Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was told by a cop that you can ignore the ticket since your face can't be seen on the camera so they would not be able to determine who ran the light.... but the cop also didn't seem to know much about the red light camera situation so I took the advice with a grain of salt.
Do you live all of your life in ignorance, or just part of it? Did you forget about the part where you can't control the actions of other people driving behind you? Or maybe didn't realize that some yellows are timing impossibly short, leaving you the option to either slam on your breaks and risk being rear ended, or blasting through a red light and getting fined by the city for saving your own a$$. What about inclement weather? Should be people really be forced to drive 15mph in a little bit of snow and wreak havoc on the flow of traffic just because they might come to an intersection with a camera? Sorry, but no. Roads are too congested as it is in the winter time, and nobody should be expected to drive slower than they have to out of fear of getting a red light ticket. It's a completely asinine way of thinking by a government that, instead of modifying their spending habits instead places the burden on its taxpayers.
I agree 100%. I will say that for me, personally, I don't adjust my driving for anyone else on the road who isn't driving safely. If someone is going to rear end me, go for it. I won't be at fault. And if I'm hurt, I will sue the $hit out of him. And if someone decides to merge into my lane of travel without looking, I'm not moving left, because if someone is there, it becomes my fault.
That's also why I drive a larg(er) sized truck. I can sit back, go slower, and relax when I drive. Big trucks are not nimble so you tend to drive slower (at least I do, some idiots drive them dangerously like a sports car). You got more meat surrounding you. I feel vulnerable in small cars, I drive them differently by nature because their not very alpha and people bully smaller cars on the road. I wouldn't want to be rear ended in a small car at a red light camera intersection.
Do you live all of your life in ignorance, or just part of it? Did you forget about the part where you can't control the actions of other people driving behind you? Or maybe didn't realize that some yellows are timing impossibly short, leaving you the option to either slam on your breaks and risk being rear ended, or blasting through a red light and getting fined by the city for saving your own a$$. What about inclement weather? Should be people really be forced to drive 15mph in a little bit of snow and wreak havoc on the flow of traffic just because they might come to an intersection with a camera? Sorry, but no. Roads are too congested as it is in the winter time, and nobody should be expected to drive slower than they have to out of fear of getting a red light ticket. It's a completely asinine way of thinking by a government that, instead of modifying their spending habits instead places the burden on its taxpayers.
Thanks for the cheap shot. Ignorance seems to be something you know about. The town I live in has traffic lights, and I haven't had a problem with either being rear-ended or getting a ticket for running a light, and that's in rain, snow, sleet, hail, AND sunshine. Sooo, is it ME who is ignorant because I drive safely? The person behind me won't be slamming into my read-end if I'm not slamming on my brakes. Just because you're in the intersection when the light turns red doesn't mean you're getting a ticket. How about doing a little research into the ACTUAL (not perceived) law before crying foul? All I was saying is that if you drive safely, this really shouldn't matter much...and it really doesn't. If you're not breaking the law, you have little to worry about.
Don't take OverTax too seriously, that's his stock response. I've heard it so many times that I've become numb to it.
I like how you guys are all up in arms about the city enforcing a red-light running law... Seriously? Facts:
1) They are very liberally timed. You can run the yellow and you will not get a ticket.
2) In terms of privacy, you should be worried about Google:
* They know every search you run on the Internet
* They know every email you send or read (Gmail)
* They know every website you goto (Chrome)
* They know what your house looks like (Google Maps) - both from space and from right in front of your house (Street View)
* They know more and more about phone calls - which they can transcribe (Google Voice)
* They know every purchase you make (Google Wallet)
I know many of you use these services happily from a Corporation that has no accountability to you. But when a democratically elected city government wants to make intersections known for dangerous behavior and serious accidents safe, you go all crazy on them...
Wow. Seriously? Google has pictures of your house from multiple angles (including space). Why are you not worried about that invasion of privacy? Wait - I know - Because you are not breaking any laws in those pictures.... I get it. Laws put in place by law-makers who we elected to make those laws.
Let's leave the City of Rochester alone and pick on Google for a while.
Don't take OverTax too seriously, that's his stock response. I've heard it so many times that I've become numb to it.
I like how you guys are all up in arms about the city enforcing a red-light running law... Seriously? Facts:
1) They are very liberally timed. You can run the yellow and you will not get a ticket.
2) In terms of privacy, you should be worried about Google:
* They know every search you run on the Internet
* They know every email you send or read (Gmail)
* They know every website you goto (Chrome)
* They know what your house looks like (Google Maps) - both from space and from right in front of your house (Street View)
* They know more and more about phone calls - which they can transcribe (Google Voice)
* They know every purchase you make (Google Wallet)
I know many of you use these services happily from a Corporation that has no accountability to you. But when a democratically elected city government wants to make intersections known for dangerous behavior and serious accidents safe, you go all crazy on them...
Wow. Seriously? Google has pictures of your house from multiple angles (including space). Why are you not worried about that invasion of privacy? Wait - I know - Because you are not breaking any laws in those pictures.... I get it. Laws put in place by law-makers who we elected to make those laws.
Let's leave the City of Rochester alone and pick on Google for a while.
You're right. I am worried about that, to be perfectly honest. And guess what?
1. I don't use Google Voice
2. I don't use Gmail
3. I don't use Chrome
4. The house I live in (which I don't own) isn't (as of yet) on Google Earth. At least from the front.
5. I don't use Google Wallet
Honestly, you make an excellent point which I have thought of in the past, and thats why I consciously make it a point in my life not to concentrate all of my private information into the hands of one company. Unfortunately, no one asked me if they could take a picture of the front of my house (Street View) so I guess I have no power or choice in that decision However, my ideal house (if and when I can buy one) would be semi-rural and have some setback from the road with some trees in the front yard for privacy.
To sum it up- yes, I think our privacy is definitely under attack in these times.
Sadly - I think this just points to how people like to selectively engage an issue only when it fits their agenda... For example:
"When I want to speed down East Ave to get home fast, endangering pedestrians, bikers and other motorists, red light cameras are an invasion of privacy."
However,
"When Google gives me free email, free phone service, free word processing, free spreadsheets, and a free Rolodex of the Internet, taking a picture of my house (possibly with me on the front porch at the time) and keeping track of all my correspondence is just fine".
Think about it. So silly folks. If you can remove your personal agendas and motivations, the hypocrisy becomes quite clear.
More for money than safety. If anything, it's going to have no effect on the number of accidents, and might even increase the amount of rear end collisions. Just another coffer for NYS
BTW Overtax, these cameras are losing money currently... BUT BUT BUT - Before you jump on this, the city cut a good deal on this one where the company who installs / maintains can't charge more than the city collects. In other words, they have a solid deal on these that can't lose money for the city. I know many people still don't like these things for other reasons, but you can at least admire the contracting approach here. It's a good model for other risky ventures.
"Under its agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems, the Arizona-based company that owns and installs the cameras, the city is guaranteed to break even. The firm charges the city for services, including use of the cameras, but cannot charge more than what the city collects."
It's extremely ironic that you posted this today, because I might be a victim of these awesome inventions as of this morning. I tried to beat a yellow at Ridgeway and Dewey, and while I'm all but positive I was in the intersection when the light turned red, I think I saw the flash from behind me. However after reading the city's website on the subject, it said you only get a ticket if you were behind some sort of pre-determined stopping line, maybe the thick white line in front of the cross walk lines? Regardless, I know for a fact I wasn't behind one of those when it turned red, so I'm hoping to be safe. Oh well, even if I get a ticket it's still only 50 bucks.
And it's still public belief nationwide from what I've read and gathered that it's nothing more than a money making scheme, and you're never going to get a politician to convince people with my views otherwise. Like most politically driven measures ironically enough And the fact that they're not even making money on it is sad at best. Although I have a feeling they might use that to raise fines even more. But to know they've spent hundreds of thousands on this project and there isn't even a financial benefit to be seen is disappointing. There are still thousands of people out there in Rochester alone running red lights, so what's the point? Again, I don't believe it was ever about safety.
I was going through a GREEN light on Goodman by the 490 exit and the camera took a picture. Not sure why this was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, my ideal house (if and when I can buy one) would be semi-rural and have some setback from the road with some trees in the front yard for privacy.
And the fact that they're not even making money on it is sad at best. Although I have a feeling they might use that to raise fines even more. But to know they've spent hundreds of thousands on this project and there isn't even a financial benefit to be seen is disappointing. There are still thousands of people out there in Rochester alone running red lights, so what's the point? Again, I don't believe it was ever about safety.
