gokbgo

Vote and discuss.

This has been an issue for a while, and I applaud the Montgomery Advertiser for doing a series on this problem in Montgomery. I thought this would be an interesting topic to debate about.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/specia...enace/index.htm

Lalo

i dont like the idea. accidents happen, and they shouldnt cost 300 bucks...

I've run about 3 red lights and stop signs ACCIDENTLY in Napa when I go see my girlfriend. That city is complicated lol, east L.A. is soooo easy, cause their isnt any lights that catch you by surprise, and each light is spaced almost equally lol

gokbgo

Accidents happen?!?! Eeewwww... wrong answer! Come on folks, read the articles first, and understand why it's such a problem.

Lalo

oh yea... and once they ticketed my dad because a camera supposedly caught him running a red light... he remembered that day because he went to see his brother and he remembered he didnt run a red light... he payed it anyways because he didnt want to go through the whole trouble with fighting it. a month later he receives a letter informing him that other people had been wrongly photographed and that their money would be refunded if they sent it.
there's another reason i dont like it

PaulF

Well, I've been in a major accident because someone ran a red light, so I'm all for this....I've also been a witness for two major accidents because people have run red lights.

Maybe if the people that ran them were ticketed, maybe they wouldn't have run those lights.

I'm biased, obviously, but I don't consider these "accidents". The drivers that run the lights are, in most cases, making a decision to run the light. That's not an accident, that's a mistake and there is a big difference between the two.

Obviously, there are accidents, as thezep pointed out. Maybe a warning on the first and a ticket on the second offense. No automated system is going to be perfect and you can't station police at every light. That's the whole reason for the appeal process and you can see by thezeps post that it does work. Someone appealed and everyone got their money back. The county or state will now go and make the system a little more "fool proof".

I'm all for it and they need to outlaw the reflective covers for the license plates as well....

gokbgo

So it sounds like the end result was a wash for your Dad. Did his insurance go up? What happened with your 3 accidents to cause you to run thru the lights and signs?

Lalo

nothing happened to his insurance... what i'm worried about is if it accidently happens to one person, and they cant appeal it to where the ticket is reversed. But, Paul brings up a good point about giving a warning at first, me likes

running the lights and signs were completely my fault... no excuse for them, just lucky that i didnt get ticketed. i had never ever ran a red light before (never gotten a ticket in the 5 years i have been driving). i guess the uncertainty of when to turn right at 5 way streets, and stop signs that are hidden under trees; basically not knowing the city

Treadhead

Until there is a way to absolutely positively identify the driver I am against it. I have no problem with it in general but being in law enforcement for 10 yrs now I think knowing who is driving is gonna be the hardest part to prove. There has been talk around here of making the registered owner responsible which will not work. I've seen way too many cars not registered to the person who actually owns the car or is driving the car or what have you so it will be a giant mess. Sorry for the long post but that's biggest challenge in my mind. If they fix it then great. BTW some cities have it taking a pic from the rear so you can't even see the driver(?????) but to get the driver and license plate you will need a front plate.

PaulF

I would think that a camera sync'd to take pictures in the front and the back would solve this issue. You'd double the amount of cameras needed, but you'd get the information that you wanted.

Now here's the thing...if you take a picture of the person running a red light that isn't the owner of the car....should the owner of the car be notified?

I think that they should, personally. The owner shouldn't be fined, but they should be aware of what is happening with their car.

mr-mstng

I think its a good idea in principle, but the problem is, with the enforecement of it. The owner of the car is ticketed, not the driver. Also,I read somewhere that originally, that the developer of the system (Lockheed-Martin) were ones doing the the 'policing'. That was a big :nono: and all the monies returned, because LM received a cut from every ticket.

Karpro

I don't have a problem ticketing and fining the owner as long as no points are involved. Let a few parents get fined $2-400 for their kid running a red light or stop sign and I'm sure "justice" will get served. If your putting a "weapon" in some idiots hands that could potentially kill someone, I have no problem with you sharing the responsibility. Maybe you'll be more selective in who's driving your vehicle.

Keep in mind, riding around with two kids in the truck most of the time has given me a much different attitude about things. Eight years ago, I was probably the "idiot" driving around breaking these rules but having my kids definetly changed my perspective.

EleanorsMine

I gotta be for it if done properly.

Here where I live, if you sit at a redlight going straight with turning lanes, You have to sit while the 3-4 idiots keep turning after red. My husband got head on'd in 1999 by a moron ignoring the red arrow. He was fine, the car wasn't. The driver didn't even get big penalties- we suffered for their ignorance.

ItsNotABulliT

We already have these everywhere here in Raleigh and Cary. You get caught, they send the owner of the vehicle a bill (not ticket) for fifty bucks.

There is no insurance hike as they dont care who was driving. Its not a terrible idea, kind of keeps people honest. The only ones to complain are the people who run red lights.

houtex

You asked for it... :

On the one hand, I wouldn't mind it. If I believed it was always correct, never faulty, and fair to all.

On the other hand, it's made by humans. It therefore is inevitable that it will never be 100% correct, will have problems, and will be injust to some.

I therefore cannot endorse such a thing unless it were proven time and again in an in depth study to be infallible. As it is, it's a passing of responsiblity from a human to a machine, and it's just laziness of the police department. I know, my brother and brother-in-law are cops. They don't wanna do the paperwork or show up to court for this kind of thing. So a machine is installed. Nice.

What should happen is the timing of the lights should be changed to allow the waiting cars to wait just a bit longer after the crossing traffic's red lights come on before theirs turn green. Sort of a rest period. Say two whole seconds. You blow through after one second or more, you have run it. (after 3, you probably creamed someone, right?) You blow through under one second of red, well, that's fine, 'cause you weren't going to be able to stop anyway. The streets were wet and all maybe.

I have conciously made that decision before. I knew there was no way short of a brick wall I wasn't going to wind up in that intersection and get creamed or perform a beating. So I just got through it instead. No harm, but I would have gotten a ticket for saving someone's life, perhaps. Is that right? No. But a camera doesn't see that, all it sees is the instant the red light is on, it's game time, and that's pretty much why I don't like it. There's no accounting for situational issues such as this. Explaining it afterwards in court is meaningless, as the city wants it's revenue.

The practice of having the crossing traffic's light turn green as the other turns red at the same time is stupid. It's a simple thing to do, and it should be federal law to have a pause before any green is lit after a red just came on.

But that's just me.

It'sNotABulliT: The owners get ticketed? So if their friend/child/parent/etc, was driving the car, they get off scott free? Unless of course owner passes it on? Yeah, that's a good reason for me to not want it. Incorrect billing.

It should be like the guy driving a truck is responsible for the truck, not his company. So HE gets the ticket if he doesn't put that drape over the load, or his truck's not roadworthy. Sometimes, that's not fair, but it's a BIG truck, he should think about it before driving it.

So if a person runs the light, THAT person needs the bill. But they can't do that, so they bill the owner, whose car may have just got stolen. Nice. Sure, there are probably rules for that, but still. Hassled for something out of his control. Gotta love government.

BTW, speaking of hassles, Houston has decided that only their contracted tow trucks can move you out of a busy roadway for $75 for up to 5 miles, up to $150 to your house or other place. You know, for $75 I can get my car towed all the way home on my tow truck, or $0 I can call my insurance tow. But they aren't allowed, according to the new law. 6 minutes after you are spotted broken down, they're going to hook you whether you want it or not. Which is fine for traffic movement, I-10 is a mess as it is. But it's anti-competitive AND overly opressive. Nice. Where's the injunction. I understand ya needing to get the traffice clog cleared, but seriously, who thinks this malodorous stuff up? If it's a city thing, just do it, and tax for it, or maybe a more reasonable bill? $75 for 5 miles?!?! What a racket!

/Boy, I'm POed at gubmint stuff lately... Ommmm.....

PaulF

But that is the whole point of being able to request a court date. You can fight the ticket to explain the issue.

I appreciate your point, but I don't completely agree with you. Alot of times, it's a money issue...there isn't enough of it to hire enough police to do this job and everything else they have to do. Cities could probably work it into their budgets, but small towns, it's a bigger fiscal issue.

Yeah, it should be...but I haven't seen this problem in PA/NJ, that I can remember. There is a pause between red and green here, at least on all of the lights that I can think of. Also, the problem is that once people realize that there is a pause, they are going to push the envelope, knowing that there is not going to be any traffic coming. I'm not saying everyone, but a certain segment of society is going to do that.

Front and back pictures of the cars going through the light, with multiple frames/pitures taken. We're not talking about film here, we're talking about digital storage, so it's just a matter of hard drive space, really. Computers should be able to match up the drivers face with DMV records, to ticket the right person. If it can't, it issues a citation to the owner of the vechile and any question to the validity of the citation would draw a court date for review.

Hey, it's not perfect, but it is better than nothing.

houtex

Well, I don't like it. There. I win.

PaulF

2005GT_Redfire

In some cities near were I live they already have the cameras up and running, accidents in intersections have dropped a far bit over the past year or so. I think they actually do have front and rear licence plates up here so they have really eliminated most chances of error. Most driver seem to be more careful when they approach an intersection now. I thinks it's a great idea but that mgiht change once I get my license. Most people that try to contest the tickets usually end up walking out of the courtroom with the head slouched, the cops have photographical evidence that your car ran a red lgiht with the date and time.
I dont see anyreason to contest a ticket ecspecially one were the is a "mountain" of eveidence against you and no way to prove you didn't run the light
Just my oppinion though but it seems to work

Treadhead

As long as that mountain of evidence contains absolute photographical proof of who was driving I have no problem with it. I also recall reading about a study to lengthen the time of the yellow light which cut down on the number of red light violations. I don't remember the exact details of though. I also read somewhere that some city with red light cameras had shortened the yellow light which was getting alot of extra red light runners but it was of course caused by a "malfunction " or something.

PaulF

More likely the "or something"....cities have a funny way of raising taxes without telling you about it....