Miata Front License Plate holder

"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
>
> >I think every single intersection ought to have red-light
> >cameras. It's getting pretty bad when after you get a green
> >light, you've got to wait for 2-3 cars to run the red light
> >before you can enter the intersection.
>
> 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.

A friend had her Lexus totaled last year by an uninsured 23 year old red
light runner (how fast must you be going to total a Lexus with a Nissan
Sentra in a 25 MPH zone?). Who pays for my friend's deductible, increased
insurance costs, and $30,000 of lost income? Then, there are the migraines
she has suffered since the accident - she will never be the same.

People run red lights because they can, so enforcement, any kind of
enforcement, is the answer. This stuff ought to be illegal.

Randy

"Frank Berger" > wrote in message
news:1104902277.3135ef1794c07f76e879c60d067a3621@t eranews...
>
> "Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, says...
> >
> > >I think every single intersection ought to have red-light
> > >cameras. It's getting pretty bad when after you get a green
> > >light, you've got to wait for 2-3 cars to run the red light
> > >before you can enter the intersection.
> >
> > 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.
>
>

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!

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

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.

----------------
Alex

In article >,
says...
>Alex Rodriguez > wrote:
>>In article >, says...
>>>I think every single intersection ought to have red-light
>>>cameras. It's getting pretty bad when after you get a green
>>>light, you've got to wait for 2-3 cars to run the red light
>>>before you can enter the intersection.
>>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.
>True.
>> What
>>needs to happen is that an engineer needs to examine the intersection and
>>see why so many drivers are running red lights.
>What needs to happen that a psychologist examines the drivers and
>determines what deters them from doing it.
>> He can then make
>>recommendations on what modifications need to be made to the intersection
>>to make it safer.
>
>Such as position a police car at it?

That is rarely the right solution. It is certainly a better solution
than setting up cameras.

>Red light running was *very bad* in Tallahassee. People would
>shoot through as a matter of routine when the intersection traffic
>was already moving. Sometimes even behind intersecting traffic.
>At *every* intersection in town.
>Then the police started enforcing the law. Maybe because the local
>newspaper (we have only one) made too much noise. Anyway, we went
>from "Everyone is doing it at every intersection every time..." to
>"Is this guy going through a red light??"

If this is happening at all intersections you need to wake up the cops and
have them do their job.

>> That will also save a lot of money since accidents cost
>>everyone one a lot of time and money.
>
>Not to mention lives. But to save these and the pot of money,
>you have to address the actual problem, not a made-up one.

That is why you need to bring in an expert, a traffic engineer.
------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:

>
> If this is happening at all intersections you need to wake up the cops and
> have them do their job.
>

> ------------
> Alex

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.

Pat

On 2005-01-05, pws > wrote:

>> If this is happening at all intersections you need to wake up
>> the cops and have them do their job.

And where does the money come from to pay them?

> 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.

Due to budget problems the past few years, the law enforcement
agencies in this part of the country have cut way back. In
most of Minnesota there aren't any highway patrol cars out from
midnight to 8AM, because they don't have enough money to pay
for them.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I need "RONDO".
at
visi.com

"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.
>
> ----------------
> Alex
>
>
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.

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.

The 'underlying problem' you refer to is called human nature.

You ask for proof? Have you driven your local big city streets lately?
Have you read the responses to your comments on this NG? Have you ever
heard of 'road rage?'

Alex Rodriguez > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>Alex Rodriguez > wrote:
>>>In article >, says...
>>>>I think every single intersection ought to have red-light
>>>>cameras. It's getting pretty bad when after you get a green
>>>>light, you've got to wait for 2-3 cars to run the red light
>>>>before you can enter the intersection.
>>>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.
>>True.
>>> What
>>>needs to happen is that an engineer needs to examine the intersection and
>>>see why so many drivers are running red lights.
>>What needs to happen that a psychologist examines the drivers and
>>determines what deters them from doing it.
>>> He can then make
>>>recommendations on what modifications need to be made to the intersection
>>>to make it safer.
>>
>>Such as position a police car at it?
>
>That is rarely the right solution. It is certainly a better solution
>than setting up cameras.
>
>>Red light running was *very bad* in Tallahassee. People would
>>shoot through as a matter of routine when the intersection traffic
>>was already moving. Sometimes even behind intersecting traffic.
>>At *every* intersection in town.
>>Then the police started enforcing the law. Maybe because the local
>>newspaper (we have only one) made too much noise. Anyway, we went
>>from "Everyone is doing it at every intersection every time..." to
>>"Is this guy going through a red light??"
>
>If this is happening at all intersections you need to wake up the cops and
>have them do their job.

It is not that easy for them to do their job. For one, in the
morning they must announce on the radio which intersections are
being watched that day. They did not have to do that when I was
younger. Then, Tallahassee is a city of lawyers. They may not
want to spend their lives in court. And since running a red light
has also insurance implications, especially for young drivers, the
tendency is to overlook things.

>>> That will also save a lot of money since accidents cost
>>>everyone one a lot of time and money.
>>
>>Not to mention lives. But to save these and the pot of money,
>>you have to address the actual problem, not a made-up one.
>
>That is why you need to bring in an expert, a traffic engineer.

A psychologist.

As far as one of your other posts is concerned, it is not just a few
who were running red lights, everyone was doing it. I too had a very
optimistic attitude towards still being able to make it, though with
a long Dutch driving background, I was one of the more conservative
ones. You did not dare such things in the Netherlands. On the other
hand, you feel silly sitting out an entire light change when everyone
else went through there. And one time, a pick-em up truck even
crashed into my bumper when I stopped for a red light while the
car besides me went on the intersection after the light was red
and was clear.

However, I will grant you that *some* traffic lights do invite red
light running of even the most reasonable driver by poor design.
And these make the red-light problem worse by making the practice
more "normal."

Leon

>------------
>Alex

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

On 2005-01-06, Leon van Dommelen > wrote:

> As far as one of your other posts is concerned, it is not just
> a few who were running red lights, everyone was doing it. I
> too had a very optimistic attitude towards still being able to
> make it, though with a long Dutch driving background, I was
> one of the more conservative ones. You did not dare such
> things in the Netherlands. On the other hand, you feel silly
> sitting out an entire light change when everyone else went
> through there.

Yup. On more that one occasion in the past couple months, I've
been sitting stopped at a red light when somebody flies by my
through the red light in the other lane.

> And one time, a pick-em up truck even crashed into my bumper
> when I stopped for a red light while the car besides me went
> on the intersection after the light was red and was clear.

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.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Do you like "TENDER
at VITTLES"?
visi.com