It's picture day!

[slngsht]

... and only cost me $40.

 

they have set up cameras to trigger at 12 MPH above the limit, and I was doing 12 miles above the limit. LOL.

 

Kinda wish I knew, so I could do 100 above the limit and prove the top speed.

[Silk]

Bummer. I hate those things. But be glad it didn't happen in DC. I got tagged in the 3rd Street tunnel - but the first notification I received was for the amount of the ticket ($60 or something) plus $300 for failure to pay on time. Tried to tell them they never sent me notice the original ticket - - - got the usual DC response - as have lots of other people. Happy I could do my part to help reduce the District's budges shortfall. http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/mad0061.gif

[jimrankin]

I can't even park in San Francisco for $40.00 and you get to SPEED!!!!! Lucky Guy.

[Hank]

So what is the camera mounted on or in? Here they have redlight cameras on poles or speed cameras in unoccupied vans.

[Ruadhd2]

Tired of paying extra taxes.

[MightyMike]

Bummer! Could have been worse. I went to grad school in Virginia (traveled to Maryland frequently) and found traffic enforcement geared more toward generating revenue than keeping the streets safe.

Edited October 16, 2010 by MightyMike

[Automoda]

BB Gun time, beeyotchez!

 

No. I'm serious.

[Alaskossie]

i would plead not guilty and go to trial on a speed camera citation, as a matter of principle. You are entitled to confront and cross-examine your accuser. If the camera can't testify (or the operator isn't present to testify about your particular citation), the charge should be dismissed by the Court.

 

If it is a private operator, he/she should be disqualified as having a direct financial interest in a finding of guilty.

 

Read the column in the latest C&D about the public outcry that killed the speed-camera enforcement/revenue generation in Phoenix.

[Ruadhd2]

A further waste of tax payer dollar's is that they are mailing you color pictures instead of black and white, which are far more expensive to print.

This needs to be a Green Party issue. Also, cars are far more fuel efficient at 62 mph than at 35 mph. We are being forced to slow down and waste gasoline.

[11Budlite]

I hope they never set these up on back country roads or I'm going to be in big trouble!

[MoPho]

I always drive with the Garmin and camera alerts on.

 

 

And there's the thing, you can know where these are located and slow down when you get to them. I'd rather have one of these fixed camera locations in my favorite places to drive than a roving police officer whom I never know where he is hiding http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif

[slngsht]

And there's the thing, you can know where these are located and slow down when you get to them. I'd rather have one of these fixed camera locations in my favorite places to drive than a roving police officer whom I never know where he is hiding http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif

this was setup at a construction zone at I-95... I'm sure it was a mobile unit.

[MoPho]

this was setup at a construction zone at I-95... I'm sure it was a mobile unit.

 

The construction zone part should have been a big red flag not to speed

 

 

.

[MHKflyer52]

slngsht,

Looks to me like the computer that controls the camera just wanted to get a better look at FRANKN7 and that you now have "poor professional photos" of your car for a mere $40 dollars which is cheap but a pain in the keaster.

Out here in Ventura, CA. they have the traffic intersection cameras in almost all the major intersections in town and they seem to be making a lot of money for the city and a private company who operates and maintains them for the city.

The reason I say this is I have watched the flash for the camera go off numerous times while sitting at some of those intersections waiting for the light to change.

Yes I know this first hand as I tapped the back of a car in June of this year that slammed on the breaks and actually skidded to a stop in front of me and my F-350 at one of those intersections trying to avoid a ticket from the camera.

My insurance agent has told me that the number of accidents in intersections has gone up a lot due to the cameras and the fear of getting a ticket by the photo cameras (people slamming on the breaks when the light changes to yellow just as they approach the intersection) but that the severity of those accidents has dropped because of them in those intersections due to people running the lights.

I later found out thru my agent that the gal driving the car that I tapped (and I latterly tapped her car as I did not even bend my license plate on the front bumper) has had three rear end collisions in the past two years due to her trying to avoid getting another traffic ticket from the intersection cameras in the area.

My insurance agent said that I was not being charged with an chargeable accident by my insurance company due to her driving record and the fact that I did not contest that I tapped the car at the intersection and that I called the police to have them make a report of the accident at the time it occurred to protect myself from any false claims of injury.

This all came about because of the claim that she filled against my insurance to get her car repaired and that their was a police report number and their were witnesses at the intersection when the accident occurred that told the police that she caused the accident and that she (the driver of the car that I tapped) had stated to the police officer who showed up at the intersection, “I was trying to stop to not get another ticket from the red light cameras in this town when this guy in the pickup hit me”.

Funny thing is the officer did not ticket me but wrote her a ticket for not being able to provide proof of insurance at the time of the accident even though her license and registration was good and then gave me the report number that I gave to my insurance agent when I told him that I had run into the back of a car at an intersection.

[MoPho]

This all came about because of the claim that she filled against my insurance to get her car repaired and that their was a police report number and their were witnesses at the intersection when the accident occurred that told the police that she caused the accident and that she (the driver of the car that I tapped) had stated to the police officer who showed up at the intersection, “I was trying to stop to not get another ticket from the red light cameras in this town when this guy in the pickup hit me”.

 

 

I am confused, how is it her fault that you rear ended her? Whether she slammed on the brakes for a light or a kid running out in front of her, you are responsible for leaving enough distance in between the car in front of you so not to hit them.

 

 

 

 

The amount of people that run red lights here is sickening! As a matter of fact, while telling my visiting cousin to beware of people running lights while she was driving here, someone ran a red light and nearly mowed us down on a crosswalk.

 

 

.

[Mondo]

What surprises me is the number of hit & runs that happen... the fine should be the same as drunk driving. Because that's probably why the majority do it.

 

As far as cameras, they should be for intersections or areas that have a lot of accidents. It's turned into a way to raise cash instead of increasing safety.

[MichaelD]

a little black marker could make it read BRANKNZ

 

I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT HAPPENED. DAM PRANKSTERS. HAVE A NICE DAY OFFICER AND THANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT TO ME. I WILL FIX IT AS SOON AS I GET HOME.

[MHKflyer52]

I am confused, how is it her fault that you rear ended her? .

 

Never said that it was not my fault for running into her but my insurances company is not charging my policy / record as an accident charged to me.

My agent says this is due to fact that I was not ticketed for the accident and the fact that the statements by the witnesses said that she caused the accident in the intersection.

The way I figure it I lucked out and am glad that it was only her bumper that got scratched by my license plate coming into contact with her car and that I was not ticketed for failure to control my vehicle.

In hind sight if I had had three more inches of space I would have never touched her car with my front license plate but that is why it is called an accident isn’t it and why we have insurance.

[BrunnyS1]

Sorry Martin but I am baffled,

 

If you hit a car from behind then you are at fault,I am not a lawyer , but I cannot think of many situations where you could not be found at fault.

I mean, if this lady stopped, for any reason rather than run the light then the deterrent is working right?you even say that you agent said that minor bumps are up , does that mean deaths and serious injuries are down?

 

Then you say...

 

..you hit a car that had a history of slamming on brakes at lights soon to turn red and that she was phobic about cams and getting even more tickets; then that after you hit her car she admitted to witnesses that she has done this many times before and made statements to confirm this; then ,that you called the police, ( not her!) to make sure you could not be held at fault.

 

After all of this, and some days later, your insurance agent discussed with you her driving history and insurance claims records with you.

Really?

 

Hmm, sorry, I do not buy this story, nor do I see how you can hit a car with a Ford F350 and it is like a butterfly kiss and just a tap, as you say maybe you "did get lucky and it's just a scratch".

 

Does any one happen to know if cams at lights have cut down on serious injury with the trade off of minor accidents,or is it just yet another large source of revenue location like most cams on speeding ticket $ spots.

 

Lights and intersections of any kind being run scare me more than anything else on the road .

 

PS, Martin, in earlier posts:

did you not talk about a flux capacitor magnet that you carry in your car that alerts the lights to when you are there and makes them change them quicker ?

 

 

I am confused, how is it her fault that you rear ended her? Whether she slammed on the brakes for a light or a kid running out in front of her, you are responsible for leaving enough distance in between the car in front of you so not to hit them.

 

 

 

 

The amount of people that run red lights here is sickening! As a matter of fact, while telling my visiting cousin to beware of people running lights while she was driving here, someone ran a red light and nearly mowed us down on a crosswalk.

 

 

.

Edited October 17, 2010 by BrunnyS1

[Alaskossie]

A few years ago a C&D columnist or editor (Pat Bedard, I believe -- now long gone from the mag) wrote an article on his investigation of red-light camera systems in several cities. All were contracted with private firms that provided the camera and operators, for a percentage of the take (i. e., the fines).

 

One of the contract clauses prohibited the cities from lengthening the duration of the yellow light at intersections, from a certain specified (fairly short) duration.

 

This clause was obviously in the contract to create more yellow/red light violators, and increase the take, rather than to promote safety -- particularly if increasing the length of the yellow light by 5 to 10 seconds might actually allow people to stop before the light turned red.....

 

This system is largely corrupt, I believe, and the private camera companies want to protect their cut of the take, to the detriment of highway safety.