• (cs) in reply to K&T
    K&T:
    Actually, studies suggest they Increase Crashes

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

    This. At least someone sees the truth and isn't a sheep!

  • jas88 (unregistered) in reply to Jared
    Jared:
    That sounds like bunk. There is a radar gun attached to the camera module. That is what records your speed. If it gets triggered by a speeder, then it has the camera take a picture. The photo is only for identification, not proof of speed. Multiple photos would likely be more for increased identification. Though there are enough stupid people around, I can see a speeder getting off with that argument.

    Some jurisdictions require two pieces of evidence, so the radar having measured your speed isn't enough; the radar readout plus the two timed photographs presumably meet the requirement for two pieces of evidence, where simply recording the measured speed would not.

  • ticket me, beautiful (unregistered) in reply to Kanazuchi

    you should get your eyes checked, that's a tow-truck, hence the point of this little enfarcement notice.

    as for cameras in general, if they are run by the government, and not a third party making money off of it, I am ok with it. because governments need money from speeding tickets and people need to be safe on the road. usually in this kind of situation, the person issued the ticket is allowed to make an appeal, this is clearly a mistake and if he could provide the information of the towing company he should be able to get out of it.

  • Ed (unregistered) in reply to Sutherlands

    Are you from the UK, Canada, or Wrong?

  • diaphanein (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.

    However, since they catch the photo from the back, the rule is that the vehicle owner gets a non-point-value ticket $based-on-speed, regardless of who was driving.

    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.

    And here I thought the whole time that it was just because New Yorkers are notorious assholes. Huh, guess you learn something new every day.

  • diaphanein (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.

    However, since they catch the photo from the back, the rule is that the vehicle owner gets a non-point-value ticket $based-on-speed, regardless of who was driving.

    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.

    And here I thought the whole time that it was just because New Yorkers are notorious assholes. Huh, guess you learn something new every day.

  • (cs)

    The officer is "TANGO2", as in T2... this proves that trusting machines to police traffic is a step on the way to JUDGMENT DAY.

  • (cs) in reply to Cyrz
    Cyrz:
    Krenn:
    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.

    If you hit enhance twice, you can read the license plate of the tow truck through the car.

    But that'll expose the kernel. Better to just rotate the image so we can see between them.

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

    And driving in the oncoming traffic lane!

  • (cs)

    I am really glad UK law doesn't allow these sorts of fines to be collected without at least nominal police involvement in their enforcement. Yet.

    Oh, and can I suggest not tail-gating behind an ambulance? The larger and more modern ones tend to have very large, very solid hydraulic lifting apparatus mounted under the rear doors at exactly the right height to go through a typical car windscreen if someone rear-ends it at speed. They may also contain at least one EMT or paramedic willing and able to beat the crap out of you with an O2 cylinder for being a complete and utter fucktard.

  • A Gould (unregistered) in reply to Crabs
    Crabs:
    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.

    As someone who cough managed to get a photo radar and an in-person ticket this year, I can speak for my local jurisdiction, at least.

    An in-person ticket (where the cop pulls you over, flashy lights, etc etc) charges me, the driver with excessive speed. I get demerits on my license, and so forth.

    A photo radar ticket is more closely related to a parking ticket - my vehicle was doing something it's not supposed to be doing, and thus I (as the owner) get fined. There's no demerits, no accusation that I personally did anything. (In Alberta photo radar is actually in the same category as "non-moving violations", ironically enough.) So, just like it doesn't matter who parked your car in the handicap stall, it doesn't matter who drove your car too fast, just that it was your car. (As a side note, if you rent a car around here, you have to sign a paper agreeing to pay any and all photo radar tickets issued during your rental.)

    For this one, it should be a slam-dunk reversal (either by common sense, or more likely, getting local media involved - sensationalism can work for our benefit.)

  • (cs)

    Regarding the tow-ee being responsible for the ticket because the tow-er works in his employ: I see the error of my ways, and hang my head in shame.

  • Mark (unregistered) in reply to lolwtf
    lolwtf:
    Cyrz:
    Krenn:
    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.

    If you hit enhance twice, you can read the license plate of the tow truck through the car.

    But that'll expose the kernel. Better to just rotate the image so we can see between them.
    Why not just hit the "Infrared button", to get an Infrared image of the tow truck driver based on his body heat; then hit the "reverse angle" button so you can see the face; and then hit the "Enhanced" button. Now you have a picture of the tow truck driver. Do a 5 second face recognition scan of the DMV records, and bingo... you can send the ticket to the correct driver.

    It's so simple, a Cave Man could do it. (US pop culture joke)

  • 5|i(3_x (unregistered) in reply to Sutherlands
    Sutherlands:
    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.

    I, for one, speed because the limits in my state have been set at least 6MPH below engineering guidlines (which would only criminalize 3 out of every 20 drivers) depending on the road. Abiding by the limit is actually more dangerous than speeding a bit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-Ox0ZmVIU ).

    Anyway, I recognize that many people speed for the sole purpose of haste. They believe themselves to be safe in doing so (and are usually correct in that assumption). However, I don't know anybody who thinks running through a well-timed red light is an acceptable risk.

  • (cs) in reply to vt_mruhlin
    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?
    Isn't that a popular urban legend?

    http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/strobe.asp

    There is MIRT for Emergency Vehicles, of course, but I think its pretty illegal to use one of those in a non-emergency vehicle:

    http://www.themirt.com/how.html

  • (cs) in reply to 5|i(3_x
    5|i(3_x:
    However, I don't know anybody who thinks running through a well-timed red light is an acceptable risk.
    I do: The Eje 3 Sur and Dr. Vertiz intersection, at night. It crosses the "Buenos Aires" district, notorious for its high rates of carjacking during red lights. Drivers driving on Eje 3 Sur will usually pass any red lights in this vicinity; however most of these traffic lights default to "blinking yellow" after 11pm.

    Also, red-light running is allowed (with caution) from 12am to 5am; guess why this exception was made. Oh, this is Mexico City, by the way.

  • Manic Mailman (unregistered) in reply to ticket me, beautiful
    ticket me:
    as for cameras in general, if they are run by the government, and not a third party making money off of it, I am ok with it. because governments need money from speeding tickets...
    And governments need money when:
    • I'm parking on the street
    • I go over certain bridges
    • I buy stuff
    • I use my phone
    • I own a home
    • I get tags for my dog
    • I get tags for my car
    • I work for my employer
    • I make money on my bank account - or God forbid - the stock market
    • ...

    Actually,I supposed it's easier to figure out when the government doesn't need my money.

  • (cs) in reply to Niels
    Speed cameras are required to get a recognisable picture of the driver's face

    Is that you speeding again, Bill Oddie?

  • (cs) in reply to 5|i(3_x
    5|i(3_x:
    Anyway, I recognize that many people speed for the sole purpose of haste. They believe themselves to be safe in doing so (and are usually correct in that assumption). However, I don't know anybody who thinks running through a well-timed red light is an acceptable risk.
    Move to Phoenix.
  • Mikel (unregistered)

    Is he being towed?

    That's a really, really bad picture.

  • (cs) in reply to Sutherlands
    Sutherlands:
    5|i(3_x:
    Anyway, I recognize that many people speed for the sole purpose of haste. They believe themselves to be safe in doing so (and are usually correct in that assumption). However, I don't know anybody who thinks running through a well-timed red light is an acceptable risk.
    Move to Phoenix.
    Having spent a summer in Phoenix, and can attest to the veracity of this statement.

    Crazy drivers down there. Traffic signals are considered "suggestions".

  • Dan Neely (unregistered)

    Shades of Gordon Dickson. Computers Don't Argue.

    http://www.atariarchives.org/bcc2/showpage.php?page=133

  • Gamer (unregistered) 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.

    I'd introduce you to one of my former neighbours, but he's currently doing 6 years for killing 3 people. He knew it was completely safe to blow through the red light, as he'd been doing for years, because he could see the whole intersection was clear. What he couldn't see was the woman who pulled out of the next small side street because she could see the red light had stopped all the traffic.

  • H-Bomb (unregistered) in reply to Sean Patterson

    they did something like that in Die Hard 3..... lol

  • David (unregistered) in reply to Kanazuchi

    And driving with two wheels off the ground. And driving with no driver.

  • Jonniecumlately (unregistered) in reply to Zolcos

    Dear Man, We know you wear body armor, that is why we aim for the head...

  • fredricko (unregistered)

    Enfarcement is all about revenue. If the cops didn't get the money I'm sure there would be less incentive for them to ticket mercilessly. Agree that all speeding violations should go to support road victims and pay for better infrastructure.

    In the UK IIRC you get demerits even via photo radar, and some city of London cameras will tag you for going 1mph over the limit. Ouch.

    I also was towed once from a 7am - 7pm area, with my issue being that it wasn't yet 7am. The impound lot, a 30 minute drive away, recorded the car entering the lot at 7:05am. A passionate plea of logic, arguing that unless the tow truck driver drove at over 200km/h through rush hour, my car was in fact removed before 7am and thus the whole thing invalid.

    All well and good, but I recall I had to pay on the spot to get my car out of impound, and in order to pay you had to plead guilty to the ticket. The subprime alternative is leaving my car in impound, pay for every day it's there, and try to argue for some indefinite amount of time and still losing because they don't care.

    If you get a ticket you're screwed. No checks/balances, and nobody in government turns off a source of revenue.

    There's no such thing as logic when dealing with government weenie's.

    At least it wasn't a $103,000 ticket

  • (cs)

    I believe the man running the province I live in put it very succinctly when he was trying to promote photo radar / traffic cameras:

    "I have long been a supporter of photo radar," the premier told reporters on his way into a cabinet meeting. "It's a revenue generator, absolutely."

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/01/14/radar_mcguinty040114.html

    I think, singlehandedly, it's that comment that kept photo radar off the streets here in Ontario, Canada. Sadly he didn't specifically say red-light cameras as well (No point infraction, no insurance reportage, several week delay before the ticket is received, how is that going to get a driver to be safer? The first intersection I've seen with it in my city now has 3 serious tow-truck and police requiring rear-end collisions each week, and those are just the ones I drive by.)

  • (cs) 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.

    Would you consider a career in rocket science?

  • (cs) in reply to ticket me, beautiful
    ticket me:
    you should get your eyes checked, that's a tow-truck, hence the point of this little enfarcement notice.

    WOOOSH v. 2

    "you should get your [sarcasm detector] checked". You should also try reading all comments before posting. As sugggested by the "v. 2" on my "WOOOSH", someone else had the same response as you and got a "WOOOSH" response back at them. You get to be "new and improved!" version 2, "now with 50% more stoooopid."

    WHY DO PEOPLE NOT READ POSTS? WHY DO PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO REPEAT WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID? It's like Highschool, all the guppies dress exactly alike...

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

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

    Would you consider a career in rocket science?

    We've lost enough probes to people like S.A, please don't give him ideas. :-P

  • Miksu (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 ;)

    Actually, in Finland the road traffic law states just that: emergency vehicles using the sirens and lights must be given way regardless of any traffic lights.

  • (cs) in reply to Mizchief
    Mizchief:
    I would challenge anyone to read that citation and then try to argue that we don't need a singular national language for offical business.

    Be glad it's only 2 of the 11 :)

    For a full list see point 1 at http://www.acts.co.za/constitution/6_languages.htm

  • teh_n1gz (unregistered) in reply to Daid

    60km/h is the limit in residential zones here. I love our traffic dept honestly, most of them can't even transcribe your details from your liscence correctly, it's great :/

  • Thomas (unregistered)

    Hey thats my car... How'd you get your hands on this. It was a load of cr@p, check it out on snopes.com. This is definately PHOTOSHOPPED because my car is black.

  • Tourist (unregistered) in reply to Cyrz
    Cyrz:
    Krenn:
    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.

    If you hit enhance twice, you can read the license plate of the tow truck through the car.

    no, they catch it on mirror image of the plate through three-five reflections in various rear-view mirrors and windows ultimately getting the reflection from the bald head of the tow truck driver.

  • Jurgen (unregistered)

    Not sure for other countries, but in Belgium camera's will not trigger for speeds under 30km/h. Thus you can and must safely pass a red light to clear the way for an ambulance.

  • rainer (unregistered) in reply to frustrati
    frustrati:
    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...

    In Germany, you will NOT have to tell..it's their job to find out who's that person on the picture. If they can't find out, you'll be asked to document each drive for the next 0.5 to 2 years (just in case it happens again..so they can ask for the documentation to find the driver). The good thing is, on average this makes it more expensive to fine people, and discourages abusing speed cameras as revenue source.

  • (cs) in reply to Gnonthgol
    Gnonthgol:
    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.

    But of course he'll leave the meter running during the time he's motionless at the side of the road...

  • blunden (unregistered) in reply to Alex Papadimoulis
    Krenn:
    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.
    I'm still waiting for that Photoshop plugin.
    Alex Papadimoulis:
    I guess this is the "beauty" of it being a "civil violation" instead of criminal. They don't actually send you a summons to court, only a "notice of liability" to the traffic department. You have zero chance of fighting the liability, as the ordinanceclearly states that, if it's your car, then you were liable.

    Because it's an administrative hearing, the rules of court/evidence do not apply... so when you ask to look at the mechanics of the camera, records of citations, etc. in hopes of finding a flaw in their system, they'll either laugh at you or aseess a several hundred dollar fee for "the information to be assembled and burned on to a disk."

    I guess the reason that all this is kosher in the eyes of the law (this has actually gone to Ohio's Supreme Court) is that it's a civil violation, not a criminal one. So, not paying means they can forward the matter to a collections agency (undoubtly impacting your credit score), sue you in civil court, and/or impound your vehicle if it's parked on city streets. So really, that's nothing.

    Thankfully I live in a country where identifying the car isn't enough. They need to prove you were driving it as well.

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to Zemm
  • (cs) in reply to teh_n1gz
    teh_n1gz:
    ...most of them can't even transcribe your details from your liscence correctly...

    wow, QFT... ;)

  • JDocs (unregistered) in reply to Steve

    In South Africa we drive on the other side of the road...

  • (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.

    That is precisely what my father once did. He was driving up some mountain pass in the Swiss alps, with all his family in the car. Due to an accident somewhere upfront, traffic was stuck and the going was tough. When the ambulance came from behind, my father rushed out of the waiting line and closed up to the ambulance, following it at full speed all the way to the accident site, then he passed by and kept going as if nothing had happened. The nurses in the back tried to wave him away, but he just stayed there.

    Well, this was more than thirty years ago and police wasn't so rough back then. Nowadays, I figure one would go to jail for such behavior. But we always had a good laugh when that story was recounted. Yep, my father used to be a nasty driver... :-)

  • SouthAfricanChick (unregistered)

    Your missing the best part...the sliding scale...

    Yep...you never know how much they are going to charge you for going over the speed limit.

    Just one of the ways they like to keep you on your toes ;)

  • nufi (unregistered) in reply to Zolcos

    well, be happy that they didn't get you for tailgating

  • gosse (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.)

    When on a sportsbike and doing wheelies, you get fined for "not being in control of the vehicle's acceleration." I would believe it would be the same for cars, even tho this one is most probably not rwd.
  • brian (unregistered)

    If you look closely you can see this picture was obviously made by the same clowns who doctored the moon-landing footage... the shadows and reflections are all wrong.

    The South-African police are well known for their photoshop-ery

  • (cs) 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.

    S.A., you're not too bright, are you...

  • Tow truck guy (unregistered)

    I hope people understand that the car was being towed.

Leave a comment on “Traffic Enfarcement Camera”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article