rehmwa 2 #26 August 16, 2010 Drivers - that's where the money is. Shouldn't the government take their fair share from as many sources as possible? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #27 August 16, 2010 QuoteIt seems to me that, if red light cameras are inherently a violation of your rights, then so are security cameras in gas stations, stores, etc. I can think of a couple of instances where convenience store clerks were murdered, and the best evidence against the murderers (who were tried and convicted) was video from security cameras. Should those killers be released, because no law enforcement officer was on the scene to witness the killing? Bad example. The accused still gets a trial. In the example from Dave, there is no possibility of a trial. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #28 August 16, 2010 QuoteRed light cameras do nothing but violate your rights and prevent you from exercising your right to a trial of your peers. I agree. The legal objection I have to cameras to establish moving violations (public policy issues aside) is that if there's only a photo of the license plate, but no photo of the driver's face to establish his/her identity, then that casts a presumption of guilt upon the registrant of the vehicle, which I think is entirely improper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #29 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteRed light cameras do nothing but violate your rights and prevent you from exercising your right to a trial of your peers. I agree. The legal objection I have to cameras to establish moving violations (public policy issues aside) is that if there's only a photo of the license plate, but no photo of the driver's face to establish his/her identity, then that casts a presumption of guilt upon the registrant of the vehicle, which I think is entirely improper. For those who loved Red Light Camera's they are just going to wet themselves over the new version called Speed on Green Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Niki1 1 #30 August 16, 2010 QuoteThese red light cameras are nothing more that revenue generators. If the authorities were serious about cracking down on people at intersections, they would be there to catch the people in the act. But let's also be smart drivers out there. Don't run red/yellow lights and on the flip side ... look both ways at the intersection before you enter it. Just because you have a green light doesn't mean it is safe to enter it. Ever since I got my drivers licence, I have thought that running a red light is probably the most stupiid thing you could do while "operating a motor vehicle". 7 years ago I was leaving the DeLand airport, stopped at a light, The light changed, I clanced both ways and started to go across U.S. 192. "All of a sudden" there was a car in front of me. I contacted him with my left front bumper on his right front wheel. The impact spun me around 270 degrees to the right and him 180 to his left. (While I was going around, I thought this was just like my NASCAR computer game) It totaled my 5 year old Handa Accord and his 15 year old whatever. A few people at Performance Designs were outside on break and saw it. They thought that some might have been killed in the wreck. I was in the hospital for a week and it took 5 or 6 weeks for the broken shoulder blade to quit being a problem. So I don't have any problem with red light cameras. Because I don't run red lights. Can there be governmental abuse? Why not, they seem to be able to abuse most other things. Some recourse is needed for transparency, if that's the right word. As to the statistics, Johb Sherman told me once that "Figures don't lie, But liers so do figure" And the other quote about that from I don't know who, "There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damn lies. And statisics."Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done. Louis D Brandeis Where are we going and why are we in this basket? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #31 August 16, 2010 I had read that in Orlando when the RLC companies install the cameras they shorten the length of the yellow light. How can they possibly justify this??You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #32 August 16, 2010 QuoteI had read that in Orlando when the RLC companies install the cameras they shorten the length of the yellow light. How can they possibly justify this?? $$$$$$ RLC have nothing to do about promoting safety or positive enforcement to help adjust people's actions. RLCs are 100% about the money. An officer that conducts a stop on an individual near an intersection for disregarding a red light has a positive effect on drivers in the area. Not only does that officer have the ability to talk to the driver in violation and see if there is a legitimate reason for the violation, but the other drivers in the area take notice of the officer in the area and typically positively adjust their driving.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #33 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteI had read that in Orlando when the RLC companies install the cameras they shorten the length of the yellow light. How can they possibly justify this?? $$$$$$ RLC have nothing to do about promoting safety or positive enforcement to help adjust people's actions. RLCs are 100% about the money. An officer that conducts a stop on an individual near an intersection for disregarding a red light has a positive effect on drivers in the area. Not only does that officer have the ability to talk to the driver in violation and see if there is a legitimate reason for the violation, but the other drivers in the area take notice of the officer in the area and typically positively adjust their driving. Local LEO's have conducted campaings in the past to reduce red light running. They announce it in the news and then you see patrol cars parked close to the most dangerous intersections for a few days. I think this has more of an effect than the cameras.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #34 August 16, 2010 QuoteLocal LEO's have conducted campaings in the past to reduce red light running. They announce it in the news and then you see patrol cars parked close to the most dangerous intersections for a few days. I think this has more of an effect than the cameras. Positive education and reinforcement goes a lot further for a large majority of the public than just about anything else. Although there are those who simply will disregard public safety to stroke their own ego. Refer to the two recent "speeding ticket" threads in Bonfire for examples.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #35 August 16, 2010 QuoteWhat's so hard about using roundabouts properly? But you're right, they do take up more room, so it's not always possible to reconfigure all road junctions.. especially in urban areas. It's not hard but they also need to make sense. A friend of mine lives out in the country. Just off the exit to his place, they built a huge church. Rather than put in a pressure sensitive stoplight, or just use a crossing guard as the bulk of the traffic is limited to very specific times, they put in an unlit roundabout with minimal signs. The church is the only exit too. When coming from the highway it's not too bad but when coming back at night running 55+ that damn thing has snuck up on me more than once. Luckily it has nothing in the center and a very gentle slope on the curbing so one could prolly run right over it without issue.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #36 August 16, 2010 Good to see that Road planners are shite the world over. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioahole 0 #37 August 17, 2010 QuoteWhat's so hard about using roundabouts properly? But you're right, they do take up more room, so it's not always possible to reconfigure all road junctions.. especially in urban areas. Roundabouts are retarded. That has to be worst idea I have EVER seen for traffic control. Back to the red lights, I believe Dallas County a while back had to refund or dismiss a metric shlt ton of tickets due to the collection practices/agency. It was deemed unconstitutional. I believe all traffic citations should not result in criminal prosecution. It's a civil violation, but you should still be able to face your accuser in court. Just like any other civil trial. This is America for crying out loud. I'll save my rant about auto insurance for another day/thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #38 August 17, 2010 Roundabouts are awesome. They appear to increase the flow of traffic while reducing the risk of accidents at intersections. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #39 August 17, 2010 Quote Roundabouts are retarded. That has to be worst idea I have EVER seen for traffic control. Right, reducing congestion AND reducing accidents is certainly retarded.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #40 August 17, 2010 QuoteQuote Roundabouts are retarded. That has to be worst idea I have EVER seen for traffic control. Right, reducing congestion AND reducing accidents is certainly retarded. OK, fine; they're not retarded. They're gay. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #41 August 17, 2010 Quote Roundabouts are retarded. That has to be worst idea I have EVER seen for traffic control. . It's your god given right to be wrong (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #42 August 17, 2010 >That has to be worst idea I have EVER seen for traffic control. I beg to differ. When I lived in Boston, there was one way to get to the airport. You'd take the 93 to the Haymarket exit. At the end of the exit ramp, five streets converged. One was the exit. The second was one of the streets that went around Fanueil Hall, a major tourist attraction. The third was North St, a major urban thoroughfare. The fourth was the main entrance to the Haymarket, where traffic never moved. The fifth was the entrance to the Callahan Tunnel which went to the airport. The traffic control here? A single blinking yellow light with a caution sign under it. I never figured out what that blinking yellow light meant, other than perhaps "drive like you've been pithed" which is the effect it seemed to have on people. In addition, it should be mentioned that Haymarket, a big open air market, had almost no parking. So people would park nearby and cross that intersection to get to the market. There were, of course, no crossing signs or pedestrian paths, just traffic barriers that changed position semi-randomly, like chess pieces in a year-long game. There were hour long discussions in the dorms on techniques to handle this intersection. The most commonly used trick was to get on the right of the exit (although the tunnel was to the left) just to the right of a tourist. The tourist would attempt to make the left but invariably be stopped by a taxi from the North End, who would get in front of said tourist then stop to scream at him. At that point the tourist would be screening the taxi (so the taxi driver couldn't see you) and the taxi would be blocking the traffic behind him. That would give you the opportunity to move ahead, make a fake to the right (as if you were going to Fanueil Hall) then make the left into the tunnel. And this was the access to the airport in one of the busier cities in the US. THAT was the worst idea I had ever seen for traffic control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 August 17, 2010 That sounds about right!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #44 August 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Roundabouts are retarded. That has to be worst idea I have EVER seen for traffic control. Right, reducing congestion AND reducing accidents is certainly retarded. OK, fine; they're not retarded. They're gay. BUT HEY . . at least legislation will now allow roundabouts to get married soon in California?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #45 August 17, 2010 Hey if any of you think that normal roundabouts are retarded ... take a look at the Magic Roundabout in Swindon.... Magic Roundabout picture (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #46 August 17, 2010 Quote Hey if any of you think that normal roundabouts are retarded ... take a look at the Magic Roundabout in Swindon.... Magic Roundabout picture Who said that the British don't have a sense of humor? If that was put up in Houston, you could put up booths at each circle that held "Blue Forms." (Blue form is the common name of the CR-2, the self service official accident report for reporting to TxDOT).--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #47 August 17, 2010 Quote Hey if any of you think that normal roundabouts are retarded ... take a look at the Magic Roundabout in Swindon.... Magic Roundabout picture Well, Zebedee, it does say: "However the roundabout provides a better throughput of traffic than other designs and has an excellent safety record, since traffic moves too slowly to do serious damage in the event of a collision." Yep, clearly retarded.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #48 August 17, 2010 We all know roundabouts involve far too much yielding for them to work well on a large scale in the United States. In many dense cities where there isn't room for roundabouts they already employ a similar solution which is simply to have lots of one-way streets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #49 August 17, 2010 Although at intersections there is still the risk of a 90 degree impact, one of the worst impacts for damage and injury. One way streets do nothing to deal with intersections. They improve the flow of large volumes of traffic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #50 August 17, 2010 Quote Hey if any of you think that normal roundabouts are retarded ... take a look at the Magic Roundabout in Swindon.... Magic Roundabout picture This is better..... NUTZ but better Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
