Red Light And Speed Camera Tickets.........

[ryansride2017]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Originally Posted By: dishdude
All you people with your holier than know attitudes.


The 'holier than thou' chastisement is reserved for pretentious posts by people who more than likely make the same mistakes they're flaming other for.

In this case, however, if we, um, don't drink and drive, then we ARE, in the sense of the saying, literally "holier than though." He didn't admit to a drinking problem - he admitted to a drinking problem AND driving while buzzed.


Well that bad joke went over your head.


It appears it did...but i liked it!

 

[Traction]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I think some of you are missing the constitutional angle on this. Safety or not, it is a VIOLATION OF PRIVACY. What right does the government have to know where I drive my car? I'm tired of the government trying to tell me how to drive. Seat belt laws are another issue that I'm totally against.

If everyone wore seat belts, it wouldn't have become a law. Who ends up having to pay for your medical care after you have run a red light, and got ejected from your vehicle?
If you require privacy, you can't go out in public.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
If we still had real Americans, the kind who objected strenuously to stamp and tea taxes, all the red light cameras would have had their lenses sprayed with black paint the first night.

What I do if I'm approaching a known RL camera is this: If I see it's green, I pull over and wait until it goes yellow, then drive up to the light (which by then is red) and wait until the green. If it bothers people, they should consult paragraph one.


You pull over, out of the way of traffic while the light is green and then pull back out as it turns red? I don't get it...

 

[Bill_G]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
If we still had real Americans, the kind who objected strenuously to stamp and tea taxes, all the red light cameras would have had their lenses sprayed with black paint the first night.

What I do if I'm approaching a known RL camera is this: If I see it's green, I pull over and wait until it goes yellow, then drive up to the light (which by then is red) and wait until the green. If it bothers people, they should consult paragraph one.


You pull over, out of the way of traffic while the light is green and then pull back out as it turns red? I don't get it...


Yes - this is an interesting concept - I'd like to hear what exactly benzadmiral feels is accomplished by this maneuver.

 

[Benzadmiral]

Originally Posted By: Bill_G
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
If we still had real Americans, the kind who objected strenuously to stamp and tea taxes, all the red light cameras would have had their lenses sprayed with black paint the first night.

What I do if I'm approaching a known RL camera is this: If I see it's green, I pull over and wait until it goes yellow, then drive up to the light (which by then is red) and wait until the green. If it bothers people, they should consult paragraph one.


You pull over, out of the way of traffic while the light is green and then pull back out as it turns red? I don't get it...


Yes - this is an interesting concept - I'd like to hear what exactly benzadmiral feels is accomplished by this maneuver.

This way I don't run the risk of getting caught by a short yellow light turning abruptly to red. I could drive a bit faster when it's safe and make the green, maybe. But there are more than a few camera sites here which also have speed monitors, so that if you exceed the 35 mph by even a little, so I've heard, they get you on that.

I don't mean I pull over if I see the light turning green; I know then I have time to make it safely. But if it's a stale light, one that's been green for a while -- or if I don't know how long it's been green -- I figure I'll do better to pull over, then drive up to the red and wait for a new green.

Yes, it's annoying to have to do this. So are the cameras.

 

[philipp10]

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
If we still had real Americans, the kind who objected strenuously to stamp and tea taxes, all the red light cameras would have had their lenses sprayed with black paint the first night.

What I do if I'm approaching a known RL camera is this: If I see it's green, I pull over and wait until it goes yellow, then drive up to the light (which by then is red) and wait until the green. If it bothers people, they should consult paragraph one.


totally preposterous....

 

[Benzadmiral]

Originally Posted By: philipp10
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
If we still had real Americans, the kind who objected strenuously to stamp and tea taxes, all the red light cameras would have had their lenses sprayed with black paint the first night.

What I do if I'm approaching a known RL camera is this: If I see it's green, I pull over and wait until it goes yellow, then drive up to the light (which by then is red) and wait until the green. If it bothers people, they should consult paragraph one.


totally preposterous....

See my explanation above. The preposterous thing is having the d**n cameras in the first place.

I try to avoid the RL camera intersections to begin with. But there are only so many properly-paved streets here -- going around the block to avoid the light is usually not an option if I want to keep my car's suspension intact. So my pull-over routine is the best compromise for me.

 

[philipp10]

so your saying, it's impossible to approach a light that is green and if it should turn yellow, you cannot stop in time to avoid a ticket? What is the yellow 2 seconds long?

 

[Bill_G]

Originally Posted By: philipp10
so your saying, it's impossible to approach a light that is green and if it should turn yellow, you cannot stop in time to avoid a ticket? What is the yellow 2 seconds long?


Most red light cameras don't activate until 2 seconds after the light turns red. Of course, there are reports that some are rigged to activate sooner than that. Who knows? I guess it's a c*ap shoot.

 

[opus1]

Originally Posted By: philipp10
so your saying, it's impossible to approach a light that is green and if it should turn yellow, you cannot stop in time to avoid a ticket? What is the yellow 2 seconds long?

Close. In Chicago it's 3 seconds, which even the city admits is too short even if one is observing the posted limit.

Chicago Light Timing

 

[Tdbo]

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Originally Posted By: philipp10
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
If we still had real Americans, the kind who objected strenuously to stamp and tea taxes, all the red light cameras would have had their lenses sprayed with black paint the first night.

What I do if I'm approaching a known RL camera is this: If I see it's green, I pull over and wait until it goes yellow, then drive up to the light (which by then is red) and wait until the green. If it bothers people, they should consult paragraph one.


totally preposterous....

See my explanation above. The preposterous thing is having the d**n cameras in the first place.

I try to avoid the RL camera intersections to begin with. But there are only so many properly-paved streets here -- going around the block to avoid the light is usually not an option if I want to keep my car's suspension intact. So my pull-over routine is the best compromise for me.



I say whatever you got to do to cope is fine.
Myself, I simply sat at intersections with a RL camera in which right turns on red were allowed and refused to turn right until the light turned green.
Upset several with aggression issues behind me.
However, I wasn't going to pay $95. to play their game (and they were popping people for right turns on red.)

 

[Benzadmiral]

Originally Posted By: Tdbo


I say whatever you got to do to cope is fine.
Myself, I simply sat at intersections with a RL camera in which right turns on red were allowed and refused to turn right until the light turned green.
Upset several with aggression issues behind me.
However, I wasn't going to pay $95. to play their game (and they were popping people for right turns on red.)

I've done the same when those cameras first were installed around here. Fortunately some irate citizen in the suburban parish to my west challenged the legality of the cameras, and Jeff Parish has either suspended or discontinued them -- so we don't have to worry about them there. There are two on my morning commute, but I avoid one by going around the Costco where the first is situated, and the other is always red as I come up to it, so no problem.

Around here it seems to be that they mostly put the cameras on any major boulevard which has recently been paved, thus permitting you to drive at a decent speed -- and tempting you to drive faster than the posted limit, too.

 

[Bill_G]

Originally Posted By: Tdbo
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Originally Posted By: philipp10
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
If we still had real Americans, the kind who objected strenuously to stamp and tea taxes, all the red light cameras would have had their lenses sprayed with black paint the first night.

What I do if I'm approaching a known RL camera is this: If I see it's green, I pull over and wait until it goes yellow, then drive up to the light (which by then is red) and wait until the green. If it bothers people, they should consult paragraph one.


totally preposterous....

See my explanation above. The preposterous thing is having the d**n cameras in the first place.

I try to avoid the RL camera intersections to begin with. But there are only so many properly-paved streets here -- going around the block to avoid the light is usually not an option if I want to keep my car's suspension intact. So my pull-over routine is the best compromise for me.



I say whatever you got to do to cope is fine.
Myself, I simply sat at intersections with a RL camera in which right turns on red were allowed and refused to turn right until the light turned green.
Upset several with aggression issues behind me.
However, I wasn't going to pay $95. to play their game (and they were popping people for right turns on red.)


Darn - you're lucky - it's almost $500 in CA. I got one when I switched from a left turn lane that had a red to the straight ahead lane that had a green. Turns out it's not legal to do that without making a complete stop first. Expensive lesson.

Many cities in CA have done away with the cameras though because they were losing money on them.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: Tdbo
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Originally Posted By: philipp10
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
If we still had real Americans, the kind who objected strenuously to stamp and tea taxes, all the red light cameras would have had their lenses sprayed with black paint the first night.

What I do if I'm approaching a known RL camera is this: If I see it's green, I pull over and wait until it goes yellow, then drive up to the light (which by then is red) and wait until the green. If it bothers people, they should consult paragraph one.


totally preposterous....

See my explanation above. The preposterous thing is having the d**n cameras in the first place.

I try to avoid the RL camera intersections to begin with. But there are only so many properly-paved streets here -- going around the block to avoid the light is usually not an option if I want to keep my car's suspension intact. So my pull-over routine is the best compromise for me.



I say whatever you got to do to cope is fine.
Myself, I simply sat at intersections with a RL camera in which right turns on red were allowed and refused to turn right until the light turned green.
Upset several with aggression issues behind me.
However, I wasn't going to pay $95. to play their game (and they were popping people for right turns on red.)


What was the distance between the solid white line and the curb beyond which you would be making the turn? If right turns are legal, how would they get you with a camera? Wouldn't the camera catch you in the act of making a legal right turn?

 

[Traction]

In regards to some of the posts, that is exactly WHY, we are stuck with red light, and speed cameras! Driving, like any other things, it is all about attention to details.

 

[Garak]

Gathermewool, I think the photo, when reviewed, should make what was transpiring in that case fairly obvious. Or, perhaps they ignore vehicles below a certain speed to make it easier to sift through. Maybe going through a red light at 5 mph (i.e. turning speed range) won't trigger a red light camera violation. I'm not about to test that hypothesis, though.

 

[Tdbo]

My understanding was that people were stopping on or slightly over the line, triggering the camera. They did stop completely and check traffic before proceeding. The fines stood after Police review.
It is the age old scenario: the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. Nothing necessarily unsafe, and somewhat ticky tack but the result was +$95. in the city kitty.
Kitty wins. Meow, meow. It's about the money.

 

[qwerty1234]

I still want my tickets to be handled the old fashion way. With a radar gun and an actual officer. These "hassle tickets" effect suburban folks who come into Chicago to dine, shop, hit the beach, ect...These Red Light cameras also are a hassle to law enforcement and other who normally get the "professional courtesy" treatment.

 

[raytseng]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Gathermewool, I think the photo, when reviewed, should make what was transpiring in that case fairly obvious. Or, perhaps they ignore vehicles below a certain speed to make it easier to sift through. Maybe going through a red light at 5 mph (i.e. turning speed range) won't trigger a red light camera violation. I'm not about to test that hypothesis, though.

The modern cameras use video. When you get a ticket, they will also give you a link to show you the video clip.

Usually there's at least some low level min-wage person, that hates their job, who reviews each violation before sending it out to cut down on false hits.
You may call it ticky tacky, but it's a well-oiled machine, if they got you, typically it's because they actually got you, not because of a technical error.

It's just like parking tickets. The meter's clock isn't running fast or whatever excuse you came up with, they got you when they got you.

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I still want my tickets to be handled the old fashion way. With a radar gun and an actual officer. These "hassle tickets" effect suburban folks who come into Chicago to dine, shop, hit the beach, ect...These Red Light cameras also are a hassle to law enforcement and other who normally get the "professional courtesy" treatment.


I think you need to re examine what you think "Professional courtesy" really means. It's not about getting something. If you're truly a professional, it's YOU that should be the one that gives the courteous so you don't have to put your colleagues in the position where they have to look the other way to cover you.

If you're the off-duty cop who's speeding and breaking minor laws , you're the a-hole, not the on-duty rookie cop who gives you a ticket otherwise he gets written up for not doing his duty and job.

 

[qwerty1234]

ray, I disagree. If you are an off-duty cop you deserve a break or two. The rookie officer needs to see how it's not the academy and it's the "real world". These Red Light tickets are destroying the U.S. one ticket at a time.