Providence traffic-light cameras?
A
neighborhood: corner of Eaton and Huxley, right by Providence College.
This is the new system where the camera automatically photographs the
license plates of anyone running a red light... even if you're just
"sneaking through" as the light turns from yellow to red. The city will
mail automatic fine notices to owners of cars photographed running the
lights.
Does anyone know where others are installed? I had assumed they would be
at major intersections, but as one who routinely drives past biggies like
North Main St. and Branch, Doyle, Olney; Hope St. and Olney, Doyle,
Rochambeau; Douglas and Eaton; Smith and Academy, River, North Main; etc.,
I haven't seen other camera set-ups yet.
NOT that I would ever run a red light! -- but it would be nice to have a
list of where the cameras have been installed.
- Anne
Mitch Berkson
> This is the new system where the camera automatically
> photographs the license plates of anyone running a red light... even
> if you're just "sneaking through" as the light turns from yellow to
> red.
Are you saying that they fine drivers who have entered the intersection when
the light is yellow? Why do you think this?
Mitch Berkson
A
> Are you saying that they fine drivers who have entered the intersection when
> the light is yellow? Why do you think this?
I think it because I read it in the ProJo when the new system was
announced a few months ago.
It doesn't matter what color the light was when you *entered* the
intersection. All the camera cares about is where you car is when the
light turns red. If your car is still within the boundaries of the
intersection as the light turns red, your plate will be automatically
photographed and a bill for the fine sent to you.
Note that some traffic lights seem to have very short "yellow" intervals.
Basically, the only safe way to negotiate a camera-monitored intersection
is to STOP as soon as the light turns yellow.
Do a Google search for "red lights"+cameras+fines and you will see quite a
bit of coverage of these intersection-monitoring systems around the
country. Many drivers (and the ACLU) have objected to the concept, and
some have challenged their tickets in court.
- Anne
PS: RI drivers, nota bene: I have never had a moving-violation ticket in
my entire driving lifetime (36 years now), but in the past 5 months I have
been 1) stopped on Wayland Avenue on the East Side of Providence for a
"rolling stop" at a 4-way stop sign -- i.e., my car's tires did not
totally stop rotating at the stop sign (I got off with a warning), and
2) stopped on Wilson Avenue in Rumford for doing 33 mph in a 25 mph zone
(another warning; whew). Since then, I have been seeing East Providence
cops sitting in speed traps *all* the time, all over town.
These two events have pretty much turned me into a law-abiding driver. :-)
Laury
"A" <hennypen...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hennypennynospam...@128.148.243.126...
>
> > Are you saying that they fine drivers who have entered the intersection
when
> > the light is yellow? Why do you think this?
>
> I think it because I read it in the ProJo when the new system was
> announced a few months ago.
>
> It doesn't matter what color the light was when you *entered* the
> intersection. All the camera cares about is where you car is when the
> light turns red. If your car is still within the boundaries of the
> intersection as the light turns red, your plate will be automatically
> photographed and a bill for the fine sent to you.
>
> Note that some traffic lights seem to have very short "yellow" intervals.
> Basically, the only safe way to negotiate a camera-monitored intersection
> is to STOP as soon as the light turns yellow.
I have recently returned from a week in British Columbia, where I saw
my first sane and fair use of the cameras. They have warning lights
before all traffic signals. If it's flashing before you pass it, you will
not
be able to clear the intersection before it turns red. If it's not flashing,
you don't have to worry about it. It made things fool proof, which is
good as there is no court or appeal if you get a ticket. Back here at
home, I have "run" the same red light 3 times this week, on Reservoir
Ave in Cranston. It changes before anyone has a prayer of stopping. If
we must use cameras, why not do it right? I have a sneaking supsicion
it's because the cameras aren't designed to make driving safer, they
are designed to raise revenue.
Laury
A
> They have warning lights
> before all traffic signals. If it's flashing before you pass it, you will
> not
> be able to clear the intersection before it turns red.
Laury, I don't know if the ones in Providence will have that feature.
Maybe they will. It certainly would make things fairer.
A short while ago I watched some cars get stuck in the middle of an
intersection because a very large moving van pulled out into the street
they were about to enter, and blocked their way. (This is the 5-way
intersection of Hope St., Lloyd Ave., and Brook St. in Providence.) I
thought: sheesh, if one of those cameras was installed and working here,
the cars stuck in the intersection would get socked with fines... the
camera wouldn't be sophisticated enough to determine that they were
blocked by a larger vehicle and simply could not vacate the intersection
when the light turned red. The warning feature wouldn't do much to prevent
such unfair fines, either.
> I have a sneaking supsicion
> it's because the cameras aren't designed to make driving safer, they
> are designed to raise revenue.
Since Cicilline announced the intersection cameras in the context of a
plan to revive Providence finances and create new revenue sources, this is
a good bet! :-)
- Anne
Tony P.
says...
In many communities the yelloww timing has been made shorter, or the
cameras triggered x number of milliseconds before the transition from
yellow to red.
Tony P.
hennypen...@cox.net says...
Cities and towns are strapped for cash. Easiest way to increase revenue
is by cracking down on traffic violations and increasing fines.
So now not only is gas more expensive, but almost everyone is bound to
get snagged by a red light camera, or an over-zealous cop.
Grumpy au Contraire
Generally, the rule of thumb is if you enter the intersection on yellow,
you're legal.
BTW, all that counts is that them thar' new fangled camera thangs is to
enhance revenue collection...
--
JT
Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4
Cuddle Bitch
> BTW, all that counts is that them thar' new fangled camera thangs is to
> enhance revenue collection...
After a few weeks I suspect you'll see people start to take them out w/
pellet guns. Or sling-shots.
-CB
Laury
"Grumpy au Contraire" <Gru...@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote in message
news:40D23BB5...@doofis.FAKEcom...
> Generally, the rule of thumb is if you enter the intersection on yellow,
> you're legal.
In California, their anti-gridlock law is that you can not enter an
intersection
you are not sure you can clear before red. So in Anne's example, someone
who got caught by an idiot is screwed anyways, even if the light was green
when they entered the intersection. My friends there hate it, btw,
>
> BTW, all that counts is that them thar' new fangled camera thangs is to
> enhance revenue collection...
But it *could* be an actual safety enhancement. Imagine something
actually doing what it's actually supposed to do. Red light runners
are a very big problem in RI, I don't think anyone can argue that.
I think I'll actually speak up about this one before I make my poor
dog, who usually rides shotgun, a hood ornament.
Laury
Tony P.
says...
Yes, I suspect the same. It's happened in many places already, to the
point where they actually have to post a cop at the camera site to make
sure nobody takes it out.
Grumpy au Contraire
And knowing the average RI'nder, they'll do it without a ski mask and
end up in the dumb criminals hall of fame!
Grumpy au Contraire
--
Sorta defeats the purpose, eh?
Grumpy au Contraire
If you check the history of these devices, you'll find that they are
nearly all operated under contract. Lots of money changing hands...
Bob F.
Hi Laury
> I have recently returned from a week in British Columbia, where I saw
> my first sane and fair use of the cameras. They have warning lights
> before all traffic signals. If it's flashing before you pass it, you will
> not be able to clear the intersection before it turns red. If it's not
> flashing, you don't have to worry about it. It made things fool proof,
We have the same system here. It's called the yellow light. The
argument: "What if I couldn't stop safely when the light turned
yellow" can also be made for the flasher you describe. Here's the
deal... the standard for the length of time a light stays yellow is
calculated based on the posted speed limit on that road. I'm told by
the law enforcement professionals and one traffic engineer in my
family that this standard is the generally accepted method used
accross the entire country. Realistically, drivers routinely play the
game as if the rules allowed you to continue through an intersection
anytime you have a green or a yellow light. The fact is that if the
light turns red while you are still in the intersection, you have run
a red light. The yellow light exists to give a reasonable opportunity
to get through when it is unreasonable to stop in time. Yellow lights
were never intended to be an extension of green lights. To complain
that it is unfair to get a ticket when your car is in the intersection
when the light is red, is... well... silly. Suck it up folks. Your
kids are out there driving... one can hope that you've provided good
examples over the years, and that they don't do foolish things at red
lights. Conversely, one can hope that we don't do foolish things at
red lights to put other innocent people at needless risk.
[snip]
> I have a sneaking supsicion
> it's because the cameras aren't designed to make driving safer, they
> are designed to raise revenue.
If they wanted to be raising revenue, why did one of the posters in
this thread get two warnings rather than tickets? Also, it's a hell
of a lot easier to raise revenue by ticketing everybody who speeds
rather than sit by and stop only those that exceed the speed limit by
5mph, and warn those that are less than 10mph over the limit... which
is pretty much the order of the day in most communities. They don't
have to do that. Thay could be raising revenue. Bottom line? Don't
do the crime if you intend to whine.
Bob F.
A
> do the crime if you intend to whine.
I am the original poster, and the person stopped recently for a rolling
stop at a stop sign and for driving over the speed limit on a residential
street in EP, and I agree with you, Bob.
In a way, I think it's a good thing that I had these two heads-up. I'm not
a speed demon by any means, but I think I do get distracted and feel
extremely busy and hectic, and when that happens I drive less carefully
and faster than I probably should. Now I'm a safer driver... and that
should be the goal of all these enforcement measures.
That being said, I would like to make two points:
1) Mayor Cicilline did announce the traffic-light cameras in the context
of raising more revenue for Providence, which kind of detracts on the
"safety first" aspect.
2) There are some streets -- North Main in Prov., for example, a four-lane
busy boulevard, all commercial -- where the posted speed limit is
nonsensical. 25 mph in that case. I think 35 would still be plenty safe.
25 mph almost guarantees that everyone will exceed the limit on that
particular road.
Same goes for the 35 mph limit on what is essentially an expressway,
the Henderson Bridge and extension between EP and East Side. I drive that
bridge many times per week and have decided that 45 would be reasonable on
the long straight stretch.
- Anne
Cuddle Bitch
> But it *could* be an actual safety enhancement. Imagine something
> actually doing what it's actually supposed to do.
Some intersections are impossible to make a left-hand turn in unless you
pull 1/2 way into the intersection and wait for a break in traffic.
sometimes that means when the light turns to red in the oncoming direction.
-CB
Tony P.
> > do the crime if you intend to whine.
>
>
> I am the original poster, and the person stopped recently for a rolling
> stop at a stop sign and for driving over the speed limit on a residential
> street in EP, and I agree with you, Bob.
>
> In a way, I think it's a good thing that I had these two heads-up. I'm not
> a speed demon by any means, but I think I do get distracted and feel
> extremely busy and hectic, and when that happens I drive less carefully
> and faster than I probably should. Now I'm a safer driver... and that
> should be the goal of all these enforcement measures.
>
> That being said, I would like to make two points:
> 1) Mayor Cicilline did announce the traffic-light cameras in the context
> of raising more revenue for Providence, which kind of detracts on the
> "safety first" aspect.
> 2) There are some streets -- North Main in Prov., for example, a four-lane
> busy boulevard, all commercial -- where the posted speed limit is
> nonsensical. 25 mph in that case. I think 35 would still be plenty safe.
> 25 mph almost guarantees that everyone will exceed the limit on that
> particular road.
Absolutely. I recall when I used to work on North Main street how awful
traffic could be sometimes.
I used to loop around to get to the intersection of North Main and
Branch Ave.
And yes, the speed limit is set too low. But it won't ever change
because there are residences on the street.
As long as an area has residential presence, the speed limits will
always be set low.
> Same goes for the 35 mph limit on what is essentially an expressway,
> the Henderson Bridge and extension between EP and East Side. I drive that
> bridge many times per week and have decided that 45 would be reasonable on
> the long straight stretch.
Yes - that should be upped to 45. Anything along the route is commercial
property anyhow.
A
> And yes, the speed limit is set too low. But it won't ever change
> because there are residences on the street.
North of Doyle Avenue extending to the Pawtucket line? Where are the
residences on that part of North Main? It's all commercial as far as I
know.
- Anne
Grumpy au Contraire
Unlike RI where people jump the left turn when the light turns green,
that is not the practice here. However, the rule is that you do pull
into the intersection and then make the turn when it is clear. OTOH,
many of the lights here are left turn "protected" to make it easier for
the idiots incapable of rational decision making...
Grumpy au Contraire
I knew that we would sooner or later get a liberal spin that supports
revinoo enhancement...
Grumpy au Contraire
Speed limits in Rhode Island are a joke.
I can never stop marveling at the reasonable limits here. 30mph
downtown and on small narrow streets, 35 and 45 mph on the thoroughfares
outside of downtown and I'll betcha that the accident/injury toll here
is no higher than in RI.
Tony P.
hennypen...@cox.net says...
The really ridiculous part is when you compare it with Mineral Spring
Avenue in North Providence. That has a speed limit of 35MPH from the 146
line almost into Woonasquatucket.
But I think the general rule is, if you've got < mile of pure commercial
and the rest is residential then you have to set the speed limit lower.
Tony P.
says...
Yes, there's a scattering of those in RI too. But the thing is, the left
turn light is always times so damned short that people end up running
the light anyway.
Tony P.
says...
Through most of downtown Providence you'd be lucky to be able to do much
more than 25MPH. Traffic gets a little jammed at commute times.
And 95 - hoooo... being able to do even 40MPH on that highway during
commute hours is a dream.
Z
> OK, I saw my first one of these rigs this morning, in the Elmhurst
> neighborhood: corner of Eaton and Huxley, right by Providence College.
Anne! Is that you driving the car in this picture:
Z
> But it *could* be an actual safety enhancement. Imagine something
> actually doing what it's actually supposed to do. Red light runners
> are a very big problem in RI, I don't think anyone can argue that.
> I think I'll actually speak up about this one before I make my poor
> dog, who usually rides shotgun, a hood ornament.
Amen to that
Z
> We have the same system here. It's called the yellow light. The
> argument: "What if I couldn't stop safely when the light turned
> yellow" can also be made for the flasher you describe. Here's the
> deal... the standard for the length of time a light stays yellow is
> calculated based on the posted speed limit on that road. I'm told by
> the law enforcement professionals and one traffic engineer in my
> family that this standard is the generally accepted method used
> accross the entire country. Realistically, drivers routinely play the
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ has a list of generally-accepted
times for the "Yellow change intervals."
See Defect #2 : Yellow light too short.
Z
> In many communities the yelloww timing has been made shorter, or the
> cameras triggered x number of milliseconds before the transition from
> yellow to red.
Both of which will get a ticket tossed.
Grumpy au Contraire
See, that's the difference. If you are in the intersection down here,
you're legal. In fact, the driver's license manual for newbies states
exactly that.
We haven't quite caught up to the evil east coast/west coast regarding
revenue enhancement...
A
OMG, that is awful! 8-O
No, I haven't sunk that low yet, Z. ;-)
- Anne
Bob F.
Hi Grumpy
> > If they wanted to be raising revenue, why did one of the posters in
> > this thread get two warnings rather than tickets? Also, it's a hell
> > of a lot easier to raise revenue by ticketing everybody who speeds
> > rather than sit by and stop only those that exceed the speed limit by
> > 5mph, and warn those that are less than 10mph over the limit... which
> > is pretty much the order of the day in most communities. They don't
> > have to do that. Thay could be raising revenue. Bottom line? Don't
> > do the crime if you intend to whine.
> I knew that we would sooner or later get a liberal spin that supports
> revinoo enhancement...
If you think that anybody who disagrees with you is liberal, then does
that make you the de facto definition of and repository of all that is
conservative? I know a few conservatives who wouldn't want to be on
the same planet with some of your positions. Also, what have you
gleened from my comments regarding the support for enforcing traffic
laws that smacks of support for revenue enhancement? My position was
simply that running a red light is against the law. Don't do it if
you're gonna whine about it when you're caught.
Bob F.
Laury
"Bob F." <bobfi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb6786f9.0406...@posting.google.com...
> "Laury" <la...@coxxx.net> wrote in message
news:<vFkAc.1091$Ms5.433@lakeread06>...
>
> Hi Laury
>
> > I have recently returned from a week in British Columbia, where I saw
> > my first sane and fair use of the cameras. They have warning lights
> > before all traffic signals. If it's flashing before you pass it, you
will
> > not be able to clear the intersection before it turns red. If it's not
> > flashing, you don't have to worry about it. It made things fool proof,
>
> We have the same system here. It's called the yellow light.
Hi Bob,
No, the warning lights flash before the light turns yellow.
It's hard to describe it but if you drove it I think you might
agree. When a light turns yellow you're supposed to ask
yourself if you can stop safely. There are lots of lights here
in RI where you could not. I'm no kid with a lead foot, I'm
a safe middle-aged driver with a perfect driving record.
The warning light takes all the guesswork out of it for you.
You know the light is about to change to yellow so you can
start to slow down well away from it, thus ensuring you
can safely come to a stop at the light. As it is now you
have to expect every light you approach might change. It's
so much more relaxing and safe to KNOW.
Laury
Grumpy au Contraire
The intent of the founding fathers was to give citizens the benefit of
the doubt. Liberals have spent their entire career redefining that aspect.
From the current decent into third world status to protecting the stupid
and lazy.
Liberals should be treated for what they are... Traitors!
--
JT
<And I'm in a good mood today...>
Grumpy au Contraire
Yep, the real fly in the pudding... Considering that road, weather, and
other contributing variables are factored in.
Revenue enhancement pure and simple.
Grumpy au Contraire
If you can prove it or have the patience to fight it. It's all a game
of hide, seek, patience, and endurance.
Most sheeple will simply whine but pay. A few persistent folk will win,
but will the numbers be favorable?
Grumpy au Contraire
Damend! They sure make them thar' German cars tough... Don't even see
a hint of a dent...
Grumpy au Contraire
Actually, you should aim so that they go over the roof so that the next
guy can nail 'em again!
Tony P.
Defect #9 (Churning) is interesting. I've noticed many areas where green
is time unusually short. And then in some, green is time unusually long.
A few years back my commute home took me right through downtown
Providence at about the same time Colonel Prignano was on his way home
and officers were posted all along the route to keep a route clear for
him. That was a major annoyance.
I wonder if the resistance to automatic control on cars is more
governmental in nature than personal. If you had an integrated system
that could signal a car well in advance to put on the brakes revenues
from traffic fines would nearly be eliminated. And speed limits would
become mostly irrelevant because the car would be set to not exceed the
given limit for road.
Granted - we're a few years from the reality but it's creeping ever
closer daily. I still recall the video I saw of a half dozen Crown Vic's
all being computer controlled humming down a test strip with about a
foot of clearance between them.
Of course the DARPA challenge of last this year was stunningly bad. But
I suspect either this or next a team will be able to field a completely
autonomous vehicle.
Bob F.
Hi Grumpy - I notice you seem to have lost the thread of this
conversation... it was about cameras monitoring traffic lights.
> The intent of the founding fathers was to give citizens the benefit of
> the doubt. Liberals have spent their entire career redefining that aspect.
Can you speak in anything BUT generalizations? Put the shotgun
away... less spewing, and more substantive, specific, and supportable
commentary would make you much more credible.
> From the current decent into third world status to protecting the stupid
> and lazy.
> Liberals should be treated for what they are... Traitors!
Aha... like I said, I know a few conservatives who would be happy to
debate you on that issue and others. For now, I can't make myself get
too excited about your outrageous and over-the-top fringe views.
Bob F.
Z
> Aha... like I said, I know a few conservatives who would be happy to
> debate you on that issue and others. For now, I can't make myself get
> too excited about your outrageous and over-the-top fringe views.
Welcome to the club.
Most of us just ignore the trolling.
Bob F.
Hi Laury
>> We have the same system here. It's called the yellow light.
> No, the warning lights flash before the light turns yellow.
> It's hard to describe it but if you drove it I think you might
> agree.
I'm familiar with the flashing lights... we have them in very high
profile intersections in SE Pennsylvania.
> When a light turns yellow you're supposed to ask
> yourself if you can stop safely. There are lots of lights here
> in RI where you could not.
If the lights are not timed according to generally accepted standards,
you may be correct.
> I'm no kid with a lead foot, I'm
> a safe middle-aged driver with a perfect driving record.
> The warning light takes all the guesswork out of it for you.
That assumes that when you see the flash, you prepare to stop. Around
here, when people see the flash, they accelerate. And when there is
no flash and just a yellow light for a warning, they accelerate
through that too. When the lights are timed properly, if the light
turns yellow when you are legitimately too close to the intersection
to properly stop, then simply maintaing the speed limit should get you
through while it's still yellow. The problem is that most people
interpret yellow as the commencemnt of a game of chicken, rather than
a warning to prepare to stop. This plays fast and loose with
pedestrian safety, as well as the safety of other drivers.
> You know the light is about to change to yellow so you can
> start to slow down well away from it, thus ensuring you
> can safely come to a stop at the light. As it is now you
> have to expect every light you approach might change. It's
> so much more relaxing and safe to KNOW.
Like I said, this presumes an intention of stopping. That isn't
generally what I've observed at intersections with a flasing strobe
warning of an imminent yellow.
Bob F.
Mitch Berkson
> Of course the DARPA challenge of last this year was stunningly bad.
An autonomous seven mile drive is pretty impressive.
Mitch Berkson
Tony P.
says...
Last I read, none of the entries actually managed the full 30 mile trek.
Sure, 7 miles is a start, it's why I say in another year or two we'll
have a vehicle that can do the 30 miles and much more.
It's all about refinement.
Blarg
>Red light runners
>are a very big problem in RI, I don't think anyone can argue that.
I used to like flooring the throttle the instant the green light came on. It
usually gave some red-runners quite a scare, but gave some others crumpled
fenders and bumpers to boot. I've never been found to be at fault, since the
other driver ran the red light and there were always witnesses around to
provide help. Sucked to be them.
Blarg
Nowadays you can't find a solitary witness in a crowd of onlookers...so the
above tactic isn't useful any more.
"Insecure?!? I'm security personified! Everywhere I go, people
point and shout, 'Security!' They just KNOW!" -- Mike Jittlov
Mitch Berkson
>
> Nowadays you can't find a solitary witness in a crowd of
> onlookers...so the above tactic isn't useful any more.
Why close down the funhouse? You could do what the police do - mount a
video camera behind your rear view mirror connected to an endless loop VCR
in the trunk.
Mitch Berkson
Mitch Berkson
The full route was 140 miles. The farthest anyone went was seven miles.
Just because no one succeeds at a very hard problem doesn't make the results
"stunningly bad".
Mitch Berkson
Z
> Why close down the funhouse? You could do what the police do - mount a
> video camera behind your rear view mirror connected to an endless loop VCR
> in the trunk.
Cops use an endless loop VCR?
Are you sure?
The tapes I've seen all look like standard VHS tapes.
Mitch Berkson
I am far from sure and have never seen one - I think this was entirely based
on a mention of it in a CSI episode. But it makes sense - would the police
really want to mess around changing video tapes or risk missing something
during the rewind of a regular tape? But how could you tell by looking?
Doesn't an endless loop tape look just like a regular VHS tape. Or maybe
there is no such thing as an endless loop (redundant?) video tape?
Mitch Berkson
Z
> Z wrote:
>
>>Mitch Berkson wrote:
>>
>>>Why close down the funhouse? You could do what the police do -
>>>mount a video camera behind your rear view mirror connected to an
>>>endless loop VCR in the trunk.
>>
>>Cops use an endless loop VCR?
>>
>>Are you sure?
>>
>>The tapes I've seen all look like standard VHS tapes.
>
>
> I am far from sure and have never seen one - I think this was entirely based
> on a mention of it in a CSI episode. But it makes sense - would the police
> really want to mess around changing video tapes or risk missing something
> during the rewind of a regular tape?
Back when I saw a system, the recorder was in the trunk and when
an officer went on duty, he was issues a blank tape. He loaded
the tape and then unloaded it and turned it in when his shift
was over. The tape then went into storage.
The recorder was activated with the overhead lights and did not
record continuously. I don't know what record speed/quality was
used. It may have been some special speed or format - the recorder
was not like an off-the-shelf model you'd get at Circuit City.
> But how could you tell by looking?
> Doesn't an endless loop tape look just like a regular VHS tape. Or maybe
> there is no such thing as an endless loop (redundant?) video tape?
Good question ... assuming there is such a thing as an endless loop
VHS tape, I don't know it looks like, so I may have been looking at
one and not known it.
Laury
> Like I said, this presumes an intention of stopping. That isn't
> generally what I've observed at intersections with a flasing strobe
> warning of an imminent yellow.
But I mentioned this in conjunction with the cameras. This is a
fair and safe use of the cameras in my opinion, and how they
are used in British Columbia. If you speed up and fail to make
it you'll be socked with a big fine. I think both the warning lights
and the cameras compliment each other and making driving
safer and more pleasant.
Laury
Laury
"Blarg" <bl...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:332ad092b41rar5j7...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:18:57 -0400, "Laury" <la...@coxxx.net> wrote:
>
> I used to like flooring the throttle the instant the green light came on.
It
> usually gave some red-runners quite a scare, but gave some others crumpled
> fenders and bumpers to boot. I've never been found to be at fault, since
the
> other driver ran the red light and there were always witnesses around to
> provide help. Sucked to be them.
>
>
Ahh, one of those "dead right" drivers. My mom was in an accident a few
years ago. She was driving down Newport Av in Pawtucket and someone
broadsided her as they exited a gas station. The police report was actually
comical as the other driver said my mother "came out of nowhere". She
had actually driven 2 1/2 miles on Newport Av before the collision. Yet
she was assessed 20% responsibility just for being there, and her insurance
went up. Sucked to be her, too.
Laury
Blarg
>
>"Blarg" <bl...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:332ad092b41rar5j7...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:18:57 -0400, "Laury" <la...@coxxx.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I used to like flooring the throttle the instant the green light came on.
>It
>> usually gave some red-runners quite a scare, but gave some others crumpled
>> fenders and bumpers to boot. I've never been found to be at fault, since
>the
>> other driver ran the red light and there were always witnesses around to
>> provide help. Sucked to be them.
I stopped doing all this before I got to my mid-twenties...that was quite a
long time ago. And, being in my early/mid-twenties everything I did was
right.. hahaha Nowadays I wouldn't be able to put up with someone like I was
way back then.
>Ahh, one of those "dead right" drivers. My mom was in an accident a few
>years ago. She was driving down Newport Av in Pawtucket and someone
>broadsided her as they exited a gas station. The police report was actually
>comical as the other driver said my mother "came out of nowhere". She
>had actually driven 2 1/2 miles on Newport Av before the collision. Yet
>she was assessed 20% responsibility just for being there, and her insurance
>went up. Sucked to be her, too.
That stinks. I remember driving in Mapleville back in the 80s. I drove an
Audi 5000s then. Good car. Anyway, as I was rounding a left-hand bend that
had a side street at the outside of the curve. A driver in a Civic was
approaching me and decided to take that left-hand turn. Unfortunately he
turned in front of me. The front end of my Audi destroyed the passenger-side
rear fender, wheel and suspension of that little Civic.
If you take a picture from a certain angle - from the approaching car's POV -
it looks like that left-hand turn is part of the main road. That was the
position his adjuster took. The police and my claims agent said otherwise. I
guess the yellow lines on the main road told the story. :)
I was responsible for 20% because I was exceeding the speed limit (35 in a 25
or soemthing like that...according to police inspection of the skid mark
lengths and damage done). I didn't really argue that point, 'cause I believed
that to be fair.
Fortunately none of us was hurt. I hope your mom was OK. Newport Ave is a
very busy road with lots of traffic. I used to drive it every day when I
worked in Rehoboth.
>Laury
-Blarg
Z
Red-Light Camera Busts Cheating Wife
HAWTHORNE, Calif. -- A red light camera in Southern California caught
one woman in the act -- of cheating.
Hawthorne Officer Mark Escalante said a local resident is challenging
his $341 red-light violation ticket.
The ticket was mailed to the registered owner of the car. But the car
owner says the camera's automatic videotape shows he wasn't driving --
it was his wife's lover behind the wheel. The jilted husband is getting
a divorce.
But the new red-light traffic cameras snagged more than 1,400 motorists
last month in Hawthorne, leading to a slew of complaints.
There's been a threefold increase in tickets since the red-light camera
were installed this spring. Cameras snapped pictures that resulted in
1,414 tickets issued in June.
Some motorists outraged over getting the tickets storm into the police
station to dispute the violations, not knowing the photos come
accompanied by videotape.
Tony P.
Just remember, big brother is always watching.
In any case, that's $482,174 per month, $5,786,088 per year. Hawthorne
is getting a good deal on this.
Welcome to the 21st century where we'll be nickle and dimed to death.
And people wonder why autonomous vehicles never catch on. That's the
prime reason, too much money to be made when things aren't under
automatic control.
Z
> Welcome to the 21st century where we'll be nickle and dimed to death.
> And people wonder why autonomous vehicles never catch on. That's the
> prime reason, too much money to be made when things aren't under
> automatic control.
You don't think the fact that autonomous vehicles aren't viable
yet isn't the prime reason?
Tony P.
They could be viable within a very short time frame. Numerous
experiments have been done proving the concept if anything. But funding
never materializes until DOD gets involved.