Radar Cameras

[fivestring]

In the beginning, there was privitazation of collection of alarm fines.
Observing that such would not tie up police officer time and salaries, the thoughts turned to red light cameras.
"We can reduce accidents and save life and property" were the shouts of the powers that be. And so, it came to pass that red light cameras were installed at quite a few intersections.
Seeing how money was to be had (I mean lives and property saved and the cost of police officers salaries saved) with these two privatized functions, the powers that be said, "Let there be radar cameras". "We can reduce speeding, thus saving more lives and property" were the battle cries.
And thus, it was so. So far, 14 of them. "Speed thru our city and we'll catch you on camera with a radar showing your speed. We are saving lives and property by fining you".

Big brother?
Money maker?

Hey, at the rate they're going, we won't even need Police officers in 6 years! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Oh, well. I'll be retired then.
I just hope I don't have to call 911 and have a robot show up!

 

[Glenn9643]

Apparently they're everywhere! There's been quite a bit of discussion on local talk radio about the red-light cameras installed by several cities in this area, and the general concensus is that it's cheap and generates REVENUE.

 

[mathey]

we've had the red light cameras here for quite a few years...so most "locals" know where they are...when you approach those intersections, you need to have one foot on the gas and the other on the brake, because when that baby goes yellow, people lock em up hard...its fairly commonplace to hear screaching tires on any that are on a downhill slope...so is the intersection any safer now? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I just hope I don't have to call 911 and have a robot show up! )</font>

Why not? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Were you an officer when they put the first female officers on routine patrol in uniform? Wonder how many people have told me, "I'd hate to be in trouble and call the police and have a woman show up!" /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Gatorboy]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( because when that baby goes yellow, people lock em up hard...its fairly commonplace to hear screaching tires on any that are on a downhill slope...so is the intersection any safer now? )</font>

No, it's not any safer. People are now afraid of these cameras. If you ENTER the intersection when the light is yellow, you are fine -- regardless if it turns red while you are in the intersection.

What they give tickets for is when the picture shows the light red and a car is still NOT in the intersection, but then goes into the intersection AFTER the light has turned red.

But then again, there are hundreds of "Rules of the Road" most drivers don't understand. (e.g. "Slower traffic keep right")

 

[KubotaSteve]

It is really amazing all of the technology they are coming up with. In my line of work, I review several hundred grant application budgets a year for law enforcement agencies and technology items are at the top of the list especially cameras. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words and there isn't many problems in court.
Although one problem they are running into in DC with all of the congestion is cars having to go through redlights to get out of the way of emergency vehicles. The new red light cameras are becoming more complicated as the situation is recorded and reviewed as opposed to a snapshot. Did the person go through the light to avoid an accident get out of the way of emergency vehicle?

 

[Egon]

Gatorboy; there's times I go so slow and so far on the right everyone thinks I'm on the left.

Egon

 

[kokopelli2]

gatorboy
actually in maryland the cameras start shooting 1 second after the light goes yellow, and they are fining too....this is because the triggers are before the line and that means you would be crossing the line too late.....according to the powers that be that is. they have actually sped up the time on them now...they used to wait for a second after the light went red, but that wasnt making enough money.

 

[Egon]

Fivestring;

Perhaps a ski mask and paintball gun will do the trick or else always drive a borrowed car.

Egon

 

[BigDave]

I drive past a red light camera everyday to & from work. I've seen it go off plenty of times, & it was obvious every time to me, that the car ran the light. I've never seen it go off early. I was nervous at first, but I'll drive through yellows without fear now. If they were to put those radar cameras around here, I would be very nervous, & need to a get a license plate cover. Now, before anyone says anything about the legality of the covers, I know more firemen & policemen with those covers than anyone else. There's no professional courtesy granted when it's an automated camera.

 

[GerardC]

The boys have the toys! See attachment /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif.

It's about max size so I hope you can read it.

 

[PhilNH5]

At work we have some consultants from the UK. One was telling us of these cameras.

They are used for speeding and according to the consultant are set to only 2 mph or so above the speed limit. They are so prevalent that people have lost their licenses on just a single trip. they drive through 3 of these speed cameras in a single morning and accrue enough points to revoke their license.

The consultant says there is a legal issue that is being hashed out as well. The fine will get mailed to the owner of the vehicle based on the license. If you claim you were not the driver during that particular offense you are supposed to supply the relevant info so they can fine the appropriate party.
Often this would be your spouse. But the UK has a law where a spouse is not require to supply testimony that can incriminate the other partner. Sort of like the 5th amendmant extended to your wife. A definite Catch-22.

Phil

 

[daedong]

Here in South Australia we have radar camera boxes on most major intersection and they share a handfull off cameras between these boxes, so you never kwow were they are operating. They are dual purpose, red light and speeding.
They most definately save lives because without the revenue we would probably have no hospitals. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[daedong]

In our local Sunday paper this morning there was this article This takes the Cake. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

25 April 2004 Home
NEWS SECTIONS
Breaking news
Adelaide

STATE NEWS

Noise, camera, fine

25apr04
REVOLUTIONARY cameras will be used to catch noisy vehicles on South Australia roads and fine their drivers. The cameras, which have been trialled on two Stobie poles on Portrush Rd in the eastern suburbs, will initially be used to detect and photograph the numberplates of trucks with noisy engine air brakes. Cars and motorcyles are eventually expected to be targeted.

"There are (noise) standards and anything we can do to get people to comply with those standards is a good thing," Transport SA chief executive officer Tim O'Loughlin told the Sunday Mail. "It's about getting environmental outcomes for the community." The cameras – made by Sydney-based company Acoustic Tecnologies – are mounted on electricity poles and monitor the decibel count of passing vehicles. Those that exceed acceptable levels are photographed and expiation notices are sent to their owners. The level of fines and whether there will be a loss of demerit points are yet to be determined. Acoustic Technologies managing director Dr Dean Gillies said the cameras were a world first. "I'm not aware of any such system in the world," he said. Environment groups and the SA Road Transport Association have called for the technology to be used on all noisy vehicles, not just trucks.

National Transport Commission safety and environment program manager Tim Eaton said trials of the camera in SA were designed to detect "thumping" truck engines, particularly on major arterial roads through the suburbs. He said it was "certainly possible" for the technology to target all vehicle noise pollution. "The software can be adapted to do whatever you want it to do," he said, referring to motorcycles and cars with noisy exhausts. Mr Eaton said the cameras would initially be used on heavily-used roads such as Portrush Rd and the South-Eastern Freeway. Excessive traffic noise on Salisbury Hwy had also drawn many complaints. "It's a big community concern and a big source of complaint," Mr Eaton said.

The maximum legal noise level for cars built after 1982 is 90 decibels and 96 decibels for cars built before then. That figure also applies to all motorcycles. The maximum level for trucks ranges from 88 decibels to 95 decibels, depending on the size of the truck. Police can issue defect notices for noisy vehicles and fines of $163. It is understood, however, that Transport SA has some concerns about the current detection method.

People's Environment Protection Alliance chairman Gary Goland said the technology should also be applied to industry. "You can really see the potential to combine the picture with the noise that identifies an activity that is not appropriate," he said. Environmental Defenders Office SA Inc solicitor Mark Parnell also applauded the move. "Anything that keeps noise pollution levels down in the urban environment is a good thing," he said. SA Road Transport Association executive director Steve Shearer said, that provided the cameras were accurate, they would be welcomed by many residents. "We know in the (trucking) industry that, as far as the community is concerned, the most complaints we get is about noise," he said. Mr Shearer said the cameras should also be used to catch hoon drivers in noisy cars, adding "the people who wake me up most are idiots in cars". The National Transport Commission said it expected the cameras to be introduced before the end of the year.

 

[EastTexFrank]

I knew about the situation in the UK and unlike here when they revoke your license, it's GONE ... there's no bargaining or pleading hardship. If they catch you again, it's a huge fine or jail and try getting insurance after that, it's impossible. Even the rental companies won't rent you a car.
I wonder what the situation is here if you claim that you weren't driving the car? I think I remember reading years ago that they stopped using radar cameras in Houston because they were catching so many people driving around in party masks with their plates covered that they couldn't make a positive ID.

 

[Currmudgeon]

The solution is to cover your plate with a mixture of dirt and grease, two substances most of us are all too familiar with. If stopped, the rag comes out from under the seat, and you can clean it off while blaming the mess on your brother-in-law who borrowed the truck.

Of course, it looks a bit more natural on my pickemup than it would on the Lady's Expedition.

 

[Egon]

The dirty plate idea has merits but some minons of the force have no sense of humor and do not appreciate improvision.

Egon

 

[BB_TX]

I may be alone on this one, but I am all for it and anything else to stop the red light runners. It has become a very real problem with wrecks every day because of it. I am not just talking about when the light turns red as they go thru. Some enter the intersection 2-3 seconds or more after the light is red. You best look both ways after your light turns green before going.

 

[fivestring]

This, although still illegal, is a little less obvious.
http://www.phantomplate.com/

 

[slowrev]

BB,
Yeah, I used to live in Tampa, FL. One day I asked a cop how many cars were allowed to go thru a light after it had turned red. I said it must be at least 3 from what I had seen. He got all angry ?? I read an article in the paper that 1 intersection on Dale Mabry highway could keep 4 cops busy round the clock just pulling over people running red lights. Something like 200 tickets written in 8 hours.

I am glad to be out of that mess and back out in the sticks.