NYC Mayor Wants Traffic Camera On Every Corner 262
Mr_Blank writes "New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made it clear that he wants to see more traffic light cameras in the Big Apple, saying that he'd have the devices on every street corner if possible. According to The New York Daily News, the city brought in $52 million in fines generated by red light cameras last year alone. Bloomberg doesn't just want a jump in the number of cameras, however. He also wants to publish the names of those who blow through the stop lights in local papers to help shame wrongdoers into changing their ways. What's more, the mayor wants to look into the possibility of adding speed cameras to the mix. Big brother is coming to NYC."
Trying to get fired? (Score:2)
Re:Trying to get fired? (Score:5, Informative)
Not necessarily. They had speed cameras on the highways and freeways here in Arizona, and once Janet Napolitano left as Governor to be Secretary of Homeland Security at the Federal level, the new Governor, Jan Brewer, removed them.
In the City of Tempe, they had an agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems for red-light cameras, but that agreement has ended and the cameras have been shut off. Granted, the agreement's end happened in part because Redflex was too stupid to stipulate that they got a cut when an offender went to traffic school and got the fine scrubbed from their record, as opposed to having an actual ticket, so when they pushed that Tempe just nixed the entire arrangement at the next opportunity. The lawsuit is still pending.
One problem with photo enforcement is that the camera doesn't stop you and serve you a ticket like police officer does when pulling you over. Instead, they mail the fine to you, but because you haven't been officially and legally served yet, if you ignore the mailing then they have to actually send a person to serve you the ticket in the manner of a process server. Here, a LOT of people have been ignoring the mailings, and they're considering changing the law to not require the in-person serving, but they're receiving resistance to that. So, if a bargain-basement process server costs $40 for three attempts, it's difficult to argue the cost of the process server should be added to the ticket since the complainant didn't pull over the defendant and serve them a ticket in the first place.
I think that if they're going to institute Red Light Photo Enforcement, they need to paint an actual intersection-entering stop line prominently on the ground. The stop line for the crosswalk isn't the start of the intersection, it's further forward. One might assume one's in the clear if one is crossing the crosswalk, but they technically haven't entered the intersection yet.
Of course in my world, I'd define the start of the intersection as the stop line before the crosswalk. But I guess we don't care about pedestrians...
Re: (Score:2)
But I guess we don't care about pedestrians...
Guess you have not been to NY?
Here in Cali I have seen many red light cameras taken down as well across different cities. Although I never researched the reasoning behind it.
Re: (Score:3)
The situation in California is kind of odd. I don't understand the legal details, but for some reason in L.A. the city wasn't legally entitled to collect money from the red-light cameras. So if you got a ticket in the mail and just didn't pay it there was nothing they could do. On the other hand, if you paid it they wouldn't give your money back (surprise).
I don't know if that's the case in other cities. Cameras are nothing but a revenue source anyway - the statistics say adding a camera to an intersec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here, it's the curb on one side parallel with the intersecting road to the curb on the other side in parallel with the intersecting road. At the few intersections without curbs, I believe it's defined b
Re: (Score:2)
Revenue stream (Score:5, Informative)
It's all in pursuit of another revenue stream. New York City is full of this kind of nickel-and-diming. Check out this parking ticket scam [youtube.com] on truck drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
wow, really, a scam? that's not a scam, obey parking laws and you don't get a ticket. that's the city saying that letting traffic through on a street has a value and the delivery trucks that impede that traffic have to pay for it. the delivery guys know they're illegally parked. they know they're going to get ticketed. But the company they work for believes that it is more cost-efficient to pay that fine than park the truck legally.
Re: (Score:2)
how is that not a scam? the city knows delivery trucks have no other place to unload. i'd be happy to bet they both have ledger entries for it in their budgets.
Re: (Score:2)
First: there's no convenient place to unload. convenient for the delivery guys that is. do you think if there was a loading zone two blocks over those Coca-Cola delivery guys would park there?
And second: a "scam" implies one party tricking the another into making a foolish decision. in this case, the signs are clearly posted. the delivery companies choose to violate the law and pay the fine. I'm sure they also appreciate that side of the road being clear because they know they can always park there wit
Re: (Score:2)
You don't live in NYC, do you? There's generally nowhere to park to make deliveries except an "illegal" spot. It's all about the revenue generation, not about safety or even free flow of traffic - they do this in front of my building on River Terrace, one of the quietest streets in downtown Manhattan. There is no way to legally move furniture in and out of the building, so a moving truck is always going to get ticketed - just another tax for living in NYC. I'd call it all a scam, yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
No, a scam would be to ticket you in a legal spot but claim you were in an illegal spot. Park down the street and dolly the crap to your store, or close shop and go somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the solution be for delivery firms to stop delivering until something is done about this? If even 10% of NYC crawls to a halt because nobody's delivering, wouldn't that create sufficient economic incentive to correct this issue?
Your solution would ruin the economy of those who require the deliveries, and the delivery people (if they could all agree to "strike"). The lawmakers wouldn't feel any pain until the citizens feel a lot of pain. The realistic situation though would be that rival delivery companies would start up that would be willing to pay the regular bribes^Wfines. Then nothing changes except the current delivery companies go out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a scam. Have you ever tried to unload something in the city? You actually can't do it without "illegally parking". It's sufficiently pervasive that delivery companies treat it exactly as a tax or licensing fee, a sure sign of an inappropriate law.
If everyone actually obeyed that law, the city would decay into a shanty in no time.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is not having trucks deliver anything in the city because there's no legal way to park some of those vehicles. It's a government enforced scam.
Re: (Score:2)
lol! four replies all stating the obvious and not addressing my point at all.
I recognize that for those delivery guys there's no convenient place to park. the nice open space across the street is available for parking precisely because it's illegal to park there. the reason it's illegal to park there is to keep the roads clear to allow traffic to move freely through the city. when a truck stops to deliver in a no-standing zone they are deliberately inconveniencing hundreds (or thousands) of other vehicle
Re: (Score:3)
Not all NYC cops hate truck drivers. My dad used to take a truck up to the city (not box truck, tractor trailer, and not through but just into, and at night); I forget the details, but when he had first started going up there one night he'd stopped at a red light. Cop pulls up, tells him to blow through.
Yeah, apparently down around that edge of the city, that time of night, there's practically no traffic -- but there was, and most likely is, a much greater chance that someone would attempt to open the tra
Re: (Score:2)
If the lights had camera on them, they could anticipate the traffic and show all green to this driver.
What's that you say, the cameras are pointed at the intersection rather than away from it...
Why do these work in NYC (Score:4, Informative)
Dallas removed 'em too (Score:3)
They turned out to cost more than they brought in. People aren't as willing to run the light when they know they're being watched. It's the same reason the highway patrol cops hide in the ditch. Visibility is a deterrent. Invisibility is a money-maker.
Re:Why do these work in NYC (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine recently became embroiled in a small claims suit after he go involved in a no fault, non injury accident with a cabby at a dangerous intersection on a parkway.
The suit was brought by the cabby because the accident was his second in 5 years. This is important because of the monetization the city has implemented over the cab industry, and the resulting imposed legislation. As a result of the accident the cabby was not legally eligable to work and was discharged without pay. For this reason the cabby filed small claims for lost wages against my friend.
Long story short, rediculous things like this happen frequently in NYC because the city government legally taps the till of public transit, and does so because it does not spend money efficiently. This is one of the many reasons that public transit in NYC is abysmal.
The underlying problem (poor fiscal policy, and corrupt contracts with construction unions) causes the city to seek any and all forms of extraordinary rendition of funds from the public and from its civil servants, such as registered cab companies.
This is why the mayor wants to institute a KNOWN bad solution. The problem it aims to fix is NOT dangerous traffic-- it is ALL about revinue. Installing more cameras ans watching more people means more people will get caught and will pay bigger fines.
That is what NYC knows that FS doesn't.
Re:Why do these work in NYC (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I am from Boston
I've driven all over the world, and Boston is the ONLY PLACE where I got chased off the road and up onto the sidewalk. And the pedestrians didn't even flinch, like it happens all the time!
And I want a camera following him everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
If he wants to be able to track everyone, then I suppose he wouldn't have a problem with the public knowing what he is doing at all times either right?
Re: (Score:2)
If he's in a car, then his own camera system will be tracking his movements and he'll be subject to it as much as anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
What if I am doing something wrong and I want to continue to get away with it? I should start protesting now right? And start sprouting nonsense about how this is a violation of our collective privacy and is another step in the slippery slope to 1984, and how everyone who disagrees with me is one of them. That way I can continue breaking the law in any way I choose.
I wish we had more camera's in Australia. Between pulling out of the driveway at work yesterday and reaching the traffic lights about 1km down t
Re: (Score:3)
You're an idiot. Just letting you know.
No camera (and the plural of cameras is CAMERAS, without the apostrophe -- I know you're all a bunch of toothless criminals down there in Superjail Island, Australia is essentially Texas minus the Mexicans, but come on at least make an effort to write properly) would ticket one single of those young females, because the camera cannot determine what they were doing. The ONLY enforcement method which is able to stop unsafe driving such as you describe is an officer in
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, a radar gun.
Good. (Score:2)
Red light running morons kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Then change the timing of the lights to prevent it, rather than just catch the people as they do it.
Timing of yellow lights will not prevent some drivers from running red. They will just take the extra time into account.
Long yellow lights will encourage those drivers to treat yellow as a "quasi green".
I don't know about New York, but in sane places, you are allowed to complete your passage through the intersection on a red, if you're already in the intersection before it turns red. Running a red light means entering the intersection on a red.
A two or three second yellow light warning is good enough to pre
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/effect-yellow-timing [motorists.org]
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/timing-myths [motorists.org]
http://bancams.com/get-the-facts/studies/seattle-yellow-light-times-study/ [bancams.com]
http://www.shortyellowlights.com/rlcinfo/ [shortyellowlights.com]
Also, quit spouting your "feelings" on the issue when it doesn't match up with facts.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
-- Isaac Asimov
Re: (Score:2)
So, let me guess, since people do run reds, your own guard must currently be up! I take it you stop at every green and look both ways before proceeding.
Re: (Score:2)
why not... (Score:2)
...just hire more cops for traffic patrol? more people with income and no big brother concerns.
i really prefer the idea of spike strips that pop up when you run the light. nothing like instant gratification!
Re:why not... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cop stops you, immediately, thus ending the unsafe situation on the road.
Remember, traffic enforcement is about the safety of the public, not revenue generation.
traffic lights cannot resolve an unsafe situation. at best, they'll stop it roughly 2 weeks after it's happened.
if traffic tickets were, in fact, simply a form of revenue generation and not intended to be rules by which the roads may be made safer for all using them?
well by golly, if that were the case, it sure would be a good idea to use traffic cameras! same revenue stream as an officer, less overhead!
of course, we all know traffic tickets really ARE about revenue generation, but if they were to admit that the public would be on their ass to reform the system -- and so long as they're keeping up the charade that it's all about keeping us safe, traffic cameras should absolutely be disallowed from ticketing anybody for anything, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's how citations are supposed to be done. By that logic, let's just fire all cops and replace them with automated monitoring and ticketing computers.
Sounds good (Score:2)
IF and only if no one under any circumstances is exempt from name publishing. And police cars are subject to the same when their lights are not on and are not responding to emergencies.
But that's not going to happen.
Better Link (Score:4, Informative)
Better link to the actual source, the sometimes-sketchy New York Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/08/22/2011-08-22_mayor_bloomberg_pushes_for_traffic_light_cameras_on_every_corner.html [nydailynews.com]
if redlight cameras become common (Score:2)
Actually costs... (Score:2)
While camera equipment is getting cheaper, I wonder what it would cost the police department to have the newspapers run the names or pictures or whatever of the red stop runnies.
In this day of people wanting to be famous for anything, i would think getting your name in the paper would be a good start.
Houston Red Light Cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting Houston has been going through traffic camera limbo, first they voted to have them, then not have them, then have them again because of some contract and now finally the city has decided to break the contract and repeal the ordinance that allowed them in the first place. So all the traffic cameras that are up are going to be turned off and to get them back on again or install any new ones the mayor and the city council will have to pass a new ordinance which likely won't happen any time soon. It's been a surprisingly big issue locally.
My father recently got a 'fine' for not coming to a full stop on a red when he was going to make a right trun he slowed down stopped and then made the turn but the camera decided no it wasn't kosher he didn't come to a 100% complete stop for the required amount of time so he got a fine. All they could do was fine him 75 bucks and say he couldn't renew his registration till he did it. Turns out you can renew online and bypass any such thing so that's what he did and he still hasn't payed the silly fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Progressives take note (Score:2)
Bloomberg's development is entirely predictable if one knows European history. He started out believing in government improving the lives of the "populace" by forcing it to eat right (his campaigns against canned soups, sodas, etc.), to buy into government health care (his first hypothesis regarding the Times Square bomber was "maybe someone unhappy with the health care bill", which is very telling of what was on his mind as to the most credible terror threat his city faces), to give up means of "violent" s
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that under his instruction and pay that several individuals broke many federal laws by lying on paperwork and illegally transporting firearms across state lines.
He had no authority to do that, actually interfered with LEGIT investigations, and in the end walked away without a blemish. Er, except, the DA down in (iirc) Virginia did tell him to stay away or he'd have him arrested.
Cause the dude broke many federal laws. Very many. He formed a gunrunning gang and got away with it because of who
YES! Humiliate them. Public shaming! (Score:2)
Bring back the pillories. Ignore the past 300 years of attempts to make civilization actually civilized. Get medieval on them. Give'em the rack! Lord Mayor Bloomberg of The New York demandeth order! Burn the heretics!
Every corner (Score:2)
And in every car, home and business.
I knew there was a reason... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that if I dug into it some more, I'd find all sorts of reasons not to live there. :-) I already have quite a few reasons not to move to, say, Chicago, for instance.
I wonder who gets the contract? (Score:2)
Seriously, at very least, this pretty much assures Bloomberg's re-election, as who could compete with an incumbent financed by every traffic camera maker in the world?
So, uh, who here lives in Manhattan? (Score:2)
How about tit-for-tat? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, right after you agree to a live camera installed inside your car, and workplace.
I think you're confused about what red-light cameras do.
They are still-picture cameras that capture the license plate of a vehicle that has entered the intersection on a red.
Re: (Score:3)
So you think I should have to give up the privacy in my own home before politicians should be required to be transparent?
I think you are the one who is confused.
BTW, I am quite familiar with these cameras having recently paid a fine because a portion of my back bumper was still in the intersection when the light turned red. The ticket came in the mail with about four different shots of the vehicle in which the passengers could clearly be seen. While it wasn't a problem for me, I can imaging a scenario whe
Re: (Score:2)
Big brother is COMING? (Score:2)
Big brother is already THERE. There's cops everywhere. They demand (and have gotten) the power to arbitrarily search anyone entering the city, or using the subway. Their enforcement of the law is, of course, haphazard and largely unjust, but there's no shortage of enforcers.
What is he talking about? (Score:2)
What is this paper thing you speak of? Is it anything like cnn.com?
This is not a revenue stream ! (Score:2)
well they trigger on right on red, just over the l (Score:2)
well they trigger on right on red, just over the line, short yellow and other BS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
well they trigger on right on red,
Which, as it turns out, is an illegal thing to do in New York City.
Re: (Score:3)
What color should a red light camera be triggered on? Mauve? Chartreuse?
You have a point that running into a red intersection just a split second after it turned red (let's call that a "cold red") is not actually as dangerous as flat-out bolting through a red light when it's already green for the other stream of traffic ("hot red").
The infraction has actual degrees of severity.
But bolting through a hot red should be grounds for a length driving suspension and a $1000 fine.
In other words, if the red light ca
Re: (Score:2)
To rephrase your question, you are wondering how a tax on the stupid (impatient, distracted, harassed, tired) could collect so much money? Does it seem less surprising expressed in that form?
Re:Too creepy (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like a perfect plan. I *LOVE* the idea. It sounds great!
There are exceptions to it though.
The day they start doing it, I could just imagine flashmobs, or even the Anonymous group, going around with pre-printed license plate stickers with the mayors plate number on them. They could slap them on every car they can . Sure, it wouldn't be *every* car in the city, but it would be enough for the Mayor himself to be published as running stop lights thousands of times per day. That, parking tickets, etc, etc.
These printed plates with numbers on them are such old technology, and so prone to counterfeiting, I'm surprised they're still used. They rank right up with paper cheques for transferring money. They're trivial to print for illegitimate uses, once you have the required numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! I want a Mayor Bloomberg on every corner...
Hooking for investment bankers.
Hey! My wish came true!
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, when opinion and reality conflict, most people choose their opinion over reality. http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/ [motorists.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. If your a dangerous driver then tough luck. It might diminish the number of injuries and deaths.
Do you really think *that* much effort is put into the system to prevent crashes? The reason is stated in the summary. It's about the money. And once there is a reduction in revenue from people driving more safely, the cameras will either be repurposed, or new laws will be put into place that can use the cameras to create more revenue. Laws like "no right turn on red" at every stoplight because it confuses the cameras, so now every time a camera takes a photo, it really is because of an infraction, and
Re: (Score:3)
There already is no 'right on red' in NYC, except for a handful of places.
I'm sure they could think up something even worse, like using them for pedestrian jaywalking fines or tracking arab americans.
Literally a handful.
While I thank you for the correction, I can't pass up a chance to focus on the use of "literally". I can imagine a literal handful of jellybeans, but a handful of intersections escapes my grasp (figuratively).
Re:Too creepy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Too creepy (Score:5, Interesting)
Not at all. The best recent breakthrough in getting people to stop speeding have been big signs that show you your speed. Now, just about in every school zone, I get a flashing light when I'm going over 20mph. No cop, no ticket, no privacy invasion. I get a personal message that I am breaking the law. And really, that's all it takes.
Someone's obviously thinking about this problem. Sounds much more likely to have an impact than receiving a ticket in the mail two weeks later.
One other idea I had was to configure traffic lights to turn red for 5 minutes if someone is speeding in the road leading up to them, and a ticker at the intersection showing the number plate of the offender for all to see. There's no justice like angry mob justice :)
Re: (Score:3)
So a guy speeds (which is admittedly potentially unsafe) and suddenly you got a mob of people beating him to death? That's supposed to be just?
I hope you never actually have any say over such things.
Re: (Score:2)
So a guy speeds (which is admittedly potentially unsafe) and suddenly you got a mob of people beating him to death? That's supposed to be just?
No. Not just. Just effective.
Re: (Score:2)
One other idea I had was to configure traffic lights to turn red for 5 minutes if someone is speeding in the road leading up to them, and a ticker at the intersection showing the number plate of the offender for all to see.
It's much more profitable to adjust the traffic light timings so that people have to travel 5-10 mph over the speed limit to get the green lights on a long stretch of road (and make the red lights last a long time). Then you have a steady stream of speeders to ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
It's much more profitable to adjust the traffic light timings so that people have to travel 5-10 mph over the speed limit to get the green lights on a long stretch of road (and make the red lights last a long time). Then you have a steady stream of speeders to ticket.
Who sets the traffic light timings and who gets the collected revenue? Are they they same department? If not, I suspect it's well beyond two different parts of the government to coordinate themselves on that level and make it profitable for both parties without getting caught.
It's amazing how people can complain about the incompetence of government and then in the next breath accuse them of something that would require sophisticated coordination.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing how people can declare that government must be either competent and efficient at everything, or incompetent and lousy at everything.
The world (including government) is much more grey than that.
Re: (Score:2)
I like it. I think an angry mob is a bit much, though: Just a little name-and-shame might be in order, along with a much shorter extra wait: Perhaps 30 seconds.
A sign reading "This red light brought to you by green BMW, Ohio FC50PL!" along with a picture of the vehicle would be adequate to shame the driver, but inadequate for other drivers to bother with more than a few well-chosen words -- especially since they'll all be on their way again in 30 seconds.
The rest of the time, the fancy signage can displa
Re: (Score:2)
The best recent breakthrough in getting people to stop speeding have been big signs that show you your speed. Now, just about in every school zone, I get a flashing light when I'm going over 20mph. No cop, no ticket, no privacy invasion. I get a personal message that I am breaking the law.
Yeah, I get a big personal message that I'm traveling at 17, no, 36, no, 60, no, 14, 20, 5?
I think a better question (Score:2)
Why on earth would people who live in NYC drive cars?
Re: (Score:3)
Why on earth would people who live in NYC drive cars?
Usually they don't. People who *work* in NYC drive cars. Not all of them, but enough. NYC generally handles traffic flow well (Washington looks like it was designed by a fourth grader with a crayon compared to NYC for traffic efficiency), and depending on where you live and work it may be faster to drive than to take public transportation. Depending on the value of your time, plus (For some) the added comfort factor, it may well be worth driving.
Similarly, people going to a hospital in NYC regularly wil
Re:I think a better question (Score:5, Interesting)
Washington, DC...
was not designed to be an inhabited city. It was designed for looks. Nobody was supposed to be a permanent resident of Washington, D.C.
That's why it's such a shithole. Compared to NYC, which is a shithole because they keep electing Bloomberg mayor (how is this guy not in jail, anyway -- he proudly has boasted about sending people under his employ and direction to states other than New York, having instructed them to BREAK FEDERAL LAW BY LYING on paperwork for firearm purchases, and then illegally transporting those firearms back into New York state. none of this was done with any authority other than his as a *private citizen*, since the powers of a mayor end at the edge of his jurisdiction and the entire affair was his own private enterprise).
DC was actually very well designed if it was kept to its original purpose, but they kept letting people build houses all over the place instead of kicking them to the curb like they should have.. now look at it. good lord. i'd rather be homeless in alaska than a homeowner in DC.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To me, the idea of employing single-person vehicles in such a busy, people-dense environment seems sort of like using TCP/IP encapsulation to send data between a CPU core and its L1 cache. Too much overhead.
Yes, that was a car concept expressed as a computer metaphor. In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I'm wondering unless they're talking about the outer boroughs or something. I'm working on a plan to spend 6-8 months in NYC and the plan for my car is to park it in a garage in the sticks and use it for a day trip once a month to keep the battery charged and fluids moving. If I was planning to live there indefinitely, I'd just sell the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have plenty of time to stop on yellow before it turns red. The yellow warning covers the situation that you're too close to the intersection at the speed you are going to make it possible to stop without doing a brake stand. The light simply cannot abruptly turn from red to green, making a criminal out of every driver who is unable to prevent his vehicle from entering the intersection.
Drivers invariably brake stand on yellow because they were not paying attention. They did not see the light turn yellow
Re: (Score:2)
It is, strictly speaking, drivers that cause the accidents. The traffic camera is not involved in the collision, and it is even stationary, located at a signal with a well-known reputation for turning from from green, to yellow, to red. People should be grateful it isn't a moose trotting out into the road. If drivers cannot graciously accept responsibility for these trivial consequences of their behavior, I'm really quite okay with them not driving. (Ever been hit by a car? It hurts. A lot.)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, now just get everyone else in the world to do it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming they have insurance.
Assuming you can afford to lose the use of your car for several days, possibly weeks.
Assuming you don't injure yourself.
Assuming they don't strike you with such force that you are then driven into the vehicle in front of you, which by golly usually winds up being your fault anyway.
Assuming your insurance company won't raise your rates for being hit by someone else.
Yeah, what you say sure makes sense, until you start actually digging in to what the real costs of someone else hitt
Re: (Score:2)
A tail-gating bad driver could rear-end you, so ... run red lights?
Since a bad driver could kill you at any time by suddenly crossing the divider line on a two-way road, the logical conclusion is to drive on the sidewalk, or stay home.
Anyway, you should pay attention to your rear-view mirror, so you should know whether you are actually being tail-gated. If there is a belligerent tail-gater in your rear-view mirror, then sure, run the red. That car will likely cover your license plate from the view of the
Re: (Score:2)
That's going to hurt the throughput of the intersection. Imagine waiting 2 seconds after the car in front of you moves. Then multiply this by the number of cars waiting for at the red light.
Re: (Score:2)
Your poorly-informed reasoning about this will change when you're old enough to have a driver's license, and have a few years in traffic under your belt.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no rule that says you have to come to a stop ON the guy's bumper ahead of you. If you leave a bit of space, you can resume driving more quickly...
Re: (Score:2)
If you're stuck to the bumper, you have to wait until the guy in front clears a little space. If you left the space to begin with, you can start accelerating right away. If you left the right amount of space, you can even anticipate the guy in front of you's movement based on the cars in front of him.
Leave a few feet of buffer, so you can start matching speeds right away. The close packers and "extra-nudgers" don't even realize the extra delay they're putting into the traffic stops. They're impatient, s
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because they've never been shown to be wrong.
follow the money (Score:2)
Yes, we can tax the city for being irresponsible. Don't shop in those cities that use and abuse red light cameras. Boycott. That's what I do. I checked Plano TX, and they cheat. They claim that for a 40 mph speed zone, their yellow lasts 4 seconds. It does not. It lasts 3.9 seconds. Yes, they do bust people for violations of less than 1 second, so, yes, 1/10th of a second matters. In any case, the old rule of thumb of 1 second per 10 mph is known to be too short, so even if they followed their own
Re: (Score:2)
The standard set in 1976 was not "sloppy." The standard is for minimum yellow light durations, with the final determination based on other factors in addition to approach speed, such as geography, traffic volume and current automotive technology. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices calls for a yellow duration of 3 - 6 seconds. Any sloppiness you see is due to the need for the standards to have leeway for situations that aren't best-case.
This is from the FHWA website
Re: (Score:2)
Ack, wrong button! The last paragraph is my opinion, not a quote.
Re: (Score:2)
So, use TERROR to change public behavior?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody would even read that shit, anyway. Hell, the only time I even look at my local police report in the paper -- when I even BUY a paper -- is when I know work is going to be slow and I'm going to have a "stomach ache" for an hour around lunch time. and even then it's a cursory glance. the police roundup in the local paper has maybe, maybe a dozen entries. i'm guessing for a place as big as NYC, listing all the people that would get ticketed would take half a newspaper. Who's really going to comb th
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody would even read that shit, anyway. Hell, the only time I even look at my local police report in the paper -- when I even BUY a paper -- is when I know work is going to be slow and I'm going to have a "stomach ache" for an hour around lunch time.
HR would whenever they hire someone. Normally traffic violations aren't something they can search for. "I'm sorry, we went with a safer candidate. We'll let you decide if it was your credit rating, your facebook profile, your traffic violations, or your mother's statements to the investigator".