1/6/2003: Speeding duck

[Undertoad]

What the hell...?

With the subject line you could figure it out. In the town of Glueckstadt, Germany, the cops have set up radar and traffic cameras to automatically catch speeders.

And this was one of their catches, a duck - clocked at a speed of 39 km/h in a 30 km/h zone.

I'm so against automated ticketing, and not because a few birds might gum up the system. I'll just note that cameras have not, to my knowledge, done all that much to really prevent crime. They certainly aren't the magic bullet solution.

In the US, municipalities have tried putting cameras on traffic lights, catching people who are running the red light. They notice two things. One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.

Why: because locals learn to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed, and voila: a dramatic rise in rear-end accidents at intersections.

Compare this to what happens in major cities during power outages, when there are no traffic lights. No accidents! People are suddenly forced to become considerate of others in order to make the system work; and guess what, they DO.

[Cochese]

I agree w/ you that technology can hinder more than it helps sometimes, and I also am fervently against automated traps such as this. But I think that your blackout example is an extreme circumstance.

I think the blackout is more an example of human behavior: "hey, we're all in this crisis together".

Also, the modern city as it currently stands (dominated by car/truck traffic) absolutely needs traffic lights. Even the most basic of intersections gets completely backed up if the light isn't working, due mostly to the indecision of less-than-competent drivers when it's their turn to go.

Basically, we're going to have to continue to put up w/ bad drivers as long as teenagers, senior citizens and my wife continue to hold licenses.

</rant>

[arz]

Here in San Diego, a judge tossed out a whole series of moving violations that were "written" by the red light cameras. Turned out the contract the city had with the supplier was deemed questionable.

Lockheed Martin, the system supplier, was being given a percentage of the fine from each ticket their system issued. This gave LM an incentive to move the sensors embedded in the street such that motorists were given less and less time to enter and then exit the intersection before the camera was triggered.

I was quite surprised that the city would do such a foolish thing as give a corporation a piece of the pie so directly and b) that a judge was actualy willing to call them on it.

My knowledge of the law is weak, but I was under the impression that there had to be an arresting officer who witnessed the infraction in order to issue a ticket to the infractor. Thus, I am not sure how these radar cameras or other automated means hold up legally, unless the arresting officer is the guy who comes out and changes the video tape every few days (or watches the video remotely, or whatever).

[russotto]

In localities with red light cameras (and I believe PA passed such a bill last session :-( ), they just change the law so no arresting officer is necessary. If they have a picture of you, you are guilty by definition. Justice doesn't figure into it.

I don't like it. If they want to catch me doubling the normal speed limit drunk through a red light in an active school zone, let 'em send out a cop to do it. It just ain't sporting otherwise.

[99 44/100% pure]

Originally posted by arz
. . . I was under the impression that there had to be an arresting officer who witnessed the infraction in order to issue a ticket to the infractor.

In Maryland they circumvent the need for an arresting officer to issue the ticket by classifying it as a non-moving violation. IANAL, but apparently this allows them to issue the ticket without requiring an officer to be present if the recipient decides to challenge it in court. Instead of an officer, the company that provides the equipment has an "expert" present to attest to the accuracy of the machinery.

Because it is a non-moving violation, no points are assessed -- just a fine. Also, as a result, the citation goes to the owner of the car, regardless of who was driving.

I gleaned this info while challenging a parking ticket, which required me to sit through a slew of these camera tickets. At the start of the session, the judge carefully explained how the equipment worked, what evidence was present for each citation (photos of the car going through the intersection with the car's license plate and red light showing, how long the light had been red before the car entered the intersection, the speed of the car when photo was shot, etc.). The judge then explained the law, and what the penalty was, and how to NOT tick him off by giving him a whole bullshit story about the equipment being faulty, some lame medical emergency, or an excuse about trying to stop, or that someone else was driving.

Sure enough, the first four people who stood before him did EXACTLY what he had just advised them not to do. And the blatant crap these people spewed! The whole courtroom was giggling under its collective breath. Result: guilty, with fines, court costs, and additional contempt fees for pissing everyone's time away. That's the first time I ever heard of average Joes cheering when the Man put the hammer down on other average Joes.

I just hope they don't institute this type of thing for speeding, or I'm bankrupt.

[slang]

Originally posted by Undertoad
One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.

Why: because locals learn to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed, and voila: a dramatic rise in rear-end accidents at intersections.

Another great example of what the gov't would call a success. If they get their revenue, all else is irrelevant.

[Elspode]

Originally posted by arz

Lockheed Martin, the system supplier, was being given a percentage of the fine from each ticket their system issued. This gave LM an incentive to move the sensors embedded in the street such that motorists were given less and less time to enter and then exit the intersection before the camera was triggered.

Geez...handing the keys to profit to a soulless corporation (especially one that is heavily invested in building things to enable people and property to be more efficiently killed and destroyed) and then expecting them not to stack the deck in their favor in every possible way is kind of Pollyanna, isn't it? What the hell were the city fathers thinking?

Kind of like waving a steak in front of a starving dog and expecting him not to eat it. I would guess that the system was priced lower if the city would grant LM that percentage deal...

Sounds to me like a good judicial decision was reached, here.

[wolf]

Every now and again one of our local police departments puts out their "passive traffic safety device" ... one of those billboard thingies that tells you your speed as you pass it, and reminds you to slow down, etc.

This, however, usually backfires. Many people have this funny streak in 'em (I do anyway) that sees such a device as a challenge. How high can I make it go??? (Which is why it is NEVER a good idea to take a Breathalyzer to a party, incidentally).

Thus far I haven't encounted one of the officers hiding in a sidestreet just on the other side of one of these things, but I have seen some pretty impressive numbers on the billboard.

[slang]

Many people have this funny streak in 'em (I do anyway) that sees such a device as a challenge. How high can I make it go???

Kinda like this?

[wolf]

Well ... kinda like that ...

My most recent numbers were speed limit 25, my speed 67. (I didn't have a whole lot of running room. It was one of those curvy development streets ...)

[jtm]

" In the US, municipalities have tried putting cameras on traffic lights, catching people who are running the red light. They notice two things. One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.

Why: because locals learn to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed, and voila: a dramatic rise in rear-end accidents at intersections. "

If people are getting rear-ended, don't blame it on the police. Someone isn't paying attention and/or driving too closely behind someone else.

Traffic fines are annoying, but running red lights is dangerous and there's no excuse for it. It's probably the most dangerous moving violation, right alongside running stop signs. Besides being rear-ended is not as fatal as t-boning someone.

Not that I don't find anything wrong with the Lockheed Martin arrangement.

[Griff]

I'm hoping they park one of those passive devices on my regular bicycling route, nothing burns calories like lawbreaking.

I remember (sorta) a bar in Allentown that had a breathelizer (sp?) in it, very bad idea.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bullshit. The facts don't support red light running as an major problem or a major cause of accidents or injuries.
They found out they could cut red light violations 85% by increasing the yellow by 2 seconds but Lockheed Martin sued
and renegotiated their contract to increase their percentage of the fines.

[jtm]

[quote]Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Bullshit.Real mature, tiger.

The facts don't support red light running as an major problem or a major cause of accidents or injuries.

What exactly are these "facts"? Regardless, by your logic, since only a small percentage of airplane crashes are caused by bombs, we shouldn't use so much energy trying to find them.

They found out they could cut red light violations 85% by increasing the yellow by 2 seconds but Lockheed Martin sued
and renegotiated their contract to increase their percentage of the fines.

Read my post again. I never apologize and excused LM for their role. That's a separate issue and, frankly, a red herring in this debate.

[slang]

Originally posted by jtm
If people are getting rear-ended, don't blame it on the police. Someone isn't paying attention and/or driving too closely behind someone else.

That’s a good point. The police should not be blamed. The municipality, the state, or the locals should.

If you think back to driver’s ed, the std “cushion” distance between cars should ideally be one car length per 10 miles an hour of the speed you are traveling. If you are able to follow that standard, you should never even come close to rear ending the car ahead of you. From my experience in driving in various metro areas in the north east, this standard is impossible to maintain in heavy traffic. If you bring your rural courteous driving habits to the city and leave a nice comfortable cushion, then people will be darting into it from a side streets, or just plain passing you (even on a double line) as I noticed some of the more aggressive Massholes did.

There is a certain level of expectation that the guy ahead of you wont just lock up the binders. If you are approaching an intersection, you should be more alert to avoid a potential collision. For the most part, the car ahead of you is speeding up to make the light. If he speeds up, then locks the binders, I’ll very likely be making creative design statement with his trunk. There is theory and practice of metro driving. Drivers can normally judge the point of no return when approaching a light, if you change your mind at the last moment and screech out into the intersection you’re just showing your lack of ability to drive safely. Even if you don’t get a citation, you’re a hazard.

In my opinion as some nameless, faceless Cellar asshat ™ , this newly developed technique of avoiding a citation by braking furiously while getting into an accident is counter productive and a direct result of this new 1984 system.

The creators and implementors of this system should be summarily executed in the middle of the intersection for the camera to observe (but only after the light turns red).

Originally posted by jtm
Traffic fines are annoying, but running red lights is dangerous and there's no excuse for it. It's probably the most dangerous moving violation, right alongside running stop signs. Besides being rear-ended is not as fatal as t-boning someone.

I agree running a light after the light has been red for say, ten seconds and the cross traffic has started moving, is one of the top two most dangerous violations. I’m guessing that’s not the circumstance of the majority of the fines though. If I were a betting slang, I would bet that the majority of fines are written for those who pass just after the light turned red. In most cases before the opposing traffic actually started moving. It's also more than likely the opposing traffic’s light also turns green as the other turned red. Not smart.

In any case, common sense and defensive driving techniques keep you from being some bureaucrat’s profitable statistic. When the light turns green don’t dump the clutch and do a “hole shot” from the indicator line on the road. Instead , realize you have no control of other drivers, and check for traffic in all directions that may have someone coming at you before you proceed into the intersection.

It’s a very simple technique, and doesn’t cost a fortune or create an automotive big brother. Don’t dad’s teach their kids to drive anymore??