You know the "old" saying

55+9 and your fine
55+ a dime, and your MINE!

 

Not really true around here. You have to be doing over 75 or doing something else while speeding like changing lanes without signaling, talking on the cell phone, or have tinted windows.

 

You can become a photoblocker distributor!

>frown<

 

I'm not suggesting that situations don't arise where bending the rules isn't necessary and I do understand how much fun these cars are to drive. I've been known to push the limit by more than I'll confess here too, but an old service manual for a VW put it best when the author stated "If we all drove like we were an Aztec sacrifice strapped to the front bumber, the roads would be a lot safer". The MINI logo "Let's Motor" I think states it best. Motoring isn't necessarily getting there first, but rather being a good driver in any situation.

 

Your photo tickets must be like our street sweeping day ticket. Would you do two days in jail for our software fix. Just kidding.

 

Not me. In the parts of Beaverton I drive in, people stop at the intersections that have the cameras installed. Everywhere else, people go through long after they've turned pink.

Both the red light camera districts and the places they park the photo speed vans have to have signs warning drivers before they drive through. Anyone willing to ignore the warnings deserves a ticket if they violate.

 

How come out of all the Mythbusters I have watched, I missed the most important one??? I have had almost 20 speeding tickets (my bad), but none in the last three or four years. The last time I was pulled over I was doing 86 in a 45 (nice windy road-no traffic-no one around but me and the fine officer). He let me go. HA!!! But you know what...I never sped on that road again. I felt as though I owed him. Wish more police officers were as understanding as he was. Usually they issue me the ticket, and then I feel as though I paid for it, I should get to use it. I am much more careful now, and thinking the trick is to get that laser eye surgery to improve my sight to 20/12 so I can see every potential speeding ticket far in advance! That and a really good radar detector.

 

Well in my description what I meant is that the person would be blocking traffic if they didn't try to move up which is a violation as well. So moving up and being .25 of a second late and getting a ticket for it makes no sense in that situation. Of course trying to beat a red light is not safe and that's not what I'm advocating but driving in unpredictable NYC traffic things happen that the rules/red light cameras don't take into consideration and the driver might break those rules to be courteous to other drivers or make the situation safer and be rewarded with a ticket.

 

Where the heck is "around here"?

 

Well the problem is that most drivers when the see the light turning yellow where they know there's a red light camera will just slam on their brakes especially if they're going a little too fast. The person behind them although is already planning to stop at the red light might not react fast enough to the other drivers overreaction and rear end him. In fact the person in front might have had enough time to pass the intersection under the yellow light but decided not to risk it and instead caused an accident that technically is not his fault.

Yes it's wrong to run red lights or speed up when you see the yellow light. However when you have a soccer mom behind you in an SUV talking on a cell phone and driving 4 inches from your bumper which would you rather do try to go through on the yellow or hit the brakes?

 

GPS's use an averaging method to calculate speed over ground. So they are not dead on.

 

Here in Albuquerque we've been told by our police department (news releases, their web page, etc) that the red light / speeding cameras have resulted in far fewer accidents at camera intersections. Now .. Today's Albuquerque Journal tells us that a state study shows no such thing and at some intersections, there have been an increase in accidents since the cameras for those 19 intersections were installed (although our worst intersection for accidents did show some reduction). Hmmm. More to follow as details of the study are released.

 

That's interesting. Seems to validate mufflethis's point that the lights cause some people to slam on their brakes and get into a fender bender at the intersection. I could see that, where some people who should have gone through the intersection safely and legally stop because they're so worried about the cameras.

 

If you are rear-ending someone at an intersection because they stopped in front of you, then it is your fault.

I wish they had an automated system to fine tail-gaters.

Why not? If we need nannying to stop at red lights, then why not nannies for tailgaters?

 

Well sure it's their fault but it doesn't make you feel any better knowing that once you see that Romi doesn't have a back seat anymore.

 

If Romi lost her back seat, then there would probably be more going on than just a traffic violation.

You are going to have to be quick to rear-end Romi. I am all about accident avoidance.

 

Mythbusters, AND Consumer Reports BOTH say they don't work, and they are a waste of $$$. That's enough for me! I just watch carefully and never tryt o run a late yellow.

Good thing I have that big brake kit!

 

The camera's actually cause more accidents. Woman start fixing their hair and not paying attention to the road before passing one!!!

 

5% error at 35 mph is 1.75 mph, which is getting into the noise level of roundoff error on the digital and what you can read on the analog.

- Mark

 

I have a convenient radar sign on my commute which agrees with my GPS. My accuracy changes when I change wheels. As for GPS, it usually is rock steady. Last year, however, when I returned from a trip taken with my son across Utah and Nevada and California, the GPS had recorded a maximum speed of 172 MPH! Obviously absurd but what to say to the skeptical wife.
No tickets . . . I have both a Valentine and a willing foot on the brake.

 

you might be on to something here, while I have never been nailed by a red light camera, I live on the eastside and work in north portland. people push the light like crazy, I see it every day without fail, my light turns green and I'm heading into the intersection and still people are pushing through, It does get a little rediculous.

 

Here's a link to backs up my belief that red light cameras are only there to make money for the city: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/22...erman_wan.html

 

Chicago probably isn't the best exemplar. They have a saying there, "Three on red," meaning three cars are expected to go through the light after it turns red.

Not drivers who sped up on the yellow to get through, but those who weren't at the intersection yet when it turned red.

And no one even looks twice. Just expected.

In the few Oregon cities allowed to use red light cameras, it was seen as a last resort to get people to quit going through on red.

 

First how can they sell something that is probably illegal... I don't get it..
disclaimer or no disclaimer

A friend of mine in our club, has that film stuff.. and well he has not received a bill from our toll road, the 407 ETR.

Photo radar is usually at a less extreme angle then the overhead camera's on the 407. So the film works for him.

He did not get tagged by the cops either that were sitting right behind him at a stop light...

 

Well yes but if the guy just cared about people stopping at red lights why would he try to make red light detectors illegal. Those will actually ensure that people will stop at those intersections.