On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:38:25 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:
chris, once again, we are basically agreeing on the subject, so don't start backtracking...i *have already* answered the toll question...once in sarcasm, and once truthfully and honestly to the best of *my* ability...if you missed it, ignored it, or just flew off the handle *before* reading that part of the post, i will be glad to google it for you... Joey
I do not recall you telling me whether or not you felt it was RIGHT and or PROPER for you to be FORCED to pay a fine for a crime or offense you did not commit.
I guess you could call it a "trap question" since if you answer no you are agreeing with me and I have no idea what we are arguing about and if you say yes then you must ALSO agree that it is right and proper to be convicted of a murder you did not commit and be subjected to the fine/sentence associated with it.
Now if clear evidence and a jury does this you can say its an acceptable risk but one that must always be fine tuned as best as possibly and constantly upgrade to further reduce the risk of improper sentencing.
but when it comes to a camera sumarily judging someone ? at least the innocent "murderer" gets his trial and gets to try and defend himself. I get nothing of the sort in the toll camera scenario.
my guilt is decided the moment the flash flashes with no recourse to defend myself (how would I) its my word against a supposed "picture" of the crime occuring. now much of a defense.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:40:02 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:
I said:
of course you don't recall that trollboy, because you never asked that...you insisted on me answering a question and i did..then you claim for a week i didn't, and now you have changed what you wanted me to answer? sorry dudette you can't do that...you asked the question, i answered, and google archived....go play in an intersection...maybe someone will get a ticket that is deserved J
On 27 Jul 2003 16:53:46 -0700, rob_taylor snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (RobTaylor) ran around screaming and yelling:
i don't know how Yahoo works, but im sure you can see the poster's name before you even click on it...
i can read...so i do know who is involved..
no thats okay Rob(also very uncommon and original) i am very well versed in google search...want me to search for the posts where i have told people in the past "if you don't want to hear it then don't read it"?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:07:19 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:
Bullshit..."full proof" does not equal "foolproof".... go google it...you said "full proof"... now as usual you have changed your story...no wonder you look as stupid as you are..you can't even keep what *you* say straight...that is why you lose everything you try to argue about...but you are an excellent troll...its not really that big of a deal, we all know how you are, so don't get your panties all knotted up in that big ass of yours.. J
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:05:57 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:
well looky here...nowhere does it say anything about you asking if i felt anything was right...you have about fifteen or twenty posts asking me how you can prove your "innocence" if a tollbooth camera says you didn't pay the toll...so i answered it...then you changed the question...figures...if you can't win you change it...google that you ignorant f*ck
While the arguments may be valid to you, there are some flaws.
"As the light turns yellow, you have a split second decision to make: make a sliding stop into the intersection or blow through and pray for a sustained yellow."
If any part of the vehicle is within the intersection (past the line or apex of the corners) when it turns RED, it is a legal move. The red light cameras only activate when the light turns red. If the vehicle is within the intersection, no citation is issued.
If it is not, then the driver deserves the ticket. Red light cameras are placed in intersections where accidents occur above what would be expected as "normal". In many areas (like Phoenix) where a red light is merely a suggestion to most drivers, there aren't enough "live" police officers to stake out every corner.
Why speed up, in the other situations you describe? The accelerator pedal (or throttle of the motorcycle) goes back, too. Doesn't make too much sense to accelerate when someone in front of you hits the brakes and cuts you off.
The situations you describe would come under the violation of "Aggressive Driving", here in Arizona.
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 01:53:39 GMT, "Kris Staller" ran around screaming and yelling:
spot. This
mph. If this
if you have to speed up to get out of a "blindspot" then slow back to the "speed limit" then why not just slow down a bit to get out of the blingspot, then resume the speedlimit? same end result and you don't break the speed limit, thus no ticket....
limit in the
front of you
into the left
speed limit,
driver in the left
target of choice,
i don't see anyone being "suckered" into a ticket in your above "scenario"...i see someone making a case for "justifiable road rage"...is there some kind of rule that says if someone cuts you off, you *have* to swap lanes and speed up to pass them? or is it an ego thing?... if someone is a danger to those around them and blatantly cuts others off in traffic, you are a bit safer to actually be
*behind* them...that way you can watch them and be prepared for one of their stupid moves...again, sir, a lame example for justifying breaking the law...
split second
and pray for
i have driven type 1 vw's for almost fifteen years and six or seven year of those were as a daily driver...everyday transportation...If the vw's braking system is up to par it is more than effective enough to stop you in the above situation without it becoming a "sliding stop"....defensive driving teaches one to plan ahead..therefore if the light changes color, with a defensive driver behind the wheel, there is no decision to make when the light changes...the defensive driver makes that decision when approaching each and every light, there is a "point of no return" based on your vehicle...once past that point you
*maitain* your speed and continue on through the intersection...if you are traveling at the posted speed limit you will not have to enter the intersection after the light turns red....and that is when you get a ticket for "running the light."..not from being *in* the intersection when the light turns red...only if you enter afterwards(meaning cross the "stop limit" markings on teh pavement)... if everyone that is worried about the "traffic cameras" ticketing them unfairly would take a look at their driving style, they could determine whether they are at fault for not driving by the laws, or for not paying enough attention while driving...the *only* legitimate reason for entering an intersection after the light changes to red would be in periods of reduced traction...(heavy rain, snow, and possibly heavy fog)....and these would be taken into consideration at the court hearing...i have never received a ticket in the mail, but every ticket i have gotten has had a section on "weather condition"...
and i am sure if you extended the yellow by ten seconds it *still* would not cut out the light runners...you will always have those that try to "beat the light"....and those are the ones at risk of a ticket, as they should be..
Sorry, but I beg to differ with you about the traffic cameras saving lives, they are a Revenue Maker and nothing else. If there is a scientific study on how many accidents they prevent, then they have to also show how many accidents they cause. Where I live in Maryland, according to the annotated code of Maryland, an amber light is supposed to be illuminated for a minimum of 3.0 seconds, before the red light comes on. Of the 10 Scamera lights that I know of between the areas that I work in and my home, not one of them has amber light that is lit for 3 seconds. They average 2.3 to 2.6, with one at 2.0 seconds (they must have to change film in that one every hour). To further add to my study, I have timed 25 lights, many at the same intersection as the Scamera lights and they are not only over 3 seconds, but most are almost 4 seconds and sometimes more, I guess that's just a coincidence huh?
The state has a secret contract with the company that maintains these camera's, which allows these company's to alter the timing of the amber light in order to increase revenue's. I am aware of two Red Light Camera's that have been removed from a particular intersection, because they did not PRODUCE due to their location, even with the ileagle amount of time the light was lit. Near the Social Security Administration in Baltimore, three of my fellow workers have been involved in rear end accidents, due strictly to the red light cameras. The initial car stopped abruptly as soon as the light turned yellow (because of a previous ticket they received) and subsequently was hit in the rear. One of my fellow employees was the hit-ee and the other two were the hit-er, all three were within about two weeks of each other. The service station on the corner is thinking about buying another tow truck with all the increased business he is receiving.
On a good note, if you receive one of these revenue producing tickets, it is possible to win in court. Time the amber light at the intersection where the illegal ticket occurred and if it is less than three seconds (and I bet it is), video tape several sequences of that light and take it to court. I have been involved in four of these and all have been dismissed when the video is viewed by the judge. By the way, I was involved because I have the video camera, not the one getting the ticket. To add to your case, video tape the other light at the intersection, which in my case has always been longer, this will further prove your point. Again, you will have to check your states laws, but here in Maryland the Minimum Time for the Amber light is 3 seconds. If they were truly out to save lives, all that is required is to lengthen the yellow to 4 seconds, there are many studies that prove it works although not as profitable. Sorry to ramble on, but you struck a nerve here on this subject.
Gawd...not to ad fire to this thread....but.....I am curious how you time the lights? Are you actually plugged into the light system or are you doing it manually? Do you take in to consideration the human reaction time? On that note, at intersections with lights, the speed limit approaching them shouldn't be more than 30-5 mph, correct? The modern car should be able to stop from 35 in less than 2 seconds, a perfect reaction time is .500 sec and most don't have perfect reaction times, therefore anything 2.5 sec or more is theoretically possible but most likely impossible in a real world situation below 3 sec. Now, I've seen intersections with rumple strips approaching them, the same thing they did at a local toll booth after a recent horrible crash, I would think those would be a better method of slowing someone down compared to giving them a ticket AFTER they blew the light..... ......my first and LAST post to this thread:)
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:43:47 GMT, "Sneaks" , who was sitting in a corner eating his Xmas pie stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum and began to run off at the mouth like so:
Dude, can't you read? The Jim Beam factory is on fire. I got no time for this jibba jabba! ;-)
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.