban the technology. In reality there are only a small number of instances where the technology has actually been misused, but that seems to be sufficient to call for the outright ban of all traffic cameras.
Which is the same argument people use to oppose things like remote-control quadricopters and similar technology.
-- "Primum Non Nocere" 2595LMT Clear Channel and Navteq Traffic
The argument is that we assume they're are set up honestly with rules or standards and we drive through them and obey the rules and think they are a good thing. Then revenues drop because after the "break-in" period where people get caught running reds and yellow, get punished by tickets in the mail and tow the line; less violators (what they want), less money coming in. (what they DON'T want) So you learn the limits of the system and one day the yellow obviously runs shorter, you don't make it through the intersection and here comes the ticket. Rigged system documented here and elsewhere. That is why people call for their removal: they are rigged and obviously put in place for: 1. Revenue generation and 2. (a distant second IMO): to improve safety. Yeah sure, as long as the money coming in doesn't dry up.
...
I am only aware of a few [r]igged system documented here and elsewhere.
Indeed, I would not use the term "rigged" because it implies that something illegal was going on.
While I concur that the few situations of which I am aware occurred because the jurisdiction was trying to generate more revenue, I am not aware of that any of the changes to yellow light timing was illegal.
When one learn[s] the limits of the system, it implies that one is trying to beat the light, rather than following the general driving rule that a yellow light means be prepared to stop.
I see this almost every time I drive. For non RLC intersections, drivers are taking advantage of the "two second All Red" timing of our city's traffic lights to blow through the lights. As they develop their technique, they are getting bolder and now relying on the assumption that there is another second available because of the time it takes the opposing traffic's drivers to react to the light turning green.
I have no problem with someone opposing RLCs solely on the fact that they are against anything that is "revenue generating". But, I do think that those so opposed should not try and add unsubstantiated comments to bolster their objections because someone else claims that RLCs are generally "rigged". If they want to make this claim, they should be prepared to support their comments with facts - not with claims by other people or entities who object to RLCs. By this I mean go to the source documents used by, say, thenewspaper.com, and see if the writer actually fairly and completely presented all of the facts.
Semantics. If there are Federal Standards for the yellow and the box was set to comply with that standard for years, then suddenly get reduced AND a local official gets caught at it.... if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... well, that's ILLEGAL and "RIGGED" is the perfect term to describe it. Re: "aware of only a few":
ONE is too many.
jgermann wrote:
williston wrote:
The argument is that we assume they're are set up honestly with rules or standards and we drive through them and obey the rules and think they are a good thing. Then revenues drop because after the "break-in" period where people get caught running reds and yellow, get punished by tickets in the mail and tow the line; less violators (what they want), less money coming in. (what they DON'T want) So you learn the limits of the system and one day the yellow obviously runs shorter, you don't make it through the intersection and here comes the ticket. Rigged system documented here and elsewhere. That is why people call for their removal: they are rigged and obviously put in place for: 1. Revenue generation and 2. (a distant second IMO): to improve safety. Yeah sure, as long as the money coming in doesn't dry up.
...
I am only aware of a few [r]igged system documented here and elsewhere.
Indeed, I would not use the term "rigged" because it implies that something illegal was going on.
While I concur that the few situations of which I am aware occurred because the jurisdiction was trying to generate more revenue, I am not aware of that any of the changes to yellow light timing was illegal.
When one learn[s] the limits of the system, it implies that one is trying to beat the light, rather than following the general driving rule that a yellow light means be prepared to stop.
I see this almost every time I drive. For non RLC intersections, drivers are taking advantage of the "two second All Red" timing of our city's traffic lights to blow through the lights. As they develop their technique, they are getting bolder and now relying on the assumption that there is another second available because of the time it takes the opposing traffic's drivers to react to the light turning green.
I have no problem with someone opposing RLCs solely on the fact that they are against anything that is "revenue generating". But, I do think that those so opposed should not try and add unsubstantiated comments to bolster their objections because someone else claims that RLCs are generally "rigged". If they want to make this claim, they should be prepared to support their comments with facts - not with claims by other people or entities who object to RLCs. By this I mean go to the source documents used by, say, thenewspaper.com, and see if the writer actually fairly and completely presented all of the facts.
-- "Primum Non Nocere" 2595LMT Clear Channel and Navteq Traffic
If you can find a case where the yellow timing was reduced to less than the recommended minimums, then, you could use - in that case - a word like "rigged"
There are not any "standards - several organizations have been advocating for such and I think it would be good if there were - what we do have is that the various DOT organizations use the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) formula to calculate yellow intervals.
If you can find a case where the yellow timing was reduced to less than the recommended minimums, then, you could use - in that case - a word like "rigged"
There are not any "standards - several organizations have been advocating for such and I think it would be good if there were - what we do have is that the various DOT organizations use the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) formula to calculate yellow intervals.
The correct name of the organization is the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They, along with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) jointly own and publish the National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP) Standards and they cover the signaling devices and their communications between each other and their management centers. ITE is currently in the process of revising the standard for traffic signal controllers. The process is long and involved as each item has to be checked and vetted before inclusion. There should be a new version of the standard out sometime late next year. The ATC Standard doesn't have the timing formula but it tells how to implement what's in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) put out by the US DOT.
Now, for what it is worth, (that and $3 will buy you a cup of overpriced coffee) the ITE formula is not a recognized standard but a recommendation that has been written into many state laws. So, don't call it a standard. It's a recommendation or guideline but nothing more.
Speeding and running red lights is still illegal in every state the last time I looked.
BUT there are idiots out there claiming they can do it as long as they do not get caught. One stupid claim is that they must be found guilty by a present police officer and cameras are not it.
This is stupid for if you are speeding and no officer is present you are still guilty of breaking the law.
My sister spent 3 months in a hospital because someone ran a red light. Due to a red light camera showing how late the idiot ran the light she got a very favorable settlement.
Cameras can be very good for some of the people.
Speeding and running red lights is still illegal in every state the last time I looked.
First, sorry about the crash your sister was in.
Yes, exceeding the speed limit and running red lights (deliberately or unintentional), these points stand almost without exception. Of course the caviot is unless directed to do either by law enforcement.
There are some instances where common sense issues would prevail as well and most likely overlooked, but it's still illegal.
From my perspective, there are a couple of issues to contend with.
As it pertains to RLC's, IFF (that's if and only if) the signal timings are such, that from a mathematical and physics perspective the time allocated for the light to be yellow is unreasonable for a safe and controlled stop to be effected at the posted speed limit can not achieved. I have no pity for the individual that is excedind the posted speed limit and can't affect the stop, threes something inherently wrong with the basic setup parameters for the signal and RLC. Most RLC's record time and speed of the vehicle at time of infraction so it should be easy enough to figure out who was way over the speed limit or an intentional running the light versus the person who was otherwise distracted. Light in the eyes, arguing with passengers, singing, getting that necessitates emergency rolling down of Windows
Second, there's been references to kids playing sports and being able to not do something because it violates the rules of the game and penalties can and will be assessed against their team. But I'm equally sure if they do to many of these things, either the ref or the coach basically ejects the kid from the remander of the game.
When it comes to the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING, I've held the position the penalties are in most cases little more than financial slaps on the wrist. If the financial penalty were say $2000.00 AND your license was suspended until the fime was paid in full I'd be surprised if much of the speeding and running of red lights didn't almost come to little more than only a few.
So it's not about saying 'Bad locality for putting up an enforcement camera.' its more about saying 'Bad legislators for viewing traffic violations, either camera generated or observed and issues directly by a law enforcement as a source of revenue instead of seeking the safty of the public at large.'
Yes, I load both the RLC and SPEED CAMERA POI files, not so I can speed or know which intersections I can run without my picture being taken. These POI files, when they alert me are little more than tools.
But don't worry, before long, we will all get the privilege of being legislated that we must purchase a "connected" vehicle, capable of communicating each vehicles intent and unable to violate the laws of the road.
Think of crowd source driving. It's conning and the mandated legislation mandating all vehicle participation will prevail because DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT!
-- Never argue with a pig.
It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
life of me my entire time on this forum I've been trying to understand the notion that licensed drivers cannot decide to stop or go on yellow. When, 4 y.o. kids can stay onside in soccer and ice hockey.
Lately, I've become even more observant. There are incompentent drivers, and nervous nellies out there on the road, with valid licenses.
Yesterday, I was following a Ford rental car, with elderly people driving. It was like the guy was in his own world, traveling 10 mph below the 25 mph limit, and not even going after coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. I noticed that when he did go, he DID NOT even look to his left whatsoever!
Then, on my way to the gym, there was a middle aged lady maybe 35 who would not proceed into the intersection, on a SOLID GREEN! So she waited behind the stop line, and we all watched yellow, then red. The only way a person like this is going to turn is on a green arrow.
These are two examples of bad licensed driving. Ok, I get that these folks would not be able to compute and decide whether to stop or go at a rlc intersection. But do we remove rules, regulations, and enforcement, to accommodate these folks? In a perfect world, their licenses are revoked.
It may not be a "Standard" but in Maryland it's the Law
jgermann wrote:
No, I do not think so.
If you can find a case where the yellow timing was reduced to less than the recommended minimums, then, you could use - in that case - a word like "rigged"
There are not any "standards - several organizations have been advocating for such and I think it would be good if there were - what we do have is that the various DOT organizations use the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) formula to calculate yellow intervals.
In the case of Maryland, the recommendations/guidelines have been adopted as law:
"(b) The agency primarily responsible for traffic control at an intersection monitored by a traffic control signal monitoring system shall ensure that the length of time that a traffic control signal displays a yellow light before changing to a red signal indication is set in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Highway Administration consistent with standards or guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration." http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gtr/21-202.1.html
I believe that Florida has adopted the "recommendation" as law. I recall that there was some issue when FL changed the definition of speed in the equation from the greater of the posted speed or 85th percentile speed to either the posted speed limit OR the 85th percentile speed.
Mark
The average age span is in the 70's, 35 is middle aged.
The actuaries are saying a normal male lives 82.x years, and 6 more than that for females. That's actually not bad in reality.
By the time someone is 35, they can be a senior VP of multi billion dollar corporations. By the time they are 40-43, they can run cos worth 300+ billion. I would hope that they are at least middle aged. Let's face it, athletes peak in their 20's, normal workers in their 30's. 40 is the new 70.
[quote=baumback...
In the case of Maryland, the recommendations/guidelines have been adopted as law:
"(b) The agency primarily responsible for traffic control at an intersection monitored by a traffic control signal monitoring system shall ensure that the length of time that a traffic control signal displays a yellow light before changing to a red signal indication is set in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Highway Administration consistent with standards or guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration." http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gtr/21-202.1.html
I believe that Florida has adopted the "recommendation" as law. I recall that there was some issue when FL changed the definition of speed in the equation from the greater of the posted speed or 85th percentile speed to either the posted speed limit OR the 85th percentile speed.
Mark
By saying that there were not "federal standards", I may have given the impression that there were no "legal" standards for yellow light timings. As Baumback correctly points out, there are several states whose legislatures have incorporated wording that codifies existing FHA "guidelines" into their traffic laws.
So I manuevered so I could be in the cops position and I told him, you crossed a double yellow. He was yelling at me with curse words. The guy looked like he was 75 or so--at that age, he should be wise, and probably chill out. Ideally, I just upload a video of him and he gets a summons, that is, in a perfect world.
With all the road rage going on you should consider yourself lucky he didn't pull out a howitzer and blow your A$$ away!
If I have no reason to call the cops on an idiot, then I tend to give em' a wide birth.
If we're on a road driving for a distance, I use the three digit method to express my displeasure... 9-1-1 and let the fuzz deal with the idiot.
-- Never argue with a pig.
It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
Now, for what it is worth, (that and $3 will buy you a cup of overpriced coffee) the ITE formula is not a recognized standard but a recommendation that has been written into many state laws. So, don't call it a standard. It's a recommendation or guideline but nothing more.
I managed the NTCIP Standards program for one of the standards owners and worked quite closely with the ITE representative as part of our dealings being co-owners of the published standards. As stated, the ITE formula has never been submitted as a proposed standard but is a recommendation that has been adopted by many states and codified in some.
baumback wrote:
jgermann wrote:
There are not any "standards - several organizations have been advocating for such and I think it would be good if there were - what we do have is that the various DOT organizations use the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) formula to calculate yellow intervals.
In the case of Maryland, the recommendations/guidelines have been adopted as law:
"(b) The agency primarily responsible for traffic control at an intersection monitored by a traffic control signal monitoring system shall ensure that the length of time that a traffic control signal displays a yellow light before changing to a red signal indication is set in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Highway Administration consistent with standards or guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration." http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gtr/21-202.1.html
I believe that Florida has adopted the "recommendation" as law. I recall that there was some issue when FL changed the definition of speed in the equation from the greater of the posted speed or 85th percentile speed to either the posted speed limit OR the 85th percentile speed.
Mark
The problem is they are used solely to generate $$$. If they don't make money they are gone. Show me one city that on an annual basis loses money and keeps them operating.
It has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with extracting money (just like raising taxes) for politicians to spend. Like a drug, they always want more and RLC's are a way for them to do it and then say only people who are bad pay but never having enough money they then rig the system.
Many people just pay the $$$ because fighting it means taking a day off work because heaven forbid hearings held after 3pm.
If cities said we believe in these so much we are going to pay for them out of the operating budget and all monies collected will go to charity I'd have a different opinion
If cities said we believe in these so much we are going to pay for them out of the operating budget and all monies collected will go to charity I'd have a different opinion
Ahhhh... But the rub is that the charities are strapped for cash and if the could prove the municipalities were somehow short changing them, then the charity would drag the city through a litigation process...
-- Never argue with a pig.
It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
When a canine has a blood test, cholesterol level is reported. But, there is no treatment for it, as a dog does not live long enough.
Those of you who theorize all these various scenarios when it comes to RLCs state they are for every reason under the sun, except for getting people to stop at red lights.
Do you, rhetorically, even drive through any on a daily basis? Have you ever wrongfully gotten a ticket?
When a canine has a blood test, cholesterol level is reported. But, there is no treatment for it, as a dog does not live long enough.
Those of you who theorize all these various scenarios when it comes to RLCs state they are for every reason under the sun, except for getting people to stop at red lights.
Do you, rhetorically, even drive through any on a daily basis? Have you ever wrongfully gotten a ticket?
I avoid them whenever possible. They are a cash grab, period.
We all know that if safety was/is the real motive for this activity,they would stop/arrest the offender on the spot!
Instead, they'll send something in the mail that you'll eventually get sooner or later. They don't really care ....as long as they get their money.
Sooooooo, while hiding behind the name of "safety", one is allowed to speed all day/week/month .... possibly cause numerous indirect accidents (hopefully without injuries) and only face the charges when the postal service decides to deliver the ticket/invoice/kick-back.
Yeah right ..... it's not about the money ......
-- If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem quickly resembles a nail. (Maslow's Hammer)
The problem is they are used solely to generate $$$. If they don't make money they are gone. Show me one city that on an annual basis loses money and keeps them operating.
It has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with extracting money (just like raising taxes) for politicians to spend. Like a drug, they always want more and RLC's are a way for them to do it and then say only people who are bad pay but never having enough money they then rig the system.
Many people just pay the $$$ because fighting it means taking a day off work because heaven forbid hearings held after 3pm.
If cities said we believe in these so much we are going to pay for them out of the operating budget and all monies collected will go to charity I'd have a different opinion
When people know when an RLC is installed at a particular spot, they are much more careful about that intersection. So, they do work.
I will not argue the monetary standpoint. I don't like them for that reason. They are a money grab and not for entirely for safety. And, they could cause rear end crashes when some old ..... (fill in blank, please) smokes the tires stopping just when they decide they couldn't make it after all.
Don't preach the too close behind either. We've all been driving long enough to know just about what's right. When the car ahead is going through the intersection and it is pretty obvious, get the picture. Who knows, may be a chain reaction crash. Could be a lot of tempers get mashed by an RLC at an accident. As well as front and backs of vehicles.
-- Curiosity is the acquisition of knowledge. And the death of cats.
Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
I agree.
Nuvi1300WTGPS
-- I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!
My brother (who is in parking operations) got a red light cam fine/pic in the mail for a right hand turn. Will be fighting that and getting it out easily for it.
If safety Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
That is about as ludicrous as stating every camera should be operated by a certified law enforcement official. Just how do you expect to pay for at least 4 cameras at most intersections. Don't say the money would come from fines, there is a significant upfront cost to not only purchase the hardware, but to prepare each site and bring in the electrical power. Then your complaint wouldn't be there were cameras everywhere, it would be you can't breath because of the heavy tax burden to pay the loans, salaries, benefits and retirement costs with having all those additional mouths on the public payroll.
-- ɐ‾nsǝɹ
Just one click away from the end of the Internet
Just to be clear, the Redflex CEO was found guilty of bribery of elected officials, NOT rigging yellow lights to increase profits.
This is not a question of technology... Anyone photographed running a red light would still be guilty of running a red light, regardless of the legality of awarding the camera contract
Karen Finley, former head of
Karen Finley, former head of US operations for Redflex Traffic Systems, will be going to jail for her role in a nationwide red light camera corruption scheme. Finley admitted her guilt to federal prosecutors on March 31, according documents that were unsealed on Friday.
The admission unexpectedly came not from the ongoing bribery trial in Chicago, Illinois, but from Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio. This is the first evidence that the US Department of Justice corruption probe is likely to extend to Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington state where local officials took bribes, according to testimony given by another executive from the Australian
Read more: http://capitalismisfreedom.com/red-light-camera-ceo-pleads-guilty-bribery-corruption/#ixzz3ot1lIDvp
The penalty is...
Karen Finley, former head of US operations for Redflex Traffic Systems, will be going to jail for her role in a nationwide red light camera corruption scheme. Finley admitted her guilt to federal prosecutors on March 31, according documents that were unsealed on Friday.
The admission unexpectedly came not from the ongoing bribery trial in Chicago, Illinois, but from Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio. This is the first evidence that the US Department of Justice corruption probe is likely to extend to Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington state where local officials took bribes, according to testimony given by another executive from the Australian
Read more: http://capitalismisfreedom.com/red-light-camera-ceo-pleads-guilty-bribery-corruption/#ixzz3ot1lIDvp
At least 25 years to short and $4,750,000 USD to shy.
Whether it's stuff like this or, speeding / running red lights or whatever, the penalty must be of sufficient monitary severity it really hurts, not a mear slap on the wrist.
We now return you to the regularly scheduled pablum.
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
If Safety
Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
Curiosity is the acquisition of knowledge. And the death of cats.
Is anybody surprised at
Is anybody surprised at this. There was never a doubt in my mind as the overriding concern is revenue generation. It is too tempting for government officials not to take a kick back. Now, if the officials that took the bribes could also go to jail, some of this would stop. That won't happen though.
what we should do
Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
is to have normal citizens with the ability to upload violations captured by dash cams. There is no profit to be made.
On Sat. this guy crossed the double yellow because he wanted to get to TD Bank. He was in my left turn lane and I had a green arrow. So I manuevered so I could be in the cops position and I told him, you crossed a double yellow. He was yelling at me with curse words. The guy looked like he was 75 or so--at that age, he should be wise, and probably chill out. Ideally, I just upload a video of him and he gets a summons, that is, in a perfect world.
Penaty is ...
... Whether it's stuff like this or, speeding / running red lights or whatever, the penalty must be of sufficient monitary severity it really hurts, not a mear slap on the wrist.
...
+1
Nuvi 2460
Your Scenario
Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
is to have normal citizens with the ability to upload violations captured by dash cams. There is no profit to be made.
On Sat. this guy crossed the double yellow because he wanted to get to TD Bank. He was in my left turn lane and I had a green arrow. So I manuevered so I could be in the cops position and I told him, you crossed a double yellow. He was yelling at me with curse words. The guy looked like he was 75 or so--at that age, he should be wise, and probably chill out. Ideally, I just upload a video of him and he gets a summons, that is, in a perfect world.
This perfect world of uploading to social media for the entire world to peruse would lead into the utopia of the perfect nanny state. Big Brother would be using us to catch our brethren in any indiscretion.
I agree that at times I wish I were a cop because of the stupidity I constantly see on the highway. The swerving from lane to lane, cutting people off, not knowing (or not caring) how to merge onto a high speed highway from an on ramp, tailgating and others. A dash cam is a great idea for your protection of who did what and because of insurance.
I also understand why road rage happens and people get shot. Roads and vehicles lower IQs by approximately 20 points.
Curiosity is the acquisition of knowledge. And the death of cats.
No fine money refunds?
And people who received tickets, fines and surcharges for the rigged "yellow" cameras will never have that money returned or their driving records cleared either.
"Primum Non Nocere" 2595LMT Clear Channel and Navteq Traffic
It's A Start...
I doubt very much that all those involved will ever see justice, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
Anything new...
I don't see how this is a shocker? It only gets worse.
311
It's pretty obvious, 4 y.o. kids can stay onside in soccer and ice hockey. Anyone who possesses a valid drivers license can stop for a red light, and judge whether it makes sense whether to stop or proceed on yellow. Again, I have gone through many many yellows this year, at the corner of Grays Ferry (don't stalk me), and have gotten no tickets.
If a yellow were rigged, it would be so obvious due to the number of flashes at any given intersection (now, you not only have the habitual runners, but you have ordinary people with good judgement getting slammed). A simple call to 311 should remedy the situation. I can't understand why everything needs to be hyped and amped up 24/7.
The Use of Technology
If a yellow were rigged, it would be so obvious due to the number of flashes at any given intersection (now, you not only have the habitual runners, but you have ordinary people with good judgement getting slammed). A simple call to 311 should remedy the situation. I can't understand why everything needs to be hyped and amped up 24/7.
Traffic cameras seem to be like politics... a VERY emotional issue. The fact that a company bribes municipal officials to utilize their equipment is seen as demonstrating that traffic cameras do not work. However, that type of argument addresses the ethics of the people involved, not the technology.
In my mind, opponents to automated traffic enforcement see the issue as black and white - we can't trust municipal officials with the technology because they will misuse it, so ban the technology. In reality there are only a small number of instances where the technology has actually been misused, but that seems to be sufficient to call for the outright ban of all traffic cameras.
Which is the same argument people use to oppose things like remote-control quadricopters and similar technology.
ummmmmmm
ummmmmmm
As usual
As usual, Daniel has gotten to the heart of the matter.
People's emotions rule their minds.
Not against the technology, just the "shell game"
The argument is that we assume they're are set up honestly with rules or standards and we drive through them and obey the rules and think they are a good thing. Then revenues drop because after the "break-in" period where people get caught running reds and yellow, get punished by tickets in the mail and tow the line; less violators (what they want), less money coming in. (what they DON'T want) So you learn the limits of the system and one day the yellow obviously runs shorter, you don't make it through the intersection and here comes the ticket. Rigged system documented here and elsewhere. That is why people call for their removal: they are rigged and obviously put in place for: 1. Revenue generation and 2. (a distant second IMO): to improve safety. Yeah sure, as long as the money coming in doesn't dry up.
If a yellow were rigged, it would be so obvious due to the number of flashes at any given intersection (now, you not only have the habitual runners, but you have ordinary people with good judgement getting slammed). A simple call to 311 should remedy the situation. I can't understand why everything needs to be hyped and amped up 24/7.
Traffic cameras seem to be like politics... a VERY emotional issue. The fact that a company bribes municipal officials to utilize their equipment is seen as demonstrating that traffic cameras do not work. However, that type of argument addresses the ethics of the people involved, not the technology.
In my mind, opponents to automated traffic enforcement see the issue as black and white - we can't trust municipal officials with the technology because they will misuse it, so ban the technology. In reality there are only a small number of instances where the technology has actually been misused, but that seems to be sufficient to call for the outright ban of all traffic cameras.
Which is the same argument people use to oppose things like remote-control quadricopters and similar technology.
"Primum Non Nocere" 2595LMT Clear Channel and Navteq Traffic
Just a few
The argument is that we assume they're are set up honestly with rules or standards and we drive through them and obey the rules and think they are a good thing. Then revenues drop because after the "break-in" period where people get caught running reds and yellow, get punished by tickets in the mail and tow the line; less violators (what they want), less money coming in. (what they DON'T want) So you learn the limits of the system and one day the yellow obviously runs shorter, you don't make it through the intersection and here comes the ticket. Rigged system documented here and elsewhere. That is why people call for their removal: they are rigged and obviously put in place for: 1. Revenue generation and 2. (a distant second IMO): to improve safety. Yeah sure, as long as the money coming in doesn't dry up.
...
I am only aware of a few [r]igged system documented here and elsewhere.
Indeed, I would not use the term "rigged" because it implies that something illegal was going on.
While I concur that the few situations of which I am aware occurred because the jurisdiction was trying to generate more revenue, I am not aware of that any of the changes to yellow light timing was illegal.
When one learn[s] the limits of the system, it implies that one is trying to beat the light, rather than following the general driving rule that a yellow light means be prepared to stop.
I see this almost every time I drive. For non RLC intersections, drivers are taking advantage of the "two second All Red" timing of our city's traffic lights to blow through the lights. As they develop their technique, they are getting bolder and now relying on the assumption that there is another second available because of the time it takes the opposing traffic's drivers to react to the light turning green.
I have no problem with someone opposing RLCs solely on the fact that they are against anything that is "revenue generating". But, I do think that those so opposed should not try and add unsubstantiated comments to bolster their objections because someone else claims that RLCs are generally "rigged". If they want to make this claim, they should be prepared to support their comments with facts - not with claims by other people or entities who object to RLCs. By this I mean go to the source documents used by, say, thenewspaper.com, and see if the writer actually fairly and completely presented all of the facts.
You say Tomato I say Tomahto...
Semantics. If there are Federal Standards for the yellow and the box was set to comply with that standard for years, then suddenly get reduced AND a local official gets caught at it.... if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... well, that's ILLEGAL and "RIGGED" is the perfect term to describe it. Re: "aware of only a few":
ONE is too many.
The argument is that we assume they're are set up honestly with rules or standards and we drive through them and obey the rules and think they are a good thing. Then revenues drop because after the "break-in" period where people get caught running reds and yellow, get punished by tickets in the mail and tow the line; less violators (what they want), less money coming in. (what they DON'T want) So you learn the limits of the system and one day the yellow obviously runs shorter, you don't make it through the intersection and here comes the ticket. Rigged system documented here and elsewhere. That is why people call for their removal: they are rigged and obviously put in place for: 1. Revenue generation and 2. (a distant second IMO): to improve safety. Yeah sure, as long as the money coming in doesn't dry up.
...
I am only aware of a few [r]igged system documented here and elsewhere.
Indeed, I would not use the term "rigged" because it implies that something illegal was going on.
While I concur that the few situations of which I am aware occurred because the jurisdiction was trying to generate more revenue, I am not aware of that any of the changes to yellow light timing was illegal.
When one learn[s] the limits of the system, it implies that one is trying to beat the light, rather than following the general driving rule that a yellow light means be prepared to stop.
I see this almost every time I drive. For non RLC intersections, drivers are taking advantage of the "two second All Red" timing of our city's traffic lights to blow through the lights. As they develop their technique, they are getting bolder and now relying on the assumption that there is another second available because of the time it takes the opposing traffic's drivers to react to the light turning green.
I have no problem with someone opposing RLCs solely on the fact that they are against anything that is "revenue generating". But, I do think that those so opposed should not try and add unsubstantiated comments to bolster their objections because someone else claims that RLCs are generally "rigged". If they want to make this claim, they should be prepared to support their comments with facts - not with claims by other people or entities who object to RLCs. By this I mean go to the source documents used by, say, thenewspaper.com, and see if the writer actually fairly and completely presented all of the facts.
"Primum Non Nocere" 2595LMT Clear Channel and Navteq Traffic
Semantics??
No, I do not think so.
If you can find a case where the yellow timing was reduced to less than the recommended minimums, then, you could use - in that case - a word like "rigged"
There are not any "standards - several organizations have been advocating for such and I think it would be good if there were - what we do have is that the various DOT organizations use the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) formula to calculate yellow intervals.
semantics shemantics
No, I do not think so.
If you can find a case where the yellow timing was reduced to less than the recommended minimums, then, you could use - in that case - a word like "rigged"
There are not any "standards - several organizations have been advocating for such and I think it would be good if there were - what we do have is that the various DOT organizations use the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) formula to calculate yellow intervals.
The correct name of the organization is the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They, along with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) jointly own and publish the National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP) Standards and they cover the signaling devices and their communications between each other and their management centers. ITE is currently in the process of revising the standard for traffic signal controllers. The process is long and involved as each item has to be checked and vetted before inclusion. There should be a new version of the standard out sometime late next year. The ATC Standard doesn't have the timing formula but it tells how to implement what's in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) put out by the US DOT.
Now, for what it is worth, (that and $3 will buy you a cup of overpriced coffee) the ITE formula is not a recognized standard but a recommendation that has been written into many state laws. So, don't call it a standard. It's a recommendation or guideline but nothing more.
Illiterate? Write for free help.
It is still illeagal
Speeding and running red lights is still illegal in every state the last time I looked.
BUT there are idiots out there claiming they can do it as long as they do not get caught. One stupid claim is that they must be found guilty by a present police officer and cameras are not it.
This is stupid for if you are speeding and no officer is present you are still guilty of breaking the law.
My sister spent 3 months in a hospital because someone ran a red light. Due to a red light camera showing how late the idiot ran the light she got a very favorable settlement.
Cameras can be very good for some of the people.
its not about the cameras
Speeding and running red lights is still illegal in every state the last time I looked.
First, sorry about the crash your sister was in.
Yes, exceeding the speed limit and running red lights (deliberately or unintentional), these points stand almost without exception. Of course the caviot is unless directed to do either by law enforcement.
There are some instances where common sense issues would prevail as well and most likely overlooked, but it's still illegal.
From my perspective, there are a couple of issues to contend with.
As it pertains to RLC's, IFF (that's if and only if) the signal timings are such, that from a mathematical and physics perspective the time allocated for the light to be yellow is unreasonable for a safe and controlled stop to be effected at the posted speed limit can not achieved. I have no pity for the individual that is excedind the posted speed limit and can't affect the stop, threes something inherently wrong with the basic setup parameters for the signal and RLC. Most RLC's record time and speed of the vehicle at time of infraction so it should be easy enough to figure out who was way over the speed limit or an intentional running the light versus the person who was otherwise distracted. Light in the eyes, arguing with passengers, singing, getting that necessitates emergency rolling down of Windows
Second, there's been references to kids playing sports and being able to not do something because it violates the rules of the game and penalties can and will be assessed against their team. But I'm equally sure if they do to many of these things, either the ref or the coach basically ejects the kid from the remander of the game.
When it comes to the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING, I've held the position the penalties are in most cases little more than financial slaps on the wrist. If the financial penalty were say $2000.00 AND your license was suspended until the fime was paid in full I'd be surprised if much of the speeding and running of red lights didn't almost come to little more than only a few.
So it's not about saying 'Bad locality for putting up an enforcement camera.' its more about saying 'Bad legislators for viewing traffic violations, either camera generated or observed and issues directly by a law enforcement as a source of revenue instead of seeking the safty of the public at large.'
Yes, I load both the RLC and SPEED CAMERA POI files, not so I can speed or know which intersections I can run without my picture being taken. These POI files, when they alert me are little more than tools.
But don't worry, before long, we will all get the privilege of being legislated that we must purchase a "connected" vehicle, capable of communicating each vehicles intent and unable to violate the laws of the road.
Think of crowd source driving. It's conning and the mandated legislation mandating all vehicle participation will prevail because DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT!
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
Whoops
...Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) formula to calculate yellow intervals.
The correct name of the organization is the Institute of Transportation Engineers. ...
The older I get the less capable I am of typing correctly
for the
life of me my entire time on this forum I've been trying to understand the notion that licensed drivers cannot decide to stop or go on yellow. When, 4 y.o. kids can stay onside in soccer and ice hockey.
Lately, I've become even more observant. There are incompentent drivers, and nervous nellies out there on the road, with valid licenses.
Yesterday, I was following a Ford rental car, with elderly people driving. It was like the guy was in his own world, traveling 10 mph below the 25 mph limit, and not even going after coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. I noticed that when he did go, he DID NOT even look to his left whatsoever!
Then, on my way to the gym, there was a middle aged lady maybe 35 who would not proceed into the intersection, on a SOLID GREEN! So she waited behind the stop line, and we all watched yellow, then red. The only way a person like this is going to turn is on a green arrow.
These are two examples of bad licensed driving. Ok, I get that these folks would not be able to compute and decide whether to stop or go at a rlc intersection. But do we remove rules, regulations, and enforcement, to accommodate these folks? In a perfect world, their licenses are revoked.
35 is Middle Aged?
there was a middle aged lady maybe 35
Ouch!
When you consider
there was a middle aged lady maybe 35
Ouch!
The average age span is in the 70's, 35 is middle aged.
Illiterate? Write for free help.
It may not be a "Standard" but in Maryland it's the Law
No, I do not think so.
If you can find a case where the yellow timing was reduced to less than the recommended minimums, then, you could use - in that case - a word like "rigged"
There are not any "standards - several organizations have been advocating for such and I think it would be good if there were - what we do have is that the various DOT organizations use the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) formula to calculate yellow intervals.
In the case of Maryland, the recommendations/guidelines have been adopted as law:
"(b) The agency primarily responsible for traffic control at an intersection monitored by a traffic control signal monitoring system shall ensure that the length of time that a traffic control signal displays a yellow light before changing to a red signal indication is set in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Highway Administration consistent with standards or guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration."
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gtr/21-202.1.html
I believe that Florida has adopted the "recommendation" as law. I recall that there was some issue when FL changed the definition of speed in the equation from the greater of the posted speed or 85th percentile speed to either the posted speed limit OR the 85th percentile speed.
Mark
technically
there was a middle aged lady maybe 35
Ouch!
The average age span is in the 70's, 35 is middle aged.
The actuaries are saying a normal male lives 82.x years, and 6 more than that for females. That's actually not bad in reality.
By the time someone is 35, they can be a senior VP of multi billion dollar corporations. By the time they are 40-43, they can run cos worth 300+ billion. I would hope that they are at least middle aged. Let's face it, athletes peak in their 20's, normal workers in their 30's. 40 is the new 70.
Baumback is correct
[quote=baumback...
In the case of Maryland, the recommendations/guidelines have been adopted as law:
"(b) The agency primarily responsible for traffic control at an intersection monitored by a traffic control signal monitoring system shall ensure that the length of time that a traffic control signal displays a yellow light before changing to a red signal indication is set in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Highway Administration consistent with standards or guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration."
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gtr/21-202.1.html
I believe that Florida has adopted the "recommendation" as law. I recall that there was some issue when FL changed the definition of speed in the equation from the greater of the posted speed or 85th percentile speed to either the posted speed limit OR the 85th percentile speed.
Mark
By saying that there were not "federal standards", I may have given the impression that there were no "legal" standards for yellow light timings. As Baumback correctly points out, there are several states whose legislatures have incorporated wording that codifies existing FHA "guidelines" into their traffic laws.
that makes sense
that's why some yellow lights are longer than others.
i try not to tease stupid animals
So I manuevered so I could be in the cops position and I told him, you crossed a double yellow. He was yelling at me with curse words. The guy looked like he was 75 or so--at that age, he should be wise, and probably chill out. Ideally, I just upload a video of him and he gets a summons, that is, in a perfect world.
With all the road rage going on you should consider yourself lucky he didn't pull out a howitzer and blow your A$$ away!
If I have no reason to call the cops on an idiot, then I tend to give em' a wide birth.
If we're on a road driving for a distance, I use the three digit method to express my displeasure... 9-1-1 and let the fuzz deal with the idiot.
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
I'll state it again
Now, for what it is worth, (that and $3 will buy you a cup of overpriced coffee) the ITE formula is not a recognized standard but a recommendation that has been written into many state laws. So, don't call it a standard. It's a recommendation or guideline but nothing more.
I managed the NTCIP Standards program for one of the standards owners and worked quite closely with the ITE representative as part of our dealings being co-owners of the published standards. As stated, the ITE formula has never been submitted as a proposed standard but is a recommendation that has been adopted by many states and codified in some.
There are not any "standards - several organizations have been advocating for such and I think it would be good if there were - what we do have is that the various DOT organizations use the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) formula to calculate yellow intervals.
In the case of Maryland, the recommendations/guidelines have been adopted as law:
"(b) The agency primarily responsible for traffic control at an intersection monitored by a traffic control signal monitoring system shall ensure that the length of time that a traffic control signal displays a yellow light before changing to a red signal indication is set in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Highway Administration consistent with standards or guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration."
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gtr/21-202.1.html
I believe that Florida has adopted the "recommendation" as law. I recall that there was some issue when FL changed the definition of speed in the equation from the greater of the posted speed or 85th percentile speed to either the posted speed limit OR the 85th percentile speed.
Mark
Illiterate? Write for free help.
IQ n R/rage
19.025% to be exact.
It's not tht RLC's don't work..
The problem is they are used solely to generate $$$. If they don't make money they are gone. Show me one city that on an annual basis loses money and keeps them operating.
It has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with extracting money (just like raising taxes) for politicians to spend. Like a drug, they always want more and RLC's are a way for them to do it and then say only people who are bad pay but never having enough money they then rig the system.
Many people just pay the $$$ because fighting it means taking a day off work because heaven forbid hearings held after 3pm.
If cities said we believe in these so much we are going to pay for them out of the operating budget and all monies collected will go to charity I'd have a different opinion
Ewwwwee.....
If cities said we believe in these so much we are going to pay for them out of the operating budget and all monies collected will go to charity I'd have a different opinion
Ahhhh... But the rub is that the charities are strapped for cash and if the could prove the municipalities were somehow short changing them, then the charity would drag the city through a litigation process...
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
relight cameras
rot in peace in the country club lockup
dog with high cholesterol conundrum
When a canine has a blood test, cholesterol level is reported. But, there is no treatment for it, as a dog does not live long enough.
Those of you who theorize all these various scenarios when it comes to RLCs state they are for every reason under the sun, except for getting people to stop at red lights.
Do you, rhetorically, even drive through any on a daily basis? Have you ever wrongfully gotten a ticket?
I avoid them
When a canine has a blood test, cholesterol level is reported. But, there is no treatment for it, as a dog does not live long enough.
Those of you who theorize all these various scenarios when it comes to RLCs state they are for every reason under the sun, except for getting people to stop at red lights.
Do you, rhetorically, even drive through any on a daily basis? Have you ever wrongfully gotten a ticket?
I avoid them whenever possible. They are a cash grab, period.
Now now ......
We all know that if safety was/is the real motive for this activity,they would stop/arrest the offender on the spot!
Instead, they'll send something in the mail that you'll eventually get sooner or later. They don't really care ....as long as they get their money.
Sooooooo, while hiding behind the name of "safety", one is allowed to speed all day/week/month .... possibly cause numerous indirect accidents (hopefully without injuries) and only face the charges when the postal service decides to deliver the ticket/invoice/kick-back.
Yeah right ..... it's not about the money ......
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem quickly resembles a nail. (Maslow's Hammer)
They Do Work
The problem is they are used solely to generate $$$. If they don't make money they are gone. Show me one city that on an annual basis loses money and keeps them operating.
It has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with extracting money (just like raising taxes) for politicians to spend. Like a drug, they always want more and RLC's are a way for them to do it and then say only people who are bad pay but never having enough money they then rig the system.
Many people just pay the $$$ because fighting it means taking a day off work because heaven forbid hearings held after 3pm.
If cities said we believe in these so much we are going to pay for them out of the operating budget and all monies collected will go to charity I'd have a different opinion
When people know when an RLC is installed at a particular spot, they are much more careful about that intersection. So, they do work.
I will not argue the monetary standpoint. I don't like them for that reason. They are a money grab and not for entirely for safety. And, they could cause rear end crashes when some old ..... (fill in blank, please) smokes the tires stopping just when they decide they couldn't make it after all.
Don't preach the too close behind either. We've all been driving long enough to know just about what's right. When the car ahead is going through the intersection and it is pretty obvious, get the picture. Who knows, may be a chain reaction crash. Could be a lot of tempers get mashed by an RLC at an accident. As well as front and backs of vehicles.
Curiosity is the acquisition of knowledge. And the death of cats.
chicago
Does anyone not think that Chicago politicians are not corrupt?
To be or not to be
I Agree...
Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
I agree.
Nuvi1300WTGPS
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!
Emanuel wants your $$$
Does anyone not think that Chicago politicians are not corrupt?
Totally.
Until morale improves the beatings will continue
My brother (who is in
My brother (who is in parking operations) got a red light cam fine/pic in the mail for a right hand turn. Will be fighting that and getting it out easily for it.
otay..
otay..
Sure
If safety Was truly the overriding concern, then every state that allows RLC systems would have them at all stop light intersections. That I could buy and understand as for safety and not for local fund raising.
The state has the power to allow these cameras and so - has the power to stop the usage of the same.
That is about as ludicrous as stating every camera should be operated by a certified law enforcement official. Just how do you expect to pay for at least 4 cameras at most intersections. Don't say the money would come from fines, there is a significant upfront cost to not only purchase the hardware, but to prepare each site and bring in the electrical power. Then your complaint wouldn't be there were cameras everywhere, it would be you can't breath because of the heavy tax burden to pay the loans, salaries, benefits and retirement costs with having all those additional mouths on the public payroll.
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet
Just my thoughts too.
Just my thoughts too.
Oh.... Thats The Problem!!!
Just my thoughts too.
We have thoughts!
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
The Charge is Bribery
Just to be clear, the Redflex CEO was found guilty of bribery of elected officials, NOT rigging yellow lights to increase profits.
This is not a question of technology... Anyone photographed running a red light would still be guilty of running a red light, regardless of the legality of awarding the camera contract
And that makes it OK?
If Redflex is corrupt the tickets are still good? How do we know what else Redflex does to make more money!
Wow!!!!
You mean we're supposed to stop when the light tuts red???
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!