 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2007Why have i NEVER been caught by a red light camera?
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. "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >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!! Must be that Richard Nixon mask that you always wear while driving.  SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Scott en Aztlán said in rec.autos.driving: > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Must be that Richard Nixon mask that you always wear while driving. Funny. All this time, I thought that SFB was wearing a Laura Bush mask.... ;) On Feb 22, 11:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> 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!! 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. Because you're a troll and you don't actually drive a car. You would fail even our ludicrously lenient drivers' tests. nate > On Feb 22, 11:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > nate HAHAHA. Looks like i raised another good question that the loonies can't answer and so they come back with childish namecalling. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving: << ECP removed >> > > Because you're a troll and you don't actually drive a car. You would > > fail even our ludicrously lenient drivers' tests. > HAHAHA. Looks like i raised another good question that the loonies can't > answer and so they come back with childish namecalling. The TRVTH hurts, doesn't it, loser??? BTW, thanks for the new .sig, fuckwit! Signature"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," admits to being a Red Light Runner on a regular basis: "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!!" --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a, LBMHB/lb-VH, POA, aunt millie ad nauseum) 2/22/07 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/2rwacl Message ID: Xns98DFD82CC5A39riemann1850yahoocom@207.217.125.201 > HAHAHA. Looks like i raised another good question that the loonies can't > answer and so they come back with childish namecalling. How many RLCs are there in your town? How often do you drive through intersections containing them? Even if those numbers are high, what does your never having been caught by them prove? Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS, a red light running child killer and expert on all that is gay kid porn, spewed forth this crap in rec.autos.driving: << ECP removed >> > All the paranoids out there like to claim that RLCs are set up to catch You are the king of the paranoids, you who deny the Holocaust etc.... > even law-abiding drivers. Something you would know nothing about. > If that was true, i should have been caught but never have been!! Try registering that sh.t box you drive and putting a license tag on it. > Fact is everybody that's caught is guilty and guilty of > a serious crime No they are not. > that kills or cripples thousands of innocent americans a year. No it doesn't. By that flawed logic, about 1/2 of the population should be in wheelchairs. And there is no such thing as an "innocent American," either. > RLC runners are worse than terrorists and No, *YOU* are worse than any terrorist. > i want them caught and wish they were sent to prison. SO, when will you be reporting to the Super-Max to do yourr time for all the crimes that you are documented to have committed, hypocrite? > I'm no coddler. **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** **CODDLE**CODDLe**CODDle**CODdle**COddle**Coddle**coddle** **coddle**coddlE**coddLE**codDLE**coDDLE**cODDLE**CODDLE** Signature"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," admits to being a Red Light Runner on a regular basis: "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!!" --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a, LBMHB/lb-VH, POA, aunt millie ad nauseum) 2/22/07 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/2rwacl Message ID: Xns98DFD82CC5A39riemann1850yahoocom@207.217.125.201 On Feb 22, 11:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> 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. So once you move from your Land of Fantasy to the Land of Reality, the ONLY other reason to have red-light cameras is for revenue generation. >the ONLY other reason to have red-light cameras is for revenue generation. Isn't that what ALL traffic enforcement is about? If the govt were really concerned about public safety instead of public shakedown. they would take cops out of the cars and put them at dangerous intersections making sure people obeyed the law. But there's no money in that so they don't do it. There needs to be a law that within 15 minutes of the onset of anything that slows traffic during rush periods, a cop must be on the scene directing traffic around the obstacle. That includes accidents and malfunctioning traffic control signals. -- "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 > >the ONLY other reason to have red-light cameras is for revenue generation. > > Isn't that what ALL traffic enforcement is about? Yes, but our local nutcase doesn't understand that. > On Feb 22, 11:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. >> 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. There are instances where the yellow light is not on long enough. -- "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 > There are instances where the yellow light is not on long enough. If you think that you may have been photographed, go back and time the amber portion. If it is too short, stop a numebr of people and ask them to do so and write their results. Have the also incldenthe info about the timer they are using. (You do carry a stop watch, don't you?) Also request/demand calibration check results on that light. However, it you think that you did run the light, don't make a pest of yourself. >If you think that you may have been photographed, go back and time the >amber portion. >If it is too short, stop a numebr of people and ask them to do so and >write their results. >Have the also incldenthe info about the timer they are using. (You do >carry a stop watch, don't you?) >Also request/demand calibration check results on that light. It's cheaper to hire a good defense attorney. >However, it you think that you did run the light, don't make a pest of >yourself. I don't run lights. It's too dangerous and I am not in that big a hurry. But if I were ever cited, I would automatically take it to court because I am not qualified to determine guilt. Only a jury can make that determination. If one juror believes that RLC are illegitimate, then I will not be convicted. -- "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 In Message-ID:<45e2e17b.289685765@news-server.houston.rr.com> posted on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:35:33 GMT, Citizen Bob wrote: Begin >It's cheaper to hire a good defense attorney. Might be even cheaper to keep a slave triggered strobe flash on the dash to instantly blind the camera using its own flash for exposure synchronization. I have a Canon HF-DC1 http://tinyurl.com/2dpatp SignatureBart On Feb 23, 11:46 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Feb 22, 11:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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. >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 On Feb 22, 8:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> 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!! 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. Yes you are, because I've told you repeatedly that I speed every time you post `cause you annoy me,yet you still post. You are the ultimate criminal coddler. Mez On Feb 22, 11:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > All the paranoids out there like to claim that RLCs are >set up to catch even law-abiding drivers. They have a DOCUMENTED record of doing that. In nearby Greensboro here in North Carolina, one ticketed a driver going through a red light - as part of a police-escorted funeral procession. They have a DOCUMENTED record of illegal operation. Here, all in this state are shut down due to a court finding that their financing by splitting the fines with private contractors running them violates the state constitution's provision requiring all traffic fines to go to local schools. No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com > On Feb 22, 11:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > light - as part of a police-escorted funeral procession. > 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. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS, a connoisseur of gay kid porn, spewed forth this crap in rec.autos.driving: << ECP removed >> > 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. Quit spewing your crap across irrelevant newsgroups (including this one). Signature"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," admits to being a Red Light Runner on a regular basis: "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!!" --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a, LBMHB/lb-VH, POA, aunt millie ad nauseum) 2/22/07 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/2rwacl Message ID: Xns98DFD82CC5A39riemann1850yahoocom@207.217.125.201 >> They have a DOCUMENTED record of doing that. In nearby Greensboro >> here in North Carolina, one ticketed a driver going through a red >> light - as part of a police-escorted funeral procession. >And i'm sure the dood got the ticket cancelled when the judge found out >what happened. Was he compensated for his time and trouble. I am all for citizens courts where people who have been shaken down can sue the perpetrators. -- "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 Feb 23, 11:48 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote innews:1172285385.997764.146760@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.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 Feb 22, 10:15 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> 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!! 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. It's certainly easy for you to avoid being caught by RLC when your car (if one exists) never leaves the driveway or institution parking lot. RLCs do actually "catch" law-abiding drivers...they are the ones getting rear-ended at those intersections. >> 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. >It's certainly easy for you to avoid being caught by RLC when your car >(if one exists) never leaves the driveway or institution parking lot. >RLCs do actually "catch" law-abiding drivers...they are the ones >getting rear-ended at those intersections. While I agree the sole purpose of RLC is revenue enhancement for the city, I also agree that people should not be tailgating. The law requires that you drive safely, and that includes having your car under control at all times - even if the person in front of you jams on his breaks to stop quickly to avoid a RLC. The drivers license manual states that the safe distance is one car length per 10 mph. A car is about 15-20 feet in length, so if you are travelling at 30 mph, you need to maintain at least 45 feet distance. If you do that, you will avoid a rear end collision even if the car in front slams on his brakes. Most suburban lots are approximately 50 feet across the front, give or take. That means your car should be about the distance from one side of your property to the other. That's a lot of distance even at 30 mph and even if the car ahead comes to an abrupt stop. -- "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 spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) said in rec.autos.driving: >The drivers license manual states that the safe distance is one car >length per 10 mph. A car is about 15-20 feet in length, so if you are >travelling at 30 mph, you need to maintain at least 45 feet distance. That's so simple-minded it's laughable. Do all vehicles have the same stopping ability? Do all drivers have the same reaction time? Do all road surfaces have the same coefficient of friction? Does the weather never change? So how can an arbitrarily chosen magic number printed in a book possibly work for every situation? At 30 MPH, a skilled young driver in a sports car with new tires might be perfectly safe with a 10 foot following distance. OTOH, Aunt Judy, with his bald tars and slow reaction time, would still rear end you even with a 100 foot following distance. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > under control at all times - even if the person in front of you jams > on his breaks to stop quickly to avoid a RLC. That doesn't help me at all if the driver behind me doesn't follow your rules and/or isn't paying enough attention to get on the brakes soon enough. > The drivers license manual states that the safe distance is one car > length per 10 mph. A car is about 15-20 feet in length, so if you are > travelling at 30 mph, you need to maintain at least 45 feet distance. > If you do that, you will avoid a rear end collision even if the car in > front slams on his brakes. And how many drivers do you see doing that? Seriously? About NONE in my area. > Most suburban lots are approximately 50 feet across the front, give or > take. That means your car should be about the distance from one side > of your property to the other. That's a lot of distance even at 30 mph > and even if the car ahead comes to an abrupt stop. Right. 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. Thus, if you happen to be caught with your car in a certain zone when the light turns yellow, you have the choice of braking at >0.3G (which is about all the harder most street drivers are willing to brake, even if their cars will stop significantly faster) or else getting a ticket. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >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 >>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 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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 Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel ive been known to have to run a red light because my 3ton ford f150 cant exactly stop on a dime and ive got caught in a situation or 2 before where the light turns yellow but their isnt enough time to stop that beast efficiantly without the person behind me having to break hard too. some vehicles get in a bad spot with yellow lights because you know that the light will turn red right when you hit that line but they dont give you enough warning to stop in time. Where i live we dont get yellows very long before they turn red :-/ i think they have changed the timing on them, but i never see it as that big of aproblem because the time between it turns red and the next lane of traffic turns green is long enough to insure that im long gone before they start to move. i know this is a big issue around here because their are alot of farmers around here with vehicles that are too large to stop in time before it turns red. >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >nate >>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 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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.autos.driving/browse_frm/thread/7b7e4fd71db2e 1d7/9c03ca6c8d7acde1?lnk=gst&q=yellow+light+timing&rnum=6#9c03ca6c8d7acde1 nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> 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.autos.driving/browse_frm/thread/7b7e4fd71db2e 1d7/9c03ca6c8d7acde1?lnk=gst&q=yellow+light+timing&rnum=6#9c03ca6c8d7acde1 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 >>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. because you shoot the red light camera with a shotgun or because you kill cops, which is it? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wish > they were sent to prison. I'm no coddler. >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 spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) said in rec.autos.driving: >I wonder if paint gun sales will go up as a consequence of RLC >deployment. I think it would be fun to take videos of RLCs being vandalized (by perpetrators wearing Richard Nixon halloween masks, of course) and post them on the web. :) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >>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. I wonder if killing cops and judges or bombing city halls will go up as a result of RLC ? death to the united states government |
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.