What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
247 Comments
- Kinsbane, on 08/20/2008, -4/+104One city in Texas tried this, expecting huge returns from the fines. What they didn't expect was for the cameras to work so well that people stopped running red lights virtually entirely, and thus the city couldn't recoup the cost of installing them.
- xerodustrial, on 08/20/2008, -2/+83I live in Houston and we've got red light cameras popping up all over the place.
There are three or four within a few miles from me now. I generally avoid the intersections, they seem to make people act crazy, and I think they cause more harm than good.
People slam hard on their brakes on full greens when they think it's going to go yellow, or slam on yellows they could have easily driven through because the city has not said whether you get issued a citation for running a yellow-to-red while you're in the intersection or not. People get antsy and do totally illegal ***** (speeding up, changing lanes in the middle of an intersection without warning, jackrabbiting to wide open throttle, etc. ) when plowing through the intersections if they go yellow while they're in them, sometimes almost hitting other cars. They have not adequately dealt with the problems of yield left and right-on-red turns either, which consistently trigger both false positives and negatives. The cameras also distract people from the task of actually driving their cars, creating more mayhem and confusion at the intersections -- and they only put them in at the intersections that were already chaotic as it was, which I imagine would increase pedestrian danger and also vehicular collisions.
I shouldn't even have to say this, but obviously I am not a fan of people running reds. However, these cameras, at least as they're used and set up now, only make things worse. I've heard of lawyers, state representatives, and other city staff attempting to remove the cameras, and I've also heard talk that some periods of blanket 'camera immunity' may be given out to whole groups of people who got identified wrongly. Sounds like the cameras dont work.
At the same time though, I'm also hearing that they're testing full-fledged-UK-style speed cameras in Katy, and that the main selling point of the contractor who is pimping them is that they make big dollaz, not that they reduce lives lost, accidents had, or crimes committed. It's sick. - Zipko, on 08/20/2008, -1/+71I read an article about that, the number of accidents didn't go down, just the number of people caught running read lights. What was happening was as soon as the light turned yellow people would slam on the breaks even though they would have been able to make it through the light. Rear end collisions went way up because people were afraid of getting ticketed so they'd break hard on yellow which is more dangerous than being half way through the intersection when it goes red.
- ironeus, on 08/20/2008, -0/+36Installing the cameras then issuing refunds to the motorists is just a double-whammy to the average taxpayer.
- kuyamon, on 08/20/2008, -2/+36I thought that's what speedometers were for.
- kuyamon, on 08/20/2008, -7/+36I think cameras are stupid. Drivers should use what they learn in driver's education to avoid accidents. We are taught to predict lights when you are approaching them. If the light has been green for some time, you should expect it to turn yellow soon. If the light turns yellow during your approach, you should prepare to stop. If you can't safely stop, then you should move through the intersection quickly (not necessarily speed through it) and cautiously. I don't think people should be punished if they get caught in limbo and have to run a red light in order to avoid an accident; however, if they are blatantly doing it all the time, they should be stripped of any driving privilege. Just like with many other things in society, I think we should reevaluate our education system rather than band aid the situation.
- LinuxCobra, on 08/20/2008, -4/+27These things are a scam. What they do is shorten the amber light to catch those that gun it before changing red. The real problem are people who do not know how to drive properly (ie someone going 30 in a 50 zone, no signaling, tail gating etc).
- ADIDAS247, on 08/20/2008, -0/+17Cops are sometimes forgiving. Red Light cameras on the other hand can't be bargained with, can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and they absolutely will not stop. Ever.
- sHockz, on 08/20/2008, -2/+17can we have the blinking green light that warns its about to turn yellow? That might help instead of red light cameras. Gives people a heads up its about to turn yellow. Not saying its going to solve all the problems, but it works really well in many other countries.
also, my co-worker has been going around the city filming police officers doing illegal things (mostly traffic related). The first "day on the job" he got 2 cops doing illegal maneuvers in their vehicles and confronted them about it all on tape. Both were within 30 mins of eachother. One thing i noticed about his videos though...
cops DO NOT like to be on camera, and DO NOT like to be told they did something illegal.
I am still waiting for the "oh my god i love the police because...(fill in blank)" to hit the front page... but i guess thats like waiting for our govt to impeach bush on war crimes. - megamod, on 08/20/2008, -1/+16Tell me about it...they're just interested in the money, not safety
A construction truck driver pulled out of the construction zone and into my lane.
I had to drive off the road going at 40 MPH (speed limit was 55) but my car was ok and most importantly of all I did not hit that behemoth truck.
The construction crew called the cops to report the incident.
The cop gave the other driver a ticket for failure to yield, which I thought made sense.
When he turned to me I was expecting he was going to ask if I needed help contacting a towing company...but NO he gives me a ticket for going too fast for conditions leading into an accident.
I was like what??? what conditions? the ticket itself said "Weather: clear, Traffic medium, road: dry"...what condition was i driving too fast for? too fast for a freaking truck to jump 2 feet in front of me?
"Well from your skid marks I could use some algebra to tell you exactly how fast you were going"
Really? go ahead I want you to try that with Pythagorean theorem...you sure you don't need some physics in there dummy?
and what accident? bc I dented a cone on my way unintentional off road trip it was considered an accident and the ticket cost $112 more...I'll buy a new freaking cone for that price...stupid state trooper. - potisreallygood, on 08/20/2008, -2/+17I got one when my friend was driving. They dont really take that into consideration.
I find myself driving faster through the lights that have them and slamming on the brakes if it turns yellow. The mayor of a city I live next to was taking bribes from the camera companies, he went to a country club jail, but they still installed the cameras.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/10 ...
The thing that bothers me is how some private company is taking a big chunk out of each fine. Not good. - inactive, on 08/20/2008, -12/+26We're talking about Texans. Their lives aren't worth very much.
- centran, on 08/20/2008, -0/+13These cameras are meant to increase revenues. The most common red light runners are those trying to beat the yellow or just when the light turns red. If you allow a margin then it defeats the purpose of generating revenue.
How the cameras work is as soon as the light turns red it starts "listening" to a an inductive loop sensor in the ground. There are usually two of these loops put closely together to detect movement and speed. If the sensors detects any movement after the light has changed to red(even if you just inch your car forward a bit) it will snap a shot. There in is the problem. You must fully and completely stopped by the time that light turns red. - scamper22, on 08/20/2008, -1/+13One way to resolve all of this to make sure it is really in the public interest:
mandate that all proceeds from fines go to a 'victim trust fund' to be paid to accident victims.
None of it goes back to the government or police departments. Then you'd start to see proper policies as you've removed any cash grab incentive. - birch25, on 08/20/2008, -0/+12red light cameras don't tell you (or anyone) how fast you're going, they just take your picture when you run a red light.
- buddyfarr, on 08/20/2008, -0/+12uh I would of taken that one to court. wtf was he thinking.
- afruff23, on 08/20/2008, -6/+18@jerrycurley
The accidents caused by running red lights are so rare compared to these rear-end collisions. - cmcguire, on 08/20/2008, -0/+11And Europe's example would be......I've received both speeding and no parking tickets while living in Germany.
- Verugan, on 08/20/2008, -0/+10You're assuming people even care to use what they learn in driver's ed, if they've taken ed. at all. In Houston I can drive as perfect as possible and every other douche will still drive like it's a free for all.
- inactive, on 08/20/2008, -1/+11Municipal money maker disguised in the name of safety.
- unmarked, on 08/20/2008, -1/+11I'm sorry to say that I am in the camp that believes that these cameras the most of the "traffic cops" are not interested in our safety, they are only interested in our money. Motorcycle cops are known to be able to generate between $500K and $750K in "ticket revenue". Safety? What safety? This is about money, money, money.
What it ultimately means is that I now have less respect for the police in general because I see them generating revenue more than being concerned about safety. As I watch police ignore a stranded driver on the side of the road in favor of getting the guy going a little too fast in the fast lane, I just shake my head. - ImperialSoren, on 08/20/2008, -2/+12BS thing about this is that they are contracted out to private companies (at least in fort collins). so you have a corporation deciding whether or not to give you a ticket and getting the profit from it.
- inactive, on 08/20/2008, -0/+10We had one near my home in Chicago that malfunctioned for a while and sent you a ticket for turning right on red 24hrs/day, even though the sign says you can do it after 7pm. I got four tickets and contested the first two before they figured out what was happening and threw them all out.
- diaa0111, on 08/20/2008, -1/+10The taxpayers aren't charged when refunds are issues, the company which installs the cameras oversees that process.
The city often doesn't even pay for the installation and upkeep of the cameras, this is why the system is so appealing to city administration. The company skims a percent off of the issued tickets and shares the rest with the city at no direct cost. - Hodor, on 08/20/2008, -0/+9FTA:
"The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras since insurance companies can profit from red-light cameras by way of higher premiums due to increased crashes and citations."
That's quite a statement. - inactive, on 08/20/2008, -3/+12I used to work for a city in texas and can add some clarity to this.
1) The city I worked for ended up having their revenue drop because of a combination of sharing 50% of the proceeds with the state, and the drop in red light runnings.
2) Rear end collisions did not go up dramatically
3) Our city was supposed to have a sworn police officer review each and every red light violation and approve or turn it down.
4) You could have your citation reviewed and contested if you like.
5) In texas, if any part of your car is across the solid white stop line at a traffic light when it is yellow, there is no way you can get a red light ticket. The light must be RED BEFORE any part of the car crosses the white line.
I have gotten a ticket, watched it on the website, and yup did not stop 100% on a right hand turn. Whoops. Paid my ticket and went on my way. - inactive, on 08/20/2008, -2/+11Traffic court is a sham. The only time you have a chance at winning a traffic ticket is when the officer fails to show up.
- Jonathunder, on 08/20/2008, -5/+14In cleveland we have them, and they are so bad, even if you dont run them and your close, or if it isnt your car, they take a picture and bill it, unless you can provide An immpossible amount of evidence, you still probably wont be able to fight it. Plus, a friend of mine got a photoshopped picture, the license plate was his photoshopped on, but it had bumper stickers and stuff that he never had on, and he is trying to sue the police department.
- shoerob, on 08/20/2008, -1/+10Education is useless in the face of complete ignorance.
- altgeeky1, on 08/20/2008, -1/+10I'm surprised there are so few comments about the illegal REDUCTION in Yellow Light durations that often accompanies these cameras.
Federal code (which states and cities subscribe to) specify Yellow lights must be 3-6 seconds in duration, with the lower durations used only for the SLOWEST roads and the higher durations for faster speeds.:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium_12.28.01. ...
It's been proven in a number of court cases, that the installers of these cameras get the city to lower Yellow light times from .5 to 1.5 seconds. usually to just over 3 seconds. The idea is to trap motorists into a ticket: do they SLAM on the brakes as soon as it hits yellow (causing a read end collision), or should they GUN IT and hope they make it.
Done right, I don't have a problem with these things. - Testiculese, on 08/20/2008, -2/+11Hear hear! They do exactly that. Install camera, illegally change the amber time, and then reap the rewards.
***** pigs (not talking about the troopers this time) - dkapuchino, on 08/20/2008, -25/+33How about the lives saved? is there a price on that?
- megamod, on 08/20/2008, -0/+8I was going to but I called a traffic lawyer and they told me that because it was marked as an accident even though they can reduce the charge I'll still have to pay the same fee...stupid right?
It's like getting charged for someone's murder. You take it to court and prove your innocence and they're like "hmmm...yeaaah you're still going to have to serve 20 to life... sorry *shrugs*" - dagr8tim, on 08/20/2008, -1/+9Ohio State did a study awhile back that if both directions of the light are red for atleast a second, you reduce T Bone accidents by 60%. Sadly, there's no money in changing the timing of lights to make the roads safer.
Also, Johnny Long did a talk at Defcon 15 that mentioned them. According to him the cabinets on the side of the road has a standard Windows XP in it and talks to the camera's via 802.11. I'm surprised they the camera's aren't hacked very often.
Another thing about the camera's is that they aren't normally owned by the city. They are owned by a contractor that gets a cut of the tickets. Usually it starts around 75% and goes down over time. This begs the question of private companies doing law enforcement. In Columbus, Ohio, we have the camera's. Not only are they owned by a private company, but red light tickets are civil offences. Which means you don't even get your day in court. You can contest the ticket & get a hearing if you pay a bond (the same price as the ticket), but you still cannot appeal the hearing if it's against you. - inactive, on 08/20/2008, -2/+10Keep a two second space buffer like you were taught in drivers ed. Problem solved.
- JackPallance, on 08/20/2008, -1/+9If they really cared about traffic safety, they would place the cameras farther from the intersection. The cameras could work with the lights to turn them green before the car crossed. Thus the intersections would work more efficiently, and LOTS of gas would be saved.
- PStuart, on 08/20/2008, -0/+8The second photo in the article is not a traffic camera. It is to let the traffic signal know that there is a car waiting and the signal can change. Those old magnetic loops that they used to put under the asphalt became too expensive to maintain.
- centran, on 08/20/2008, -0/+8They already have lights that do that and they don't need a camera. They plant a inductive loop into the pavement which detects large metal objects(ie, cars). This will trigger the light. Some lights only have these sensors at the stop line but many smarter lights have them placed down the road to change the light in time.
The inductive loop is also how the red light camera are tripped. The cameras do not take a photo of the intersection every red light. It only snaps a photo if it thinks someone has run the red light(by reading the sensor in the ground) - GvnMcCld, on 08/20/2008, -2/+10People driving 30 in a 50 are obnoxious.
- mrjit, on 08/20/2008, -0/+7I live in Houston too - and I hate to say it but you're referring to the average Houston driver, on any road. Redlight cam or not. Thank God I live downtown.
- Briandrews15, on 08/20/2008, -0/+7so ur saying private industry is profiting from law enforcement?? is it just me or does that sound like a bad idea. just think of the war on drugs, addicts who should be in hospitals/rehab with alcoholics are locked up as an easy payday.
- inactive, on 08/20/2008, -0/+7"Ask anyone who works in insurance, you definitely CAN put a value on human life."
Absolutely right. In fact, the current value is $6-10 million, depending on age, earning potential, etc. Standard cost-benefit analysis provides that we should not cause $50 million of worth of injuries to save one $10 million life. Anyone who thinks this is crass doesn't understand how the world works. We could reduce traffic fatalities entirely if we required every car to have $1 million worth of safety equipment, but instead we choose to allow cars with fewer safety features on the road because we're only willing to pay a certain price to achieve marginal gains in safety beyond a certain point.
As an analogy, ask yourself whether you would put smoke detectors in your home if they cost $50,000 instead of $30. - WhoWatches, on 08/20/2008, -1/+8Why would anyone praise being spied on at will? Why would anyone wish to continue having arbitrary laws written to further criminalize them?
- Zipko, on 08/20/2008, -0/+6When did I say I ran red lights? Ask anyone who works in insurance, you definitely CAN put a value on human life. I was thinking about getting into being an actuary before I found a job that's more fun than crunching numbers all day.
I know people are digging my comment above down because it comes across like I'm saying there's nothing wrong with letting someone die in a car accident. But what if saving that life means 100 people are going to have to live the rest of their lives with serious neck injuries from non-fatal collisions? Granted I'm pulling that number out of my ass, but the point still stands that you can justify letting someone die if the cost of saving them is too great. - trer, on 08/20/2008, -0/+6Red light floggings will succeed where Red Light cameras fail.
- JeffH, on 08/20/2008, -0/+6Link to a "responsible" study please.
- zacharytelschow, on 08/20/2008, -2/+8Don't worry, cmc, it doesn't matter how the US does things, we should be doing them like Europe. Never mind that we have things better than Europe, we should be imitating them.
- pathouston22, on 08/20/2008, -0/+6I also live in Houston.
1. Most Houston drivers suck, cameras or not.
2. Tollroad is at least $2.50 a day, 5 days a week. That's 650 bucks a year. Traffic sucks everywhere in this city. - inactive, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5Yup. In NJ the DOT has phased out the loops and these optical cameras are being used on all new and refurbished State controlled intersections.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 257 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is