 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / November 2006HA! Cop sees RLCs as money grab when he gets snapped!
via fark.com.... http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/116342,CST-NWS-redlight30.article Chicago Police Officer Clyde Hudson usually advises people to contest tickets for parking violations or other minor offenses if they think they have a valid excuse. So when he got a ticket in the mail showing pictures of him running a red light when he was off-duty in his Honda, Hudson figured it was worth a shot to challenge it, since he had been trying to avoid being rear-ended by the vehicle behind him, he said. But like most people who contest red-light camera tickets, Hudson figured wrong. <...> "You can't beat these tickets," Hudson said after he pleaded his case this past week during an administrative hearing at 400 W. Superior. "This is just a way for the city to make money." <...> > via fark.com.... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > <...> duh? I would have thought that this would have been self evident from the beginning, but I guess not for everyone. nate >> via fark.com.... >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > duh? I would have thought that this would have been self evident from > the beginning, but I guess not for everyone. I just find it amusing when a cop gets treated like the rest of us. > >> via fark.com.... > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I just find it amusing when a cop gets treated like the rest of us. In this case I do have some sympathy for him; his only mistake was assuming that the traffic court process was fair. nate >> I just find it amusing when a cop gets treated like the rest of us. > > In this case I do have some sympathy for him; his only mistake was > assuming that the traffic court process was fair. > > nate Well look at it from the cop's perspective . . . when the cop (who is usually not a defendant) lies, and the judge sides with the cop EVERY TIME, what could be more fair than that?!? So of course the cop went into traffic court as a defendant thinking that the process would be fair. What blows my mind is that a judge in traffic court ruled against a cop, even if the cop was a defendant. Holy sh.t!!! -Dave >>> I just find it amusing when a cop gets treated like the rest of us. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What blows my mind is that a judge in traffic court ruled against a cop, > even if the cop was a defendant. Holy sh.t!!! -Dave It's not really traffic court... it's the department of revenue admistrative hearing... like for a parking ticket. It's that thing where a ticket is entirely a civil matter so you have basically no rights. So of course the cop went into traffic > court as a defendant thinking that the process would be fair. It WAS fair. He got treated like eveyone else--including the ones HE sent there. BTW, Scottsdale recently ended it experiment with speed cameras. The process is under review. The day the cameras were turned off (for ticket purposes--they were left on for monitoring) the number of speeders caught per day nearly doubled. This included one person at, IIRC, about 131 mph. On an in-town freeway. sheesh. They'll never learn. websurf1@cox.net wrote: <brevity snip> > BTW, Scottsdale recently ended it experiment with speed cameras. The > process is under review. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > doubled. This included one person at, IIRC, about 131 mph. On an > in-town freeway. sheesh. They'll never learn. Leadfoots return to Loop 101 in Scottsdale By Brian Powell, Tribune October 26, 2006 Loop 101 motorists appear to be taking advantage of covered speed cameras, according to new data that shows speed detections are at their highest since Scottsdale started issuing citations. In the first 24 hours after it was widely reported the city was ending its nine-month trial program, there were 1,592 speeding detections of 76 mph or above, including one at a whopping 139 mph. The speed limit is 65 mph. That's the highest number of detections since Feb. 19, three days before the end of the one-month warning period and the start of the citation phase. The cameras operated Monday and were turned off at midnight Tuesday. The new data was through midnight Wednesday. The record number of detections was 1,881, which also occurred during the onemonth warning period on the eight-mile stretch between Scottsdale Road and just south of Shea Boulevard. The average number of detections per day was 800, including the warning phase. There were 761 on the final day of the program. "It's unfortunate but double the number of speeders during the first 24 hours after the cameras were turned off make a strong case for the effectiveness of the cameras," Scottsdale police Sgt. Mark Clark said. Clark said Scottsdale police have the option of conducting photo radar from their patrol cars on Loop 101, but have not decided whether to do so. The freeway is patrolled daily by the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Veronica Leyva, who works in Scottsdale, was not surprised by the data. "Now that the cameras are off, people think they can get away with (speeding)," she said. Scottsdale was unable Wednesday to provide a breakdown of the 1,592 detections, for instance the average detection speed or number of detections below 80 mph or above 100 mph. A Tribune analysis of Scottsdale City Court statistics through June showed 81 percent of speeding tickets generated by the cameras were for speeds of 76 to 79 mph. More than half of the first 59,721 tickets were for either 76 or 77 mph. The record citation speed is 147 mph. Scottsdale is continuing to use in-road sensors to record speeds through Jan. 23 to analyze the effect of turning off the cameras. No citations will be issued. An Arizona State University professor is preparing a report analyzing traffic, speed and crash data that will be presented to the City Council in January. The council is then expected to decide whether to continue or end the program, the first of its kind in the state. There were 189,881 total detections between Feb. 22 and Oct. 23, the dates citations were issued. An additional 30,169 detections registered during the warning phase of Jan. 22 and Feb. 21. The city has issued 132,388 citations or notices of violations to date, which does not include the final days of the program. http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=77477 -- I have a feeling speed cameras are soon to become permanent Scottsdale fixtures. ----- - gpsman > "It's unfortunate but double the number of speeders during the > first 24 hours after the cameras were turned off make a strong case for > the effectiveness of the cameras," Scottsdale police Sgt. Mark Clark > said. No Mark, it makes a strong case that the posted limits (which are not even in compliance with AZ law, BTW) are set way too low. -Dave > > "It's unfortunate but double the number of speeders during the > > first 24 hours after the cameras were turned off make a strong case for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No Mark, it makes a strong case that the posted limits (which are not even > in compliance with AZ law, BTW) are set way too low. -Dave The cameras were reasonabley effective. The appropriateness of the particular limits is another issue entirely. Not that we'll ever agree abouy that, but the cameras don't even trigger until 75+ mph, which is already 10 more than the posted limit. And 139 is obscenely stupid. >>> "It's unfortunate but double the number of speeders during the >>> first 24 hours after the cameras were turned off make a strong case for >>> the effectiveness of the cameras," Scottsdale police Sgt. Mark Clark >>> said. >> No Mark, it makes a strong case that the posted limits (which are not even >> in compliance with AZ law, BTW) are set way too low. > The cameras were reasonabley effective. Did they reduce crash rates? > >>> "It's unfortunate but double the number of speeders during the > >>> first 24 hours after the cameras were turned off make a strong case for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Did they reduce crash rates? I haven't seen the statistics. However, before the cameras were turned on, bad crashes on the news were quite common. For months, I honestly haven't heard of any. However, I am as aware as anyone that this anecdotal observation is officially useless. Well, come to think of it, there was one very bad one, but not really related to the issue at hand. Someone flew off the 101 exit ramp at an estimated 65 or so, and for some reason never slowed down. Killed a family of four. But he was legal on the freeway. I haven't heard a real explanation yet. >>>"It's unfortunate but double the number of speeders during the >>>first 24 hours after the cameras were turned off make a strong case for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > abouy that, but the cameras don't even trigger until 75+ mph, which is > already 10 more than the posted limit. And 139 is obscenely stupid. You're implying that it is somehow undersirable to travel faster than 75 MPH on a controlled-access freeway. I don't see why. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > You're implying that it is somehow undersirable to travel faster than 75 > MPH on a controlled-access freeway. I don't see why. > > nate Because he's part of a brainwashed minority that actually believes that speed, all by itself, is dangerous. -Dave > > You're implying that it is somehow undersirable to travel faster than 75 > > MPH on a controlled-access freeway. I don't see why. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because he's part of a brainwashed minority that actually believes that > speed, all by itself, is dangerous. -Dave It would depend on the freeway, the access, the traffic loads, etc. In THIS case, my opinion is that 65 is nice and would suffice. In any case, 10 OTL is an appropriately ticketable offense. >> Because he's part of a brainwashed minority that actually believes that >> speed, all by itself, is dangerous. -Dave > > It would depend on the freeway, the access, the traffic loads, etc. In > THIS case, my opinion is that 65 is nice and would suffice. In any > case, 10 OTL is an appropriately ticketable offense. In most areas (don't know about the road we are discussing in particular) the 85th percentile speed is at least 15-20MPH over the posted maximum speed limit. This leads to the bizarro scenario where you can be ticketed and fined for driving slower than the point of maximum safety. -Dave > The cameras were reasonabley effective. The appropriateness of the > particular limits is another issue entirely. Not that we'll ever agree > abouy that, but the cameras don't even trigger until 75+ mph, which is > already 10 more than the posted limit. And what percentage of drivers break that 75 barrier? If you set the speed limit appropriately, the cameras would catch almost nobody speeding. > And 139 is obscenely stupid. Under most circumstances, yes. -Dave > And what percentage of drivers break that 75 barrier? If you set the speed > limit appropriately, the cameras would catch almost nobody speeding. According to the article posted above, it was about 1600 speeders in the first 24 hours after the cameras were turned off. If I estimate 200,000 cars (a WAG that is probably way low), that's .8%. This is a very small minority of drivers--people who think the laws don't apply to them. As would be noted by any casual read of the ng, our opinions of "appropriate" differ. Those who disagree are welcome to contribute to the general coffers. Just don't bend my car in the process. >> The cameras were reasonabley effective. The appropriateness of the >> particular limits is another issue entirely. Not that we'll ever agree [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Under most circumstances, yes. -Dave C'mon, grow a pair, Dave. ;-) brink tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >"You can't beat these tickets," Hudson said after he pleaded his case >this past week during an administrative hearing at 400 W. Superior. "This >is just a way for the city to make money." BWAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! I guess an automated camera doesn't give "professional courtesy." :) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >via fark.com.... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >shot to challenge it, since he had been trying to avoid being rear-ended >by the vehicle behind him, he said. [...] I once ran two red lights to avoid a third rear end collision. This after the person behind me had already collided with me (presumably on purpose) twice. I'm glad there were no f.cking cameras at those intersections. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >via fark.com.... > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. Get a license # of the idiot and report him. Do it before you get the ticket in the mail. Obviously there are no guarantees, but if you have some detectabel damage and an offending license number, you have more of a case than just a say-so. >> I once ran two red lights to avoid a third rear end collision. >> This after the person behind me had already collided with me >> (presumably on purpose) twice. I'm glad there were no f.cking cameras >> at those intersections. > Get a license # of the idiot and report him. While he's behind you and rear-ending your vehicle on purpose? Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: >>> I once ran two red lights to avoid a third rear end collision. >>> This after the person behind me had already collided with me [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >While he's behind you and rear-ending your vehicle on purpose? See that patch of reflective glass glued onto a short post in the middle of your windshield? See those two pieces of reflective glass on your front doors? I suspect they might have come in handy. ;) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: >>> Get a license # of the idiot and report him. >> While he's behind you and rear-ending your vehicle on purpose? > See that patch of reflective glass glued onto a short post in the > middle of your windshield? See those two pieces of reflective glass on > your front doors? I suspect they might have come in handy. ;) Depends if the state requires a front plate or not. I don't recall if PA is one of those states. >> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Depends if the state requires a front plate or not. I don't recall if > PA is one of those states. It's not. At least not as of the last time I lived there. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>> Get a license # of the idiot and report him. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Depends if the state requires a front plate or not. I don't recall if >PA is one of those states. A valid point. However, it appears that Matthew never thought to even check. :) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > See that patch of reflective glass glued onto a short post in the > middle of your windshield? See those two pieces of reflective glass on > your front doors? I suspect they might have come in handy. ;) reading text in a mirror that is barely visible and moving at night and not illuminated if in a state with front plates and the offender has said front plate is a pretty tall order. I can read upside down well, but mirrored text takes a bit of doing. > Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > I'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! Or in your case, just rotate your video camera 180° to catch the action behind you. ;) >Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >middle of your windshield? See those two pieces of reflective glass on >your front doors? I suspect they might have come in handy. ;) See the lack of a front license plate? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> >via fark.com.... >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Get a license # of the idiot and report him. A license #? I didn't see a license #. No front plate. And report her to who? The Philadelphia police? The idea is to avoid dealing with the cops, not to have ANOTHER interaction with them. >Do it before you get the >ticket in the mail. Obviously there are no guarantees, but if you have >some detectabel damage and an offending license number, you have more >of a case than just a say-so. Yeah. Right. Judge: "You ran the light, you're guilty, next case" SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) said in rec.autos.driving: >I once ran two red lights to avoid a third rear end collision. >This after the person behind me had already collided with me >(presumably on purpose) twice. WTF? Why didn't you call the cops, exchange insurance info, etc. after the first collision? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >>I once ran two red lights to avoid a third rear end collision. >>This after the person behind me had already collided with me >>(presumably on purpose) twice. > > WTF? Why didn't you call the cops, exchange insurance info, etc. after > the first collision? If someone is deliberately ramming your car with another vehicle, you think the cops are going to be much help in that situation? Well maybe if they happen to be within eyesight and SEE the act in progress . . . (but what are the odds on that, exactly?) Other than that, your effort should be escape first, inform authorities later. The last thing I would do is pick up my cell phone to dial 911 and hang around waiting for some lunatic to murder me. -Dave "Mike T." <noway@nohow.not> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>I once ran two red lights to avoid a third rear end collision. >>>This after the person behind me had already collided with me [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If someone is deliberately ramming your car with another vehicle, you think >the cops are going to be much help in that situation? How would you know it was deliberate? >Other than that, your effort should be escape first, inform authorities >later. Yeah, be sure and tell the cops you left the scene of a collision so they can come and arrest your dumb a.s. :rolleyes: SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >>If someone is deliberately ramming your car with another vehicle, you >>think >>the cops are going to be much help in that situation? > > How would you know it was deliberate? OK, come up with a reasonable explanation for someone ramming your car twice, accidentally. When you are stopped at a stop light. It's got to be deliberate, as any accident theory wouldn't pass the smell test. >>Other than that, your effort should be escape first, inform authorities >>later. > > Yeah, be sure and tell the cops you left the scene of a collision so > they can come and arrest your dumb a.s. :rolleyes: How does that saying go? I'd rather be wrong and in prison than right and dead. Besides which, I wouldn't state that I'd left the scene of a collision. I would be reporting that I escaped from some lunatic who I honenstly believed was trying to murder me, and who was definitely guilty (in anyone's opinion) of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Last I checked, we still had the right to defend ourselves when in grave danger. Escape would have been the obvious FIRST line of defense. You are sitting in your car, the car is running, floor it and get the f.ck out of here. -Dave >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >WTF? Why didn't you call the cops, exchange insurance info, etc. after >the first collision? After the first collision I doubted any damage occured. It was basically just a tap. The second one was significantly harder, and I'm not about to stick around talking to someone who has just deliberately rammed my car. Leaving the area seemed much more prudent. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) said in rec.autos.driving: >>WTF? Why didn't you call the cops, exchange insurance info, etc. after >>the first collision? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >deliberately rammed my car. Leaving the area seemed much more >prudent. But calling 911 did not? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >But calling 911 did not? Personally, I'd consider calling the Philadelphia Police to be about as dangerous as confronting the driver; perhaps more so. But in any case, I do not have a cell phone, so calling wasn't an option until after leaving the area. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.