|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2012 07:14:49 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I got a ticket a few months ago. I was at a left turn and it turned green for us. A fire truck came through blaring it's lights, so we all stopped. After it went through, I continued on making a left turn. Didn't notice the light turned red in the process.
Damn! |
That was pretty lame if you had proceeded into the intersection before the fire truck came through.
Prolly could have used their own videotape to bolster your case.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2012 10:41:05 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Kelli,
When I took drivers ed nearly 40 years ago I was taught that you were supposed to trail the car in front of you by one car length for every 10 mph you were traveling. On your road, if cars are traveling at the speed limit, that would be about 4 car lengths behind, more than enough time to stop without stomping on the brakes. |
That rule turns out to be not all that accurate/useful. According to this table the average braking distance alone (not counting reaction time) at 40MPH is 76 feet, or somewhat more than four average car lengths.
Stopping Distance Calculator |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 11:09:43 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Kelli,
When I took drivers ed nearly 40 years ago I was taught that you were supposed to trail the car in front of you by one car length for every 10 mph you were traveling. On your road, if cars are traveling at the speed limit, that would be about 4 car lengths behind, more than enough time to stop without stomping on the brakes. |
That rule turns out to be not all that accurate/useful. According to this table the average braking distance alone (not counting reaction time) at 40MPH is 76 feet, or somewhat more than four average car lengths.
Stopping Distance Calculator |
Yep... right on the money that chart. At 40mph one is travelling something like 33 feet/second and the reaction time for an old geezer like me means that I might stop when I reach the front bumper of the car in front of me.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 11:15:47 PM · #54 |
Are you driving a 1960 El Camino with stock drum brakes and loaded with bricks, or an Ariel Atom equipped with manhole cover sized Brembo brakes?
Average means very little in this context. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 12:14:06 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Kelli,
When I took drivers ed nearly 40 years ago I was taught that you were supposed to trail the car in front of you by one car length for every 10 mph you were traveling. On your road, if cars are traveling at the speed limit, that would be about 4 car lengths behind, more than enough time to stop without stomping on the brakes. |
That rule turns out to be not all that accurate/useful. According to this table the average braking distance alone (not counting reaction time) at 40MPH is 76 feet, or somewhat more than four average car lengths.
Stopping Distance Calculator |
The fact is, it's a highly traveled road, an exit off a major highway, and you're lucky if the person behind you is one car length and not literally already on your bumper. You've got people driving 20 mph and people driving 55 mph regardless of the speed limit. And if the light turns yellow when you're still 3 feet from the line, you're going to get a ticket if you go through it, which is why people slam their brakes on. And 9 out of 10 times, you are going to get rear ended. So you have to wonder if the hassle is less to pay the fine and have your car, or get hit and deal with the mess of insurance claims and possible loss of your car and maybe an injury. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 01:32:08 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Kelli,
When I took drivers ed nearly 40 years ago I was taught that you were supposed to trail the car in front of you by one car length for every 10 mph you were traveling. On your road, if cars are traveling at the speed limit, that would be about 4 car lengths behind, more than enough time to stop without stomping on the brakes. |
That rule turns out to be not all that accurate/useful. According to this table the average braking distance alone (not counting reaction time) at 40MPH is 76 feet, or somewhat more than four average car lengths.
Stopping Distance Calculator |
The fact is, it's a highly traveled road, an exit off a major highway, and you're lucky if the person behind you is one car length and not literally already on your bumper. You've got people driving 20 mph and people driving 55 mph regardless of the speed limit. And if the light turns yellow when you're still 3 feet from the line, you're going to get a ticket if you go through it, which is why people slam their brakes on. And 9 out of 10 times, you are going to get rear ended. So you have to wonder if the hassle is less to pay the fine and have your car, or get hit and deal with the mess of insurance claims and possible loss of your car and maybe an injury. |
But the studies of red light cameras installed in cities over a population of 200,000 have shown a significant decrease in the more serious red light running crashes (T-bone crashes), as well as, a marked decrease in fatalities from those collisions. Studies/surveys of rear-end collisions caused by those red light cams have had mixed results, some showing an increase by 15%, and others no increase at all, but they are less serious and cause less harm than the former. Those rear-end collisions, though, can be greatly reduced if people drive the speed limit and trail the leading car by an appropriate distance.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2012 01:45:33 AM · #57 |
I can't recall which state it was, California or Washington, but red light camera tickets are voluntary fines. Of course they don't tell you that, but they are officially unenforceable.
Ah, here it is. Los Angeles. Police won't challenge tickets in court |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 01:12:11 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can't recall which state it was, California or Washington, but red light camera tickets are voluntary fines. Of course they don't tell you that, but they are officially unenforceable.
Ah, here it is. Los Angeles. Police won't challenge tickets in court |
I need to go back and read that one again because I thought it said that the court officials said exactly the opposite.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 01:33:22 PM · #59 |
actually average means just that. the average braking distance. average is average even when comparing only the two extreme extremes...
if you mean statistics are deceiving. well i would agree.
Originally posted by Cory:
Are you driving a 1960 El Camino with stock drum brakes and loaded with bricks, or an Ariel Atom equipped with manhole cover sized Brembo brakes?
Average means very little in this context. |
Message edited by author 2012-11-03 13:34:59.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2012 01:49:53 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can't recall which state it was, California or Washington, but red light camera tickets are voluntary fines. Of course they don't tell you that, but they are officially unenforceable.
Ah, here it is. Los Angeles. Police won't challenge tickets in court |
That is a specific issue with that jurisdiction due to contract issues and officer court appearances. They are enforceable elsewhere and have been for some time here in Washington. It is just that they can not be counted as a moving violations and put on your record but they can and do collect the $$ and some cities are very aggressive about it. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 03:05:41 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But the studies of red light cameras installed in cities over a population of 200,000 have shown a significant decrease in the more serious red light running crashes (T-bone crashes), as well as, a marked decrease in fatalities from those collisions. Studies/surveys of rear-end collisions caused by those red light cams have had mixed results, some showing an increase by 15%, and others no increase at all, but they are less serious and cause less harm than the former. Those rear-end collisions, though, can be greatly reduced if people drive the speed limit and trail the leading car by an appropriate distance. |
Wouldn't just increasing the length of the yellow light slightly decrease both t-bones and rear ends? The cameras are a money making scheme, they aren't there for safety. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 07:10:09 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Are you driving a 1960 El Camino with stock drum brakes and loaded with bricks, or an Ariel Atom equipped with manhole cover sized Brembo brakes?
Average means very little in this context. |
Not quite my friend. The distance traveled per second is a measured quantity of 33ft/sec. I seem to recall that studies undertaken determined that on average (Mode) the reaction time of the people tested was .75 seconds.
Assuming that due to my age it took me a second to react, I will have traveled probably an additional 24 feet, meaning that there is a good chance that I might redecorate someone's rear bumper, and that is assuming that I am ever so vigilant and was not distracted something.
One thing I can assure you of and that is that "Speed by itself does not kill... its the sudden stops"
Ray |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 07:10:09 PM · #63 |
I seem to have developed a knack for double posting of late.
Message edited by author 2012-11-03 19:10:40. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 07:12:57 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by bmatt17:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But the studies of red light cameras installed in cities over a population of 200,000 have shown a significant decrease in the more serious red light running crashes (T-bone crashes), as well as, a marked decrease in fatalities from those collisions. Studies/surveys of rear-end collisions caused by those red light cams have had mixed results, some showing an increase by 15%, and others no increase at all, but they are less serious and cause less harm than the former. Those rear-end collisions, though, can be greatly reduced if people drive the speed limit and trail the leading car by an appropriate distance. |
Wouldn't just increasing the length of the yellow light slightly decrease both t-bones and rear ends? The cameras are a money making scheme, they aren't there for safety. |
I have no idea as to how traffic lights work in the USA, but will assume that they are the same as what we have here in Canada.
If you are driving on a street and see the pedestrian lights starting to flash, get ready for the yellow light to come on and guide yourself accordingly.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 08:22:25 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I seem to have developed a knack for double posting of late. |
It's probably a carryover from that knack you have of pumping the brakes twice
to make sure you stop in time at the traffic lights.
:) |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 08:49:15 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by bmatt17:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But the studies of red light cameras installed in cities over a population of 200,000 have shown a significant decrease in the more serious red light running crashes (T-bone crashes), as well as, a marked decrease in fatalities from those collisions. Studies/surveys of rear-end collisions caused by those red light cams have had mixed results, some showing an increase by 15%, and others no increase at all, but they are less serious and cause less harm than the former. Those rear-end collisions, though, can be greatly reduced if people drive the speed limit and trail the leading car by an appropriate distance. |
Wouldn't just increasing the length of the yellow light slightly decrease both t-bones and rear ends? The cameras are a money making scheme, they aren't there for safety. |
I have no idea as to how traffic lights work in the USA, but will assume that they are the same as what we have here in Canada.
If you are driving on a street and see the pedestrian lights starting to flash, get ready for the yellow light to come on and guide yourself accordingly.
Ray |
There is no "standard" timing to traffic lights in NJ. Some have long yellows, some don't. You really take your chances. I just know that the ones on my street are particularly short and I do believe it's an effort to make money. And yes, I belive extending the yellow would help with the accidents. And Ray, most of these lights don't have pedestrian lights. |
|
|
|
11/03/2012 09:30:00 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
There is no "standard" timing to traffic lights in NJ. Some have long yellows, some don't. You really take your chances. I just know that the ones on my street are particularly short and I do believe it's an effort to make money. And yes, I belive extending the yellow would help with the accidents. And Ray, most of these lights don't have pedestrian lights. |
OK, what you do is take a stopwatch and video camera and set up on the sidewalk in the direction you usually travel. Try to time the duration of the yellow light for several cycles (at least 10) and record the results. Record wide-angle video showing signals on all four corners if possible. If you can, take someone else along who can act as a witness/assistant.
From the table I linked-to earlier, calculate the stopping-distance at the speed limit in effect at that location (including reaction-time), and figure out the stopping time at that speed; if the yellow doesn't last long enough to allow someone to stop safely at the posted speed limit, or to proceed through the intersection safely and without penalty, it is probably illegal, since it requires an impossible act on your part. |
|
|
|
11/04/2012 12:57:00 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by bmatt17:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But the studies of red light cameras installed in cities over a population of 200,000 have shown a significant decrease in the more serious red light running crashes (T-bone crashes), as well as, a marked decrease in fatalities from those collisions. Studies/surveys of rear-end collisions caused by those red light cams have had mixed results, some showing an increase by 15%, and others no increase at all, but they are less serious and cause less harm than the former. Those rear-end collisions, though, can be greatly reduced if people drive the speed limit and trail the leading car by an appropriate distance. |
Wouldn't just increasing the length of the yellow light slightly decrease both t-bones and rear ends? The cameras are a money making scheme, they aren't there for safety. |
Actually, I think lengthening the yellow lights would make matters worse and increase the number of, and severity, of both t-bones and rear-enders. People would think they have more time to beat the light and so floor the pedal and go even faster through the intersection. That's cause they drive way too aggressively and a longer yellow wouldn't change a thing. Their thinking is not I have more time to stop, but rather I have more time to race through.
Even if there is corruption by the companies that run these programs, the stats and studies show marked decreases in red light running accidents and fatalities from such actions and not only at intersections where the red light cameras are installed. There is a ripple effect throughout the cities where they are employed.
Can you imagine what the economic toll is from the 40,000 deaths a year in the US from automobile accidents and the millions of people permanently injured? Who pays for that? Is there any amount of money that can pay for the senseless destruction of a child's life killed by an irresponsible driver? |
|
|
|
11/04/2012 01:15:05 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by bmatt17:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But the studies of red light cameras installed in cities over a population of 200,000 have shown a significant decrease in the more serious red light running crashes (T-bone crashes), as well as, a marked decrease in fatalities from those collisions. Studies/surveys of rear-end collisions caused by those red light cams have had mixed results, some showing an increase by 15%, and others no increase at all, but they are less serious and cause less harm than the former. Those rear-end collisions, though, can be greatly reduced if people drive the speed limit and trail the leading car by an appropriate distance. |
Wouldn't just increasing the length of the yellow light slightly decrease both t-bones and rear ends? The cameras are a money making scheme, they aren't there for safety. |
Actually, I think lengthening the yellow lights would make matters worse and increase the number of, and severity, of both t-bones and rear-enders. People would think they have more time to beat the light and so floor the pedal and go even faster through the intersection. That's cause they drive way too aggressively and a longer yellow wouldn't change a thing. Their thinking is not I have more time to stop, but rather I have more time to race through.
Even if there is corruption by the companies that run these programs, the stats and studies show marked decreases in red light running accidents and fatalities from such actions and not only at intersections where the red light cameras are installed. There is a ripple effect throughout the cities where they are employed.
Can you imagine what the economic toll is from the 40,000 deaths a year in the US from automobile accidents and the millions of people permanently injured? Who pays for that? Is there any amount of money that can pay for the senseless destruction of a child's life killed by an irresponsible driver? |
I suppose you're right. Any price for a life saved.
Perhaps you'd agree also that drowning, falls, and other in-home incidents are the cause of many avoidable deaths. I think it's time that we welcome government cameras into every room and aspect of our lives, since it would, no doubt, save a great many lives. Just think, if your child is playing with matches, they could immediately send someone to stop them before they burn down your house, and of course, the fines and five or ten years of weekly interviews with child services would be a small price to pay.
In fact, I think with the new wireless technologies that are available, we need to just put transmitting black boxes, with audio and video recorder/transmitters, in each of our vehicles, so that the police can simply watch everyone while they drive, with automated systems to report any violations, or excessive g-forces during driving. This would obviously be embraced readily by insurance companies as well.
You know, the more I think about it, it would be more efficient and easier to just implant cameras, accelerometers, GP's, microphones and transmitters into our heads, or at least a law-mandated headset until we can improve the technology. That way we can feel safe everywhere, and finally we'll be able to enforce those morality laws dealing with oral sex and other evil acts that have traditionally occurred far beyond the reach of law enforcement in the evil secrecy that has, for far too long, existed in the average American bedroom.
I really can't believe we haven't implemented such common sense laws, the number of lives this would save, and the reduction in general enforcement costs would be more than sufficient justification, don't you think? |
|
|
|
11/04/2012 01:39:15 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Cory:
In fact, I think with the new wireless technologies that are available, we need to just put transmitting black boxes, with audio and video recorder/transmitters, in each of our vehicles, so that the police can simply watch everyone while they drive, with automated systems to report any violations, or excessive g-forces during driving. This would obviously be embraced readily by insurance companies as well.
|
The insurance companies already offer these black boxes as an "incentive" for "possible" lower rates. Only most people don't actually get lower rates, or so I hear. They're also installed on some rental cars so they can track if you speed or drive outside the radius in the agreement. Some "bad credit" auto finance companies have "shut down" controls in the vehicles they finance...miss a payment and your car won't start.
Big Brother is knocking and people are letting him in with the false promise of lower insurance rates. He's not being imposed on people, they're being conned into thinking he has their best interest at heart.
Message edited by author 2012-11-04 01:42:52. |
|
|
|
11/04/2012 03:00:03 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If you are driving on a street and see the pedestrian lights starting to flash, get ready for the yellow light to come on and guide yourself accordingly.
Ray |
Some lights are like this in Oregon, and if I see the crosswalk timer reaching it's end I do prepare for a yellow. But this logic has one major flaw, and that's expecting the majority of the public to be more aware of their surroundings while driving. Nice dream, but not gonna happen.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Actually, I think lengthening the yellow lights would make matters worse and increase the number of, and severity, of both t-bones and rear-enders. People would think they have more time to beat the light and so floor the pedal and go even faster through the intersection. That's cause they drive way too aggressively and a longer yellow wouldn't change a thing. Their thinking is not I have more time to stop, but rather I have more time to race through. |
I think a small percentage of drivers would, but I think the majority of people that get those photo tickets only run the light by 1 or 2 seconds, because they're at that point before the intersection that you have to decide, do I brake hard and stop, possibly getting rear ended, or continue through.
And along with longer yellows you can add a delay, between when one light turns red and the cross one turns green, so if it ran, cross traffic isn't moving into the intersection immediately after.
I think the yellows should be timed for the slowest stopping vehicle (semi?) to stop with a gentle brake if they were going 15mph over the speed limit. If you have to brake hard for an intersection, the yellow is too short and unsafe. |
|
|
|
11/04/2012 10:13:49 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by bmatt17:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But the studies of red light cameras installed in cities over a population of 200,000 have shown a significant decrease in the more serious red light running crashes (T-bone crashes), as well as, a marked decrease in fatalities from those collisions. Studies/surveys of rear-end collisions caused by those red light cams have had mixed results, some showing an increase by 15%, and others no increase at all, but they are less serious and cause less harm than the former. Those rear-end collisions, though, can be greatly reduced if people drive the speed limit and trail the leading car by an appropriate distance. |
Wouldn't just increasing the length of the yellow light slightly decrease both t-bones and rear ends? The cameras are a money making scheme, they aren't there for safety. |
Actually, I think lengthening the yellow lights would make matters worse and increase the number of, and severity, of both t-bones and rear-enders. People would think they have more time to beat the light and so floor the pedal and go even faster through the intersection. That's cause they drive way too aggressively and a longer yellow wouldn't change a thing. Their thinking is not I have more time to stop, but rather I have more time to race through.
Even if there is corruption by the companies that run these programs, the stats and studies show marked decreases in red light running accidents and fatalities from such actions and not only at intersections where the red light cameras are installed. There is a ripple effect throughout the cities where they are employed.
Can you imagine what the economic toll is from the 40,000 deaths a year in the US from automobile accidents and the millions of people permanently injured? Who pays for that? Is there any amount of money that can pay for the senseless destruction of a child's life killed by an irresponsible driver? |
I suppose you're right. Any price for a life saved.
Perhaps you'd agree also that drowning, falls, and other in-home incidents are the cause of many avoidable deaths. I think it's time that we welcome government cameras into every room and aspect of our lives, since it would, no doubt, save a great many lives. Just think, if your child is playing with matches, they could immediately send someone to stop them before they burn down your house, and of course, the fines and five or ten years of weekly interviews with child services would be a small price to pay.
In fact, I think with the new wireless technologies that are available, we need to just put transmitting black boxes, with audio and video recorder/transmitters, in each of our vehicles, so that the police can simply watch everyone while they drive, with automated systems to report any violations, or excessive g-forces during driving. This would obviously be embraced readily by insurance companies as well.
You know, the more I think about it, it would be more efficient and easier to just implant cameras, accelerometers, GP's, microphones and transmitters into our heads, or at least a law-mandated headset until we can improve the technology. That way we can feel safe everywhere, and finally we'll be able to enforce those morality laws dealing with oral sex and other evil acts that have traditionally occurred far beyond the reach of law enforcement in the evil secrecy that has, for far too long, existed in the average American bedroom.
I really can't believe we haven't implemented such common sense laws, the number of lives this would save, and the reduction in general enforcement costs would be more than sufficient justification, don't you think? |
Red light cameras are in public places and there is no expectation of privacy, completely different from the in-home scenarios you have depicted. However, except for California, Wash DC, and Arizona, RLCs do not photograph faces and so there is even less of a concern regarding privacy. That's why points do not come off your license when caught by a RLC. And you avoid any confrontation with a cop should you be pulled over by one for a moving traffic violation. You avoid a possible search of your person or vehicle, the time that takes, and the whole humiliating experience. You avoid increases in your auto insurance premiums. Btw, traffic accidents are the largest percentage of childhood fatalities from traumatic causes.
Black boxes inside each vehicle is a great idea!
|
|
|
|
11/04/2012 11:50:30 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Red light cameras are in public places and there is no expectation of privacy, completely different from the in-home scenarios you have depicted. However, except for California, Wash DC, and Arizona, RLCs do not photograph faces and so there is even less of a concern regarding privacy. |
I would need to go back and check case law for the Province of Quebec, but I do believe that several years ago, a gentleman challenged the use of cameras and won his case. In his case, his spouse opened a letter which seemingly showed a blonde sitting next to her husband in a convertible. He fought the ticket, claiming it invaded his privacy, adding that he was taking an afghan hound to the veterinarian for a friend of his. He did prove that he had a friend who owned a blondish haired afghan dog, won his case and the use of video cameras was suspended since they had invade his privacy.
I am not certain if they are currently in use, but one can see just how dangerous they can be. Good thing for this fella he had a solid alibi... right? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/20/2025 05:31:17 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/20/2025 05:31:17 AM EDT.
|
