Prev: Epic Fail on Wheels
Next: Viatology: the scientific study of roads
From: richard on 12 Jan 2010 10:55
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:33:54 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:

> On 2010-01-12, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> If that were me getting cited, I'd fight it. Unless they can show evidence
>> that I had not stopped properly, they lose. A single photo is not enough
>> evidence.
>
> Court isn't fair. Traffic court is less fair. Administrative court is a
> rubber stamp of guilty. RLC tickets go to administrative court. Expect
> to pay 2-3 times the fine (minimum) to appeal your way up to a court
> where a defense might actually get heard and the municipality show some
> real proof.

But RLC's are a civil matter. So you file a lawsuit in a civil court and
there the preponderance of evidence rules.
Before court, even the regular traffic court, you set up a couple of video
cameras at that intersection and let them record the actions of the RLC's
for a couple of hours. Do that for several days.
Show the videos to the judge. If he can determine there is a pattern of the
RLC triggering at the wrong times, the case has to be dismissed and the RLC
to be investigated.
From: Brent on 12 Jan 2010 11:14
On 2010-01-12, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:33:54 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
>
>> On 2010-01-12, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If that were me getting cited, I'd fight it. Unless they can show evidence
>>> that I had not stopped properly, they lose. A single photo is not enough
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Court isn't fair. Traffic court is less fair. Administrative court is a
>> rubber stamp of guilty. RLC tickets go to administrative court. Expect
>> to pay 2-3 times the fine (minimum) to appeal your way up to a court
>> where a defense might actually get heard and the municipality show some
>> real proof.

> But RLC's are a civil matter. So you file a lawsuit in a civil court and
> there the preponderance of evidence rules.

A civil lawsuit won't get you out of the fine and cost more than the
fine.

> Before court, even the regular traffic court, you set up a couple of video
> cameras at that intersection and let them record the actions of the RLC's
> for a couple of hours. Do that for several days.
> Show the videos to the judge. If he can determine there is a pattern of the
> RLC triggering at the wrong times, the case has to be dismissed and the RLC
> to be investigated.

Judges in traffic court generally don't care and won't sit through that.
Such a display of videos means he'll miss his tee-time or get to the bar
late.

IME The first thing one has to realize to have a chance in traffic and
admin court is that it is not fair and the law does not matter.


From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS on 14 Jan 2010 00:48
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
news:hih0nm$acb$5(a)news.eternal-september.org:

>
> http://blip.tv/file/3074925
> in flv mode without their conversion issues, but lower res:
> http://blip.tv/file/3074925?filename=Tetraethyllead-LegalRightOnRedTrig
> gersRLC119.flv
>
>
> Why I don't turn right on red at RLC intersections. The SUV driver
> makes a legal right on red and is now in the RLC's memory as a
> violator. Only human filtering (that may or may not be done) will
> prevent him from being ticketed.
>
>
>
>

Never happened to me. You're making this up to discredit rlc and get away
with killing more kids like all you red light runners dream of.
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 15 Jan 2010 09:27
"gpsman" <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in message
news:0af732b1-100b-45ff-8609-e5d68ed4f931(a)u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 11:56 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip...]

> If they believe even video won't change their
> minds.

A flash is a flash, nothing more.

For all you know a RLC flash flashes apparently nonsensically during
data upload, or to notify any remote operator that power has been
interrupted and restored, or whenever the remote operator spots her
boyfriend, or whenever an idiot of your caliber approaches within 100
yards.

* Except that if a RLC camera flash is occurring for any reason other than
to indicate a red light camera violation occurred for specifically running a
red light, the camera is malfunctioning and is a de-facto traffic hazard of
its own.

> To them it will just be a malfunctioning piece of equipment. An
> exception.

Do they flash apparently without cause for other reasons?

* I've seen a red light camera flash on green light traffic, flashing for
every vehicle passing through the intersection. Presumably, those drivers
never got a ticket because the photos would have clearly shown a green
light. I don't know, maybe they were capturing random traffic for
monitoring/surveillance purposes? Still, a RLC should only flash when a
photo has been taken specifically for actually running a red light. If the
driver stops on red and then makes a right turn (or, for a one-way street it
can be a left turn) on red, the RLC must not ever flash.

> Their belief systems will find a way to deal with it and
> still accept that RLCs are there for safety.

RLCs (and their requisite warning signs) are there to discourage red
light running, and they seem to be relatively effective at that.

* They are relatively effective at that, so they need to fix the
malfunctions and stop trying to cheat the yellow light time intervals until
the cheated interval has been discovered. No bugs or any other design issues
should ever be tolerated, the RLC camera technology does need to be 100%
error free if the photo tickets are to be enforced properly.

[snip...]

From: Brent on 15 Jan 2010 09:59
On 2010-01-15, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:

> On Jan 14, 11:56 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> [snip...]
>
>> If they believe even video won't change their
>> minds.
>
> A flash is a flash, nothing more.

> For all you know a RLC flash flashes apparently nonsensically during
> data upload, or to notify any remote operator that power has been
> interrupted and restored, or whenever the remote operator spots her
> boyfriend, or whenever an idiot of your caliber approaches within 100
> yards.

As I suspected, all sorts of mental acrobatics to excuse the RLC.

> * Except that if a RLC camera flash is occurring for any reason other than
> to indicate a red light camera violation occurred for specifically running a
> red light, the camera is malfunctioning and is a de-facto traffic hazard of
> its own.

Our rulers and the connected companies that run these cameras have
assured us that they only photograph violations. Diagnostics would be
achieved through LEDs or some remote display like on practically any
other piece of modern equipment. Now, I could accept that our rulers are
using the RLCs for other purposes of watching and tracking people, but
for that excuse to work you must believe that they are lying.

>> To them it will just be a malfunctioning piece of equipment. An
>> exception.

> Do they flash apparently without cause for other reasons?

The flash is activated because something tripped the sensors.

> * I've seen a red light camera flash on green light traffic, flashing for
> every vehicle passing through the intersection.

I have seen them flash on green light traffic as well.

> Presumably, those drivers
> never got a ticket because the photos would have clearly shown a green
> light.

Maybe. To presume that is going a bit far. The lack of due process with
these things makes it more effective for the tickets to be sent out
without any human intervention.

> I don't know, maybe they were capturing random traffic for
> monitoring/surveillance purposes? Still, a RLC should only flash when a
> photo has been taken specifically for actually running a red light. If the
> driver stops on red and then makes a right turn (or, for a one-way street it
> can be a left turn) on red, the RLC must not ever flash.

Monitoring traffic does not require flash photography. But keep up
trying to make excuses for the devices. The flash is to get a good photo
of the driver and the plate number.

>> Their belief systems will find a way to deal with it and
>> still accept that RLCs are there for safety.

> RLCs (and their requisite warning signs) are there to discourage red
> light running, and they seem to be relatively effective at that.

No. RLCs exist to make money for the contractors that operate them and
their partner governments. If the desire was to reduce red light
running, the signals would be timed properly and other engineering
deficencies of the intersections would be fixed. RLCs are sold to local
governments based on the *MONEY* they will bring in. If local
governments were concerned about safety they would re-time problem
traffic signals with longer yellows. Longer yellow signals were the
primary method of reducing red light running prior to camera
enforcement and still is the most effect method. .

> * They are relatively effective at that, so they need to fix the
> malfunctions and stop trying to cheat the yellow light time intervals until
> the cheated interval has been discovered. No bugs or any other design issues
> should ever be tolerated, the RLC camera technology does need to be 100%
> error free if the photo tickets are to be enforced properly.

Every time the underlying signal timing and other issues of an
intersection are fixed the RLC is no longer profitable to operate. Once
the profit is not there the interest in 'safety' vanishes with it and
the cameras are shut down or moved to other intersections where
underlying problems have not been corrected or can be created.

The only way for RLCs to be profitable is to either
a) cherry pick intersections with defects or short yellow signal timing.
b) shorten the yellow signal timing
c) cherry pick intersections with frequent right on red traffic where
complete stops are not needed for any safety reason.

Schaumburg IL tried option c). Those cameras were placed around the
major mall and shopping area for maximum profit. People complained and
threatened to shop elsewhere. The businesses complained. The cameras
were removed. The cameras in their short life "generated" millions of
dollars in revenue. Driving in the area I've had people behind me laying
on their horns when I refused to turn right on red at RLC intersections.





First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Epic Fail on Wheels
Next: Viatology: the scientific study of roads