From: Brent on 12 Apr 2010 08:39 On 2010-04-12, Charles Packer <mailbox(a)cpacker.org> wrote: > On Apr 12, 12:10 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >> I'd like to see those pictures. > > Done: > > http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg > > http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg > > In the first pic, she isn't past the white line. > Why did the camera trigger at that time? Because the camera saw the movement relevant to its programming. That is someone going faster than X at a certain point before the line. I've found stopping sharply can sometimes trigger it as well: http://www.blip.tv/file/3087752/
From: gpsman on 12 Apr 2010 10:26 On Apr 12, 7:33 am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> wrote: > On Apr 12, 12:10 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > I'd like to see those pictures. > > Done: Thanks. > http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg > > http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg > > In the first pic, she isn't past the white line. > Why did the camera trigger at that time? Because her speed was detected as 11 mph at the stop bar. The evidence suggests not only the absence of a stop, but any intent to stop, or to even slow to a sufficient degree to comply with the most liberal spirit of the law defining a stop. ----- - gpsman
From: Charles Packer on 13 Apr 2010 06:51 On Apr 12, 10:26 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > Because her speed was detected as 11 mph at the stop bar. Yup, I noticed "SPc" at the top of the pic after I posted those links. Still haven't the slightest idea what "SPc" stands for. If my wife still insists on going to the hearing, I'm going to suggest that she simply ask for a fine reduction on the grounds that there were no pedestrians there and that the intersection is a T, so there was no danger of not seeing a vehicle coming from the left. And I would like her to try to find out how low your SPc has to be before they disregard the offense. I recall that the LA Times article cited earlier in this thread said that one jurisdiction used 15 mph. -- Charles Packer http://cpacker.org/whatnews mailboxATcpacker.org
From: necromancer on 13 Apr 2010 07:32 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:33:16 -0700 (PDT), Charles Packer <mailbox(a)cpacker.org> wrote: >On Apr 12, 12:10 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >> I'd like to see those pictures. > >Done: > >http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg > >http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg > >In the first pic, she isn't past the white line. >Why did the camera trigger at that time? IN short, because the camera company and the town where this occurred are hell bent on robbing the populace whether the driver commits the infraction or not. That's why I never, ever make a right turn on red if there is a camera at the intersection. -- "I love this country... ...and the freedoms we used to have..." --George Carlin
From: gpsman on 13 Apr 2010 09:38
On Apr 13, 6:51 am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> wrote: > On Apr 12, 10:26 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > Because her speed was detected as 11 mph at the stop bar. > > Yup, I noticed "SPc" at the top of the pic after I posted > those links. Still haven't the slightest idea what "SPc" > stands for. If I had to guess it would be speed at point c. I'd guess Amb indicates the length of the amber light phase (5 seconds/ 35 mph zone), and Red1 indicates how long the light had been red, in seconds. > If my wife still insists on going to the > hearing, I'm going to suggest that she simply ask for a > fine reduction on the grounds that there were no > pedestrians there and that the intersection is a T, so > there was no danger of not seeing a vehicle coming from > the left. It could happen, but I wouldn't give it a prayer, nor would I offer or accept those defenses. 21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line<> http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm The evidence strongly suggests a complete lack of intent to stop according to any reasonable interpretation of traffic code, and her proposed defense seems to me to be similar to, "I was looking for obstacles that might prevent me from running the light. Why should I have to stop if there's nothing to hit?" Nothing about the evidence suggests a habit of operating with due caution or driving defensively, to me. I'd suggest paying the fine and coming to a full and complete stop behind the stop bar in the future. The -possible- "saving" of a few seconds is what makes not coming to a stop so logically ridiculous. Besides the blatant ridiculousness of measuring travel by motor vehicle in seconds, if you have to stop for the next traffic control device, or the next, or the next, for an equal number of seconds, those "savings" vanish. Not to mention how often crashes occur due to "failure to see". But many decisions made by many if not most motorists are strictly emotional, based on feeling they arrived in less time, feeling like they enjoyed a greater average velocity or feeling like they did all they could to arrive as soon as possible (or all 3). > And I would like her to try to find out how > low your SPc has to be before they disregard the offense. I hope not by asking the judge, To just exactly what SPc am I expected to slow before running a red light...? > I recall that the LA Times article cited earlier in this > thread said that one jurisdiction used 15 mph. I don't think so, or many motorists would slow to only 10, some, of course, would try 14. It seems a human tendency to "cheat", for lack of a better term. Attention and discipline applied to adhering to traffic code is perhaps the greatest difference between motorists and drivers. Motorists are frequently if not most often "in a hurry", drivers never are. There's too much at stake. You can read my Stupid Safety Story if you like: http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.trucking/browse_frm/thread/fd1ebcb645cddbf7/896f6bc098a29ce7?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=stupid+safety+story#896f6bc098a29ce7 ----- - gpsman |