Are red light cameras a good thing Veeky Forums?
I think this speaks volumes of the disrespect the average motorist in London has for other people's safety if they still insist on running red lights when the cameras are this obvious. Most car guys I know say it's such a problem that they're glad these things are being put up rather than the expected kneejerk
>muh tyranny
because apparently London has such a huge problem with red light runners
Other urls found in this thread:
digitaltrends.com
en.wikipedia.org
washingtonpost.com
twitter.com
Doesnt matter to me. The cameras still cant see my plate number. lmfao
...
RED light cams are just a jewish cash grab
Redlight cameras at lights that have next to no traffic are the devil. im not sitting and waiting for a light to change when there is literally no one else on the road.
American education everyone
We've had these in Alberta for like 7 years now. They mostly cause people to slam their brakes at the last moment and get rear ended.
i think traffic light are the problem.
At least here in Freedomland, we are too smart and just have cameras taking pictures of the the plate and not the driver too, so everyone just fights them in court and wins.
No picture of who is driving the car and you don't incriminate yourself and you get off
Patrol Cars>Red Light>Drug Testing>Stationary Speed>Mobile Speed
Red light cameras cause more accidents because people slam on the brakes instead of rolling through a yellow.
The problem is this could be easily negated by window tint which is legal in most places in America
No becuase the companies that run the cameras make the the Jurisdictions sign contracts stating they get a percentage of the tickets, and for said jurisdictions to reduce the time of the yellow light in order to profit off of the cameras.
The result is you have people having to slam on their brakes causing accidents, because yellow lights literally last a half second and the red comes on with very little warning.
>the companies that run the cameras make the the Jurisdictions sign contracts stating they get a percentage of the tickets, and for said jurisdictions to reduce the time of the yellow light in order to profit off of the cameras
Source? I'm especially interested in the latter point
Some places require you to tell them who was driving if you say it wasn't you driving.
Wasn't it studied that red light cameras were worse and ended up causing accidents?
>actually recognizing the law as an authority
Governments and their shenanigans are just tougher challenges to overcome than usual. It's not breaking the law if you kill everyone who tries to stop you.
>American """"""""""""education""""""""""""
Also photo radar and speed cameras fucking everywhere, at least in edmonton. Fuckers sit on freeways shooting everyone going 6kmph over the limit.
Im ok with red light cams but photoradar is cancer
"my car was stolen and then returned :^)"
Nah, you can't bullshit your way out of red light cameras (and speed cameras too) over here.
If you don't declare who was driving, you pay an additional fine which can be equal or even greater than the fine you had to pay to begin with (but at least you don't get your licence score subtracted, in those places where a point system exists).
If you say the car was stolen, then it's your own problem for not reporting it to the police, and you have to pay both fines anyway.
What most people do over here is pay the regular fine and declare the driver was some other relative who has a licence but maybe doesn't even drive anymore, like your grandma.this way you only have to pay the regular fine and avoid the point penalty.
There are people on the internet literally selling their licence points to people who don't have someone else to blame for their tickets.
The only way you have to fight the ticket is to find errors in the ticket itself, like the car being listed as a different model than it actually is, or a wrong date, or a picture where the licence plate can't be fully read and stuff like that.
Over here fighting tickets with dumb excuses was so widespread that they decided to use this system to stop the sea of people flowing into courts from completely blocking the place and fucking up people who legitimately needed a functioning court.
I remember hearing this.
Also now nobody makes a left at a green/yellow because they're afraid of getting fined.
do you not have yellow lights? does it just go from green to red instantly or something?
>sitting, trying to make a left
>light turns yellow, but jackass takes this as an opportunity to floor it
>He passes the red but I'm stuck in the intersection because I couldn't turn
>mfw I see a flash
People get flustered more than likely
I really hate speed radars and I think you should be able to go as fast as you want in proper maintained highways, I also think that things like wearing helmets or seatbelt should be optional since the state has no business telling an adult to look after his own safety. But I think that red light cameras are really useful, because a cunt ignoring a red light can cause a serious accidents. Also you feel comfier knowing that assholes are not going to ram you in a crossroad because they fear the red light cameras.
Wow what a badass we have here
>take picture of some chads plate
>print it off
>tape picture over your cars plates
>slowly drive through red lights when nobody is around
>weeks later, chad receives tickets in the mail
Bonus points if they have the same car as you, so they can't disprove it.
>fighting tickets with dumb excuses
>my car was stolen and then returned
The court system here adds additional criminal charges for perjury if what you say is not proven. Most of the judges will hold you to what you stated is the truth. There's no "I take it back" excuse from you. What you've ended up doing is convert a non-criminal ticket into a criminal record item (perjury) that now sits on your criminal records. A lot of people probably regretted lying in court because it gave them their first criminal conviction and gave themselves a criminal record.
Over here, we can't claim it is someone else driving without proof. If we blame it on our grandma who has a driver license but doesn't drive in order to use up her points, the judge will allow a delay in the case sometimes. During that delay time, grandma will have to furnish a notarized affidavit by a certain date or the case will be unfavorably closed against the original defendant with additional fines. She must also furnish valid proof of car insurance coverage for the time she was driving. The traffic agency sends a separate official notification letter to grandma requesting her response too.
Per foot of tarmac, intersections are the most dangerous areas in the entire road network. Intersections are where vehicles collide at opposing vectors and where deaths occur. If cameras are justified anywhere, it's at red lights.
>but of course Americans manage to turn into a cashgrab like everything else they touch
It's way too easy to spot.
Other drivers will report your car to the state website.
Falsifying state documentation without commision of other crimes is a gross misdemeanor or felony depending on circumstances. Typically felony for plates.
Falsifying state documentation for the purposes of facilitating another crime is often charged as a felony. So if you do that and run red lights, if the police ever catch up to you, it can be a grave penalty.
By using the grandma example I omitted a couple of details that I thought were too obvious to include.
Of course if you claim your grandma was driving, you have to provide proof, you can't just go around claiming random people were committing traffic violations without a lick of evidence.
That proof is usually just a form with all the information and the signature of whoever you want to say was driving. The signature is the proof and the form must be filled even if you don't want to blame someone else.
So if you want to say your grandma was driving, your grandma must accept to sign the papers because she is a nice lady.
There isn't even the possibility to say "someone else was driving, but I don't remember who" or whatever other dumb excuse, because the only way to claim you weren't driving is through that form and if that form isn't properly filled, then all the claims you make are just wasted breath, they aren't even considered, and you pay the additional fine for not declaring who was the driver.
There are a million other loopholes to avoid tickets and they are usually risky and time consuming, but with this driver declaration system (and the fines associated to it) there is no longer a way to avoid paying a ticket using the identity (or lack of thereof) of the driver.
its london canada
>city overflowing with shitskins
>motoring deaths though the roof
HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED
Nothing wrong with red light cameras.
Intersections should always be approached with caution. If you run a red light you deserve to be fined.
elaborate please
The real problem is the number of hit-and-runs. The number of motoring assholes would decline a lot if proof of insurance was required. That could be enforced by changing the state privacy laws to allow any license plate scanned by a camera to also have the owner of the car (that plate is assigned to) to have valid current insurance. After all, that car is being driven on the public road. The camera system should be modified to also have an image of the driver so that they cannot lie about who is behind the wheel.
The evidence should not be revealed ahead of time. That type of courtesy only allows a better lie to be crafted. It also removes uncertainty of what lies to tell.
The crimes continue because the penalty has no real bite to it. Points off on the license doesn't matter because they will continue to drive. And the way anti-discrimination rulings have been, it is next to impossible to remove the car, remove the license, give large fines, or jail someone if they have children that are dependent on them. The law might not help the existing homeless that much, but one thing is that it tries very hard to not increase the number of homeless children. As soon as the person drops the "For the Children" nuclear bomb, both the prosecutor and judge relents on the criminal side of the case.
The only solution is to have more modest solutions when society doesn't have the money to perform elaborate expensive solutions for all the victims. If they did things to throw away their care, then let them walk or use the bus. If they did things that foolishly got rid of their bread, then let them eat cake. They didn't run out of bread because of the victims. They ran out of bread because of their own damn fault. Let them modestly eat cake on the bus.
en.wikipedia.org
County removed all speed and red light cameras several years ago
>feelsgoodman.jpeg
>green means go
>yellow means hurry up
>red means "your call".
In my state if your insurance lapses the insurance company notifies the state, and they send you a nice little letter, letting you know it lapsed, and that you owe the state $11 for every day it lapsed.
They tack it on to your registration for the next year so if you don't pay it or can't afford it you wont' get registration sticker for that year.
I wish my state would do something like that and have a one week grace period for any insurance transfer to kick in. Most insurance is valid in minutes after talking to an agent on the phone and providing billing information. A copy of the insurance cards can then be downloaded immediately from the website. Only make the daily fee $100 unless the car is declared junked. Of course, the penalty is rescinded upon proof that every day was covered by insurance.
There's got to be some way to stop all the uninsured motorists. All they do is hit and run. I remember the very sour case in Tucson, Arizona. A lady hit some bicyclist and he was knocked far away and injured. She was spotted by onlookers as asking the bicyclist if he knew who hit him. He groggily said no and she took off. No one bothered to report the lady in the honda.
They're revenue machines that don't stop you from breaking the law, but make more people slam on the breaks for yellow lights.
>make more people slam on the breaks for yellow lights.
The problem is that red light runners are assumed to exist by the traffic engineers. So even the turn signals have delay times built in so that the people making a turn don't end up in the intersection as someone runs the red light and hits them. It is annoying to see all the lights (that I can see anyways) red. Red. waiting. waiting. Now, finally the left turn signal on both sides of the road turns green. That delay time where every light is red occurs for intersections that have red light runners and no red light cameras to enforce the law.
>state gets new red light cameras
>spendy $100,000 cameras
>people are immediately pissed off
>state legislature bans them
based Minnesota
>people are immediately pissed off
Which people?
In my area, many people like red light cameras and so we have them and they have greatly reduced the number of red light runners. Almost all the lawsuits (all failed so far) have been by anti-discrimination activists saying the more stringent laws affected minorities disproportionately. It's absurd that they file lawsuits for almost every occasion where new or more efficient law enforcement is done. They've even tried to prevent people from being jailed by decreasing the sizes of jails or having jails marked for cancellation. The fewer the number of jail cells, the fewer jail sentences can be handed out. That's a pretty cynical approach to justice.
>London
In free countries, there's this thing called the right to face your accuser
>Edmonton
Ayyyyyy. I can't wait to get the Iltis I lust for and take it to shows and meets.
Also, St.Albert and the boomer trash who live there are the worst.
>there's this thing called the right to face your accuser
How quaint a belief.
Some things changed in the USA. After the Homeland Security laws were passed in the USA, the accuser might simply be a tribunal judge OR a prosecutor reading your charges over a closed circuit television. In cases where simply the charge or law broken can reveal important info, you are not allowed a lawyer to be present. In the most secure cases, you are not allowed to know the wording of the law that you broke, but those cases are typically done in zero-publicity secret tribunal courts and you are not allowed a lawyer. It's approved by the supreme court after 9-11, so you have no recourse.
The state is your accuser.
These things would also processed by real people and a person who was chosen by the state to represent it on its behalf is your accuser.
Isn't that how sovereign citizen logic works?
In Canada, or at least in Ontario, as long as you are in the intersection when the light turn red you're fine.
Is it the same way in most US states or are you fucked if it turns red when you're halfway through?
No.
>The number of motoring assholes would decline a lot if proof of insurance was required.
Nope. Proof of insurance is required in all of the US AFAIK and we still have a shitload of retards on the road here.
I know that's the case in New York but I don't think it is anywhere else
Reflective case. Not illegal in my state as it doesn't bar law enforcement from seeing it on the road. Also protects against dirt and shit.
Once your city/state starts implementing photo radar they'll become illegal guaranteed. If you use that reflective tape shit you see on YouTube then they'll start investigating this "mystery car" that's fucking with their system and you'll be caught eventually.
Really doubt it. Maine is extremely lax about their road laws compared to other states Ive been in.
Regardless, I dont run red's like a twat. Kinda moot point.
My state's license plates don't depend on visual range materials as much as they do for IR materials. The cameras have an IR range scanning component. Visual blocking doesn't work as well as IR blocking. Perhaps a single layer of 3M Crystal Tint (zero tint) would reduce enough of the IR signal to those IR cameras?
theyre nazi germany level and give out tickets to people being 100 percent safe
t. delivery driver in Bellevue washington who racked up almost 1k in tickets in 1 month
>t. delivery driver in Bellevue washington who racked up almost 1k in tickets in 1 month
They have to get money somehow to offset the city's expensive homeless problem. The city is unwilling to increase taxes. And the rich residents are unwilling to pay taxes as it is a heavily republican city surrounded by quite liberal communities such as seattle and renton. Since a lot of costs of handling homeless comes from enforcement, it stands to reason that Bellevue should no longer ignore revenud from not handing out tickets.
Except for speeding. Those staties don't fuck around.
>Are red light cameras a good thing Veeky Forums?
It depends on the area. If you have a lot of people who hate all forms of police, hate laws, or have friends hiding from law enforcement, then cameras of all kinds are their enemy. In some jurisdictions, some private stores, malls, and chains will let the police know ahead of time they have HD footage of streetside traffic and are willing to cooperate if the police need help in identifying suspects. This allows police access to camera footage that they otherwise might not be allowed to obtain because of camera bans.
>Proof of insurance is required in all of the US
Due to anti-discrimination lawsuits citing it is demeaning to minorities, Proof of valid current insurance is not required to be proven in all states. In my state, people print up fake insurance proof and it is not allowed to be verified by the officer at the citation scene. The officer is allowed to verify your driver license is not fake as he can call that in. But he is not allowed to ask OR verify many things. He may not verify you are a citizen. He is not allowed to verify if your insurance is not fake. He is not allowed to verify your home address is what it is but of course he can follow your car to your home if you make a deal that in return for no citation, you go straight home immediately.
>Be in california
>Stop at a red light
>wait a minute for all the cars to pass by to make a right turn
>proceed to turn right after all cars have passed
>completely forget red light violations apply to right turns in Elk Grove
Fuck me this just happened an hour ago and I think it's horseshit.
Los Angeles got rid of its red light cameras because accidents at intersections increased, rather than decreasing, after cameras were installed. Plus, a lot of the fines went unpaid when people realized they could blow them off without getting a "failure to appear".
Personally I think they had the wrong idea- it'd be nice to see people get dinged for running the light to make left turns, because that actually blocks oncoming cars. Drivers who run a yellow light a little too late while going straight are usually clear of the intersection before any cross traffic starts moving.
>a lot of the fines went unpaid when people realized they could blow them off without getting a "failure to appear".
That's because a lot of Los Angeles laws are passed in order to protect illegal immigrants and the mexicans that vote or anti-vote for politicians. My county government had the same problem year after year, but finally we had a set of politicians that didn't buckle under threats of "don't pass racist laws". So they made it law that if someone has fines over six months old AND ALSO must have at least five or more unpaid fines, then renewal of tabs or driver license can be halted until the fines are resolved. There was a huge cry of racism as expected because mexicans and blacks have a lot of unpaid fines. Those antidiscrimination laws have created many negative unintended consequences as mexicans and blacks took advantage and abused those laws as much as they could.
Red light cameras usually account for a huge windfall the first couple of years for local governments before they wind up costing the city government money when people stop violating the red lights
washingtonpost.com
>Red light cameras usually account for a huge windfall the first couple of years for local governments before they wind up costing the city government money when people stop violating the red lights
It's true that people do stop. Before the cams and the month after the cams, there were lots and lots of runners. But now, it is pretty rare. People might run the beginning of yellow, but stop now because the red light ticket is issued as long as the entire car is in the intersection during the red light.
Because of that rule, I am tempted at night when it is easy to see the yellow behind me, to slow down when making a left turn and force the car behind me to remain wholly in the intersection for the red light. It's a ticket that costs over $200 for the first violation in a 3 month period.
>costing the city government money
The contract is with a 3rd party company and it gets a huge percentage of the citation funds. In return, the city doesn't have to pay maintenance or the costs of running the lights. The city does pay the installation fee and the minor electrical utility costs the cams use. So the big costs of running and maint are gone. It's only if the cameras don't prove profitable that the cam company can request early termination of the contract or simply choose to not renew the contract.
Our school zone speed cameras are done the same way only that they have an initial 3 year placement plus one year renewal term. Only two school areas have those cams since the 3rd party camera company put in speed monitors for the month prior to installing the cams to verify if it would be profitable or not. Of course, if the city pays money, then the cams can stay.
>The contract is with a 3rd party company and it gets a huge percentage of the citation funds
Most don't do that anymore and pay a flat rate to the company for setting up and maintaining the red light camera to avoid conflicts on interest. If red light camera costs the city x amount of dollars and citations are less than x the city loses money on them. Some local governments claim the safety aspect is worth the cost but then again you aren't seeing a rapid growth in red light cameras for precisely this reason.
>Are red light cameras a good thing Veeky Forums
Are having police a good thing?
Without some way to prevent law breaking, it's going to occur. There's plenty of "good" arguments in favor of running red lights just as there are plenty of good arguments for shoplifting being necessary.
Ambulances and emergency vehicles have to occasionally run reds.
Are you equating that with shoplifting?
I live in New York and recently got two red light tickets in the same day in 2 different spots
ultimate scam
You should stop trying to be like Alphonse with the bad examples.
I don't have any official sources my self, but I can tell you that when Middletown OH put a few more in, the yellow lights got noticeably shorter at those intersections not long after.
In Ohio, it's illegal to claim an intersection for a turn anyway. So you might be the dickbag as well
You state Hyperbole, then you get Hyperbole, then you complain.......
Point was there are legitimate reasons for running a red, here I thought of another one: Some red lights magnetic sensors embedded in the ground are faulty and or poorly calibrated, and may have trouble sensing something as small as a motorcycle.
Is it illegal to say you're not sure exactly who was driving your car? How could they enforce it unless somebody came out and said "YES IT WAS ME THEY TOLD ME TO DRIVE THE CAR"
this is about the london in canada you fucking inbred cunt
