Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1787 messages, Last post on Nov 06, 2009 at 9:07 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jun 08, 2009 9:01 am) A police officer with eyes can tell approximately how fast a car is moving and then they are supposed to use their laser/radar to VERIFY the speed, rather than use the radar to get a high reading, verify that visually, and then give out a ticket. An office would see the car was not moving excessively fast. |
|
Maine is the 14th state to ban photo enforcement. The rest will follow in due course.  from: http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2009/June09/061509/061709-03.htm Maine bans use of ticket cameras Lawmakers in Maine say no thanks to revenue enhancements via ticket cameras. They are the 14th state to outlaw the enforcement tool. Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed into law a bill to prevent the state, or communities within the state, from tapping the use of photo enforcement to nab drivers breaking traffic laws. The state joins Mississippi and Montana in banning the technology this year. While traffic surveillance cameras are not in use in Maine, the new law was a proactive step taken to make sure they don’t start showing up around the state. The ban applies to red-light and speed cameras. Previously LD1234, the new rule makes an exception for cameras on the Maine Turnpike to help ensure payment at toll booths. The recent wave of states to prohibit the use of photo enforcement has been a blow to red-light and speed camera advocates who say the devices are about safety and using technology in a helpful way. Others say the devices free up police to address bigger issues. Opponents, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, question the claim that cameras are solely intended to keep people safe. Rep. Richard Cebra, R-Naples, shared that concern. “In many places around the country, these cameras have become nothing more than a moneymaker for municipalities,” he said in a written statement. There also is a question about the effectiveness of such cameras. Opponents argue they have the potential to distract drivers and cause more fender-bender accidents. In fact, multiple studies have found that crashes actually increased in cities with red-light cameras. “While on the surface these cameras may appear to increase public safety, recent studies have shown that they actually increase the occurrences of accidents at intersections where the public is aware that there is a camera,” Cebra said. To view other legislative activities of interest for Maine in 2009, click here. – By Keith Goble, state legislative editor
|
|
|
If you don't like photo radar, your shocks will love these. Mayor hits the gas on speed bumps in D.C. (WTOP) "Based on the number of speed bumps and the total miles of local roads, the District averages about one speed hump for every 1.5 miles. In Montgomery County, drivers encounter a speed bump about once every 2.2 miles. In Fairfax County, it's virtually bump-free with an average of one bump in every 14.5 miles."
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jun 19, 2009 8:38 am) No Bumps "Sleeping policemen" are not a legitimate traffic calming device. Unfortunately, traffic calming requires a bit of planning, something most city counsels lack, so it requires a bit of a tear up to implement. I am currently searching for the page that had all the lawsuits from those that experienced personal injury or property damage as a result of the "speed hump," a case that is usually relatively easy to win given that "speed humps" aren't approved for roads.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Jun 19, 2009 12:22 pm) Gizmodo |
|
|
More data on the "money grab hiding as safety" aspect of scameras, only this time with some unintended consequences. It's all about the money. from: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090629/0206575395.shtml Schaumburg Dumps Redlight Cameras After They Show No Safety Benefit from the good-for-them dept We've seen it in a few other places, but reader Don Gatza let's us know that Schaumburg, Illinois is the latest city to dump its redlight cameras. The city found that, despite promises to the contrary, the redlight cameras did not decrease accidents (not even the "t-bone" accidents that proponents of such cameras insist they help combat). The city claims that even though a single intersection generated 10,000 tickets and over a million in revenue in just a few months, it's going to drop the cameras, because "It was not our intent to use them as a revenue generator." If only other communities were so enlightened. Of course, there was a second potential factor in the decision as well. Apparently pissed off ticket recipients had been complaining and promising to stop shopping at Schaumberg businesses -- leading local businesses to fear a loss in customers and revenue. Of course, this is the same thing that towns with notorious speed traps have found: people avoid going there, harming local businesses. Hopefully more local businesses start recognizing that giving out automated tickets that do nothing to improve safety also tend to harm local businesses as well. In the meantime, if officials want to improve safety in Schaumburg intersections, studies have shown that the best way to do so is rather simple: increase the timing of yellow lights, and then add a longer pause between one direction turning red, and the perpendicular traffic's lights turning green.
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jul 01, 2009 8:10 am) |
|
|
Yet more data on the "money grab hiding as safety" aspect of scameras. Funny how all the expereinces point to fact that it's all about the money. from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2830.asp Maywood, California Dumps Red Light Cameras City council in Maywood, California decides to stop using Redflex to run a red light camera program. The Maywood, California City Council on Wednesday dumped the Australian company in charge of the city's red light camera program. Since 2004, Redflex Traffic Systems has had the right to issue tickets at the intersection of Slauson and Alamo. The council voted 3-2 not to renew the five-year agreement, against the wishes of city staff who proposed new "cost neutral" contract terms. "(The) city shall be obligated to pay the cumulative balance invoiced by Redflex, in accordance with terms set forth above, to the extent of gross cash received by the city from automated red light violations," the proposed new contract language stated. Tying the vendor's compensation to the amount of cash received violates a state law mandating flat-rate contracts for photo enforcement systems. A week before the council's vote, the editor of the Highwayrobbery.net website warned council members that an appellate ruling had already found similar contract language between the city of Fullerton and Nestor Traffic Systems (NTS) was illegal (view opinion). Accepting the new deal with Redflex could put the city at legal risk. In May, the city of Turlock also dumped red light cameras over fears regarding the cost neutrality. According to the proposed contract language, cost neutrality would not apply "if the signal amber timings at the photo enforced intersections are not set to the minimum requirements of CalTrans in California." In the past, photo ticketing companies prohibited the increasing of yellow warning times to ensure maximum revenue. If strictly interpreted, this provision would have the same effect by imposing a financial penalty if the city chose to extend the duration of yellow times. A 2004 Texas Transportation Institute study proved that going one-second beyond such bare minimum signal timings yielded a 53 percent reduction in tickets, but more importantly it reduced accidents by 40 percent (view report). |
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 18, 2009 3:36 am) So, what's wrong with the violators contributing to the municipalities? Observational cameras photograph you coming and going, driving and walking, and any technology that helps law enforcement is highly recommended by law abiding voters. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
