Photo Radar

[Peikko 1,575]

just admit it, madame, you're looking for an excuse to manhandle him.

ask him nicely and i bet he lets you

It would help a whole lot more than being ticketed by a camera. I might actually increase my stopping distance and reduce my speed if I were to get flogged instead of mailed a ticket I know I could beat.

That makes no sense. If you know what you are doing is dangerous, you should stop doing it because that increases your own and others safety, not because you might get flogged. How idiotic.

[Pooky 3,930]

I'll agree that in California you're supposed to stop if the yellow light signals. However, is "safe to do so" construed as slamming on your brakes?

The "safe to do so" relates to not putting yourself or other drivers at risk of accident or injury. So, if the road is clear behind you and the conditions will not put you at risk by doing so, braking hard may well constitute "safe", especially in the eyes of a traffic cop in the last week of a month.

For traffic cameras, the delay between yellow and the trigger going active is set to dry conditions plus a (very) short delay, to allow for the rear-ending risk. Chances are that if the camera is functioning properly (difficult to disprove) and the conditions were good (can't read 10 pages worth of stuff to find out), then our perpetrator was either a.) scared of using the brakes, b.) distracted by the chicken crossing the road; or c.) plain ran the light.

If Steven doesn't recall the light with any clarity, then chances are that he was distracted/tired and momentarily lost concentration. We've all done it at some point in time. Fighting the ticket is one route. The other is to understand why the loss of concentration occurred and do something about that. Not our call to make.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Pooky

[slim 1,533]

That makes no sense. If you know what you are doing is dangerous, you should stop doing it because that increases your own and others safety, not because you might get flogged. How idiotic.

What I'm doing is not dangerous to me because I drive a pretty safe vehicle. If I were to rearend a car or hit a pedestrian, I probably wouldn't get so much as a scratch.

As for the punishment methods, yes, a public flogging is going to deter me better than the threat of a $200 ticket.

chances are that he was distracted/tired and momentarily lost concentration.

He already related he was "just following the other car."

[Peikko 1,575]

The "safe to do so" relates to not putting yourself or other drivers at risk of accident or injury. So, if the road is clear behind you and the conditions will not put you at risk by doing so, braking hard may well constitute "safe", especially in the eyes of a traffic cop in the last week of a month.

For traffic cameras, the delay between yellow and the trigger going active is set to dry conditions plus a (very) short delay, to allow for the rear-ending risk. Chances are that if the camera is functioning properly (difficult to disprove) and the conditions were good (can't read 10 pages worth of stuff to find out), then our perpetrator was either a.) scared of using the brakes, b.) distracted by the chicken crossing the road; or c.) plain ran the light.

If Steven doesn't recall the light with any clarity, then chances are that he was distracted/tired and momentarily lost concentration. We've all done it at some point in time. Fighting the ticket is one route. The other is to understand why the loss of concentration occurred and do something about that. Not our call to make.

I totally agree, all kidding aside.

What I'm doing is not dangerous to me because I drive a pretty safe vehicle. If I were to rearend a car or hit a pedestrian, I probably wouldn't get so much as a scratch.

As for the punishment methods, yes, a public flogging is going to deter me better than the threat of a $200 ticket.

He already related he was "just following the other car."

So your safety is important but no one else's is? And you think you have been taught to interact socially? Wow, impressed I am not.

If your thinking process is a good indication of what happens to people that are flogged instead of taught consequences of their actions, then flogging is even more useless than I previously suspected.

[Pooky 3,930]

He already related he was "just following the other car."

Then my advice would be to suck up the fine and learn. Just because the guy in front might make it, doesn't absolve you of the need for judgement of your own circumstances. A defence in court based on the "I was just following the other guy" argument is likely to be laughed at.

[slim 1,533]

So your safety is important but no one else's is? And you think you have been taught to interact socially? Wow, impressed I am not.

Everyone else's safety is their business provided I'm not endangering them with my actions. If they drive like they're supposed to also, then we should have no problems.

I'm not surprised that you're not impressed with me. Typically, the UK hasn't been impressed with us Yanks for quite a while, that's why we've fought a couple of wars and haven't reunited since.

If your thinking process is a good indication of what happens to people that are flogged instead of taught consequences of their actions, then flogging is even more useless than I previously suspected.

So you're saying installing cameras and making people pay fines is working better?

[Peikko 1,575]

Everyone else's safety is their business provided I'm not endangering them with my actions. If they drive like they're supposed to also, then we should have no problems.

I'm not surprised that you're not impressed with me. Typically, the UK hasn't been impressed with us Yanks for quite a while, that's why we've fought a couple of wars and haven't reunited since.

So you're saying installing cameras and making people pay fines is working better?

Your inability to follow the argument is hilarious. No, I am not saying that at all. I am not impressed with you personally slim, which has nothing to do with what continent you were born on and everything to do with what your personal postings, not what 'some American' has posted.

[slim 1,533]

Your inability to follow the argument is hilarious. No, I am not saying that at all. I am not impressed with you personally slim, which has nothing to do with what continent you were born on and everything to do with what your personal postings, not what 'some American' has posted.

Your inability to stereotype me along with all the other fat old bald guys with foreign wives is insulting.

Until you can figure out how to intertwine your ramblings with the actual topic, stick to posts about the joys of kids and weddings.

[Peikko 1,575]

Your inability to stereotype me along with all the other fat old bald guys with foreign wives is insulting.

Until you can figure out how to intertwine your ramblings with the actual topic, stick to posts about the joys of kids and weddings.

That's the trouble with trying to have a conversation with people like you, it's completely meaningless. I'll say something like, "I hate rabbits, they smell" and you respond with, "OMG, you want to tax odours!"

[slim 1,533]

That's the trouble with trying to have a conversation with people like you, it's completely meaningless. I'll say something like, "I hate rabbits, they smell" and you respond with, "OMG, you want to tax odours!"

Why is that a problem? If smelly rabits are being raised in an environment where there smell shouldn't be unreasonably encountered by me or anyone else, why should there be a tax on that?

I find it preposterous that so many people think the answer to everything is making another law or creating another tax. Either shoot the damn rabbits or have a discussion with the owner.

[Peikko 1,575]

In this thread, I simply said, that I wished people that got tickets would face up to the fact that they got them because they drove badly in some way and address that as a priority instead of seeking out ways to excuse their bad driving. You read that as "OMG, there aren't enough cameras, we need more cameras, OMG, people, get more cameras on the roads and we'll stop accidents between cars and cyclists".

Edited December 31, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

Why is that a problem? If smelly rabits are being raised in an environment where there smell shouldn't be unreasonably encountered by me or anyone else, why should there be a tax on that?

I find it preposterous that so many people think the answer to everything is making another law or creating another tax. Either shoot the damn rabbits or have a discussion with the owner.

Are you being ironic, or are you serious, really?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In this thread, I simply said, that I wished people that got tickets would face up to the fact that they got them because they drove badly in some way and address that as a priority instead of seeking out ways to excuse their bad driving. You read that as "OMG, there aren't enough cameras, we need more cameras, OMG, people, get more cameras on the roads and we'll stop accidents between cars and cyclists".

You actually believe that if someone gets a ticket, it's always because they drove badly? Yea, but you bike and don't know any better. People beat tickets everyday because the ticket shouldn't have been issued. Photo radar is government's lazy way to collect more revenue. It can and has been been successfully challenged, as it should be.

[Peikko 1,575]

You actually believe that if someone gets a ticket, it's always because they drove badly? Yea, but you bike and don't know any better. People beat tickets everyday because the ticket shouldn't have been issued. Photo radar is government's lazy way to collect more revenue. It can and has been been successfully challenged, as it should be.

In the instance of cameras at red lights yes, UNLESS the camera is rigged, they have violated a traffic code. You can argue that toss as to whether the traffic code is good, bad or indifferent (personally, as I know that an intersection is a hazard, I can't think of too many occaisions when crossing into the intersection once the lights have changed is not an example of bad driving, but I'm all ears) but that's the code as it stands.

The argument that this is a lazy government trying to raise income is irrelevant. It may well be, I don't have enough facts to know if this is or isn't true but that changes nothing because it's a fact that it is that only by driving badly (by the current definition of the traffic code) do you trigger the camera. There is no way around that, unless you want to argue that the traffic code itself is faulty. Do you want to make that assertion?

[slim 1,533]

In this thread, I simply said, that I wished people that got tickets would face up to the fact that they got them because they drove badly in some way and address that as a priority instead of seeking out ways to excuse their bad driving. You read that as "OMG, there aren't enough cameras, we need more cameras, OMG, people, get more cameras on the roads and we'll stop accidents between cars and cyclists".

Exactly. You're insinuating that someone is doing something wrong if they're caught on a red light camera and they should not do it anymore because they're being more dangerous.

That is simply not true.

Are you being ironic, or are you serious, really?

Like most of my posts, there's a whole bunch of irony, a little sarcasm, but then a nugget of truth buried in there somewhere. When you're talking about dangerous driving in relation to cyclists in a red light camera thread, you're basically arguing that a bunny farmer how had a subdivision built around him is wrong when they call for the farm to be shut down.