Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
G
Guest
Guest
Guest
Offline
Basil said:
I agree 100%.
-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
CA Needs Money - New Traffic Fines
- Thread starter AngliaGT
- Start date
Share this page
I agree 100%.
JamesWilson
Yoda
Offline
kellysguy said:
One member with a Big Healey has a leg that's plastic from the knee down (not seen it myself, but...)
Besides his disabled parking badge he's had to use (repatriate) a LHD Healey rather than the RHD usually found on UK roads- because he can't get in from that side....
R
Randi
Guest
Guest
Offline
My husband has Agent Orange. After fighting 20 years he has finally been compansated disabled 70%. Our veterans's representitive signed us up for all the "perks" free fishing license, disabled veterans license plates, base permits, etc. My husband is dying at 61 years old. We have 18 classic cars on insurance right now. Everyone of them is going to get a disabled vet plate. You can also believe me that if he isn't in the car with me I will park in regular parking. Disabled deserves respect and human consideration. Also the speed camera's can only charge $25.00 here in Louisiana because the owner of the car is not always the driver. As a notary I did some work on one of those last week.
G
Guest
Guest
Guest
Offline
Randi said:
I heard JPSO is getting full pop on 'em.
Gotta buddy who was exposed to A.O in 'nam. If a skeeter bites him, it falls over dead in a few seconds. He attributes it to A.O.
Several thousand barrels of the stuff burried out here at Stennis Space Center. Supposed to not be harmful....but we have a REALLY high cancer rate around here. Higher than cancer alley, you know, the Mississippi river....the urinary tract of America.
Sorry to hear about your husband. I know sevral people who had medical conditions from that crap.
Bruce Bowker
Obi Wan
Offline
I don't understand the opposition by some to red light cameras and heavy fines for those who go through a red light. Ever have someone broadside you or nearly kill a friend?
Offline
Bruce Bowker said:
I witnessed a guy run a red light and take out several vehicles, then flee the scene! They caught up with him and I had to go to court as a witness. This was when I was in the middle of Finals for my Engineering degree and could not really afford the time I had to go to court several times. In the end, he got off shot free on some technicality!
D
Deleted member 8987
Guest
Guest
Offline
I know a guy (police and fire dispatcher, no less) who was making a left on a green, and got cut off by some yay-who running the red, so he was stuck in the intersection when it went red, and HE got the ticket, not the guy who ran the light!
swift6
Yoda
Offline
Stewart said:
That criticism is more accurate for speed cameras than red light cameras. Red light cameras typically generate the most income right after they are installed. Then as it become known to the drivers that tend to 'push' a light that a particular intersection has red light cameras. Which is shortly after the first rounds of tickets start arriving in their mailboxes. The incidences of red light running begins to drop dramatically. Which results in a decrease in accidents as well as a decrease in revenue.
The red light camers around here trip if the intersection is entered after the light turns red. If your already sitting in the intersection, waiting for traffic, it will not trip the cameras.
D
Deleted member 8987
Guest
Guest
Offline
A new study showed.....NO discernible monetary difference in red-light equipped intersections over non.
The one type of accident (side) went down, the rear-enders went WAY up.
https://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/index.htm
You read it and tell me what it says.
It's gummint gibberish.
The one type of accident (side) went down, the rear-enders went WAY up.
https://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/index.htm
You read it and tell me what it says.
It's gummint gibberish.
D
Deleted member 8987
Guest
Guest
Offline
Steve_S
Yoda
Offline
No opposition here to red light cameras, but speed cameras are going too far. They do not take traffic conditions or special circumstances into account any more than the speed limit itself does. Setting a hard speed limit for all weather and traffic conditions on a given road is absurd, which is why most police officers seem to turn a blind eye to a bit of speeding on occasion. That attitude is dying though, as pressure increases to create more income through traffic tickets.
Some places have variable speed limits, and that makes more sense to me. But speed limits in most places these days are more about revenue than safety. A recent move in a city near to me proved that, when the city council tried to lower speed limits in order to create more speed citations. Last I heard they got slapped back to reality by the courts.
In my opinion, speed (within reason) doesn't kill... inattentive drivers do. Why not put a camera in every car instead, and ticket anyone who picks up a cell phone, steers with a single wrist at 70 MPH on the freeway, eats breakfast, reads a book, text messages, watches a DVD, reaches into the back seat, does their makeup, drives drunk, drives sleepy or does anything else far more stupid than driving faster than a posted speed limit?
I'd put any amount of money down that I (and others here) can drive 30% over any speed limit with far greater safety to myself and those on the road with me, than the average person drives their car at the posted speed limit. Having no radio in the car, cell phone off and packed away, and both hands always on the wheel (as well as an understanding of my vehicle's and my own abilities) puts me in the minority for sure. But I take driving very seriously whether I'm crawling along in traffic or blatantly ignoring the speed limit on a road I know well. Still, I may some day have to lose my own freedom to use common sense because of those who choose to be irresponsible behind the wheel. Speed cameras can't decide that a little excess speed in perfect conditions is not dangerous any more than they can cite a person driving the speed limit while typing text messages. Speed cameras are simply a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion, and I along with many others would argue that they are primarily for revenue rather than road safety.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating speeding, I just don't believe a modest breech of the posted limit is of significance compared to most driving-related dangers.
Some places have variable speed limits, and that makes more sense to me. But speed limits in most places these days are more about revenue than safety. A recent move in a city near to me proved that, when the city council tried to lower speed limits in order to create more speed citations. Last I heard they got slapped back to reality by the courts.
In my opinion, speed (within reason) doesn't kill... inattentive drivers do. Why not put a camera in every car instead, and ticket anyone who picks up a cell phone, steers with a single wrist at 70 MPH on the freeway, eats breakfast, reads a book, text messages, watches a DVD, reaches into the back seat, does their makeup, drives drunk, drives sleepy or does anything else far more stupid than driving faster than a posted speed limit?
I'd put any amount of money down that I (and others here) can drive 30% over any speed limit with far greater safety to myself and those on the road with me, than the average person drives their car at the posted speed limit. Having no radio in the car, cell phone off and packed away, and both hands always on the wheel (as well as an understanding of my vehicle's and my own abilities) puts me in the minority for sure. But I take driving very seriously whether I'm crawling along in traffic or blatantly ignoring the speed limit on a road I know well. Still, I may some day have to lose my own freedom to use common sense because of those who choose to be irresponsible behind the wheel. Speed cameras can't decide that a little excess speed in perfect conditions is not dangerous any more than they can cite a person driving the speed limit while typing text messages. Speed cameras are simply a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion, and I along with many others would argue that they are primarily for revenue rather than road safety.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating speeding, I just don't believe a modest breech of the posted limit is of significance compared to most driving-related dangers.
JamesWilson
Yoda
Offline
Steve_S said:
I don't think that's a particularly good idea:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7092642/Motorist-fined-for-blowing-nose.html
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]Michael Mancini, a father of two, said he put the handbrake on before wiping his nose but was asked to pull over by officers who were standing nearby.
He was told he was not in control of his vehicle and was handed a ÂŁ60 fixed penalty and three points on his licence.
[/QUOTE]
Seems crazy, but maybe the police didn't like the look of the guy.... Years ago I was talking to a traffic cop and he said they could get anyone anytime for something, if they really wanted to....
swift6
Yoda
Offline
After reading through some of those blogs and studies it does seem that some jurisdictions are not seeing a proper benefit from red light cameras. It also seems that it can simply come down to the particular municipality and how they implement a red light camera policy. It can be skewed to revenue, safety or neither if they fail to follow up with other 'maintenance' issues. I can speak to the effectiveness of safety to red light intersections that we have locally. The intersection that has had the cameras installed the longest is one of the safest intersections of its size in the area but it wasn't always so.
Before the red light cameras were in place, it became a near weekly occurrence that traffic through this intersection would be nearly stopped due to a major accident. This intersection is three through lanes with double left turn lanes and dedicated (single) right hand turn lanes in the North/South directions. The East/West are two lane (each) with single dedicated left and right turn lanes. Each time on of these accidents happened, travel through the intersection would be limited outside lanes for through traffic and right hand turns for everything else. The domino effect in all cardinal directions was massive. Ambulance, Fire and Tow trucks would actually stage as close to the intersection as possible to reduce response time as well as the time the intersection would be down.
After the red light cameras were installed accidents immediately began to reduce. You could see the cameras flash units tripping from more than a block away so it immediately would remind people of the new type of traffic enforcement ahead. Those cameras were taking a LOT of photos initially with multiple cars running the red lights with each cycle. Rear end collisions did dramatically jump for a while as people would jamb on their brakes for the yellow light. The rear end collisions would only jamb up traffic in that one lane though and for a shorter period. Those collisions were typically right at the intersection.
The local traffic control people didn't just install the red light camera and wait for it to all work out though. They kept studying the traffic pattern and adjusting the light timing looking for the sweet spot of light timing and photo enforcement. They continue to study that same intersection at least twice a year.
Now, that intersection, which has had a red light camera installed for more than ten years, is one of the safest and easiest to navigate large intersections in Northern Colorado. Especially considering the amount of traffic that moves through it. There is rarely an accident that blocks the intersection and the red light cameras hardly go off anymore. The rear end collisions that are still present are usually a hundred meters or more from the intersection and are from inattentive or distracted drivers that would do the same on a non-red light camera intersection.
I know the preceding was/is anecdotal but it seems to illustrate, to me at least, that red light cameras can be effective for safety. But also that they are not install and forget options, they still need to be properly timed and adjusted for maximum effect.
Before the red light cameras were in place, it became a near weekly occurrence that traffic through this intersection would be nearly stopped due to a major accident. This intersection is three through lanes with double left turn lanes and dedicated (single) right hand turn lanes in the North/South directions. The East/West are two lane (each) with single dedicated left and right turn lanes. Each time on of these accidents happened, travel through the intersection would be limited outside lanes for through traffic and right hand turns for everything else. The domino effect in all cardinal directions was massive. Ambulance, Fire and Tow trucks would actually stage as close to the intersection as possible to reduce response time as well as the time the intersection would be down.
After the red light cameras were installed accidents immediately began to reduce. You could see the cameras flash units tripping from more than a block away so it immediately would remind people of the new type of traffic enforcement ahead. Those cameras were taking a LOT of photos initially with multiple cars running the red lights with each cycle. Rear end collisions did dramatically jump for a while as people would jamb on their brakes for the yellow light. The rear end collisions would only jamb up traffic in that one lane though and for a shorter period. Those collisions were typically right at the intersection.
The local traffic control people didn't just install the red light camera and wait for it to all work out though. They kept studying the traffic pattern and adjusting the light timing looking for the sweet spot of light timing and photo enforcement. They continue to study that same intersection at least twice a year.
Now, that intersection, which has had a red light camera installed for more than ten years, is one of the safest and easiest to navigate large intersections in Northern Colorado. Especially considering the amount of traffic that moves through it. There is rarely an accident that blocks the intersection and the red light cameras hardly go off anymore. The rear end collisions that are still present are usually a hundred meters or more from the intersection and are from inattentive or distracted drivers that would do the same on a non-red light camera intersection.
I know the preceding was/is anecdotal but it seems to illustrate, to me at least, that red light cameras can be effective for safety. But also that they are not install and forget options, they still need to be properly timed and adjusted for maximum effect.
swift6
Yoda
Offline
JamesWilson said:
There are often many obscure little laws that can be used to make a traffic stop. However, if the reason they use to pull you over in the first place turn out to be false it can throw out anything else they ticket you for so officers sometimes have to be very careful with the reason they cite for pulling someone over.
A traffic judge I know told me of a case where an officer made a DUI stop and subsequent arrest. When it went to court, the offense was dismissed in favor of the defense because the arresting officer cited that the initiating reason for the stop was because there was a pine tree air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror which, he believed, was a safety violation. The judge asked him how many other tickets he had written for safety violations to people with pine tree air fresheners, which in reality, is not considered a safety violation. The answer was zero. Result, no probable cause for initiating a traffic stop. Turns out the guy had also failed to stop at a stop sign, failed to signal a turn at an intersection and had also failed to signal a lane change. All of which would have been perfectly justifiable reasons to initiate a traffic stop.
My sister, who is also a local officer and used to be the lead DUI enforcement officer, told me that this officer was trying to set a precedent for stopping people with air fresheners in order to 'profile' drug users, specifically marijuana users. Not only did it not work, the officer ended up being reprimanded for trying such a thing, and it let a DUI offender off on a technicality.
G
Guest
Guest
Guest
Offline
swift6 said: