Spring Break
Red light,green light
Abstract:
Students still feeling repercussions from cameras dispersed around College Station intersections in February....
- Displaying 1 - 20 of 20
Dick Boyd
posted 9/09/08 @ 12:54 PM CST
Sniff Test.
For a quick test, check the duration of the amber signal. Amber duration should be at least one second for each ten miles per hour of OBSERVED speed. The observed speed should be the eighty-fifth percentile speed determined in an engineering study. Cross check the amber duration with the terms and conditions of the contract with the camera vendor.
If the amber duration is based on POSTED speeds, there may be an element of entrapment or attractive nusiance.
As an additional cross check, read the 5 Per Cent Reports for Texas. Can you find a location anywhere in Texas that is identified as being dangerous due to red light running? Do red light cameras detract from correcting the situation at the identified dangerous locations?
For a quick test, check the duration of the amber signal. Amber duration should be at least one second for each ten miles per hour of OBSERVED speed. The observed speed should be the eighty-fifth percentile speed determined in an engineering study. Cross check the amber duration with the terms and conditions of the contract with the camera vendor.
If the amber duration is based on POSTED speeds, there may be an element of entrapment or attractive nusiance.
As an additional cross check, read the 5 Per Cent Reports for Texas. Can you find a location anywhere in Texas that is identified as being dangerous due to red light running? Do red light cameras detract from correcting the situation at the identified dangerous locations?
Chad Dornsife
posted 9/09/08 @ 1:56 PM CST
Also check definition of intersection! Camera vendors have convinced many jurisdictions to change the definition of what constitutes a violation.
http://www.bhspi.org/images2/bhspi_rlc_az_interpract.gif
link is animated gif showing how this is done and what the differences are between the law and practices.
The right turn on red citations are not about safety whatsoever, it's purely a believed entitlement to steel.
The biggest growth in red light camera citations is the right on red movement. A technical violation of an otherwise safe movement that if a right turn on red is permitted, should be treated as yield, unless otherwise posted. Just because we now have the technology to write, otherwise safe, technical violations en masse, is not justification for such practices. General idea;
The red signal phase assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a red signal phase making right or left turns, that do not involve cross traffic movements, need to slow down or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic when executing the turn.
Something new, something old. History tells us human nature doesn't change. The following cite is from my 2003 California Senate hearing testimony where prior egregious practice is now lauded and promoted by the USDOT et al.
3. An anatomy of red light enforcement traps as practiced in California:
Defining enforcement traps, the below 1972 IACP/NHTSA admonishment describes these abhorrent practices, that today, the camera vendors and cities have automated; and for those whom have employed the Rat Tail® devices or special enforcement teams repeat ably working the same locations, where officers sit in and write citations, these practices are no less egregious.
SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT MANUAL
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc.
Highway Safety Division
January 1972
Re: FHWA Library #: TEA1400.F72
U.S. Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Washington, D.C. 20590
DOT HS-800 701
"The most visible result of quantitative, revenue-oriented, nive traffic law enforcement policies is the persistent use of "sitting-in" enforcement techniques. Sitting-in usually occurs at locations which, in police jargon, are referred to as "duck ponds" or "cherry patches". The sitting-in practices are particularly objectionable when two or more enforcement units group together to work an intersection which generates frequent driver violations. Usually, where this situation occurs, the officers are doing nothing more than reaping the harvest of inadequate or poor traffic engineering. These locations frequently encourage noncompliance by the motorist to traffic signals or turning regulations. Very often, however, the real culprit is faulty traffic engineering rather than the driver. Poor positioning of signals and channelization deficiencies are characteristically present at the "duck ponds".
Bottom line is we have conflicting laws. We permit right turns on red if it is safe to do so. Then we have red light cameras which require you to come to a complete stop 20 feet before you reach the corner to technically meet the letter of the law - an arbitrary requirement because the stop line is for through movements or pedestrian. If neither is condition present then it is moot.
Right turns citations are issued to drivers driving safely.
On approach to intersection, where driver is going to turn right, they go to right shoulder and slow down as they approach the corner. At the point of the stop line they roll past because at that point they are not at the corner nor can they discern if a right turn on red is safe yet. Thus, they roll slowly to the corner, determine if it is safety to proceed, and then do so. How does this rise to a crime? Hence a technical crime driven by a revenue opportunity and technology to write them en masse, not a safety concern.
How does this serve the rights of the people?
http://www.bhspi.org/images2/bhspi_rlc_az_interpract.gif
link is animated gif showing how this is done and what the differences are between the law and practices.
The right turn on red citations are not about safety whatsoever, it's purely a believed entitlement to steel.
The biggest growth in red light camera citations is the right on red movement. A technical violation of an otherwise safe movement that if a right turn on red is permitted, should be treated as yield, unless otherwise posted. Just because we now have the technology to write, otherwise safe, technical violations en masse, is not justification for such practices. General idea;
The red signal phase assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a red signal phase making right or left turns, that do not involve cross traffic movements, need to slow down or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic when executing the turn.
Something new, something old. History tells us human nature doesn't change. The following cite is from my 2003 California Senate hearing testimony where prior egregious practice is now lauded and promoted by the USDOT et al.
3. An anatomy of red light enforcement traps as practiced in California:
Defining enforcement traps, the below 1972 IACP/NHTSA admonishment describes these abhorrent practices, that today, the camera vendors and cities have automated; and for those whom have employed the Rat Tail® devices or special enforcement teams repeat ably working the same locations, where officers sit in and write citations, these practices are no less egregious.
SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT MANUAL
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc.
Highway Safety Division
January 1972
Re: FHWA Library #: TEA1400.F72
U.S. Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Washington, D.C. 20590
DOT HS-800 701
"The most visible result of quantitative, revenue-oriented, nive traffic law enforcement policies is the persistent use of "sitting-in" enforcement techniques. Sitting-in usually occurs at locations which, in police jargon, are referred to as "duck ponds" or "cherry patches". The sitting-in practices are particularly objectionable when two or more enforcement units group together to work an intersection which generates frequent driver violations. Usually, where this situation occurs, the officers are doing nothing more than reaping the harvest of inadequate or poor traffic engineering. These locations frequently encourage noncompliance by the motorist to traffic signals or turning regulations. Very often, however, the real culprit is faulty traffic engineering rather than the driver. Poor positioning of signals and channelization deficiencies are characteristically present at the "duck ponds".
Bottom line is we have conflicting laws. We permit right turns on red if it is safe to do so. Then we have red light cameras which require you to come to a complete stop 20 feet before you reach the corner to technically meet the letter of the law - an arbitrary requirement because the stop line is for through movements or pedestrian. If neither is condition present then it is moot.
Right turns citations are issued to drivers driving safely.
On approach to intersection, where driver is going to turn right, they go to right shoulder and slow down as they approach the corner. At the point of the stop line they roll past because at that point they are not at the corner nor can they discern if a right turn on red is safe yet. Thus, they roll slowly to the corner, determine if it is safety to proceed, and then do so. How does this rise to a crime? Hence a technical crime driven by a revenue opportunity and technology to write them en masse, not a safety concern.
How does this serve the rights of the people?
Jim R.
posted 9/09/08 @ 3:56 PM CST
Mr. Chad Dornsife,
Very good points. I believe you should be present at the up coming city council meeting on the issue, or even discuss it with the person in charge of the operation. It often appears in towns like College Station (college towns) that city officials are targeting students and non-permanent residence as revenue streams, as opposed to citizens that deserve their consideration and representation. They are not acting like public servants, but city-of-college-station-servants. Changes must be made.
Very good points. I believe you should be present at the up coming city council meeting on the issue, or even discuss it with the person in charge of the operation. It often appears in towns like College Station (college towns) that city officials are targeting students and non-permanent residence as revenue streams, as opposed to citizens that deserve their consideration and representation. They are not acting like public servants, but city-of-college-station-servants. Changes must be made.
Scott
posted 9/09/08 @ 4:22 PM CST
The burden of proof is on the state and the administrative agency to show who was in command of the vehicle at the time. Cities try a lot of legal wizardry to try and get around this, but at the end of the day this is a moving violation. As such, the offense must have been committed by a driver.
If the owner has valid proof that they were not driving in the car at the time of the infraction, then this can be submitted at trial.
Remember, the burden of proof on the defendant is to prove that they WERE NOT the one that committed the offense. The burden is NOT ON THEM to prove WHO WAS driving. Furthermore the defendant is under no obligation to say who was or who may have been driving at that time. Identifying the offender is the job of the state.
Prove that you were not driving, and let the state do its job in identifying who the offender was.
If the owner has valid proof that they were not driving in the car at the time of the infraction, then this can be submitted at trial.
Remember, the burden of proof on the defendant is to prove that they WERE NOT the one that committed the offense. The burden is NOT ON THEM to prove WHO WAS driving. Furthermore the defendant is under no obligation to say who was or who may have been driving at that time. Identifying the offender is the job of the state.
Prove that you were not driving, and let the state do its job in identifying who the offender was.
Dave
posted 9/09/08 @ 8:26 PM CST
Everybody gives the same sob story when faced with one of these tickets, "I was in the intersection...the light was yellow, I swear....the light was green when I entered the intersection." PEOPLE LOVE to make excuses for their illegal behavior, and blame the city, the police, the government at large, and anyone within reach of their pointer finger. All the talk about the legal jargon....you RAN A RED LIGHT. At the end of the day, that light was red when you passed under it, which means someone else's light was green, which means you could have T-Boned somebody. Whose fault is that? Let me guess, the city's, right?
I think C.S. needs to mandate a refresher course in driving for all the new students, EVERY YEAR. I bet folks would be amazed at what a difference you'd see in the number of citations and accidents. For some reason, being around 40,000 other students makes people forget what blinkers are for, what the "right of way" is, that yellow lights mean YIELD and not FLOOR IT, that tailgating really isn't a good idea, that you pull to the right for emergency vehicles, what a COMPLETE STOP feels like, that you should look both ways before entering an intersection, that you don't turn in front of moving traffic before looking first, that your headlights should be on BEFORE 10 p.m., that you only need 1 parking spot when parking, not 2 or 3....I can go on and on here.
I think C.S. needs to mandate a refresher course in driving for all the new students, EVERY YEAR. I bet folks would be amazed at what a difference you'd see in the number of citations and accidents. For some reason, being around 40,000 other students makes people forget what blinkers are for, what the "right of way" is, that yellow lights mean YIELD and not FLOOR IT, that tailgating really isn't a good idea, that you pull to the right for emergency vehicles, what a COMPLETE STOP feels like, that you should look both ways before entering an intersection, that you don't turn in front of moving traffic before looking first, that your headlights should be on BEFORE 10 p.m., that you only need 1 parking spot when parking, not 2 or 3....I can go on and on here.
X
posted 9/09/08 @ 8:31 PM CST
That's just youth, college students think they don't do anything wrong. I can't say I've ever seen anybody actually OWN UP to one of these tickets and say "yep, I was wrong". It's always someone else's fault.
Matt
posted 3/11/09 @ 9:42 AM CST
Originally posted byX
That's just youth, college students think they don't do anything wrong. I can't say I've ever seen anybody actually OWN UP to one of these tickets and say "yep, I was wrong". It's always someone else's fault.
You're right, X. I actually tend to think that I'm not in control over my life at all. It's just a series of decisions that have been made FOR ME by various social agents (the red light I ran two months ago, that kid that offered me some hippie lettuce an 9th grade, my prof who ACTUALLY graded my half-assed assignment).
Nah i didn't do any of that on my own accord.
[QUOTE id="694d2192-a9db-4fa3-877c-d0d2083e45a0"]Everybody gives the same sob story when faced with one of these tickets, "I was in the intersection...the light was yellow, I swear....the light was green when I entered the intersection." PEOPLE LOVE to make excuses for their illegal behavior, and blame the city, the police, the government at large, and anyone within reach of their pointer finger. All the talk about the legal jargon....you RAN A RED LIGHT. At the end of the day, that light was red when you passed under it, which means someone else's light was green, which means you could have T-Boned somebody. Whose fault is that? Let me guess, the city's, right?
I think C.S. needs to mandate a refresher course in driving for all the new students, EVERY YEAR. I bet folks would be amazed at what a difference you'd see in the number of citations and accidents. For some reason, being around 40,000 other students makes people forget what blinkers are for, what the "right of way" is, that yellow lights mean YIELD and not FLOOR IT, that tailgating really isn't a good idea, that you pull to the right for emergency vehicles, what a COMPLETE STOP feels like, that you should look both ways before entering an intersection, that you don't turn in front of moving traffic before looking first, that your headlights should be on BEFORE 10 p.m., that you only need 1 parking spot when parking, not 2 or 3....I can go on and on here.[/QUOTE]
Dave - My brethren!
Congrats! You are a fantastic driver! Really, class A. I would definitely recommend that you don't have to take any sort of refresher courses as you age further and further away from your youthful days of 16. Weren't those the days? Everybody obeyed traffic signals right?
It's interesting that students are the only bad drivers in town isn't it? Or are they?
We all love our Senior Citizens...we really do. They are an overflowing fountain of wisdom. Please don't detect any sarcasm - I really do love and respect those who have paved the way before me. But due to visual decline, loss of hearing, limited mobility, and sometimes dementia, they are not the most solid drivers on the road.
Also, have you ever thought about those 40-something women, sporting all pink work out suits while jamming the newest Jason Castro doo dad in their oversized SUV's? How many of them have you seen chatting on their cell phone while running red lights, changing lanes sans blinker signal, or drinking their 40 ounce Jamba Juices whilst ignoring you (who she just cut off going 65 up the feeder).
I rattle off a few more stereotypical awful drivers, but by now, I think everyone should have gathered my final point: We all suck at driving. This is why there are punishments for traffic violations. If a cop is not around, we are most likely going to do something illegal.
No worries though, our bro Dave has never done a shitty parking job while attempting to run in-n-out at wal*mart. Nor has he rolled to an aaaalllmost stop at that stop sign in his neighborhood.
Boom, Roasted.
Henry
posted 9/10/08 @ 1:59 AM CST
Who needs cameras?
U can make intersections safe - w/o cameras or increasing rear-enders.
A. Increase yellows 0.5 sec. = 69% drop in violations (fn.2). Cheap to do all over town - reducing running everywhere. Also (fn.1).
Longer yellows reduce severe accidents. "...an increase in the yellow duration of 1.0 sec. is associated with a [crash freq.] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40% reduction in crashes." (fn.3)
(Do drivers get used to the longer yellows, and run those, too? No! Running stays down. (fn.5).)
B. Improved street markings reduced running by up to 74% (fn. 4) w/o increasing rear-enders.
Finally, a word for those angelic drivers who think they're above all this: Get out your wallet! You will need to buy a $300+ nav system to warn you when you're coming to camera enforced locations. Why?
The drivers in front of you will be exhibiting unexpected behavior, like slamming on their brakes on a brand new yellow. The warning from the nav system will save you from rear-ending them - an accident for which the law would automatically hold you responsible.
Henry
1. http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp (Roundup)
2. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06242004-230619/unrestricted/Thesis_3.pdf Fig. 4.1 on p. 67
3. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-alternatives.pdf Fig. 2-8 on p. 2-20
4. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-simulator.pdf at p. 69
5. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsMesaMain.html
U can make intersections safe - w/o cameras or increasing rear-enders.
A. Increase yellows 0.5 sec. = 69% drop in violations (fn.2). Cheap to do all over town - reducing running everywhere. Also (fn.1).
Longer yellows reduce severe accidents. "...an increase in the yellow duration of 1.0 sec. is associated with a [crash freq.] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40% reduction in crashes." (fn.3)
(Do drivers get used to the longer yellows, and run those, too? No! Running stays down. (fn.5).)
B. Improved street markings reduced running by up to 74% (fn. 4) w/o increasing rear-enders.
Finally, a word for those angelic drivers who think they're above all this: Get out your wallet! You will need to buy a $300+ nav system to warn you when you're coming to camera enforced locations. Why?
The drivers in front of you will be exhibiting unexpected behavior, like slamming on their brakes on a brand new yellow. The warning from the nav system will save you from rear-ending them - an accident for which the law would automatically hold you responsible.
Henry
1. http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp (Roundup)
2. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06242004-230619/unrestricted/Thesis_3.pdf Fig. 4.1 on p. 67
3. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-alternatives.pdf Fig. 2-8 on p. 2-20
4. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-simulator.pdf at p. 69
5. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsMesaMain.html
Jared
posted 9/10/08 @ 9:05 AM CST
Why not just pay attention and drive defensively rather than depend on the timing of the lights, or some navigation system? Honestly, some of you on these boards are more concerned with trying to get out of paying the ticket than just using your head when driving. Hang up the phone, leave 10 minutes earlier so as not to be in a rush, focus on the fact you are in a 3000+ lbs machine that is very unforgiving when it comes to inertia and drive responsibly.
Ashleigh
posted 9/11/08 @ 9:17 AM CST
Ummm.. hello has anybody read 1984? Does this not creep anybody else out? The government is slowly but surely taking away liberties and watching our every move. Think about all the places there are cameras... ugh it gives me the heebie geebies.
Jared
posted 9/11/08 @ 12:58 PM CST
Originally posted byAshleigh
Ummm.. hello has anybody read 1984? Does this not creep anybody else out? The government is slowly but surely taking away liberties and watching our every move. Think about all the places there are cameras... ugh it gives me the heebie geebies.
1984 is one of my favorite books. I'm more worried about RFID chips than red light cameras turning into the telescreens and tracking our every move.
Candice
posted 9/12/08 @ 9:53 AM CST
howdy "x" (way to put your name, clever)
first of all, let me inform you that I have received a ticket for being caught on one of these cameras for running a red light. I TOTALLY owned up to it! My friends and I all gathered around the computer (popcorn in hand) and watched the neat little video that they include in your ticket mail out. We sat and watched, had a few laughs, and said "yup! I sure did run that red light!" So there you have it, you have now seen a college student "actually OWN UP to one of these tickets" :-)
second point: it is ABSOLUTELY for the money that the city placed these cameras, doubtedly for our "safety"
third point: in some ways, they could actually be considered DANGEROUS! I know that when I'm driving ANYWHERE in College Station, I make certain to stop at yellow lights and avoid another "red light ticket". The problem here is, I hope the person behind me is paying attention and doesn't hit me! This has almost happened on several occasions. Also, I have been in the opposite situation where the person in front of me SLAMMED on the brakes as soon as a light turned yellow, and I then slammed on my brakes and prayed that I didn't hit the person in front of me and also that the person behind me didn't hit me. So basically, these cameras are making people way too scared to go through an intersection, and making bad decisions because they don't want to shell out 75 bucks to the city!
so to sum it all up here:
1. I'm a college student, and I owned up to a ticket.
2. its all about more money for College Station (because they city needs the money so much more than I do apparently)
3. the cameras are making intersections more dangerous and drivers more unpredictable
THANKS AND GIG 'EM!
first of all, let me inform you that I have received a ticket for being caught on one of these cameras for running a red light. I TOTALLY owned up to it! My friends and I all gathered around the computer (popcorn in hand) and watched the neat little video that they include in your ticket mail out. We sat and watched, had a few laughs, and said "yup! I sure did run that red light!" So there you have it, you have now seen a college student "actually OWN UP to one of these tickets" :-)
second point: it is ABSOLUTELY for the money that the city placed these cameras, doubtedly for our "safety"
third point: in some ways, they could actually be considered DANGEROUS! I know that when I'm driving ANYWHERE in College Station, I make certain to stop at yellow lights and avoid another "red light ticket". The problem here is, I hope the person behind me is paying attention and doesn't hit me! This has almost happened on several occasions. Also, I have been in the opposite situation where the person in front of me SLAMMED on the brakes as soon as a light turned yellow, and I then slammed on my brakes and prayed that I didn't hit the person in front of me and also that the person behind me didn't hit me. So basically, these cameras are making people way too scared to go through an intersection, and making bad decisions because they don't want to shell out 75 bucks to the city!
so to sum it all up here:
1. I'm a college student, and I owned up to a ticket.
2. its all about more money for College Station (because they city needs the money so much more than I do apparently)
3. the cameras are making intersections more dangerous and drivers more unpredictable
THANKS AND GIG 'EM!
Jared
posted 9/13/08 @ 1:44 PM CST
Originally posted byCandice
howdy "x" (way to put your name, clever)
first of all, let me inform you that I have received a ticket for being caught on one of these cameras for running a red light. I TOTALLY owned up to it! My friends and I all gathered around the computer (popcorn in hand) and watched the neat little video that they include in your ticket mail out. We sat and watched, had a few laughs, and said "yup! I sure did run that red light!" So there you have it, you have now seen a college student "actually OWN UP to one of these tickets" :-)
second point: it is ABSOLUTELY for the money that the city placed these cameras, doubtedly for our "safety"
third point: in some ways, they could actually be considered DANGEROUS! I know that when I'm driving ANYWHERE in College Station, I make certain to stop at yellow lights and avoid another "red light ticket". The problem here is, I hope the person behind me is paying attention and doesn't hit me! This has almost happened on several occasions. Also, I have been in the opposite situation where the person in front of me SLAMMED on the brakes as soon as a light turned yellow, and I then slammed on my brakes and prayed that I didn't hit the person in front of me and also that the person behind me didn't hit me. So basically, these cameras are making people way too scared to go through an intersection, and making bad decisions because they don't want to shell out 75 bucks to the city!
so to sum it all up here:
1. I'm a college student, and I owned up to a ticket.
2. its all about more money for College Station (because they city needs the money so much more than I do apparently)
3. the cameras are making intersections more dangerous and drivers more unpredictable
THANKS AND GIG 'EM!
seeing as the number accidents at these four intersections has dramatically been reduced since the implementation of these cameras, I would say they are working exactly how they are supposed to be. Pay attention when you drive and you wont have to slam on your brakes or worry about the people behind you since they too should be paying attention. Kudos to owning up to the ticket and I hope you enjoyed the popcorn while watching your video.
scepticus
posted 9/16/08 @ 9:43 AM CST
Originally posted byCandice
howdy "x" (way to put your name, clever)
first of all, let me inform you that I have received a ticket for being caught on one of these cameras for running a red light. I TOTALLY owned up to it! My friends and I all gathered around the computer (popcorn in hand) and watched the neat little video that they include in your ticket mail out. We sat and watched, had a few laughs, and said "yup! I sure did run that red light!" So there you have it, you have now seen a college student "actually OWN UP to one of these tickets" :-)
second point: it is ABSOLUTELY for the money that the city placed these cameras, doubtedly for our "safety"
third point: in some ways, they could actually be considered DANGEROUS! I know that when I'm driving ANYWHERE in College Station, I make certain to stop at yellow lights and avoid another "red light ticket". The problem here is, I hope the person behind me is paying attention and doesn't hit me! This has almost happened on several occasions. Also, I have been in the opposite situation where the person in front of me SLAMMED on the brakes as soon as a light turned yellow, and I then slammed on my brakes and prayed that I didn't hit the person in front of me and also that the person behind me didn't hit me. So basically, these cameras are making people way too scared to go through an intersection, and making bad decisions because they don't want to shell out 75 bucks to the city!
so to sum it all up here:
1. I'm a college student, and I owned up to a ticket.
2. its all about more money for College Station (because they city needs the money so much more than I do apparently)
3. the cameras are making intersections more dangerous and drivers more unpredictable
THANKS AND GIG 'EM!
This is a reply to Jared.
Site your source for this miraculous data. You can however ask the city, and they will tell you they got $400,000 from these very few cameras, which I think is a clear indication that somehow the parameters for what to ticket were set poorly. http://www.theeagle.com/local/Officers-contest-red-light-tickets It seems to me that the city is still gathering data, though what they have so far seems like enough that I would question if this is really for our safety. I look forward to your reply.
dave
posted 9/15/08 @ 5:03 PM CST
candice, had a police officer seen you run a red light, he would have nailed you with a ticket that costs more than 75 bucks, more like 150. even to take defensive driving and knock it off your record would cost at least 100 bucks for court costs and d.d, so 75 isnt bad at all in that respect.
Jared
posted 9/16/08 @ 12:44 PM CST
my source comes from the number of acident reports which are available at the police station oh guru of the oblivious. Yes the city does get revenue but as that revenue comes from people violating the law stop and whining and follow the law. You seem to be complaining more about the fact that there are cameras to catch red light runners than going after the people who run the lights to begin with. Hopefully the city will hire more police officers so they can pull people like you over and hopefully beat the tar out of them.
Scepticus
posted 3/11/09 @ 4:37 PM CST
Originally posted byJared
my source comes from the number of acident reports which are available at the police station oh guru of the oblivious. Yes the city does get revenue but as that revenue comes from people violating the law stop and whining and follow the law. You seem to be complaining more about the fact that there are cameras to catch red light runners than going after the people who run the lights to begin with. Hopefully the city will hire more police officers so they can pull people like you over and hopefully beat the tar out of them.
I am still waiting on you to actually cite a source rather than saying that the data can be obtained. The reason I am complaining about this method of citing moving violations is that it is a slippery slope towards a future I do not want. I seriously doubt that you have never in your life broken any law. The point of these lights is not to stop people from running red lights, if it were they would have increased the yellow duration (the actually proven method of reducing incidences) but instead they have found a way to make money off of a system they have set up to cause infractions. Yes people should pay attention and drive defensively, but the system should be set up to allow for some kind of inherent safety. It is not some great mystery how to do this, it has been done other places and it can be done here.
On a different note, I think the city has plenty of police officers. If they would stop biking around northgate harassing people and instead patrol the roads where accidents are common then we would not need more of them. Also, kudos for promoting police violence against a civilian who allegedly committed a nonviolent offense.
Jacqueline Attwood
posted 3/15/09 @ 2:05 AM CST
I thought this debate was about them, as opposed to featuring them. Whoops.
- Displaying 1 - 20 of 20
Post Your Comment
Remembering 2:42
News
Volleyball back in win column
Sports
'Riverdance' comes to OPAS on farewell tour
Features
A sweet deal
Features
Turning up my nose up to 'taste'
Opinion
Aggies are we
Opinion
Jared
posted 9/09/08 @ 8:25 AM CST