What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
225 Comments
- wannaBdug, on 03/15/2009, -4/+79I hate those cameras. I think it does create more risks because you slow down but the guy behind you doesn't do the same.
- roho76, on 03/15/2009, -2/+58A better question would be: Are the camera manufacturers using our governmental system to create regenerating revenues piggy backed off of traffic violations. This stinks to all hell. Private companies are using our government to process tickets in order to turn a profit.
- jeffiek, on 03/15/2009, -5/+48Not those that get rear-ended.
While I'm here, I have a complaint about your use of statistics. Maybe you innocently left out the important part, maybe the stats you read were poorly written. Either way -
They're useless.
They/you leave out the "from what" in those percentage changes. They could mean anything. Assuming those numbers are "per mile driven" (something else left out), you could have a 28% increase from one-in-a-million and a 5% increase from one-in-a-thousand. Quite a different picture isn't it?
Statistics, used properly, have their place. These are not used properly. - fyrewal, on 03/15/2009, -3/+41They had them here in the city I live in, but only a handfull at certain intersections. People here could be considered "frugal" and they stopped running red lights at those intersections. After a year, with little or no revenue being generated from the cameras they were removed, and now people are back to thier old shenanegans, go figure...
- supferrets, on 03/15/2009, -6/+44Red-light cameras are just another way to shake down taxpayers while masquerading as "law-enforcement."
- chkdg8, on 03/15/2009, -3/+36Lockheed Martin is among one of them. This is nothing more than a money making scheme on behest of innocent drivers nationwide. Only one third of the ticket's fee goes to the city and the rest is allotted to the corporations that own the camera systems. This is not a conspiracy, it's mainstream news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZINQC_yMnQ0
Get photoblocker: http://www.photoblocker.com/
Old ass Tech TV episode with Kevin Rose talking about this issue: http://www.phantomplate.com/vidpop_techtv.html - ThatsNotPudding, on 03/15/2009, -0/+33What also happens when these cameras are installed, is that the duration of the yellow light is shortened. Ca-rash / Ca-ching!
- Dustin00, on 03/15/2009, -0/+29Teenagers found the answer to this. It's a simple:
Identify the cars of your city council members, copy down their license plates. Find matching vehicles. Print off fake copies of your state's license plate with the council car's numbers. Paste over your normal plate. Run the light a few times. - misterjangles, on 03/15/2009, -0/+28that's awesome. shows how concerned they are about safety vs revenue.
- Branchex, on 03/15/2009, -3/+25Instead of trying to catch people who run red lights they should instead invest in some kind of system that indicates how long a yellow light will last. That way less red light running will happen and you'll have less rear-end crashes as people are not as likely to suddenly stop to avoid a ticket.
- supferrets, on 03/15/2009, -1/+23Drug use is violent? What color is the sky in your world?
- Infidelcastr0, on 03/15/2009, -0/+21Once the cameras are installed, the next step is to start tweaking the yellow/red light timings, so that more people get ticketed. This never fails to happen when a camera is installed where I live, and certain intersections have become much more dangerous.
- MrTankJump, on 03/15/2009, -3/+22The fact is, if you get T-boned, you might die, but will at least get seriously injured, and it's mostly the light runner's fault. If you get rear ended, it's ONLY the idiot behind you that's at fault. The possible injury is much less, and you don't take any blame by insurance.
- tonyjorb1337, on 03/15/2009, -0/+18And it's the owner of the car that gets ***** over even if someone else was driving.
- inactive, on 03/15/2009, -0/+17I strongly encourage the destruction of these cameras by all means necessary.
- iceman0113, on 03/15/2009, -1/+18wtf? $75 for running a red light? Damn that's cheap. It's $400 for the same violation in CA.
- ammundsen, on 03/15/2009, -0/+16Unfortunately public/private enterprises have often resulted in some pretty awful things. There was that story recently of a private youth correction facility in PA bribing judges to get them to sentence kids to their prison. As horrible a job as government does at running things we must never turn over any areas of law enforcement to people who make money the more criminals we have.
- norman619, on 03/15/2009, -4/+20If you slam into the back of the car ahead of you that means you were following WAY too close and weren't paying attention. And yes YOU will be at fault. Don't blame the cameras for ***** driving.
- ryan83189, on 03/15/2009, -1/+17Way to make it impractically expensive to operate a red light camera: Make up a lie that the newest DSLR camera is in all of the red light cameras (and hell, it might be true I don't know). People will tear them up looking for it at the very least, and tear it up and steal a $1000 dollar camera. See for a similar incident:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/mootloot/radio.asp
I don't condone any of these actions, and in most cases would not even mention any thing like this, but they piss me off royally. They are dangerous, they are *****. It is one thing when the government is doing ***** like this, but when a private industry does it, that just takes it to another level. I do recommend fighting it on the legal level, you may have a very good shot of winning if you have all of your ducks in a row. - gn84, on 03/15/2009, -1/+17What do those stats look like if you double the length of the yellow light instead of installing a camera?
- dagr8tim, on 03/15/2009, -1/+16Johnny Long said one time he observed the installation of a redlight camera. He said there was a pedestal on opposite corner that had a simple windows XP computer with an 802.11 connection to the camera. Turns out the wifi link was using WEP.
Anyone know how secure windows XP connected via wifi with WEP is? - inactive, on 03/15/2009, -28/+42Or, you could just not run red lights. You're not that ***** important; It's not OK to put people in danger because you want to catch a light. At least it makes people pay attention to how they're driving.
Oh, sorry, this is Digg: ***** the police, ***** taxes, ***** regulation, ignore personal responsibility. - inactive, on 03/15/2009, -0/+13Clearly it's the color of "clueless." Or maybe "troll."
- reyoo30309, on 03/15/2009, -1/+14According to stats rear end accidents increase by 80%*
- Birukun, on 03/15/2009, -0/+13This happened in San Diego and it took the PEOPLE to get the city to fix the timing.
These things cause more crashes than help.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/63.asp
Then they brought the cameras back and the people went back to getting screwed. I almost crashed when the flash on a camera went off at 11 p.m. in my face. I was behind a truck and they stopped to navigate the turn, so I was stuck and then temporarily blinded. Safe? I think not. - inactive, on 03/15/2009, -0/+12Yeah, but nobody does. Hell, a lot of people accelerate at the sight of a yellow light, which to me is just asking for trouble.
- BassMastr, on 03/15/2009, -10/+22According to stats, they decrease side impacts or tbone wrecks by 28% while only increasing rear end accidents by 8%. Some would say that's a fair tradeoff.
- QuantumNighmare, on 03/15/2009, -0/+12@ Bass, I don't think you understood the problem with the stats you quoted. Here's another shot at explaining it. The article mentions a 28% decrease in T-bone crashes and an 8% increase in read-end crashes. That's all good and well, but what is the likelihood of each type of crash? This is important information. Consider:
(Numbers here are completely made up, just to prove a point about statistics) For every 1000 miles driven, 3 T-bone crashes and 100 rear-end crashes occur. A 28% decrease in T-bone crashes avoids 1 crash, and an 8% increase in rear-end crashes causes 8 new crashes. So you avoid 1 crash by causing 8 new ones.
In other words, even true statistics can give a completely wrong impression if they aren't used properly. - depro9, on 03/15/2009, -1/+13$100 dollars a pop if you get flashed in Chicago. A cop at almost every stop is crossing the line. But I ride a bike, so I run lights just for fun & give the camera the bird as it flashes me. ;D
- r0g3r, on 03/15/2009, -1/+12"Clive Police Chief Robert Cox said there's no doubt the cameras are a cheaper option than having an officer on the street."
We should just install cameras every place where a law might be violated since we can't afford to have police everywhere all the time. That way no one can ever break the law ever, plus cities would make profits! - inactive, on 03/15/2009, -3/+14Well what about the safety risks between being t-boned and being rear-ended? I'm no automotive expert, but it seems to me that being t-boned runs a great risk of serious injury.
- damonic, on 03/15/2009, -0/+11There is one at an intersection where I live. I think its a scam because the flash goes off in the middle of the GREEN LIGHT!
- luckyscs, on 03/15/2009, -3/+14I had my first accident when a girl who wasnt paying attention skidded in the rain and rammed me in the back after I stopped for a red light.
- Misinformant, on 03/15/2009, -3/+13This whole thread is just ***** drivers blaming everyone but themselves for their ***** driving.
- herriojr, on 03/15/2009, -2/+11Statistics are always skewed to make whoever's objectives seem more reasonable. It's a matter of digging out the ***** which jeffiek has done.
I think there's a big lawsuit in California over the use of cameras at the moment (or it might just be in my county). I've had a problem with these things for a while.
Another thing I have issues with are the speed limits. People speed regardless of the speed limit or not. The only thing it really benefits is the government by being a cash cow. I really think they either need to just make speed limits recommendations, or they need to not allow the government to make money off of it. Maybe all fines should go to charities defined by the voters? - misterjangles, on 03/15/2009, -1/+10I agree with you but the question is whether the cameras actually help with safety or whether they are just there to generate revenue. There is one of those cameras on my way to work, but I just walk/bike. I always figured the money went to the city so at least it would be paying for roads or something. the fact that it is just going to some camera company pisses me off!
- AdmiralHalsey, on 03/15/2009, -1/+10When weather conditions aren't optimal it makes every intersection with the cameras substantially more dangerous, while ultra substantially increasing revenue for the township and private companies involved. The police's ticket issuing (fund raising) is no longer dependent upon on duty officers. So the benefits are minimal at best, and it appears to be against citizens interest in how much money it leeches from them. You take all of that and add in the fact that they've been caught setting up the cameras to issue even more tickets by reducing the threshold time unfairly, and by issuing tickets for people turning right on red where it was completely legal... I think these are a definite no-go.
- gn84, on 03/15/2009, -1/+9Drug use does not lead to violence. Smuggling drugs to avoid the law leads to violence.
Tobacco is a drug. Its use does not lead to violence. - morepowerr, on 03/15/2009, -1/+9some city's I have seen have been using them to hand out ticket for no seatbelt and being on cell phone snap the pic with tags on it and send ticket to cars owner. no need for cops instant fine.
Part of the new US. system guilty until proven innocent. - NUMBER4940, on 03/15/2009, -1/+9brilliant idea, but technically you are supposed to stop if you can when you see a yellow light, not think about whether you have time to get through.
- starf, on 03/15/2009, -0/+8I love those countdowns from the pedestrian crosswalks. I know most people probably don't pay attention to them, but it helps so much knowing exactly when it's going to go yellow, so I don't have an impulse to either speed up or brake.
- phatfiend, on 03/15/2009, -2/+10you shouldn't be on the road if you are rear ending people at red lights. if your that ***** at driving I hope you lose your driving permit.
According to the law if you rear end someone in ANY situation (unless they start driving in reverse) it is your fault, and this IS how it should be. Even if you are trying to get somwhere fast driving close behind people does not speed up your trip at all. Learn to drive. - DrJen, on 03/15/2009, -1/+8FTA: While studies show fewer T-bone crashes at lights with cameras and fewer drivers running red lights, the number of rear-end crashes increases.
Most grown-ups stop for red lights. The problem is getting the fellow behind you to do the same. - jeffiek, on 03/15/2009, -2/+9I almost forgot.
"clipping the yellow" was actually the safest way to negotiate the exchange. If you managed to merge onto the service road during the green you would have to cross three lanes of traffic to make the exit. A very risky ordeal.
If you merged just as it turned yellow, most of the traffic would get stopped by the light and you could cross those three lanes safely. - acrodev, on 03/15/2009, -0/+7A. Companies who are contracted to install and maintain red light cameras.
- slearwig, on 03/15/2009, -0/+7In Los Angeles many of the pedestrian walk/don't walk signs now include a countdown number starting at around 11 or 12 or depending on the average time to cross the intersection on foot, and when the countdown reaches 0 (zero) the light changes to yellow, red in two beats like dot-dot.
They could do it for drivers, though drivers can also keep their eyes on the ped sign to be sure. - rblancarte, on 03/15/2009, -1/+8You know it isn't that simple.
In many ways, the cameras are not 100% fair.
Loan out my car - I get the ticket.
Shorten the yellow - I get a bogus red-light ticket
Etc etc.
And you say makes people pay attention? Yea, to the wrong things:
Is there a camera there? YES!!! <SLAM ON BRAKES>
Or, is there a camera there? <CRASH> I should have watched the other cars, not look for cameras.
And the bigger issue - it is basically treating EVERYONE like a criminal to catch a few. This is the biggest problem that the police have been doing for almost the past decade. Why can't I buy good cold meds? Because a few people use them to make illegal drugs, so they make me fill out paperwork. Same law makes it hard to buy my homebrew supplies. Fertilizer is limited because of 3 guys (Timothy McVeigh is one of them). It is bogus. - andybabin, on 03/15/2009, -0/+7when they did the myth on mythbusters they showed the inside of a redlight cam and it had a Nikon D2x inside of it, at the time a $5000 DSLR camera, so it may actually be true.
- Taiyoryu, on 03/15/2009, -0/+6I hate people who run lights more than I hate the cameras. There is one intersection on my evening commute where someone always runs the light, sometimes even after it turns red and the opposite direction has turned green. The intersection has no cameras. It's only a matter of time before someone gets hit if someone already hasn't.
- bradharrelson, on 03/15/2009, -1/+7There has been studies shown where intersections that install red light cameras will DECREASE the yellow light time. Dallas and some suburbs were doing it illegally.
Of course, like the article says, simply INCREASING yellow light times would decrease accidents all around. But that wouldn't get Redflex a fat paycheck would it? -
Show 51 - 100 of 234 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is