[Angie]

Originally Posted by JY07

That is an incredibly naive statement... As the others have mentioned, have you ever taken off from a stop sign/red light without coming to a complete stop for a full 3 seconds (before the sign: if you can't see the road, after the 3 seconds you are then allowed to pull forward past the sign and stop again if you can't see the other vehicles)? Have you ever crossed a street that was not marked as a cross-walk?

To compare someone who thought it would be safer to proceed through a yellow light rather than slamming on their brakes (and misjudged the light) to a thief/murderer, as some of you have done, is ridiculous.

I just did a search of the entire thread for the words "thief," "murder," or "murderer," and this was the only post where they appeared?

[JY07]

Originally Posted by Angie

I just did a search of the entire thread for the words "thief," "murder," or "murderer," and this was the only post where they appeared?

post #16:

Originally Posted by isudoc03

Should security cameras be used to identify a robber/burglar/criminal etc.?

[Angie]

Originally Posted by JY07

post #16:

Exactly how is his post comparing the actions of running a red light to those of anyone, especially a murderer? He was comparing different uses for and types of security cameras, not crimes.

[JY07]

Originally Posted by Angie

Exactly how is his post comparing the actions of running a red light to those of anyone, especially a murderer? He was comparing different uses for and types of security cameras, not crimes.

The point of that post, along with several others, was stating if we can use security cameras to catch other criminals, why not red-light violators?

My point was not all laws are the same... most people break the law (albeit unknowingly) every day, and are not a hazard to anyone. Robbers/other criminals, are a hazard.

Using surveillance equipment for these "gotcha" laws provide no benefit to anyone, minus the local government.

[Knownothing]

They put these red light camera's up for our safety. Not for the money.

[3TrueFans]

Originally Posted by JY07

The point of that post, along with several others, was stating if we can use security cameras to catch other criminals, why not red-light violators?

My point was not all laws are the same... most people break the law (albeit unknowingly) every day, and are not a hazard to anyone. Robbers/other criminals, are a hazard.

Using surveillance equipment for these "gotcha" laws provide no benefit to anyone, minus the local government.

How is running a red light a "gotcha" law?

[Angie]

Originally Posted by JY07

The point of that post, along with several others, was stating if we can use security cameras to catch other criminals, why not red-light violators?

My point was not all laws are the same... most people break the law (albeit unknowingly) every day, and are not a hazard to anyone. Robbers/other criminals, are a hazard.

Using surveillance equipment for these "gotcha" laws provide no benefit to anyone, minus the local government.

Traffic violations can absolutely be a hazard to other drivers - there are millions of accidents each year due to them (this includes speeding, running red lights, etc.). While you may not enjoy the use of the surveillance cameras in this way, they're preventing accidents and death... just like a security camera at a bank.

[DaddyMac]

Originally Posted by Angie

Traffic violations can absolutely be a hazard to other drivers - there are millions of accidents each year due to them (this includes speeding, running red lights, etc.). While you may not enjoy the use of the surveillance cameras in this way, they're preventing accidents and death... just like a security camera at a bank.

The one accident I've been involved in could have been well served by a camera such as these.

I was making a right turn off Railroad onto 4 lane 63rd street in DSM. My immediate lane was empty. As I began, an oncoming driver in the far lane made an illegal lane change (no signal, approaching the intersection) into my lane and I had to slam on the brakes. The fella behind me wasn't paying as close of attention as he should've and rear-ended me, causing a suprising amount of damage.

Really sucked that he had to pay the claim (insurance did) cause he wasn't nearly as at fault as the yutz driving down 63rd.

Edit: Actually, I was in a second that amounted in no real damage. And that lady ran a red light, "bumped" into me as I was proceeding on the green. Then decided she could just keep going. Never did get her license, and again, fortunately there was no real damage. But I would've loved to have the police give her a call.

[Angie]

Originally Posted by DaddyMac

The one accident I've been involved in could have been well served by a camera such as these.

I was making a right turn off Railroad onto 4 lane 63rd street in DSM. My immediate lane was empty. As I began, an oncoming driver in the far lane made an illegal lane change (no signal, approaching the intersection) into my lane and I had to slam on the brakes. The fella behind me wasn't paying as close of attention as he should've and rear-ended me, causing a suprising amount of damage.

Really sucked that he had to pay the claim (insurance did) cause he wasn't nearly as at fault as the yutz driving down 63rd.

Edit: Actually, I was in a second that amounted in no real damage. And that lady ran a red light, "bumped" into me as I was proceeding on the green. Then decided she could just keep going. Never did get her license, and again, fortunately there was no real damage. But I would've loved to have the police give her a call.

Exactly. And you and someone else could have been hurt in either of those. If you'd been hurt in a hit and run and a camera had been present, how's that any different than using a camera to catch a mugger?

[Kitkat]

Originally Posted by bugs4cy

Oh for crap's sake. Got a ticket in the mail from Clive for doing a right turn on a red (pinkish! with no one coming towards me!) light.

Has anyone fought such a thing and won?

It tagged my husband as the driver (registered in his name) but I was driving. He has more tickets than me right now ... anyway to move it to my name rather than his?

Probably what frost me the most is the statement at the top that says 'it *appears* you have run a red light...' What the fudge - 'appears'?????

Hold on! You write that "He has more tickets than me right now." Very interesting, and very revealing, so much so that I have 0 sympathy with you two ticket-collectors.

[bugs4cy]

Originally Posted by Kitkat

Hold on! You write that "He has more tickets than me right now." Very interesting, and very revealing, so much so that I have 0 sympathy with you two ticket-collectors.

I haven't had any tickets for 3 years. Husband had a bad run of luck this last year and got two speeding tickets, which is ironic in our world, because he rarely speeds. Between the two us us, we drive 80-100K miles a year. So yes, we have tickets - but if you drive that much on the back roads of Iowa and I wonder if you'd ever be tempted to speed?

I'm so glad you could drop us a note, or should I say, toss a rock through our glass house since no rocks can be tossed at yours.


(I may regret my sarcasm at a later date, but right now it feels good)

[alarson]

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

How is running a red light a "gotcha" law?

because a lot of these violations arent what most of us would consider to be violating the spirit of the law (right turns on red while slowing down almost to a stop, not slamming on your breaks for a yellow to avoid getting nailed etc).

[IcSyU]

Originally Posted by Knownothing

They put these red light camera's up for our safety. Not for the money.

I'm going to read this as sarcasm.

[JY07]

Originally Posted by Angie

Traffic violations can absolutely be a hazard to other drivers - there are millions of accidents each year due to them (this includes speeding, running red lights, etc.). While you may not enjoy the use of the surveillance cameras in this way, they're preventing accidents and death... just like a security camera at a bank.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, that's not necessarily true (and potentially causes the exact opposite):
Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It

Granted, the link is to a blog, but the studies linked are not.

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

How is running a red light a "gotcha" law?

Driving through a red light is obviously not; driving through the instant the light turns red, is. It's a judgment call: "the light just turned yellow. how long will it stay yellow? how far away from the light am I? Is it safe for me to stop? do I have enough room and will the road conditions allow it for my car?". The wrong judgment, off by even a fraction of a second (which causes no safety hazards), and you're ticketed. Eventually everyone then stops on yellow lights regardless (essentially turning it into a green/red system) out of fear of being ticketed, resulting in even more problems (rear-end collisions, people sliding out of control w/ poor road conditions, etc).

The point is, yes, drivers who are driving through lights that are CLEARLY red just because they don't want to wait at the light are extremely annoying; however, as they are now, the red-light cameras are not the answer to this problem, unless they are adjusted to only capture those who fit into that above category.

[ISUKyro]

Crazy post of the day - maybe a city wants to try to keep it's citizens safe and make some coin at the same time.

Either way you look at it, I say just man up and pay your bill then move on with life.