Please Don't Run Red Lights

 

Please don't run red lights 'cause this is what happens!

Recorded on our dashcam while waiting for the light to change.

https://youtu.be/QxJCo-U7XeA

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."
Page 1>>

who

Was it the pickup with the trailer who was blowing through a red light a couple of seconds after it had turned, while the guy he T-boned was using a clear left-turn green arrow?

That was nasty.

--
personal GPS user since 1992

Yes

Yes, the cross traffic had stopped for about 5 seconds when the pickup-trailer came flying through the red light. Also, remember his red light comes on before the turn-arrows comes on. He must have been preoccupied as there is no smoke from braking tires.

Here's a better clip that shows more of the pre-crash time.
https://youtu.be/9u866NdLOLU

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

That is really scary

He must have been looking at a phone or radio, etc. He did not even start to brake.

Cell Phone

My guess is that he was using his cell phone. I've seen it all too often.

Have To Watch Every Way

The only way to drive is to watch all directions all the time. To bad people don't pay attention

--
johnm405 660 & MSS&T

close

I've seen some close calls with people speeding to get thru a yellow light trying to beat the red light ! normally if your doing the speed limit and it turns yellow you have enough time to stop safely !

Yeah, there is no braking.

Yeah, there is no braking. It's a full speed t-bone. I bet the driver was busy checking his smartphone.

I was driving on a freeway a few weeks ago on the way to church when I observed a sedan in front of my car drifting slowly to my lane, then back to her lane. A few seconds later, it starts drifting slowly again to my lane and back to her lane. It keeps drifting back and forth for a few minutes at 70 MPH. Of course, I keep a far enough distance to make sure the idiot won't hit me. I suspect the driver is playing with the phone. I finally accelerated to see what exactly the driver was doing. I was right. She was looking down (at her lap). Idiots think we don't know what they're doing if their phone is out of sight. Some people should not be allowed to drive. Period.

dash

cams really pick up a lot. I was parked in Vancouver the other day, and all of a sudden hear cursing and yelling and tires screeching. It's overwritten now, but I got to play back the incident. A pedestrian clearly had begun to cross when a Subaru was at a stop sign. Subaru intentionally raced at the ped and slammed on its brakes, scaring the pedestrian. This is Vancouver BC. I guess it's not like Toronto.

this

geo334 wrote:

I've seen some close calls with people speeding to get thru a yellow light trying to beat the red light ! normally if your doing the speed limit and it turns yellow you have enough time to stop safely !

You are 100% correct, I've learned this as well. If you are doing the speed limit, it really does not matter if there is a rlc or there isn't, because you will always be able to make an informed decision.

These days, when I am in a strange city, my garmin is a glorified speed limit sign--I try to do the speed limit in case there are any sort of cams, and I'm ok with it. I admit I tend to be slower than traffic until there is a cam....

While the driver of the pickup truck was clearly 'at fault'...

The pickup-trailer (in the video) definitely ran a red light because the protected turn light (turn-only light) was clearly visible. If the sedan driver that got T-boned by the pickup truck had been a defensive driver and [actually] looked to make sure his/her travel path was safe before entering the intersection, chances are that accident could have been avoided entirely.

While the driver of the pickup truck was clearly 'at fault', if there is a significant personal injury claim/suit brought against the pickup truck driver and his insurance provider it would not surprise me to learn that his insurance will assert/argue that the driver of the sedan had a duty/responsibility to make sure his/her travel path was clear before entering the intersection (instead of counting on just the traffic light)...and therefore the driver of the sedan is partially 'at fault' and should not be responsible but for a fraction of any claim against them.

--
According to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees cannot fly. But the bumblebees, not knowing the laws of aerodynamics, go ahead and fly anyway...

.

koot wrote:

If the sedan driver that got T-boned by the pickup truck had been a defensive driver and [actually] looked to make sure his/her travel path was safe before entering the intersection, chances are that accident could have been avoided entirely.

There was 2 seconds before the left turn lane started to move on the advance green. However, the bus in the right turn lane would have made it impossible to see the truck.

Some things you can't avoid despite due diligence.

--
nüvi 3790T | nüvi 775T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

This is why people dislike

This is why people dislike some insurance companies and lawyers...

No

koot wrote:

The pickup-trailer (in the video) definitely ran a red light because the protected turn light (turn-only light) was clearly visible. If the sedan driver that got T-boned by the pickup truck had been a defensive driver and [actually] looked to make sure his/her travel path was safe before entering the intersection, chances are that accident could have been avoided entirely.

Well, what's the purpose of traffic lights? They are there so each and every driver does not have to impede traffic by doing all this checking you mention, as if the lights were not there. The traffic lights are there to make things safe and enable traffic flow. And frankly, that pickup was traveling as if it was cruising right along, not a care in the world. The car that was t-bone, the victim, would not have had enough time to see the pickup and take defensive or evasive action.

The accident would have been prevented and hence avoided if the driver of the pickup obeyed the traffic light just like the rest of all the other cars that were already stopped. That is the root cause.

--
GPSMAP64s, iPhone 6 w/Garmin North America, Yaesu VX-8R w/GPS.

defensive drivers don't base their decision on just green lights

diesel wrote:
koot wrote:

The pickup-trailer (in the video) definitely ran a red light because the protected turn light (turn-only light) was clearly visible. If the sedan driver that got T-boned by the pickup truck had been a defensive driver and [actually] looked to make sure his/her travel path was safe before entering the intersection, chances are that accident could have been avoided entirely.

Well, what's the purpose of traffic lights? They are there so each and every driver does not have to impede traffic by doing all this checking you mention, as if the lights were not there. The traffic lights are there to make things safe and enable traffic flow. And frankly, that pickup was traveling as if it was cruising right along, not a care in the world. The car that was t-bone, the victim, would not have had enough time to see the pickup and take defensive or evasive action.

The accident would have been prevented and hence avoided if the driver of the pickup obeyed the traffic light just like the rest of all the other cars that were already stopped. That is the root cause.

Sure - there is no doubt the pickup truck driver was the cause of the accident. That fact is not in question. The point is - a good driver is a defensive driver and does not base their driving decision at a traffic light intersection solely on whether they have a green light.

--
According to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees cannot fly. But the bumblebees, not knowing the laws of aerodynamics, go ahead and fly anyway...

The truck came through the

The truck came through the intersection so late the driver of the car could have looked then returned their attention to what was in front of them and were subsequently hit.

--
John B - Garmin 765T

Another

I saw something like this and it was reported as a life-threatening collision. I think the responsible driver sped up to get through. I worked with a man who was third through a green light and was hit by a red light runner.

What??

koot wrote:

the driver of the sedan had a duty/responsibility to make sure his/her travel path was clear before entering the intersection (instead of counting on just the traffic light)...and therefore the driver of the sedan is partially 'at fault' and should not be responsible but for a fraction of any claim against them.

You're trolling, right? That's like saying the shooting victim was partly at fault because he didn’t duck in time! That’s ludicrous.

Did you stop to figure out how far back the truck was from the intersection when the cross-traffic got the red light? The time from when the last cross-traffic vehicle went past to the time he hit her was approximately 5 seconds. Assuming he was only driving the speed limit of 45 mph (which he probably wasn’t), he traveled 330 feet in that 5 seconds. That’s over the length of one football field. She could have looked more than once and saw nothing … he was nowhere to be seen.

We don’t know what direction she was looking. She waited approximately 2 seconds from the time the arrow came on to the time she started to move. During that time she could have checked left first (nobody coming), then checked right and straight ahead, then went.

She followed the law and the rules of the road, the truck driver didn’t. He’s 100% at fault, she is zero.

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

.

koot wrote:

Sure - there is no doubt the pickup truck driver was the cause of the accident. That fact is not in question. The point is - a good driver is a defensive driver and does not base their driving decision at a traffic light intersection solely on whether they have a green light.

It doesn't matter how good you are behind the wheel, reckless idiots will get you. There are many out there on public road.

Defensive

After seeing too many red light runners I have now changed my driving. When I get the green light, I wait for the cars in the other lane(s) to start first. That way if there is a red light runner they will take the hit. Maybe a bit selfish, but ... In the situation in the video with the speed of the truck it looks like other cars got hit as well, so it might not work for all situations.

We can only hope that the driver of the truck will be off the streets for quite some time making it a tiny bit safer in the area where he lives.

JCA

No, I'm very serious!

retiredtechnician wrote:
koot wrote:

the driver of the sedan had a duty/responsibility to make sure his/her travel path was clear before entering the intersection (instead of counting on just the traffic light)...and therefore the driver of the sedan is partially 'at fault' and should not be responsible but for a fraction of any claim against them.

You're trolling, right? That's like saying the shooting victim was partly at fault because he didn’t duck in time! That’s ludicrous.

RT

No, I'm very serious! All drivers have a duty/responsibility to make sure his/her travel path is clear before proceeding to avoid causing, or being involved in, an accident.

In the case of insurance litigation; just stopping to offer help to someone can cause you and your insurance to become part of a claim.

--
According to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees cannot fly. But the bumblebees, not knowing the laws of aerodynamics, go ahead and fly anyway...

.

I'd like to see a citation (MVAR) on that. When a driver smokes into an intersection 5-6 seconds after, they are wholly at fault.

And like I stated before, the bus was in the right-hand lane, and would have made it impossible for the left turn lane vehicles to see past.

--
nüvi 3790T | nüvi 775T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

You are taking my general speculation as the gospel.

Juggernaut wrote:

I'd like to see a citation (MVAR) on that. When a driver smokes into an intersection 5-6 seconds after, they are wholly at fault.

And like I stated before, the bus was in the right-hand lane, and would have made it impossible for the left turn lane vehicles to see past.

You are taking my general speculation as the gospel. I said; "...it would not surprise me to learn..." (as noted below*).

"While the driver of the pickup truck was clearly 'at fault', if there is a significant personal injury claim/suit brought against the pickup truck driver and his insurance provider *it would not surprise me to learn that his insurance will assert/argue that the driver of the sedan had a duty/responsibility to make sure his/her travel path was clear before entering the intersection..."

--
According to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees cannot fly. But the bumblebees, not knowing the laws of aerodynamics, go ahead and fly anyway...

"I don't think so, Tim"

koot wrote:

No, I'm very serious! All drivers have a duty/responsibility to make sure his/her travel path is clear before proceeding to avoid causing, or being involved in, an accident.

Like I mentioned before, she probably did check every direction as she waited 2 seconds before leaving; and 5 seconds before he blew through the stop-sign. He was so blatantly at fault that even when she did the right thing (waited to enter the intersection), she still got hit. He was over a football field away when he got the red light. With all the traffic on her left, she couldn't have seen him if she wanted to.

koot wrote:

In the case of insurance litigation; just stopping to offer help to someone can cause you and your insurance to become part of a claim.

Haven't you heard of the "Good Samaritan law"? Almost every state has one; and at least one state "orders citizens to help those in need". Of course, with sue-crazy people, there would be a greater chance someone would sue you for not stopping to assist.

Is someone blowing smoke here???

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

YOUR DUTY MAY BE ONLY TO CALL FOR HELP, NOT TO RENDER

retiredtechnician wrote:
koot wrote:

No, I'm very serious! All drivers have a duty/responsibility to make sure his/her travel path is clear before proceeding to avoid causing, or being involved in, an accident.

Like I mentioned before, she probably did check every direction as she waited 2 seconds before leaving; and 5 seconds before he blew through the stop-sign. He was so blatantly at fault that even when she did the right thing (waited to enter the intersection), she still got hit. He was over a football field away when he got the red light. With all the traffic on her left, she couldn't have seen him if she wanted to.

koot wrote:

In the case of insurance litigation; just stopping to offer help to someone can cause you and your insurance to become part of a claim.

Haven't you heard of the "Good Samaritan law"? Almost every state has one; and at least one state "orders citizens to help those in need". Of course, with sue-crazy people, there would be a greater chance someone would sue you for not stopping to assist.

Is someone blowing smoke here???

RT

You're pulling my leg, right? Yes, I have indeed heard of the Good Samaritan law. Do you know much about the law? I'm guessing not...

While Good Samaritan laws vary from state to state, these laws typically apply when you take purely voluntary, good-faith action to help another person at the scene of an emergency, and the person does not object to your help. If you provide help to another person under a Good Samaritan law, keep in mind that YOU MUST exercise the same standard of care and/or treatment that you normally help to in your profession. In other words, if you’re a trained medical professional, then you must act according to medical professional standards. However, if you are not trained in a medical professional, then YOUR DUTY MAY BE ONLY TO CALL FOR HELP or other forms of help, but NOT TO RENDER MEDICAL CARE OR FIRST AID. So long as you act reasonably in light of the circumstance, and in keeping with professional standards, YOU PROBABLY WILL NOT BE LIABLE in a jurisdiction that has enacted a Good Samaritan law.

The mere existence of a Good Samaritan law, however, does not mean that you cannot be sued. If you act negligently or recklessly in light of applicable professional standards, you might still be liable for damages, despite a Good Samaritan law. Plus, Good Samaritan laws are state laws, not federal laws. Therefore, a state Good Samaritan law will not protect you from liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Additionally, some versions of Good Samaritan laws MAY HOLD YOU LIABLE IF YOU DO NOT ACT TO ASSIST ANOTHER PERSON DURING AN EMERGENCY. In any case, you should be cautious about the type of assistance that you provide in an emergency situation, and be sure to act – or not act - in a manner that will not result in your liability under your state’s Good Samaritan law.

Reference: https://resources.lawinfo.com/personal-injury/what-are-good-...

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

Here is a scenario you probably are not aware of that can happen pertaining to a 'Good Samaritan' effort.

You come upon a single vehicle accident involving a motorcycle and stop to offer whatever help you can to the driver. You only call 9-1-1 and wait for EMS and law enforcement to arrive. Even though you did not see the accident happen nor provide any aid you gave your identification information to the officer for the record. It turns out the driver of the motorcycle was seriously injured and did not have adequate personal injury insurance to take care of his medical needs. Because you were at the scene of the accident as a willing Good Samaritan your automobile insurance is adjoined to help pay for the medical needs of the motorcycle driver.

You are probably saying; "That's ludicrous! How can that happen?"

Well, that's just how the law and litigation sometimes works!

That said, and back to the topic at-hand - as I said; "It would not surprise me to learn that his insurance will assert/argue that the driver of the sedan had a duty/responsibility to make sure his/her travel path was clear before entering the intersection..." Once again, don't take my general speculation as the gospel, but don't think for a minute it couldn't happen...

--
According to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees cannot fly. But the bumblebees, not knowing the laws of aerodynamics, go ahead and fly anyway...

Skipping all the back and forth...

It does look as though the driver of the car swerved a bit after entering the intersection. Perhaps seeing the truck, and also realizing there was nowhere to go... Did you also note that she was in the second lane and her initial view was blocked by the vehicle in the leftmost lane that probably saw the pickup coming and did not proceed?

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

again

we make the criminal the victim , and the victim the criminal ! its really sad what lawyers and judges do to circumvent the law there was only one lawbreaker and one victim that's common sense . the rest is a distraction to fill the lawyers pocket !

just

I just saw an episode of "CHiPs," where they had to recreate an accident that involved 11 fatalities. Now I get it's a tv show, and this was 1978. All that effort, to find out what happened.

Today, we have 1080p or 4k, which clearly shows what happened, but we still cannot always conclude. How odd!

Witness / evidence

@retiredtechnician ... Just out of curiosity, did you stay around until the LEO's showed up? Were you asked to give a statement as a witness to the accident? Did you give them your video as evidence? I hope no one was seriously injured.

--
Alan - Android Auto, DriveLuxe 50LMTHD, Nuvi 3597LMTHD, Oregon 550T, Nuvi 855, Nuvi 755T, Lowrance Endura Sierra

Gave hime a copy

alandb wrote:

@retiredtechnician ... Just out of curiosity, did you stay around until the LEO's showed up? Were you asked to give a statement as a witness to the accident? Did you give them your video as evidence? I hope no one was seriously injured.

As you can see, there were several people running to assist. We were in the left (of two lanes going straight) and didn't have any place to park. After we returned from the Doctor's Office, we checked the DashCam. When we discovered what we had, we called the police station and informed them. The Investigating Officer came out to our house, we showed him the video, and gave him an uncut copy. This was the same day of the accident.

We asked him what one is supposed to do in a case like this. He said exactly what you did. There already were at least two assisting and best not to cause another accident, then call the police.

Incidentally, when he looked at the video, he was very interested in who had the green light. Not any doubt there. He also inferred that a video is far better than multiple witnesses. The more witnesses, the more accounts.

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

Pickup truck is at fault

That is the way I see it.

Good call.

retiredtechnician wrote:
alandb wrote:

@retiredtechnician ... Just out of curiosity, did you stay around until the LEO's showed up? Were you asked to give a statement as a witness to the accident? Did you give them your video as evidence? I hope no one was seriously injured.

As you can see, there were several people running to assist. We were in the left (of two lanes going straight) and didn't have any place to park. After we returned from the Doctor's Office, we checked the DashCam. When we discovered what we had, we called the police station and informed them. The Investigating Officer came out to our house, we showed him the video, and gave him an uncut copy. This was the same day of the accident.

We asked him what one is supposed to do in a case like this. He said exactly what you did. There already were at least two assisting and best not to cause another accident, then call the police.

Incidentally, when he looked at the video, he was very interested in who had the green light. Not any doubt there. He also inferred that a video is far better than multiple witnesses. The more witnesses, the more accounts.

RT

Good call RT!

--
Alan - Android Auto, DriveLuxe 50LMTHD, Nuvi 3597LMTHD, Oregon 550T, Nuvi 855, Nuvi 755T, Lowrance Endura Sierra

 

retiredtechnician wrote:
koot wrote:

the driver of the sedan had a duty/responsibility to make sure his/her travel path was clear before entering the intersection (instead of counting on just the traffic light)...and therefore the driver of the sedan is partially 'at fault' and should not be responsible but for a fraction of any claim against them.

You're trolling, right? That's like saying the shooting victim was partly at fault because he didn’t duck in time! That’s ludicrous.

Did you stop to figure out how far back the truck was from the intersection when the cross-traffic got the red light? The time from when the last cross-traffic vehicle went past to the time he hit her was approximately 5 seconds. Assuming he was only driving the speed limit of 45 mph (which he probably wasn’t), he traveled 330 feet in that 5 seconds. That’s over the length of one football field. She could have looked more than once and saw nothing … he was nowhere to be seen.

We don’t know what direction she was looking. She waited approximately 2 seconds from the time the arrow came on to the time she started to move. During that time she could have checked left first (nobody coming), then checked right and straight ahead, then went.

She followed the law and the rules of the road, the truck driver didn’t. He’s 100% at fault, she is zero.

RT

No doubt. But I was just nearly hit by someone who ran a STOP sign. She probably thought that I had a stop sign too but I did not.

(The town put a white line on the pavement to discourage people from blocking the intersection but it's not a stop).

So the car pulled out directly in front of me from a side street STOP sign while I was at speed and entering the intersection. I was able to brake, turn, and avoid by a few feet at most, there wasn't even time to think about the horn until the collision factor has passed.

If there had been a collision, no doubt it would have been the stop running driver's fault. But I'm still glad I was cautious (only traveling 25 mph, observant at the other driver's actions, and quick reacting to avoid a collision). I'm not even sure the other driver ever realized what happened.

Be careful out there folks, and drive defensively. It still hurts as much even if it's NOT your fault.

Here in southeastern PA

telecomdigest2 wrote:

No doubt. But I was just nearly hit by someone who ran a STOP sign. She probably thought that I had a stop sign too but I did not.

(The town put a white line on the pavement to discourage people from blocking the intersection but it's not a stop).

~snip~

People in my part of the world don't pay attention so often that they have to put up signs like "Opposing traffic has extended green" or "Cross traffic does not stop" or "Wait for green" etc etc etc, you'd think there wouldn't be a need but its common here to just assume crap, that's why Red Light Cameras, Speed cameras and the like have come about, lots of folks just don't follows the rules anymore.

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

I've done similar

Back when we moved to the city from East Texas, I did a stop and go at a solid red. In the country, we only had blinking reds and blinking yellows. Since I had a couple of each every day to/from work, i got used to that being normal. In the city, red-yellow-greens are the norm and i was halfway through the intersection before it dawned on me that _this_ light was not blinking.

I almost got t-boned

I almost got t-boned yesterday morning at the following intersection: https://goo.gl/maps/bfPaGHHK2gR2

I was driving South on S Hoover St. towards W 116th Pl
Another car was traveling East on W 116th Pl

We were both going to get onto 105 freeway Eastbound and we both have STOP signs as you can see in the satellite view. I stopped completely (before continuing to make a left turn onto freeway ramp) at which time the other car zoomed through the intersection at high speed (about 50 MPH), right in front of us. HOLY CRAP! Wife and I could've been seriously hurt or killed instantly if we got into the intersection a few seconds earlier. Thank God that wasn't the case.

Probably reading or

Probably reading or responding to a text. I was almost hit from someone looking down at her smartphone, the road turned and she didn't and entered my lane. Uggg.

Red lights are only a

Red lights are only a suggestion in the city, this video is 3 cycles strung together, it was like this all day long. (I was working right by that light today)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6-sa4EA2C8

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

These dash cams can be

These dash cams can be pretty helpful ... and they catch some interesting stuff ... I remember seeing a bunch of footage of a huge meteorite in Russia a couple of years back ... ALL of the footage captured was from dashcams.

CC

Just amazing how many went through that red light.

But, then again, people just don't care about stopping or obeying the laws.

soberbyker wrote:

Red lights are only a suggestion in the city, this video is 3 cycles strung together, it was like this all day long. (I was working right by that light today)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6-sa4EA2C8

--
Nuvi 2460LMT.

my

my dash cam captures so much every day can't even begin to try to mention all the incidents, like today someone accelerating to turn left when I was going straight. How does this never happen in CA or Toronto? Where traffic yields?

How about the fatal crash on 76 shutting it down both directions this AM? It was like War of the Worlds. It is pretty interesting that let's say 50,000 vehicles are late for work. How come there are those whose time is more important and they bypass the wait and cut in lol

And for a police officer to stand and block an expressway entrance with his body makes no sense to me. Should be done with a car or truck and flares.

p.s. there is a reason why Amazon did not choose us for 2HQ and they chose noVA and LIC NY

Red lights

That video is really scary.

It must be different from state to state or city to city. I guess some people push it and then other people follow suit.

Here in Austin you see people going into intersections on red, but not like this video.

I also have noticed that the stop sign has been downgraded to a yield and the yield sign downgraded to a ..., well nothing.

JCA

Would you even consider

Would you even consider looking elsewhere before entering the following intersection?

https://youtu.be/VPbUpdmAfck

I see no accident in that minute and a half clip. If we remove all traffic lights and signs at intersections, will drivers become more aware?

Didn’t have my dash cam on

Didn’t have my dash cam on yesterday when I took the wife to work, stupid me,

I had green light and a semi from the right side clearly had a red light and blew through the light and turned right on red without even stopping. I had to slam on the brakes the car behind me nearly rear-ended me. People get killed like this every day from the ignorance and stupidity of others.

Now why would you do something so stupid with the name of the company on the side of your truck and especially the name on the rear of the semi with the truck ID and a phone number to call saying “how’s my driving”?

I called the 800 number, talk to his boss, he was not impressed to say the least as this was a third complaint on his driving. He was very apologetic and is only comment to me was you won’t have to worry about that happening again. My thought was, after the first complaint that shouldn’t have happened a second time!

and that ...

pwohlrab wrote:

But, then again, people just don't care about stopping or obeying the laws.

soberbyker wrote:

Red lights are only a suggestion in the city, this video is 3 cycles strung together, it was like this all day long. (I was working right by that light today)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6-sa4EA2C8

... was just 3 cycles of the light, I worked right next to that for 7 hours and it was like that all day, at least 3 or 4 cars running the red, for both directions.

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

sort

soberbyker wrote:
pwohlrab wrote:

But, then again, people just don't care about stopping or obeying the laws.

soberbyker wrote:

Red lights are only a suggestion in the city, this video is 3 cycles strung together, it was like this all day long. (I was working right by that light today)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6-sa4EA2C8

... was just 3 cycles of the light, I worked right next to that for 7 hours and it was like that all day, at least 3 or 4 cars running the red, for both directions.

of stupid but I was watching parking wars. A lot of it is in Phila. These are scenarios where people are caught red handed doing something illegal. But, they give the parking folks a hard time to the extent of physical harm. With this type of mentality on the road, no traffic control can ever do anything.

Even last week with the fatalities on 76W, the driver left the scene.

I wonder--one day, when the majority of vehicles have cams (the price is now around $40--why not), there will still be a question on how we can use this info effectively? I am sure they are gonna be altered such that two cams show two different things, not unlike politics today (sophisticated altering of videos that is not discernible normally--only professionals in a forensic capacity can prove the alterations).

are we all doomed? Of course not. Just need to be defensive and on our guard.

Location

Retiredtechnician--Where is this intersection located? Looks like Florida and it looks familiar to me.

I drive in three different countries

Where I live during the summer I drive very aware of my surroundings. How some even got their drivers licence to begin with I do not know!

Then each fall and spring on my drive through the USA I drive even more so since I do not inadvertently cut someone off or anything else so they don't pull a gun on me. I'm almost, but not quite afraid yet driving in the USA. At least one member in this forum proudly states he carries in his car and I'm sure there are many more. There are more shootings in the USA every year than anywhere else.

Then for almost six months in Mexico I drive expecting everyone to be an absolute moron and totally ignore and or disregard any driving laws, especially since there are many driving in Mexico who don't even have a drivers licence.

I'm not politicizing but that is how it is!

And yes, I do have a dash cam and it is ALWAYS on when I'm driving.

--
Nuvi 350 long gone, Nuvi 855LMT Retired now, Nuvi 2797LMT, SmartDrive 50 LMT-HD, 3790LMT now my daughters. Using Windows 10. DashCam A108C with GPS.

Ouch- don't do it. Also,

Ouch- don't do it. Also, RLCs would go away if the folks stopped running them.

GPS

johnnatash4 wrote:

~snip~

I wonder--one day, when the majority of vehicles have cams (the price is now around $40--why not), there will still be a question on how we can use this info effectively? I am sure they are gonna be altered such that two cams show two different things, not unlike politics today (sophisticated altering of videos that is not discernible normally--only professionals in a forensic capacity can prove the alterations).

are we all doomed? Of course not. Just need to be defensive and on our guard.

I'd wager most dash cam video wouldn't be of much use without GPS info embedded into it, those are a tad more than $40 the last time I checked. A Lawyer is going to want to know speed, direction of travel and time of day, and not just from the person saying so.

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

My A180c

soberbyker wrote:

I'd wager most dash cam video wouldn't be of much use without GPS info embedded into it, those are a tad more than $40 the last time I checked. A Lawyer is going to want to know speed, direction of travel and time of day, and not just from the person saying so.

cost just under $ 40.00 delivered to me. Since the DC is capable of adding a GPS I so did. When I play back a clip I have speed, a coordinate location and an exact location on a map. The add-on GPS was less than $ 10.00 delivered to me.

--
Nuvi 350 long gone, Nuvi 855LMT Retired now, Nuvi 2797LMT, SmartDrive 50 LMT-HD, 3790LMT now my daughters. Using Windows 10. DashCam A108C with GPS.
Page 1>>