Miata Front License Plate holder

"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
> >Spoken like a typical 'cause-and-effect' pointy-headed engineering
solution
> >Most people run red lights BECAUSE THEY CAN.
>
> Makes no sense. Do you run red lights because you can? Why do you think
> others are any different?
>
> >Restriping the roadways,
> >inventing new traffic control devices, installing speed-bumps -- all
address
> >the symptoms.
>
> Speed bumps???? Who would be stupid enough to install speed bumps at an
> intersection? None of those are solutions that could help. Solutions
> include adding left/right turn signals. Lengthening the green and/or
> yellow light timing.
>
> >The cause is almost always uniformly lax enforcement of
> >existing laws.
>
> No, the cause is usually not so obvious to those who don't know what
> to look for. That is why there are traffic engineers.
>
> >Change the timing of the lights, provide a longer left turn
> >lead, build a fly-over -- none of these addresses the jerk in the Bimmer
> >that runs the light because he CAN.
>
> Proof?
>
> >And couple these jerks with service level F roadways -- and you've got a
> >recipe for virtual anarchy. "I've waited through three light changes.
> >There's no way I'm waiting through any more!"
>
> Again, there is an underlying problem that needs to be addressed.
>
> You have the impression that all drivers are just going to try to get away
> with anything they can. You are wrong. Most drivers are reasonable folks
> who understand that if everyone starts to run red lights, you are not
going
> to get to your destination any faster because there are going to be
accidents
> all the time.

No, he has the impression (as would any thinking, seeing person) that SOME
people will try to get away with anything they can. Lots of cops or a
functioning camera system would provide necessary deterrence.

"Lanny Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1104902277.3135ef1794c07f76e879c60d067a3621@teran ews>,
> "Frank Berger" > wrote:
>
> > > The proper solution is not a camera. A camera is not going to stop an
> > > accident from happening or call for help after an accident occurs.
> >
> > This is simply wrong. A camera that records violations and issues
tickets
> > will be a huge deterrent to running red lights - and much cheaper than
> > having a large enough police force to do the same thing. In this case
it it
> > is better to think like an economist than an engineer. Some people have
> > privacy issues with this solution. I don't.
>
> This is certainly true where red-light cameras are employed as safety
> devices. We have a few here at historically-dangerous intersections, and
> they have helped. There's little privacy issue, because the cameras are
> radar actuated, and the radar is only active when the light is red. If
> you're not running the red, your picture isn't taken.
>
> However, in the more typical situation, the company that makes the
> camera system approaches a local government and makes them an offer they
> find difficult to refuse in times of shrinking budgets: let them install
> cameras and process the resulting tickets, the company keeps most of the
> ticket revenue, and the government receives a cut off the top. If the
> tickets don't meet the company's revenue goals (i.e., if the cameras
> actually work, and people stop running red lights), then the company
> shortens the yellow phase so more drivers will be caught running the
> red. In the best tradition of American business, the scheme combines
> ruthless capitalism with the artificial manipulation of supply and
> demand. Gottaluvit!
>

The scenario you describe seems implausible on it's face. Care to cite any
actual evidence of this sort of conspiracy?

In article <1104982678.dce6ae13b9b2865e31a711cc751995f6@teran ews>,
"Frank Berger" > wrote:

> > However, in the more typical situation, the company that makes the
> > camera system approaches a local government and makes them an offer they
> > find difficult to refuse in times of shrinking budgets: let them install
> > cameras and process the resulting tickets, the company keeps most of the
> > ticket revenue, and the government receives a cut off the top. If the
> > tickets don't meet the company's revenue goals (i.e., if the cameras
> > actually work, and people stop running red lights), then the company
> > shortens the yellow phase so more drivers will be caught running the
> > red. In the best tradition of American business, the scheme combines
> > ruthless capitalism with the artificial manipulation of supply and
> > demand. Gottaluvit!
> >
>
> The scenario you describe seems implausible on it's face. Care to cite any
> actual evidence of this sort of conspiracy?

Try Google. Here's a good article (watch for line wrapping):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...00/001/078ftoq
z.asp

I did not find solid evidence of private companies shortening yellows,
though it's strongly suspected. However, they are well known for
preferring to install cameras at intersections where the yellows are
already too short, or nonexistent. From edmunds.com:

"The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington D.C., for example,
took in more than $18 million in citations in the three years between
1999 and 2002. The local Automobile Association of America (AAA) then
pulled its support for the cameras, citing the emphasis on revenue
generation over safety. The organization determined that one particular
camera was actually located on a declining hill with a flashing yellow
light that went to red without changing to a solid yellow making it
impossible for people not to run the red."

I was incorrect about the company keeping most of the fine--they get
less than half as a rule (tickets can cost as much as $370). But it's
still a conflict of interest to increase profit by issuing as many
tickets as possible without regard to safety. The camera companies also
spend large amounts of money lobbying and donating to political
campaigns. This industry stinks. Naturally, the insurance industry loves
these cameras, because tickets give them an excuse to raise rates
without paying any claims.

The sad thing: study after study proves that nearly all red light
running can be stopped by lengthening the yellow by as little as one
second. Instead, the pursuit of revenue is causing increased rear-end
collisions, as people slam on their brakes to avoid camera tickets. Is
that improving public safety?

--
Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
'94C
the alignment page:
http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html

Grant Edwards > wrote:

>I've been almost rear ended that way as well. The putz behind
>me had to lock up his brakes, and then sat yelling and
>gesturing at me because I stopped just as a yellow light was
>turning red.

Locking up his brakes was right. He was sliding to me at an angle.
4 completely bald spots on his tires, no doubt. Could have easily
missed me if he would have used some of the non-bald parts.

Leon

--
Leon van Dommelen Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .)
http://www.dommelen.net/miata
EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)

In article >, says...

>How do you propose that he do that? The police officers around here
>already ignore most traffic violations except during that time of the
>day that they have decided to set up a speed trap. They haven't woken up
>to the fact that doing 10 mph over the speed limit isn't as dangerous as
>riding 5 feet from someone's rear bumper, I don't expect them to wake up
>to much else either.

Speak to the man in charge, of course.
------------
Alex

"Lanny Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1104982678.dce6ae13b9b2865e31a711cc751995f6@teran ews>,
> "Frank Berger" > wrote:
>
> > > However, in the more typical situation, the company that makes the
> > > camera system approaches a local government and makes them an offer
they
> > > find difficult to refuse in times of shrinking budgets: let them
install
> > > cameras and process the resulting tickets, the company keeps most of
the
> > > ticket revenue, and the government receives a cut off the top. If the
> > > tickets don't meet the company's revenue goals (i.e., if the cameras
> > > actually work, and people stop running red lights), then the company
> > > shortens the yellow phase so more drivers will be caught running the
> > > red. In the best tradition of American business, the scheme combines
> > > ruthless capitalism with the artificial manipulation of supply and
> > > demand. Gottaluvit!
> > >
> >
> > The scenario you describe seems implausible on it's face. Care to cite
any
> > actual evidence of this sort of conspiracy?
>
> Try Google. Here's a good article (watch for line wrapping):
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...00/001/078ftoq
> z.asp
>
> I did not find solid evidence of private companies shortening yellows,
> though it's strongly suspected. However, they are well known for
> preferring to install cameras at intersections where the yellows are
> already too short, or nonexistent. From edmunds.com:
>
> "The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington D.C., for example,
> took in more than $18 million in citations in the three years between
> 1999 and 2002. The local Automobile Association of America (AAA) then
> pulled its support for the cameras, citing the emphasis on revenue
> generation over safety. The organization determined that one particular
> camera was actually located on a declining hill with a flashing yellow
> light that went to red without changing to a solid yellow making it
> impossible for people not to run the red."
>
> I was incorrect about the company keeping most of the fine--they get
> less than half as a rule (tickets can cost as much as $370). But it's
> still a conflict of interest to increase profit by issuing as many
> tickets as possible without regard to safety. The camera companies also
> spend large amounts of money lobbying and donating to political
> campaigns. This industry stinks. Naturally, the insurance industry loves
> these cameras, because tickets give them an excuse to raise rates
> without paying any claims.
>
> The sad thing: study after study proves that nearly all red light
> running can be stopped by lengthening the yellow by as little as one
> second. Instead, the pursuit of revenue is causing increased rear-end
> collisions, as people slam on their brakes to avoid camera tickets. Is
> that improving public safety?

It will take me awhile to evaluate your response, but I appreciate that you
didn't take offense at my scepticism.
>
> --
> Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
> '94C
> the alignment page:
> http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html

In article >,
says...

>You are right about one thing -- "most drivers are reasonable folks . . ."
>The few that aren't are the ones that will run red lights BECAUSE THEY
>CAN -- with relative impunity. No magical 'traffic engineering' is going to
>put the fear of God into a headstrong driver like a flashing blue light
>will.

This is another reason why the red light cameras are useless. The truly
bad driver who runs lights because they can will get to keep their license
no matter how many times the camera catches them running the light. Red
light camera tickets are treated the same way parking tickets are treated.
When a cop stops the offending driver, they will get points and if they
continue running lights, eventually will lose their license.

>You will agree, I think, that there are some people who will break the law,
>and without some sort of punishment or penalty, will repeatedly take
>advantage of situations. Fiddling with the light timing will not stop them
>from hitting the gas 300 feet from a yellow changing to red, and depending
>on dumb luck to make it through the intersection. To keep that sort of
>driver in check requires aggressive trafffic law enforcement.

Agree, but as I explain above, the cameras are not going to detet this
type of driver.

>The 'underlying problem' you refer to is called human nature.
>You ask for proof? Have you driven your local big city streets lately?

I live in the 'big city'. So I know what it is like. Most drivers obey
the lights. Even the oft targeted taxi drivers.

>Have you read the responses to your comments on this NG? Have you ever
>heard of 'road rage?'

Yes & yes.
------------
Alex

In article <1104982678.dce6ae13b9b2865e31a711cc751995f6@teran ews>,
says...

>"Lanny Chambers" > wrote in message
...

>> However, in the more typical situation, the company that makes the
>> camera system approaches a local government and makes them an offer they
>> find difficult to refuse in times of shrinking budgets: let them install
>> cameras and process the resulting tickets, the company keeps most of the
>> ticket revenue, and the government receives a cut off the top. If the
>> tickets don't meet the company's revenue goals (i.e., if the cameras
>> actually work, and people stop running red lights), then the company
>> shortens the yellow phase so more drivers will be caught running the
>> red. In the best tradition of American business, the scheme combines
>> ruthless capitalism with the artificial manipulation of supply and
>> demand. Gottaluvit!
>>
>
>The scenario you describe seems implausible on it's face. Care to cite any
>actual evidence of this sort of conspiracy?

It is pretty easy to check with your local authorites to see who owns the
equipment. The majority, if not all, are not owned by the local government,
they are owned by companies who have an agreement with the local government.
It is just as Lanny describes. While not all companies shorten the yellow,
there have been instances of them doing it and getting caught. They decided
to trade revenue for driver safety. Pretty stupid choice. Short sighted too
since the increase number of crashes will offset the revenue they get.
----------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>
>>How do you propose that he do that? The police officers around here
>>already ignore most traffic violations except during that time of the
>>day that they have decided to set up a speed trap. They haven't woken up
>>to the fact that doing 10 mph over the speed limit isn't as dangerous as
>>riding 5 feet from someone's rear bumper, I don't expect them to wake up
>>to much else either.
>
>
> Speak to the man in charge, of course.
> ------------
> Alex
>

The man in charge? That could be a woman instead. Do you mean the chief
of police, the mayor, the governor, or someone even higher up? Which
"man in charge" should I choose to be ignored by?

(insert sarcasm) I am sure that a call from a private citizen will
prompt them to improve things. (end sarcasm)

Pat

In article <1105038245.be36591d1f5ae6613b67a3ba2cf38319@teran ews>,
"Frank Berger" > wrote:

> It will take me awhile to evaluate your response, but I appreciate that you
> didn't take offense at my scepticism.

I am never offended by scepticism, unless it was patently intended to be
offensive. Then I just ignore it and plonk the offender.

I personally know of two red light cameras that have dramatically
improved traffic safety. No one complains about them. They are not part
of a revenue-enhancement scheme; they're the only two in the
mostly-rural county, as far as I know, and are installed at
notoriously-dangerous grade intersections on a 60-mph four-lane divided
state highway. They solved a specific problem: the yellows are plenty
long enough, but some people were ignoring them. I'm sure they'll never
pay for themselves in terms of tickets, but there's no question that
they have saved lives. Probably removed a few drunks from the roads, too.

Unfortunately, most red light cameras seem to fall into a completely
different category.

--
Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
'94C
the alignment page:
http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html