• Sean Patterson (unregistered) in reply to Alex
    Alex:
    I don't believe that even if you could prove there was an ambulance behind you it'd get you out of breaking the road rules... Would love it if you can find a law/exception in any country stating otherwise ;)

    In most, if not all, states in the US there's a law requiring you to, if safely possible, clear the way for an emergency vehicle while the lights are on.

  • (cs) in reply to Sean Patterson
    Sean Patterson:
    vt_mruhlin:
    Have cities stopped doing the old trick where the traffic lights detect the emergency vehicle and change to accommodate it? I remember it used to work via a strobe light on top of the car, until people started making their own strobes on the same frequency. But surely they can come up with a better system nowadays. how about a GPS in each of the ambulances, with turn-by-turn navigation, that knows long in advance where they need to be and sets up their lights accordingly for the whole route?

    That's even better! Now I can just call in an emergency from a pay phone, wait till an ambulance drives by and follow it to my destination.

    Works just great when your destination is the nearest emergency room.

    Of course, in that case, you could just get in the ambulance instead of driving yourself...

  • eric76 (unregistered) in reply to K&T
    K&T:
    The number of accidents in any particular place fluctuates over time by pure chance. Sometimes you'll get a number of accidents on a particular stretch that's well over average. The government promptly builds speed cameras. Next year, the number of accidents drops - ergo, the speed cameras reduced accidents!

    Actually, studies suggest they Increase Crashes

    They also increase revenue, which is the real reason they exist.

    No.

    The link is about red light cameras, not speed cameras.

  • (cs) in reply to Jared

    Here in SA we mostly use pressure sensors in the road.

  • (cs) in reply to Jared
    Jared:
    SenTree:
    I would also suggest it is impolite to accuse a person of 'bunk' when they are informing you of something about the country they live in, when clearly you don't live there.
    First, the country I live in is irrelevant. You don't have to live in a country to have knowledge of it.
    Fair point, but if you lived in the UK you'd be aware of the road markings :)
    Jared:
    Second, I made no accusation. I merely stated my opinion that it "sounds" like bunk. I can't convey tone with a post. Sorry if you took it as negative.
    No problem - it's probably a culture thing. Over here (UK), accusing someone of 'bunk' would be taken as a fairly serious aspersion on their credibility. I'm assuming it's less serious where you are?
  • K&T (unregistered) in reply to eric76

    My mistake, i thought the poster i responded to was talking about red light cameras.

  • (cs)

    Something like this happened to my coworker, only worse. He went outside one morning to find his car had been stolen. He filed a police report. About a month later he receives a ticket in the mail with a photograph of the thief who stole his car running a red light in it! Luckily he didn't have to pay the ticket, but unluckily it didn't help at all in catching the thief.

  • (cs) in reply to Alex
    Alex:
    snoofle:
    Unfortunately, it had the undesired effect of folks in the left lane, waiting for the light, refusing to go through for an ambulance 5 cars back, because there was no way to show the ambulance in the picture right behind you.

    I don't believe that even if you could prove there was an ambulance behind you it'd get you out of breaking the road rules... Would love it if you can find a law/exception in any country stating otherwise ;)

    I'm not a lawyer, so am only guessing here, but I believe the rule is that you're never supposed to break the law unless a cop directs youo to do something. Given that, if there's an emergency vehicle behind you with lights/sirens going, you're supposed to get out of it's way. In theory, you shouldn't get a ticket for it, but pictures of YOU going through a light that don't show the ambulance several cars back make it really tough on you to make your case.

    After a number of folks got snagged on that one and the judges refused to request the original sequence of pictures for the next several cars behind you, word quickly spread to not jump the light. Unfortunately, I'm sure that lead to folks who were in dire need of those emergency services not getting help in time. Sad.

  • eric76 (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    In New York City, they have those traffic cameras at many high-volume spots - and have for more than 20 years.
    Correction: Less than 20 years.

    The first photo radar citations issued in the United States were on Interstate 45 in Galveston County, Texas. If I remember correctly, that was in 1987. The next two locations were in Pasadena, California and Paradise Valley, Arizona more than a year later.

  • James (unregistered)

    I wanted to second the angry post about changing the nature of the infraction. It used to be that you, John Doe, got fined for running a red light or speeding, and as such you had all your constitutional rights (such as facing your accuser) to fall back on. Now, your car is the cause of the violation, much like if your dog craps on the curb without picking it up or your car is parked in front of a hydrant. It doesn't matter who was speeding, just the object that was involved. Your car does not have any constitutional rights, so they can just collect the money and let you (the owner of the naughty car) sort out whose fault it might be.

    Everybody (even the pols responsible) admits freely it's a revenue ploy. It's an outrage, and frankly there aren't nearly as many people pissed about it as there aught to be.

  • (cs) in reply to stevedclarke
    stevedclarke:
    Here in SA we mostly use pressure sensors in the road.
    Pressure sensors in the road is never used for timing. It is impossible to get an accurate mesurement of the time a veacle passes over the sensor. The most common sensors in the road are loops of wires witch messures induction. This is why scooters are the best way to trick a speed camera. It has low surface area to trick radars, and are made of aleminium and plastic witch have low magnetic propperties.
  • (cs) in reply to Kanazuchi
    Kanazuchi:
    He should consider himself lucky -- the picture clearly shows he was tailgating too.
    And without a licensed driver at the wheel !!!!
  • DavidTC (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Mike:
    Kanazuchi:
    He should consider himself lucky -- the picture clearly shows he was tailgating too.

    ...and doing wheelies. Double plus bad!

    I'm not sure that doing wheelies is illegal per se, but it's certainly driving recklessly....he couldn't even steer like that! (He's also almost certainly not watching the road.)

    More seriously, various traffic offenses are administrative, not 'legal' offenses, ie, it is illegal for your car to be in that position, regardless of the circumstances, I'm really wondering if he can get out of paying that fine.

    It is his car and it is going over 60.

  • Teh Irish Gril Riot (unregistered) in reply to Schmitter
    Schmitter:
    If I just send work a picture of me working, that is the same thing as me actually working right?

    My hero!

    Of course, it'd be nearly impossible to get a picture of me actually working.

  • Mark (unregistered)

    I won't be surprised if the reality of the situation is one of the following:

    The Traffic Enforcement Agency (or private company processing them) doesn't want to lose the revenue for this infraction; nor do they want their "successfully prosecuted" statistic to go down (since I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bonus attached to it). They know the tow-truck driver is at fault, but they can't read the plate of the tow-truck. So they issue the ticket to the car being towed. The car's owner either pays the ticket (and they get the revenue) or, more likely, complains. The Traffic Enforcement Agency then says to "get out of it" the owner needs to name the towing company. They can then issue the summons to the towing company and the Traffic Enforcement Agency gets the revenue.

    Still absurd and extremely inconvenient to the car's owner... but at least it lets me hold on to the quickly fading hope that people out there are not complete idiots!

    Another possibility is that it is all automated. I believe some of these traffic camera systems now have logic built in to read the plate number from the photo and process it. A person only gets involved if the plate number can not be automatically read. So it may be a case that no person ever saw the photo to make the logical conclusion of "we shouldn't be ticketing this person."

    Again... just trying to hang on to some hope that people out there are not complete idiots!

  • (cs) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    Hey, _somebody_ has to pay for this outrageous violation of the traffic laws. Might as well be the poor sap whose car is being towed.
    I would think it rather depends on why the car is being towed. If the car broke down, and the driver asked for a tow to the nearest garage, then the tow truck driver is basically working for the driver, and the driver may well be considered responsible. Conversely, if the car's being towed for something like a parking violation, then the tow truck driver is working for the city.
  • (cs) in reply to Mark
    Mark:
    Another possibility is that it is all automated. I believe some of these traffic camera systems now have logic built in to read the plate number from the photo and process it. A person only gets involved if the plate number can not be automatically read.

    In Norway we have automatic toll stations that works like this. You just drive like normaly without stopping. A camera takes your picture and reads the number. At the end of the month they send you a bill. If you complain someone takes a look at the images and compares that to the information in the national veacle database. The probability that someone with false plates have the same type of car with the same color as you is fairly slim.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to sysKin
    sysKin:
    I don't know how it works in SA but here down under, you can either pay or point out who was driving if it wasn't you.

    All that needs to be done is the second option.

    Why should you have to do the cops' work? Simply pointing out that they don't have any evidence that you were speeding should be enough. Oddly, this would make most traffic cameras pointless.

  • Crabs (unregistered) in reply to Bappi
    Bappi:
    gabba:
    Hey, _somebody_ has to pay for this outrageous violation of the traffic laws. Might as well be the poor sap whose car is being towed.
    I would think it rather depends on why the car is being towed. If the car broke down, and the driver asked for a tow to the nearest garage, then the tow truck driver is basically working for the driver, and the driver may well be considered responsible. Conversely, if the car's being towed for something like a parking violation, then the tow truck driver is working for the city.

    If your limo driver gets pulled over, the limo driver gets the ticket, not you. Despite the existence of these cameras, traffic laws are specifically written that whoever is driving is committing the crime, and therefore responsible for the ticket.

  • moz (unregistered) in reply to Sean Patterson
    Sean Patterson:
    In most, if not all, states in the US there's a law requiring you to, if safely possible, clear the way for an emergency vehicle while the lights are on.
    I'd be very surprised if any of them consider driving past a red light to be a safe thing to do.

    The ambulance driver gets to decide whether he can break the law without causing an accident. You do not.

  • Vince (unregistered) in reply to Kanazuchi

    And driving a minivan with only 2 wheels. There has to be laws against that.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Bappi

    By that logic you should fine the passenger if a taxi driver is speeding. The guy who is driving the tow truck is speeding, not the guy getting his car towed. The fine should be handled as such.

  • (cs) in reply to Bappi
    Bappi:
    I would think it rather depends on why the car is being towed. If the car broke down, and the driver asked for a tow to the nearest garage, then the tow truck driver is basically working for the driver, and the driver may well be considered responsible. Conversely, if the car's being towed for something like a parking violation, then the tow truck driver is working for the city.

    It is the driver of the tow truck that is responsable and have to pay. It is illegal to let the company you work for pay for your traffic offences. If you tells the taxi driver to break the speed limit he is stil the driver and is the one that has to pay the fine.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to DavidTC
    DavidTC:
    Mike:
    Kanazuchi:
    He should consider himself lucky -- the picture clearly shows he was tailgating too.

    ...and doing wheelies. Double plus bad!

    I'm not sure that doing wheelies is illegal per se, but it's certainly driving recklessly....he couldn't even steer like that! (He's also almost certainly not watching the road.)

    More seriously, various traffic offenses are administrative, not 'legal' offenses, ie, it is illegal for your car to be in that position, regardless of the circumstances, I'm really wondering if he can get out of paying that fine.

    It is his car and it is going over 60.

    I wonder if you could put a electronic torque bias diff on the back axle and use that to steer when the front wheels were up in the air.

  • Sean Patterson (unregistered) in reply to D-Coder
    D-Coder:
    Works just great when your destination is the nearest emergency room.

    It also works great when you're near a hospital or ambulance dispatch. Call in the emergency as happening at your destination and follow the ambulance there. Bonus feature of everyone knowing exactly when you're pulling in!

  • (cs) in reply to moz
    moz:
    I'd be very surprised if any of them consider driving past a red light to be a safe thing to do.

    The ambulance driver gets to decide whether he can break the law without causing an accident. You do not.

    You do not have to create dangerous situations because you drive past the red light. You can make a right turn, change lane or even drive on the pavement to let the ambulance thrugh without creating any situations. On the other hand you are to stop if you hear sirens nearby because people might break trafic rules and you don't want to be there when they do.

  • S.A (unregistered) in reply to Kanazuchi
    Kanazuchi:
    He should consider himself lucky -- the picture clearly shows he was tailgating too.

    he was being towed, that's the point, moron.

  • Francisco (unregistered)

    There's this famous story.

    Francisco

  • 5|i(3_x (unregistered) in reply to eric76

    Traffic cameras of any kind are about political expedience.

    Imagine yourself a policy maker. You have two options before you.

    1. Thanklessly spend tax and fee-payer money (probably at the expense of a popular albeit unfunded bike trail project) to optimize traffic flow so people can safely and efficiently get where they want to go (add lanes, improve timing of yellow lights, etc.).
    2. Allow company to install cameras. Split the revenue with them. Accept the heraldry and pomp afforded a 'champion of public safety'.

    Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking, "Hey, I could totally take advantage of my neighbors by running some red lights. I might even crash into one of them!" Given the fines involved, the only ones who benefit from punishing people for their unintentional mistakes are the collecters.

    Consider contacting your policy maker with the following suggestion: All such fines collected must be earmarked for road improvements. As it constitutes a conflict of interest, the revenues must be prohibited from going to enforcement. Enforcement should be payed for by those receiving the benefits of enforcement (the law-abiding drivers, people with property near the road, etc).

    Check out http://motorists.org

  • Sean Patterson (unregistered) in reply to S.A
    S.A:
    Kanazuchi:
    He should consider himself lucky -- the picture clearly shows he was tailgating too.

    he was being towed, that's the point, moron.

    WHOOOOSH

  • Space Hobo (unregistered)

    My South African co-worker says that the tow trucks have a limited number of shops they can take the car to that will give them a cut of the repair bills. So they tend to race to accidents and then try to haul cars across town to an out-of-the-way repair shop as quickly as possible to make the most money.

    So this tow truck most likely was driving at 78, and it's not a radar failure.

  • (cs) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    I wonder if you could put a electronic torque bias diff on the back axle and use that to steer when the front wheels were up in the air.

    Real 4x4 (e.g. not the standard SUVs or trucks witch are made for the freeway) does have such devises. It is called breakes and is used indevidualy on each wheel to ensure that you don't get stuck with one wheel spinning. On tractors you have two break pedals for this reason, and is often used in steep hills when the front wheels comes off the ground.

  • Jay (unregistered)
    <comment type='political'> Here in the U.S., our Constitution seems to guarantee that "no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". But our government has passed laws saying that they can impose an "administrative fee" or confiscate property for what any ordinary person would call a "crime", but the government says that it is not a crime but an administrative action, and thus your constitutional rights do not apply. Like, if they suspect you of selling illegal property like drugs or weapons, they can confiscate any property that they believe you bought with the profits from the illegal sales. Even if you were never convicted of making illegal sales. I've come across a number of horror stories of people who were never charged with any crime or went to court and were found not guilty, but the government kept their property. I once came across a web site for law enforcement people that urged them to use such laws to fight drug dealers, explaining that this can be an effective method because it is so difficult to prove some of these cases in court. </comment>
  • Dianne (unregistered)

    Had a similar photo f-up happen to us earlier this year (we also live in Ohio). I wrote about the incident here: http://planetdianne.blogspot.com/search?q=springfield

    Fortunately, the police were very nice about correcting the mistake.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Gnonthgol
    Gnonthgol:
    You do not have to create dangerous situations because you drive past the red light. You can make a right turn, change lane or even drive on the pavement to let the ambulance thrugh without creating any situations. On the other hand you are to stop if you hear sirens nearby because people might break trafic rules and you don't want to be there when they do.

    How do you deal with the fact that getting out of the way for ambulances is likely to get you fined in NYC?

  • frustrati (unregistered) in reply to Niels
    Niels:
    Couldn't happen in Denmark.

    Speed cameras are required to get a recognisable picture of the driver's face ie. photograph the car from the front. What happens if the face is covered I'm not sure...

    The owner gets the ticket and will have to pay or tell who was driving. The latter still being on the edge of legality, as the police is basically blackmailing the owner. OTOH, the owner is by law responsible for the vehicle if (s)he lends it out...

  • Francisco (unregistered) in reply to Gnonthgol
    Gnonthgol:
    [...] You do not have to create dangerous situations because you drive past the red light. You can make a right turn, change lane or even drive on the pavement to let the ambulance thrugh without creating any situations. On the other hand you are to stop if you hear sirens nearby because people might break trafic rules and you don't want to be there when they do.

    In Britain the usual way of dealing with emergency vehicles is to go to the side of the road (or off it if it can be done safely), let the emergency vehicle pass, then continue with your journey.

  • (cs) in reply to shinobu
    shinobu:
    At least he didn't tie his girlfriend on the hood.
    Or take a shortcut through the subway...

    np: µ-Ziq - Carpet Muncher (Royal Astronomy)

  • (cs) in reply to 5|i(3_x
    5|i(3_x:
    Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking, "Hey, I could totally take advantage of my neighbors by running some red lights. I might even crash into one of them!" Given the fines involved, the only ones who benefit from punishing people for their unintentional mistakes are the collecters.
    And no one gets up in the morning and thinks "Hey, I could totally take advantage of my neighbors by going 25 mph over the speed limit" either, but that's what they do anyway. People run red lights for the same reason they speed. Because they're too important to be bothered with waiting. As someone who's almost gotten flattened by a car (while on a motorcycle) because I stopped for the yellow when they wanted to go through, I can tell that you have no idea what you're talking about.
  • John (unregistered) in reply to Kanazuchi

    And on the wrong side of the road too!! ;-)

  • Bis (unregistered) in reply to Kanazuchi
    Kanazuchi:
    He should consider himself lucky -- the picture clearly shows he was tailgating too.

    And popping wheelies!

  • sf (unregistered) in reply to Kanazuchi
    Kanazuchi:
    He should consider himself lucky -- the picture clearly shows he was tailgating too.
    Not to mention driving on the wrong side of the road!
  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to soonermatt
    soonermatt:
    I wouldn't be surprised if the truck sped knowing who would get the ticket.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the tow truck belonged to the police. Maybe they were towing it for some parking violation in the first place.

  • Peter (unregistered) in reply to Niels
    Niels:
    Couldn't happen in Denmark.

    Speed cameras are required to get a recognisable picture of the driver's face ie. photograph the car from the front. What happens if the face is covered I'm not sure...

    If it weren't monstrously dangerous (and I lived in denmark), I'd be tempted to duck below the dashboard every time I went through a camera intersection.

  • Merc63 (unregistered) in reply to Francisco
    Francisco:
    In Britain the usual way of dealing with emergency vehicles is to go to the side of the road (or off it if it can be done safely), let the emergency vehicle pass, then continue with your journey.

    That's the usual way in teh States, too. But some roadways 9there is one right outside where I work( have no "sides" to pull of into, especially in teh city, where you have parked cars and curbs that you can't pull onto unless you're in a 4x4. If you're at a stoplight, and you cannot move left due to a car being there (and they can't move left due to oncoming lanes, or a curb on a one way street) and you can't move right due to a car being there or a curb, where do you go to get out of the way of an ambulance or police car? You go forward and turn to flow with cross traffic to get out of the way.

  • Mitch (unregistered) in reply to Krenn
    Krenn:
    charlie:
    I want to know how they got a numberplate out of the mass of white pixels that is his rear bumper!

    Oh, that part's easy. Just give it to one of the CSI guys down at the station, and he can hit the "enhance" button and clear it right up.

    They probably have a higher resolution image used internally. I'm assuming it's high res enough to give an accurate license plate number. The sucker, on the other hand, gets the midget version.

  • Mitch (unregistered) in reply to operagost
    operagost:
    Alex Papadimoulis:
    LJU:
    Well - he can always say that he wasn't driving at the time.

    FYI - here in Cleveland (and many, many other jurisdictions), even an affidavit saying you weren't behind the wheel isn't enough. You have to either (a) prove that the car wasn't yours or (b) give them the name/address of the driver. If you choose option (b) and the driver doesn't pay up, you still have to.

    I should also note... I have yet to receive a camera ticket, but I just find the whole process a little screwy.

    It's a violation of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" contained within common law. Of course, being common law, it's not outlined in the Constitution. But it doesn't need to be, per the 9th amendment. A picture of your car is not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Queue up the Libertarians...

  • (cs) in reply to moz
    moz:
    I'd be very surprised if any of them consider driving past a red light to be a safe thing to do.

    The ambulance driver gets to decide whether he can break the law without causing an accident. You do not.

    I've seen police ticketing people for failing to drive out of the ambulance's way. Yes, even when their only option was to move through a red light.

    At the end of the day, you're at the mercy of a system Kafka would be proud of, and the founders of our country fought a war to overturn. But since I can't really predict what the cops are going to decide, ex post facto, was the best thing for me to do, I'm gonna get out of the way if I can and let the ambulance through.

  • Mitch (unregistered) in reply to Sean Patterson
    Sean Patterson:
    vt_mruhlin:
    Have cities stopped doing the old trick where the traffic lights detect the emergency vehicle and change to accommodate it? I remember it used to work via a strobe light on top of the car, until people started making their own strobes on the same frequency. But surely they can come up with a better system nowadays. how about a GPS in each of the ambulances, with turn-by-turn navigation, that knows long in advance where they need to be and sets up their lights accordingly for the whole route?

    That's even better! Now I can just call in an emergency from a pay phone, wait till an ambulance drives by and follow it to my destination.

    Is that you John McClain?

  • Papa was a Rolling Stone (unregistered) in reply to Gilgamesh

    <a rel="nofollow" href=""http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/VW_Golf_Gen3_1H_1991-1997_special_edition_ROLLING_STONES_COLLECTION_1995_backright_2008-03-22_U.JPG" tagrget="_blank" target="_blank" title=""http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/VW_Golf_Gen3_1H_1991-1997_special_edition_ROLLING_STONES_COLLECTION_1995_backright_2008-03-22_U.JPG" tagrget="_blank">Not bad for a VW.

Leave a comment on “Traffic Enfarcement Camera”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article