Speed cameras coming to Calif? Yes, if this bill passes

page:

The only thing you need to do so you don't get a ticket mailed to you is drive the speed limit. Same with red light cams, stop and no problem. With the increase in traffic and the speed some people drive, I welcome photo radar!!

page:

You do know that most red light cameras are installed at intersections where the yellow interval is too short, don't you?

nate

Hrm... Lessee... Maybe you should be speeding the first place???

If you want to canvas for something, how about raising the limit to a "practical" level?

Is there not a standard, consistently-applied time that the amber must be displayed, in order that the red can be legally enforced as a stop signal? There is in the UK: I think it varies according to the speed limit of the road, so a car approaching at the limit will either have time to brake to a halt or else to be well clear of the far side of the lights before they turn red. I remember a case a few year ago where a driver was found not guilty of going through a red light because the amber phase was too short and did not give him time to brake to a stop before the red.

We've had speed cameras and traffic light cameras in the UK for about 10 years now. It will be interesting to see how California implements them. Will they be preceded by warning signs to say "speed/light cameras operate here"? Will the cameras be made highly visible by means of a yellow reflective panel on the rear (originally this wasn't done in the UK but is done now)? Will the speed camera carry a reminder of the speed limit to leave people in no doubt (for some weird reason, this is not done in the UK).

I find the best deterrent against speeding is signs which light up to display the limit - but only if you are exceeding it. That's an excellent way of reminding drivers. Better to deter than to prosecute.

Sadly, traffic light cameras aren't effective against the worst offenders: cyclists who think that red traffic lights simply don't apply to them. There was a case a few weeks ago in the UK where a cyclist was killed when he ignored a red light and was hit by a car. The driver was rightly prosecuted and imprisoned because she was speeding and was concentrating on sending a text message at the time, but people seem to forget that the *cause* of the accident was the cyclist avoiding the lights, not the driver being unable to react in time.

Which auto club? The auto club I belong to is a bunch of guys with old German cars in Virginia. They probably don't carry much clout in Sacramento.

Yes, but this is not an argument against red light cameras, this is an argument against sleazy local governments that try and use them as revenue sources instead of for improved safety.

If they are installed and set up for safety reasons, they will actually improve safety. If they are installed and set up to make money for the city, they will make money for the city and actually decrease safety. Which one will be the case in your locality? Call your mayor and ask.

--scott

Perhaps you're unaware that for a long time radar was illegal in Florida, due to a court case in which plaintiffs showed evidence of clocking a tree and a house at high speeds.

You already know what the answer is going to be. especially if a private contractor that gets a per-ticket cut is involved.

nate

If it is done equitably and fairly, I think the speed cameras are a good step toward improved safety.

If they are instruments of illegal speed traps, then avoid the town and let them starve to death.

How can they possibly be a deterrent if there is no penalty? I regard them with a certain amount of amusement, and a useful source of calibration for one's speedo. Other than that, I completely ignore them. Any driver, except possibly the pissed or very inexperienced, knows pretty accurately how fast they're going so these signs are quite pointless. Speed cameras, on the other hand, you have to take seriously. They really are a deterrent because you can be prosecuted. I'm no petrolhead, BTW. I'm 65 and drive a small car which goes from A to B faster than a horse and cart and in which I am not very interested.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

How can they possibly be a deterrent if there is no penalty? I regard them with a certain amount of amusement, and a useful source of calibration for one's speedo. Other than that, I completely ignore them. Any driver, except possibly the pissed or very inexperienced, knows pretty accurately how fast they're going so these signs are quite pointless.

====

Yes, everyone knows how fast they are going - if they keep looking at the speedometer. The perception of speed varies enormously according to the conditions (width of road, day versus night etc).

Speed limits are not applied consistently, and it is very easy on roads with absurdly low limits (I'm sure we can all name some!) to forget what the limit is and instead drive at a speed which feels right for the conditions. Even if you start off at the correct speed as you pass the initial sign, it is very easy to find your speed gradually creeping up again on such absurd-limit roads.

Reminders, even ones with no penalties, are very useful. And signs which only light up when you are above the limit are a good way of doing that reminder. For me, they usually make me check my speed and slow down to the limit.

Mind you, I'm reasonably conscientious. I'm sure many people will totally ignore anything which doesn't result in a fine.

There is a website somewhere about those traffic cameras in Britain.Some of those Brits over there are going around burning those cameras and cutting them down.I love it! cuhulin

I hate to butt into this thread again so soon.(y'all know I just can't help meself) But, here ya go,

How about this aspect:

Ooh, cops shatter the speed limit. This is not news; I see it every day. yet another reason that speedl imits should be set correctly.

nate