Re: Challenge every Red Light Camera Ticket!

Lockheed Martin puts in all those fancy $100,000 signal lights and splits

> the revenue flow from all the tickets. > > These signal lights are supposed to cut down on violators, but in > actuality, they create violations. This is because the yellow light > interval is short-cycled on purpose to increase the number of red light > runners. Since the advent of these automated ticket generators, the > yellow > light interval has been dangerously shortened. > > As the yellow is shortened, the "go", "no go", decision is narrowed. > Drivers are supposed to treat the yellow as a green if they are too close > to the intersection to make a normal stop. They are supposed to treat the > yellow as a red if they can make a normal stop. If the yellow is > shortened > enough, the yellow will trap every driver into either entering an > intersection on a red and being ticketed or making a panic stop and risk > being rear-ended. For that reason, there are tables and recommendations > for timing the yellow. > > Ideally, the yellow should be 3 seconds minimum for a posted 30 mph zone, > with an additional 1 second for every 10 mph. Say you have a posted 50 > mph > zone. The yellow should be 5 seconds. With a red clearance interval of > one second, whereby the intersection is blocked by red signals in both > directions, the total safety clearance time is 6 seconds. This describes > a > safetly timed intersection. Traffic experts will attest to this formula. > > Lockheed Martin recklessly disregards these safe times and routinely times > their signals for a 3 second yellow on 50 mph roads. You will typically > see skid marks at these intersections, attesting to their danger caused by > drivers making panic stops to avoid being nailed by a red. It is not to > the pecuniary advantage of Lockheed Martin to time intersections according > to a safe formula because then, only deliberate red light runners will be > ticketed. To make their venture into the cash cow it is, they time the > lights to trap careful drivers who follow the rules of the road, but are > victimized by slowing reflexes or even worse, the laws of physics. Even > worse then having to pay unjust tickets, accidents have been caused by > these very lights promoted in the name of reducing just such accidents. > > If you are involved in an accident at one of these short cycled > intersections, bring Lockheed Martin into court and make them face the > music. The net has a lot of data to support the assertions made above. > If > you are ticketed, you need to also supeona Lockheed Martin officials and > any officials that made the decision to set you up for an unwarranted > ticket. Any reasonable judge should dismiss your case if you can show > deliberate disregard for timing standards. > > Class action lawyers might give this some consideration. Possibly > hundreds > of thousands of tickets could be reversed with all such fines returned > along with claims filed for consequential damage such as jacked-up > insurance rates.

Lockheed Martin puts in ALL those 100K $ signals? I GUESS you mean the ones with the cameras on them? I see them go up in my city pretty regular now. I always see a CITY truck and workers doing it. If the city buys this crap from Lockheed Martin that just goes to show you how stupid and the "money is no object" attitude government has. I mean really, it takes a company like Lockheed Martin to develope and sell this??? And it takes small goverments to buy it? Morons.....Anyway, I like them....I am getting sick and tired of having to drive defensively just to get through a GREEN light. I was on my motorcycle one day and a guy in a motorhome tryed to kill me and all I was doing was leaving the intersection when the light turned green. The dumbass didnt even slow down. I was so surprized I looked twice at the light to see if *I* ran it red....The others (and him) were turning in front of me on the green, there was a big gap in vehicles, then BAM, theres a motorhome turning right in front of me running the red light big time.....Like I said, I like the cameras......it makes those morons stop at a red light for once, and not just gun it when its good and yellow.

Reply to
Scott M
Loading thread data ...

I agree there are some real morons driving out there today. Bring on the cameras.

Reply to
noname

There was a big stink in the news last year of short yellows when cameras were installed. News people checked and they were not short compared to lights without cameras. People just don't like getting tickets.

recommendations

Reply to
Art

Yes there are morons out there but the cameras have to be properly implemented not to have a *negative* impact on safety. Shorter yellow lights make an intersection less safe. Unfortunately shortened yellows also make money for the local gov't.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Especially tickets for driving in a reasonable manner. I would think that that falls under the category of "things so obvious that they don't really need to be said."

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Yep... if it were true. But it isn't.

Reply to
Art

No, they don't.

formatting link
Delivers This Technology? Most photo-enforcement equipment in use around the world is manufactured by American Traffic Systems (ATS), Driver Safety Systems, Ltd. (DSS), Econolite, Gatsometer, Multinova, Peek, TraffiPax, or Truvelo. Usually, however, jurisdictions buy from distributors such as Electronic Data Systems (EDS) who resell the equipment and provide processing services as well, and SAIC-Syntonic also distribute photo-enforcement systems. Only Redflex provides complete manufacture, distribution, and processing services in the United States. (Until recently ATS also provide complete solutions. However, they sold their U.S. processing contracts to RedFlex and cannot offer the service again until 2002. ATS still manufactures equipment and teams with other vendors such as Mulvihill Electric of New York in offering complete service packages. Only a few manufacturers like American Traffic Systems (ATS), Redflex, and Poltech seem committed to rapidly improving the technology. Many European manufactures are slower to change since the time and expense to get a new system certified in the EC is great.

Cite?

Cite?

Hell "not holdin' my breath" Toupee

Reply to
Hell Toupee

True for some, but not for others. You have to check them because the folks who set them up have a lot of profit in mind when they do so.

-------------- Alex

Reply to
Alex Rodriguez

What's more, checking the yellow-light duration at intersections with cameras against that at intersections without cameras isn't the right way to do it. It's common for a local red-light running problem to be entirely due to insufficient yellow-light duration at ALL intersections. In such cases, increasing the YLD frequently causes red light violations to plummet dramatically--but it doesn't bring in the $$$$$ like red-light cameras.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

It is true. There are guidelines that have to be followed when setting up the timing for intersections. You may want to take a peek at 'The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices'. The guidelines are based on many years worth of data. If followed, you end up with a safer road. Not following the guidelines leads to dangerous road conditions. Not following the guidelines also allows unscrupulous companies to make money selling red light cameras, so they will compromise safety to make more money.

--------------- Alex

Reply to
Alex Rodriguez

"noname" wrote in news:A_d4d.2$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe07.lga.highwinds-media.com:

Well welcome to the Nanny state. I am glad you have no historical facts on freedom and responsibality. It is a direct afront to our fore fathers that such a unmaned automatic ticket machine is ok with you. Don`t be bitching when they come for your phone, computer, TV and any other thing you might do something illegal on. enjoy you monitored life. KB

Reply to
Kevin Bottorff

Google for the recent case in CA where just such an occurrance was PROVED - as well as the ongoing debate about the same situation in Washington, D.C.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

you are both morons.. those that run reds, will still run them. even with a shorter yellow interval.

same mentality with tail-gaters... they don't think they are tail-gating.

the shorter yellow will cause inconsistencies in driving habits until one gets used to it.

i prefer unmarked traffic police vehicles...

-a|ex

Reply to
127.0.0.1

Apparently Lockheed Martin IMS manages the billing for the tickets and gets a cut of the take. See: http://207.178.248.67/editorial/signal/1001/100501.html

I specifically remember hearing a radio news item - I'm guessing four or five years ago - that it had been proven in LA that the privately contracted company that did the billing (which I assume from the above-cited article to be Lockheed Martin IMS) was: (1) Getting a piece of the action, and (2) Had intentionally short-cycled the yellow light as a mutually beneficial method of increasing both their profits and city revenues - a win-win conflict of interest. Very believable.

I can see a company making a pitch to a city government to guarantee increased revenues for the city if the company was allowed to manage the system. Politicians love that kind of pay-its-own way systems where the city has little or no expense, no increase in its payroll (no additional employees needed to be hired, no additional load on existing employees) and generated additional income - true safety becomes a secondary consideration relative to balancing budgets (if you can assume no kickbacks). Definitely a conflict of interest and an invitation to corruption.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

the cops are great but never there to see it. Sorry but your wrong. I see it every day at 2 intersections I go through. It funny, people actually stop when they know theres a camera.....

Reply to
Scott M

Around here, Santa Clarita CA, these lights have put a stop to turning left long after the light has changed red. Before the cameras, as many a eight or nine cars would continue to turn left long after the red thus clogging up the intersections and causing accidents. Now, everyone (or nearly so) complies. I vote to keep the cameras.

Reply to
Reece Talley

Something else you might want to think about. Not all of the cameras are there for ticketing purposes. Some cities have them setup for real time monitoring. Interesections with unusually high traffic accidents will be monitored real time so that there is no delay in dispatching emergency personnel to the scene.

Don Manning

Reply to
2.3Sleeper

Bandaid fix that raises revenue for the county. The real problem is probably that the intersection is poorly designed and needs to be re-configured. The red light cameras will not prevent accidents that will happen because of the poor design. The real solution would be to have an engineer study the intersecion and re-design the intersection. Then implement the new design. That way you minimize the number of red light runners and make the intersection safer. Of course this won't raise revenue for the politicians to spend, so it is not a popular solution.

-------------- Alex

Reply to
Alex Rodriguez

They could spend a bit of money on getting an engineer to study the intersection to see why it is so dangerous. Once they identify the cause, they can come up with a solution. Having a camera there to send help when necessary is better than nothing, but not by much.

----------- Alex

Reply to
Alex Rodriguez

More and more, especially in urban areas, signals and boulevard stops are becoming merely suggestions that motorist follow/heed.

Reply to
JailhouseKey

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.