For any idiot who thinks it's about safety

[4RE KLR]

I can tell you that on those lights with cameras I WILL LOCK UP THE BRAKES if that damn thing even thinks about turning yellow. I do not give a damn about the person behind me. If they hit me they will pay for the wreck.

I cannot begin to tell you how many wrecks we have here at intersections with cameras. The cities will shorten the yellow light so that the damn thing just barely blinks and goes to red and then you get a ticket. That is why I will hit the brakes.

I have seem people hit from behind probably 20-25 times since the cameras went up. That is only the ones I saw.

Hitting the breaks and letting the person behind you hit you is a win / win. The city gets to send out an officer to do an accident report, you get a new back bumper and paint job and the case against those damn light cameras is going up in flames.

I have not yet been hit but I have a big honking trailer hitch just waiting to get a BMW grill!

[terry251]

Check your jurisdiction, but I'll bet you will find that the red light and speed camera systems in place are operated by private companies. They process the film, send out the notices and collect a major fee on each ticket, and pass on the small remainder of the fine to the local government. In most cases, if you ignore the summons they send a collection agency after you...not the cops. Their summonses and notices of adverse action look very official, but they are, in fact, a collection notice, not a threat to arrest from the local law enforcement agency. They don't personally serve the original ticket or the failure to pay notification, and they can't arrest you for ignoring them.

In my experience, if the private company doesn't see the expected amount of revenue from a particular location (speed camera or red light camera) they lobby for shortening the yellow light or lowering the speed limit. That is garbage. Our elected officials should be setting these parameters based on advice from their traffic engineers, not a private company that profits from the decision.

By the way, I don't dispute the potential effectiveness of the technology. I just don't think a private company should profit by using tax payer supported law enforcement to enrich themselves. If the technology and results are effective as purported - government should purchase and operate it themselves. The reason they don't...because they collect a fee without expending any resources.

Rant Off.

Terry

[427sharpe]

On private companies and public $;
Our esteemed Gov., Rick Perry, has tried for some time to sell roads in Texas. Basically, a foreign company agrees to build a roadway to TxDOT spec, then gets to make it a tollway....forever. He still tries to sell this as a good idea. Makes you wonder where all that lotto money goes, 'cause it sure isn't into education!

[Great Asp]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

Makes you wonder where all that lotto money goes, 'cause it sure isn't into education!

I don't know, that seems smart to me

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by terry251

...

I just don't think a private company should profit by using tax payer supported law enforcement to enrich themselves. If the technology and results are effective as purported - government should purchase and operate it themselves. The reason they don't...because they collect a fee without expending any resources.

...

Actually I don't understand why the local government should benefit from collecting the fines. I have not gotten a ticket in a while, but someone in my office got one recently and there was all kinds of line item amounts for categories of money collected for different reasons. I think it included the fire department and some fund for buying personal computers for something or other. Maybe the local governments should not benefit at all from traffic fines, the money could be used to pay down the national debt or something.

[meat]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

I can tell you that on those lights with cameras I WILL LOCK UP THE BRAKES if that damn thing even thinks about turning yellow. I do not give a damn about the person behind me. If they hit me they will pay for the wreck.

Umm... Not necessarily.

If you "lock up the brakes" for no other reason than a light turning yellow, that's reckless driving; you're the one at fault. You'll pay for the wreck.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by meat

Umm... Not necessarily.

If you "lock up the brakes" for no other reason than a light turning yellow, that's reckless driving; you're the one at fault. You'll pay for the wreck.

Your pal,
Meat.

Once more Meathead proves his lineage.The person re-ending the car ahead is ALWAYS at fault.It's called following too close.

[Aussie Mike]

All the new stuff is IP based, no film required.

Speed cameras are big business down here. Australians contribute a significant ammount of money to the government coffers via "Speed Tax"

One of the projects I'm working on is developing the Police traffic monitoring systems for India. Most of the IP traffic is one way (from the camera to the police HQ) but they are looking at ways of better utilising the down stream traffic. One of the ideas is screens at intersections with traffic info displayed on them along with advertising to watch while you wait for the lights to change

There's more than one way to make a buck out of them.

Cheers

[terry251]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

Once more Meathead proves his lineage.The person re-ending the car ahead is ALWAYS at fault.It's called following too close.

Not always. A recent "road rage" type encounter on E470 in Colorado led to a murder conviction for the guy that got hit from behind. He was weaving in and out of traffic and brake-checked the victim after swerving in front of him.
Pretty extreme case, but traffic investigators are increasingly cautious about assigning fault in rear end collisions due to road rage and fake insurance cases.

Terry

[meat]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

Once more Meathead proves his lineage.The person re-ending the car ahead is ALWAYS at fault.It's called following too close.

Once more Cobrabill proves his single digit IQ number.

Reckless driving is often attributed to the lead driver in a rear-end collision on non-highway/non-freeway accidents.

Duh.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by meat

Once more Cobrabill proves his single digit IQ number.

Reckless driving is often attributed to the lead driver in a rear-end collision on non-highway/non-freeway accidents.

Duh.

Your pal,
Meat.

Once again you show that you are a safe distance from genius.Your limited intellect is exhibited by the constant use of the word"duh".

The cases presented above(staged accidents & weaving in & out) are extreme and not the norm.
Not to mention they require witnesses to have the lead driver faulted.99.9% of the time the party that impacted the car ahead is in the "at fault" situation.
ALL states DMV codes are written to the effect that you shall maintain a "a safe distance" between your vehicles.*So,the driver that rear-ends someone is guilty of not maintaining a safe distance.PERIOD,END, PHUCKING STOP.This point isn't open to debate-as it's codified FACT.Anyone who disagrees probably says "duh" a lot.

*Meathead, i spelled it out for you so we wouldn't have to "hear" another "duh" from you.

[meat]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

The cases presented above

There have been no 'cases' presented above.

Duh.

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

ALL states DMV codes are written to the effect that you shall maintain a "a safe distance" between your vehicles.

NO state has ANY code "written to the effect."

Duh.

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

So,the driver that rear-ends someone is guilty of not maintaining a safe distance.PERIOD,END, PHUCKING STOP.This point isn't open to debate-as it's codified FACT.

Untrue, incorrect, and shows an incredible lack of intelligence for believing that something so ludicrous is a "codified fact."

Duh.

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

i spelled it out for you so we wouldn't have to "hear" another "duh" from you.

I'm not sure how many people are talking to you in your head, but it's obvious by your use of the word "we" when describing yourself that it's a plural amount. Please be advised that all of the people who are speaking to you in your head are providing you with nonsense and incorrect data. You may wish to seek new imaginary friends.

I will continue to use the term "duh" as long as you continue to post in a manner that will inevitably lead you to a 'significant' runner-up position in the Darwin Awards, thus securing your place in history as another "what not to do."

Duh.

Your pal,
Meat.

[4RE KLR]

Originally Posted by meat

Umm... Not necessarily.

If you "lock up the brakes" for no other reason than a light turning yellow, that's reckless driving; you're the one at fault. You'll pay for the wreck.

Your pal,
Meat.

NOPE, not in Texas,
If you are hit from behind it is because the car behind you is following too close and the car that actually makes or causes physical contact is the one doing the reckless driving. I will hit the brakes at a yellow light period. "Don't follow too close now ya hear!"

There is an exception being that you could be impeding traffic but in that case the offending car would have to have pulled out in front of you. However if you are both going the same direction and you hit the car in front of you, you'd better have insurance.

[meat]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

NOPE, not in Texas,
If you are hit from behind it is because the car behind you is following too close and the car that actually makes or causes physical contact is the one doing the reckless driving.

Nope.

If you slam on your brakes to stop short - 'lock up your tires' was the term used above - then YOU are the one who is doing the reckless driving. YOU are the one not in control of your vehicle. YOU are the one impeding the right of way. YOU are the one who is primarily at fault. YOU are the one that 'causes physical contact' not the other driver. I'd make sure you were thoroughly investigated to see if you're part of a swoop and squat scam.

Your pal,
Meat.

[4RE KLR]

Originally Posted by meat

Nope.

If you slam on your brakes to stop short - 'lock up your tires' was the term used above - then YOU are the one who is doing the reckless driving. YOU are the one not in control of your vehicle. YOU are the one impeding the right of way. YOU are the one who is primarily at fault. YOU are the one that 'causes physical contact' not the other driver. I'd make sure you were thoroughly investigated to see if you're part of a swoop and squat scam.

Your pal,
Meat.

Nope, your wrong.

If I stop, regaurdless of why I stop in ANY siuation emergency or otherwise if you hit me from behind and we are both in the same lane traveling the same direction you are at fault, you are following too close.

I would advise you to check your highschool drivers ed book before giving your opinion a whirl.

[meat]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

If I stop, regaurdless of why I stop in ANY siuation emergency or otherwise if you hit me from behind and we are both in the same lane traveling the same direction you are at fault, you are following too close.

Reeeally.

So - given your hypothetical "ANY siuation" (assuming that "siuation" means 'situation') - If you and I were in the same lane, traveling the same direction and you slam on your brakes and come to a stop and I hit you, I was following too close?

What if I was three miles away from you when you slammed on your brakes and came to a stop, continued to drive for three miles and hit you? was I still following too close?

"I have nipples, Greg, can you milk me?" - Jack Byrnes, Meet The Parents

Your 'ANY siuation' model doesn't hold up.

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

I would advise you to check your highschool drivers ed book before giving your opinion a whirl.

And I would note that the Vehicle Code book is significantly more complete and quite a few more pages longer than your "highschool" drivers ed book.

Always use the best evidence, 4RE KLR. Always. If you're driving under the presumption that a drivers ed book is the 'be all, end all' of the law then you're in for a pretty rude awakening one day.

Your pal,
Meat.