PhotoRADAR lens any good?

I understood perfectly. But I can think beyond your simple logic.

On Jan 25, 10:45*pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
> No, you misunderstood, if _NO ONE_ is speeding, how can they make any money?
>
> So, if you don't want them to get any of your money, don't speed.
>
> Simple logic.
>
> Budd
>
> "Dipstick" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
> If everyone is at or below the speed limit, then the 'gummint' will do
> a speed survey and reset the speed limit at the 50 or 60 or 70
> percentile mark. Then they will make plenty from the faster 50 or 40 or
> 30%. Ain't it wonderful how that works?
>
> On Jan 25, 6:31pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just a question: if everyone is at or below the speed limit, how much
> > money
> > do they make?
>
> > Budd
>
> > "billccm" > wrote in
> > oglegroups.com...
>
> > >I just read in out local newspaper that a 'pilot' PhotoRADAR and Red
> > > Light camera program starts tomorrow in my area.
>
> > > Does anyone has experience, or has heard about the effectiveness of
> > > this item:
> > >http://www.buyradardetectors.com/pro...protector.aspx
>
> > > It looks as if it could work.
>
> > > Please do not hijack this thread into a moral question about trying to
> > > break the law. PhotoRADAR is for revenue generation only-not the
> > > reduction of speeders.
>
> > > In the Cincinnati area, they found that one PhotoRADAR unit generated
> > > $700/hour
> > > with the limit set to 6MPH over the 35MPH limit.
>
> > > The Indiana State Police found that having a police car parked on the
> > > side of the road,
> > > without RADAR, or lights, reduced speeding 99% on I65. Their 'ghost
> > > cop' program was a success, but did not generate revenue, and they
> > > abandoned the program way back in 1982.
>
> > > Several articles have shown statistics that Red Light cameras increase
> > > rear end
> > > collisions over the amount of any accidents made from red light
> > > runners.
>
> > > I also used to work in the vehicular speed detection industry, and know
> > > the reasons
> > > why police municipalities buy RADAR guns.
>
> > > So, please spare me the lecture on why photoRADAR is a good thing.
>
> > > The Arizona legislature voted today against making these license plate
> > > lens illegal. Now
> > > I have a good reason to buy one and try it!
>
> > > Any comments, advice, or suggestions on these lenses is appreciated.
>
> > > Bill--
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted
> > text -- Show quoted text ---
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

No, you can't, if you think that an absence of speeders will cause the
government, whom is the entity you really object to, to cause the law to
change to trap otherwise innocent drivers.

Maybe you need to live where there are no rules, if you can find such a
place.

BTW, the simpler the logic, the less corruptible it is.

Budd

"Dipstick" > wrote in message
oups.com...
I understood perfectly. But I can think beyond your simple logic.

On Jan 25, 10:45pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
> No, you misunderstood, if _NO ONE_ is speeding, how can they make any
> money?
>
> So, if you don't want them to get any of your money, don't speed.
>
> Simple logic.
>
> Budd
>
> "Dipstick" > wrote in
> oglegroups.com...
> If everyone is at or below the speed limit, then the 'gummint' will do
> a speed survey and reset the speed limit at the 50 or 60 or 70
> percentile mark. Then they will make plenty from the faster 50 or 40 or
> 30%. Ain't it wonderful how that works?
>
> On Jan 25, 6:31pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just a question: if everyone is at or below the speed limit, how much
> > money
> > do they make?
>
> > Budd
>
> > "billccm" > wrote in
> > oglegroups.com...
>
> > >I just read in out local newspaper that a 'pilot' PhotoRADAR and Red
> > > Light camera program starts tomorrow in my area.
>
> > > Does anyone has experience, or has heard about the effectiveness of
> > > this item:
> > >http://www.buyradardetectors.com/pro...protector.aspx
>
> > > It looks as if it could work.
>
> > > Please do not hijack this thread into a moral question about trying to
> > > break the law. PhotoRADAR is for revenue generation only-not the
> > > reduction of speeders.
>
> > > In the Cincinnati area, they found that one PhotoRADAR unit generated
> > > $700/hour
> > > with the limit set to 6MPH over the 35MPH limit.
>
> > > The Indiana State Police found that having a police car parked on the
> > > side of the road,
> > > without RADAR, or lights, reduced speeding 99% on I65. Their 'ghost
> > > cop' program was a success, but did not generate revenue, and they
> > > abandoned the program way back in 1982.
>
> > > Several articles have shown statistics that Red Light cameras increase
> > > rear end
> > > collisions over the amount of any accidents made from red light
> > > runners.
>
> > > I also used to work in the vehicular speed detection industry, and
> > > know
> > > the reasons
> > > why police municipalities buy RADAR guns.
>
> > > So, please spare me the lecture on why photoRADAR is a good thing.
>
> > > The Arizona legislature voted today against making these license plate
> > > lens illegal. Now
> > > I have a good reason to buy one and try it!
>
> > > Any comments, advice, or suggestions on these lenses is appreciated.
>
> > > Bill--
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted
> > text -- Show quoted text ---
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted
> text -- Show quoted text -



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article . com>,
"billccm" > wrote:

> Please do not hijack this thread into a moral question about trying to
> break the law. PhotoRADAR is for revenue generation only-not the
> reduction of speeders.

Here in Bc Canada it was instituted by our socialist gov of the time for
speeding.
Fortunately our next right wing Gov removed it, but fortunately it is
still used for catching those who run red lights.

I've seen it happen. More than once. That's simple enough for me.

My primary objection is not the government or the rules as you
believe. It is the government establishing and enforcing these rules
in the name of safety, when in fact it has nothing to do with safety
and everything to do with money.


On Jan 26, 7:53?pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
> No, you can't, if you think that an absence of speeders will cause the
> government, whom is the entity you really object to, to cause the law to
> change to trap otherwise innocent drivers.
>
> Maybe you need to live where there are no rules, if you can find such a
> place.
>
> BTW, the simpler the logic, the less corruptible it is.
>
> Budd
>

As determined by your dislike of any regulations . . .cya.

Budd

"Dipstick" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've seen it happen. More than once. That's simple enough for me.
>
> My primary objection is not the government or the rules as you
> believe. It is the government establishing and enforcing these rules
> in the name of safety, when in fact it has nothing to do with safety
> and everything to do with money.
>
>
> On Jan 26, 7:53?pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>> No, you can't, if you think that an absence of speeders will cause the
>> government, whom is the entity you really object to, to cause the law to
>> change to trap otherwise innocent drivers.
>>
>> Maybe you need to live where there are no rules, if you can find such a
>> place.
>>
>> BTW, the simpler the logic, the less corruptible it is.
>>
>> Budd
>>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Budd Cochran wrote:

> ...if _NO ONE_ is speeding, how can they make any money?

Uhh - by shorting the yellow light duration (and in the process cause
accidents and turn law-abiding citizens into law breakers, i.e., "red
light runners") - which they have been caught doing several times.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

chas wrote:

> Is it Troll season already?

No - elections aren't until '08.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

And if that were proven to be the case ( I believe there is a Fed DOT
minimum standard for the duration of the yellow light), then the lawsuits
would bankrupt the entity responsible, not to mention manslaughter / murder
charges for any accident related deaths, lost time wages, etc. . . .

Budd

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Budd Cochran wrote:
>
>> ...if _NO ONE_ is speeding, how can they make any money?
>
> Uhh - by shorting the yellow light duration (and in the process cause
> accidents and turn law-abiding citizens into law breakers, i.e., "red
> light runners") - which they have been caught doing several times.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bill,
I just emailed the Fed DOT about the Amber duration times.

Budd

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Budd Cochran wrote:
>
>> ...if _NO ONE_ is speeding, how can they make any money?
>
> Uhh - by shorting the yellow light duration (and in the process cause
> accidents and turn law-abiding citizens into law breakers, i.e., "red
> light runners") - which they have been caught doing several times.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Budd Cochran wrote:
> And if that were proven to be the case ( I believe there is a Fed DOT
> minimum standard for the duration of the yellow light), then the lawsuits
> would bankrupt the entity responsible, not to mention manslaughter / murder
> charges for any accident related deaths, lost time wages, etc. . . .

Sorry, Budd - it happened. See these articles:
http://www3.roanoke.com/columnists/gottstein/11342.html
and
http://www.fcw.com/geb/articles/2001...omm2-09-01.asp

This was discussed on this ng back in '04
(http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...846907b3def14),
and Nate Nagel posted links to those as well as another article with the
documentation - unfortunately the link to that other article is now
dead. The article make it clear that there are many cases in which
public safety was sacrificed for profits - yellow duration was
intentionally made short to up the take when it was clearly shown that
slight increases in yellow duration reduced red-light running
infractions (by 96% as stated in one article).

From the first article:

"A 2001 report entitled “The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it
Intentional?” commissioned by U.S. House of Representatives Majority
Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, and researched by the non-partisan General
Accounting Office of Congress, found some startling information about
these camera enforcement programs.

"From Oregon to California to Arizona, to right here in Virginia,
traffic engineers have shortened yellow light times to catch motorists
going through red lights.

"You think I’m hung up on conspiracy theories? Think again. Reports
abound of local governments tampering with light timing to increase
local government revenues by handing out more traffic fines.

"Two attorneys representing motorists in San Diego forced the release of
confidential documents describing that safety was never the primary
consideration of the red light camera program in that city. None of the
cameras were placed at any of San Diego's 10 most dangerous
intersections. Instead, the documents showed that the camera operators
purposefully sought out mistimed intersections as locations for red
light cameras to trap motorists and net a new source of revenue for city
hall. A single camera brought San Diego $6.8 million in just 18 months
in 2000-2001.


"In Beaverton, Ore., TV reporters timed the length of the yellow lights
at intersections without camera enforcement and found it to be a
consistent four seconds. When they timed the lights with camera
enforcement, yellow only lasted for three seconds – across the city.

"Yellow signal time at intersections is directly related to red-light
running: When the yellow light is short, more people run the red light.
Inadequate yellow times cause motorists approaching an intersection to
come to a sudden stop, or force them to enter the intersection on a red
light. In Virginia, a study conducted in 2001 in Fairfax County found
that simply increasing the yellow time at a given intersection by 1.5
seconds reduced red-light infractions by 96 percent, which was
significantly better than the drop in infractions resulting from the red
light cameras they had installed."

"In Mesa, Ariz., after the city increased yellow times at its
intersections in response to motorist complaints, red-light runners
dropped by 70 percent. The camera program turned into a big money loser,
because it cost more to run the cameras than the ticket revenues they
were generating."


From the second article:

"'One of the most troubling aspects about the use of red-light cameras
is that they turn a key function of law enforcement over to private
contractors', said Marshall Hurley, a Greensboro, N.C., lawyer.

"'Red-light surveillance cameras combine the worst traits of government
arrogance and corporate greed,' he told subcommittee members. In many
localities, 'the camera schemes are based on the concept of a government
kickback' in which companies that supply and operate the cameras collect
a portion of the fines.

"In North Carolina, it's $35 of each $50 fine. In San Diego, it's $70 of
each $271 fine. 'Both the government and its contractors have an immense
financial stake in the violation of traffic laws,' he said.

"In San Diego, motorists who have been ticketed have filed a
class-action suit contending that contractor Lockheed Martin IMS
tinkered with sensors and selected intersections with short yellow
lights to maximize the number of motorists who could be ticketed.

"Former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock, now a radio talk show host,
denounces red-light cameras for increasing the number of rear-end
collisions as motorists make sudden stops for short yellow lights.
Lengthening the time for yellow lights would cut red-light running as
effectively as installing red-light cameras, Hedgecock contends, adding
that a study by the city of Tempe, Ariz., reached the same conclusion.
"'But here's the rub.' Tempe also hired Lockheed Martin IMS to install
red-light cameras at a number of intersections, and 'the Lockheed Martin
contract prevents the city of Tempe from extending the yellow light
interval where Lockheed's cameras are in place,' he said."


A paragraph that I posted to that thread in '04:
"I guess my take on the whole thing, since people's lives are at stake
from red-light runners, is that camera ticketing can be used, but *NOT*
until the legal system is set up to pay a *hefty* bounty to citizens who
accurately report a short-cycled yellow, and the municipalities are
forced to: (1) pay the bounty without delay and without challenge when
the report is certified to be correct (false reporting would be met with
a stiff fine to counter people who just want to put a roadblock in the
way of the legal system), and (2) Shut down the camera until the
intersection's timing system is subsequently *certified* to be within
the legal parameters (which would be somethng like 4 seconds for a
typical intersection). "

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')