Why have i NEVER been caught by a red light camera?

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:23:12 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Let's not forget, either, that a whole mess of red light cameras are
>installed at intersections with the yellow light timing set shorter than
>that specified in the MUTCD, which is directly responsible for a lot of
>'red light running' incidents.

Can you document that?

I was cited once many years ago at a light that was on a downhill
grade and had a short yellow. I spent an afternoon collecting
statistics on the duration of yellow for lights in the area. I did the
statistical analysis which demonstrated that the light I was cited for
"running" was way outside the mean by several standard deviations.

I went to court and argued my case. The judge exonerated me. It seems
that this cop was notorious for citing people at short yellow light
intersections. And people wonder why we despise dirty cops who only
want to fill their quota. At least the judge was honest.

I remember him asking me what my profession was and I told him I was a
scientist. He smuggly remarked that he had never cited a scientist
before. I told him to his face that he would regret it. I kept my word
too.

The irony is that even though the yellow was way outside the norm for
that area, it was just exactly within the law - 2 seconds. Never mind
it was on a 5% downgrade. But then I did not write the law or set the
timing for that light.


--

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written
law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty,
property, and all those who are enjoying them with us;
thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson

Citizen Bob wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:23:12 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Let's not forget, either, that a whole mess of red light cameras are
>>installed at intersections with the yellow light timing set shorter than
>>that specified in the MUTCD, which is directly responsible for a lot of
>>'red light running' incidents.
>
>
> Can you document that?
>
> I was cited once many years ago at a light that was on a downhill
> grade and had a short yellow. I spent an afternoon collecting
> statistics on the duration of yellow for lights in the area. I did the
> statistical analysis which demonstrated that the light I was cited for
> "running" was way outside the mean by several standard deviations.
>
> I went to court and argued my case. The judge exonerated me. It seems
> that this cop was notorious for citing people at short yellow light
> intersections. And people wonder why we despise dirty cops who only
> want to fill their quota. At least the judge was honest.
>
> I remember him asking me what my profession was and I told him I was a
> scientist. He smuggly remarked that he had never cited a scientist
> before. I told him to his face that he would regret it. I kept my word
> too.
>
> The irony is that even though the yellow was way outside the norm for
> that area, it was just exactly within the law - 2 seconds. Never mind
> it was on a 5% downgrade. But then I did not write the law or set the
> timing for that light.

Off the top of my head, I think it was in San Diego not that long ago
where they had to throw out a whole mess of tickets because a defendant
proved that the yellow light timing at the intersection he was caught in
was too short and/or the camera was set to trip too early.

Also Lockheed Martin has written into some of their RLC contracts that
the yellow interval may not be adjusted after the cameras go up.

All this and more can probably be found with a quick web search...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Citizen Bob wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:23:12 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Let's not forget, either, that a whole mess of red light cameras are
>>installed at intersections with the yellow light timing set shorter than
>>that specified in the MUTCD, which is directly responsible for a lot of
>>'red light running' incidents.
>
>
> Can you document that?
>
> I was cited once many years ago at a light that was on a downhill
> grade and had a short yellow. I spent an afternoon collecting
> statistics on the duration of yellow for lights in the area. I did the
> statistical analysis which demonstrated that the light I was cited for
> "running" was way outside the mean by several standard deviations.
>
> I went to court and argued my case. The judge exonerated me. It seems
> that this cop was notorious for citing people at short yellow light
> intersections. And people wonder why we despise dirty cops who only
> want to fill their quota. At least the judge was honest.
>
> I remember him asking me what my profession was and I told him I was a
> scientist. He smuggly remarked that he had never cited a scientist
> before. I told him to his face that he would regret it. I kept my word
> too.
>
> The irony is that even though the yellow was way outside the norm for
> that area, it was just exactly within the law - 2 seconds. Never mind
> it was on a 5% downgrade. But then I did not write the law or set the
> timing for that light.

here's an old thread but with some good links to get you started

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...03ca6c8d7acde1

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, Citizen Bob wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:23:12 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>>Let's not forget, either, that a whole mess of red light cameras are
>>installed at intersections with the yellow light timing set shorter than
>>that specified in the MUTCD, which is directly responsible for a lot of
>>'red light running' incidents.
>
> Can you document that?

Goto http://www.motorists.org/ and http://www.thenewspaper.com/ Both sites
keep archives of the studies and articles on RLCs.

> I went to court and argued my case. The judge exonerated me. It seems
> that this cop was notorious for citing people at short yellow light
> intersections. And people wonder why we despise dirty cops who only
> want to fill their quota. At least the judge was honest.

Amazing. I had a judge tell me I was lying when I took timings and
measurements of an intersection. The yellow signal was set slightly
shorter than the minimum required in the MUTCD. However, the stop line was
so far back from the intersection entry point that at 15mph (speed I was
going, because it is an exit from a parking lot) one could cross the line
on green and enter the intersection on red.

On Feb 23, 11:46 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:
> "Larry Bud" > wrote roups.com:
>
> > On Feb 22, 11:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> > > wrote:
> >> All the paranoids out there like to claim that RLCs are set up to
> >> catch even law-abiding drivers. If that was true, i should have been
> >> caught but never have been!!
>
> > The problem with your theory is that it starts with a false premise.
> > People aren't against RLC because they like to run red lights, they're
> > against RLC because they don't decrease accidents, and in fact,
> > increase them because of the number of rear-end collisions caused by
> > them.
>
> Now that is really stupid. The problem is not the RLC but idiots like you
> who assume the driver in front is gonna run the light because you would do
> it. That and the fact that you're a tailgater.

Whatever the reason for increased accidents, it's a FACT. So if your
goal is to REDUCE accidents, you should be against RLC.

It's called the law of unintended consequences.

On Feb 23, 11:48 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:
> " > wrote groups.com:

<< snip >>

> And i'm sure the dood got the ticket cancelled when the judge found out
> what happened. So stop bringing up irrelevant crap like that.

Stupid idiot! The camera companies are hoping that people will do just
the opposite: to not take it to a judge and just pay the fine. To use
your own words: "THINK!" and URAMORON!!!!

--
necromancer

Official Overseer Of Kooks And Trolls In rec.autos.driving

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:11:57 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>> The irony is that even though the yellow was way outside the norm for
>> that area, it was just exactly within the law - 2 seconds. Never mind
>> it was on a 5% downgrade. But then I did not write the law or set the
>> timing for that light.

>here's an old thread but with some good links to get you started

>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...03ca6c8d7acde1

And people wonder why most citizens despise cops.


--

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written
law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty,
property, and all those who are enjoying them with us;
thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson

On 24 Feb 2007 17:28:26 -0800, "Larry Bud" >
wrote:

>Whatever the reason for increased accidents, it's a FACT. So if your
>goal is to REDUCE accidents, you should be against RLC.

>It's called the law of unintended consequences.

There's the law of karma, which stated that what goes around comes
around. The cops and their establishment masters may think they have
the upper hand now bullying unsuspecting citizens, but that is rapidly
changing. Lawyers are now available at a low cost compared to pleading
guilty and they get a high rate of outright dismissals.

I would rather see a good defense attorney get $70 so he can build his
practice and defend more motorists who have been shaken down than give
$150 to the establishment so they are rewarded and therefore continue
this blatant criminal activity.

Just like slavery disappeared when it cost more to keep slaves than
was was obtained by their labor, this whole sordid mess will one day
collapse on from its own deadweight. Already the establishment cannot
keep up with the case load, and it gets worse every day.

If more motorists would hire a lawyer and fight this racket, it would
eventually cost the establishment more to operate the scam. Let them
find other ways to fund their graft and corruption.






--

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written
law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty,
property, and all those who are enjoying them with us;
thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson

because you shoot the red light camera with a shotgun or because you kill
cops, which is it?


"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote in
message 25.201...
>
>
> All the paranoids out there like to claim that RLCs are set up to catch
> even law-abiding drivers. If that was true, i should have been caught but
> never have been!! Fact is everybody that's caught is guilty and guilty of
> a serious crime that kills or cripples thousands of innocent americans a
> year. RLC runners are worse than terrorists and i want them caught and
> wish
> they were sent to prison. I'm no coddler.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:42:48 GMT, "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim"
> wrote:

>because you shoot the red light camera with a shotgun or because you kill
>cops, which is it?

I wonder if paint gun sales will go up as a consequence of RLC
deployment.


--

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written
law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty,
property, and all those who are enjoying them with us;
thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson