The_Patriot
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,488
- Reaction score
- 206
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Well considering yellow means slow down, not go faster, maybe they should have been slowing down to begin with, then the brake slam wouldn't have been necessary. Blaming traffic cameras for bad driving practices is not a very good defense.
Also, which accident do you think is more fatal, a hit from behind as that car is slowing down (after all the guy in front of them was just about to run a red light), or being slammed into from the side from cross traffic as that car is speeding up because you just ran a red light. Not to mention, running a red light also puts pedestrians in danger.
That's basic common sense.Prove that statement please with data.
That's basic common sense.
Again, this is basic human instinct. What exactly do you want?So I take that as no you do not have any data to back up your assertation.
Again, this is basic human instinct. What exactly do you want?
If someone is accustomed to there being no camera at an intersection so they take less care knowing there isnt anything there to catch them but then they see a camera that was just installed out of the corner of their eye and slam on the brakes to avoid tripping the camera. As time goes by, people make mental notes of which intersections have cameras and accidents may decrease.
It's circumstantial but entirely reasonable.
As I said, this is a circumstantial theory, but it IS based on basic human psychology and behavior. Can you show statistics that counter the theory?I want you to back up your position with data to prove that to be true.
As I said, this is a circumstantial theory, but it IS based on basic human psychology and behavior. Can you show statistics that counter the theory?
We would need to see that the number of accidents does not decrease appreciably after a camera is installed. Can you provide that information?
Many of the municipalities, in Missouri, that implemented the red light cameras shortened the yellow lights from 10 seconds to 3-5 seconds. This caused accidents to rise. The legislature did the best they could by presenting a workable solution with the 15 second yellow light and the 50 feet within the traffic light law. Rear end accidents can be as fatal as from the side. Pedestrians are supposed to be aware of their environment just like motorists are.
How many is "many"? How many accidents have the cameras actually caused, vice just plain bad driving practices? Now if the yellow light is not long enough for a person to actually completely stop safely, then the problem is the timing of the yellow light, not the camera itself. The problem would exist with or without the camera.
And, yes a pedestrian should be aware of their environment. However, humans are prone to mistakes. If you see a walk signal, you expect traffic to be stopped, not still coming at you because some idiot thought they could make a yellow light that had turned red 2 seconds earlier, the same way that the other drivers expect the cross traffic to be stopped when they get a green light. Also, car drivers need to understand that a car does a lot more damage to a person than the person will do to the car.
How about a comparison between rear end accidents in which the person in back is slowing down (or at least should be) compared to side accidents when both cars are most likely speeding up (the one with the red light because he was trying to make the yellow and failed, and the one with the green, because he expects to have a clear green)? Which do you really believe has the highest chance of a fatality? These are the specific scenarios we are dealing with in traffic light accidents, unless there is some freak extra event.
Stop screwing around. I have a perfectly valid theory and the proof your demanding is akin to asking for proof that a person will jump out of the way if something is thrown at them. I can only guess that you are doing this to stall the debate.I don't need to provide counter-statistics since you offered your opinion and no proof. The onus is on you to present proof before I can.
Stop screwing around. I have a perfectly valid theory and the proof your demanding is akin to asking for proof that a person will jump out of the way if something is thrown at them. I can only guess that you are doing this to stall the debate.
Stop screwing around. I have a perfectly valid theory and the proof your demanding is akin to asking for proof that a person will jump out of the way if something is thrown at them. I can only guess that you are doing this to stall the debate.
Gonna side with Patriot on this one. (wtf is that twice in one day?) You have a theory, yes, but the question is whether this actually leads to more accidents. You need data to show that.
Again, I agree it's a point supported by circumstantial evidence, but a valid one none the less.Gonna side with Patriot on this one. (wtf is that twice in one day?) You have a theory, yes, but the question is whether this actually leads to more accidents depending on the service time of the camera. You need data to show that.
Gonna side with Patriot on this one. (wtf is that twice in one day?) You have a theory, yes, but the question is whether this actually leads to more accidents depending on the service time of the camera. You need data to show that.
The organisation who sets up the camera and develops the photo (though I'd guess they're all digital these days) are said to be viewing the scene of the crime by proxy. Think of it as a webcam with an incredibly long delay/lag. It can't count as heresay, because it's documented and photographically proven; heresay is unprovable (by the heresayer, at least).
They do bring the photos to court, but since the state is relying upon an inanimate object to report breaking the law then the defendent must be able to face his accusor. Can you cross examine an inanimate object? Can the inanimate object prove that you were behind the wheel at the time the pictures were taken? The answer to both of those questions is no. The guy doing the processing isn't trained in law nor in forensic science and wasn't there when the pictures were taken. The article has plenty of examples of where the processors show a lack of knowledge of the law and processed tickets against innocent people.
Wait. Come again? So if a camera catches someone mugging a guy and the police accuse the guy of mugging and bring the video surveillence, he goes free? Don't some of the cameras record the driver as well?
It only proves that I was at the intersection or that I was driving through the zone covered by the camera. It does NOT prove I was running a red light or that I was speeding.
Umm no, it only proves that your car was at the intersection. It doesn't prove that you were behind the wheel.
Speed cameras in California, Florida and Australia are not living up to their image of providing infallible evidence of traffic crimes. To the contrary, officials must find clever excuses to cover for the mistakes that are uncovered with increasing frequency.
In Hallandale, Florida, the private firm American Traffic Solutions mailed a $125 ticket to Phil Kodroff accusing his car of "running a red light" at the intersection of Federal Highway and Hallandale Beach Boulevard on May 22. The Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel reported that Kodroff's vehicle committed this crime at the speed of 0 MPH.
Link
Wait. Come again? So if a camera catches someone mugging a guy and the police accuse the guy of mugging and bring the video surveillence, he goes free? Don't some of the cameras record the driver as well?
well, if your not driving the car, whoever was has to own up to it, its simple as that.
well, if your not driving the car, whoever was has to own up to it, its simple as that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?