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.
Nevermind that -- it is a violation of the VTL to proceed through an intersection when it is unsafe to do so and when you do not have the right of way (read: yellow/red lights). Just because the county has not gotten off it's ass to put some signs in doesn't waive the right for them to ticket for violating traffic laws.
I understand what you're writing, repeatedly. However do not dismiss the fact that the link I provided -- if you haven't please take a moment to read it -- one FAQ question and answer:
No. The purpose of the red light camera program is to improve intersection safety by reducing the number of red light violations. If the warning signs stop motorists from running red lights rather than the cameras themselves, then the purpose of the program is being met."
My point is that if the signs are not present, as the county states in the FAQ, motorists will continue to run red lights. (As they have done in the past in violation of the VTL you keep reciting.) If the county fails to provide these signs, then the purpose of the program must be questioned.
The failure to provide the signs would suggest that the red light cams are a revenue source and NOT a program to stop motorists from running red lights. Eventually people will wise up to the areas where unmarked cameras are, but until then, the county will continue to cash in. If signs went up as quickly as the cams, the revenue stream would diminish.
Red light runners are breaking the law, no question, and the county is not honest about the intent of the program.
I think most people support cameras ticketing idiots that blow through red lights. This is a no brainer.
I'm yet to meet someone who trusts these cameras and honestly believes they make our roads safer. If you believe that, you are pretty naive.
They are about revenue-period.
Exactly. If it were about safety, the warning signs would have been posted at the same time as the cameras.
I can only speak for myself, but I know that I'm now less likely to speed up to make a yellow light at intersections with the cameras. Whether or not that improves safety...I have no idea. But I don't think it can hurt.
Me, too.
As far as safety, I think the new problem we are going to see is people stopping at yellow lights getting hit by the person behind them.
I understand what you're writing, repeatedly. However do not dismiss the fact that the link I provided -- if you haven't please take a moment to read it -- one FAQ question and answer:
No. The purpose of the red light camera program is to improve intersection safety by reducing the number of red light violations. If the warning signs stop motorists from running red lights rather than the cameras themselves, then the purpose of the program is being met."
My point is that if the signs are not present, as the county states in the FAQ, motorists will continue to run red lights. (As they have done in the past in violation of the VTL you keep reciting.) If the county fails to provide these signs, then the purpose of the program must be questioned.
The failure to provide the signs would suggest that the red light cams are a revenue source and NOT a program to stop motorists from running red lights. Eventually people will wise up to the areas where unmarked cameras are, but until then, the county will continue to cash in. If signs went up as quickly as the cams, the revenue stream would diminish.
Red light runners are breaking the law, no question, and the county is not honest about the intent of the program.
I think it's two-fold. Revenue generator for idiots who don't care, and a warning sign for those who do. I think the way I am interpreting your post may be incorrect, and I apologize, but it seems a little one-sided in the revenue-generator field. The county is under no obligation to install the camera notification signs, and honestly I would rather they didn't. More idiots to catch. I completely agree that this is 99% a revenue generator, and considering the condition of most of the roads I drive on daily, I (naively) hope that the revenue is being kept in the traffic division rather than into the pockets of the officials. Many of the roads I travel daily are warzones, huge potholes, blocked off lanes with no activity being done, etc.
I understand what you're writing, repeatedly. However do not dismiss the fact that the link I provided -- if you haven't please take a moment to read it -- one FAQ question and answer:
No. The purpose of the red light camera program is to improve intersection safety by reducing the number of red light violations. If the warning signs stop motorists from running red lights rather than the cameras themselves, then the purpose of the program is being met."
My point is that if the signs are not present, as the county states in the FAQ, motorists will continue to run red lights. (As they have done in the past in violation of the VTL you keep reciting.) If the county fails to provide these signs, then the purpose of the program must be questioned.
The failure to provide the signs would suggest that the red light cams are a revenue source and NOT a program to stop motorists from running red lights. Eventually people will wise up to the areas where unmarked cameras are, but until then, the county will continue to cash in. If signs went up as quickly as the cams, the revenue stream would diminish.
Red light runners are breaking the law, no question, and the county is not honest about the intent of the program.
Honesty? In these matters? LOL. Does it remind you of something? Let's compare the red light camera program to schools ...
Redl light camera are for: improving safety!
Public schools: they're "for educating the children," right?
In reality, when it comes down to what is actually going on with these programs which are purportedly "for the good of society":
Red light cameras = $$$ REVENUE for the government; added safety is a byproduct
Public schools = the most important thing is that it is a highly entitled workplace for the ADULTS; the adults get everything they want FIRST when it comes to money; educating the children is a byproduct and definitely comes LAST if you think about how the budgets are set up
of course, you are simply assuming something without proof...
and..this is about driving..something LI women should not poke their noses into...
I am currently reading the book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What it Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt
It is an interesting look into the psyche of drivers and the driving culture. Early on one of the things it mentioned was how people tend not to notice things when they are driving close to home, which helps lead to more accidents. This could be applied to the case of people having to train themselves to rethink the meaning of the yellow light.
What's the joke?
Green = Go, Red = Stop, Yellow = Go Faster.
Several times I have been bumped by someone at a STOP sign. All three times were men who failed to realize STOP means just that.
I think it's two-fold. Revenue generator for idiots who don't care, and a warning sign for those who do. I think the way I am interpreting your post may be incorrect, and I apologize, but it seems a little one-sided in the revenue-generator field. The county is under no obligation to install the camera notification signs, and honestly I would rather they didn't. More idiots to catch. I completely agree that this is 99% a revenue generator, and considering the condition of most of the roads I drive on daily, I (naively) hope that the revenue is being kept in the traffic division rather than into the pockets of the officials. Many of the roads I travel daily are warzones, huge potholes, blocked off lanes with no activity being done, etc.
Something tells me that the money is going to fill gaps -- just not in the road, though.
I am all for detering idiots who blow lights -- hopefully they will think twice and not repeatedly blow lights in the future.
With respect to the signage, if the County hadn't posted that there would be signs -- I never would have posted on this thread. As you point out, there's no obligation to post, however the County has commited to post in writing.
I am currently reading the book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What it Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt
It is an interesting look into the psyche of drivers and the driving culture. Early on one of the things it mentioned was how people tend not to notice things when they are driving close to home, which helps lead to more accidents. This could be applied to the case of people having to train themselves to rethink the meaning of the yellow light.
What's the joke?
Green = Go, Red = Stop, Yellow = Go Faster.
Several times I have been bumped by someone at a STOP sign. All three times were men who failed to realize STOP means just that.
I almost got T-Boned on Friday afternoon by some driver in a rush that blew a stop sign at 35mph in a residential area.
Ok...you can curb your sarcasm. I am not hiding under my table biting my nails scared of a $50 fine.........I wrote "afraid" but not in that way. All I wanted to know is if the camera faces one way or both at that specific intersection. I should have just DM crookhaven - you people here are pretty quick to bite off someones head !! I was not speeding..........I have a fractured ankle and the light just turned yellow as I was on the white line then red within 4 seconds.
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.
