Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

California Drivers:  Watch out for Snitch Tickets

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jim - 04 Sep 2005 00:34 GMT
Dear California Motorist:

Don't fall for fake red light camera tickets, a.k.a "Snitch Tickets"
or "Nominations."

The Snitch Tickets come in the mail, from the POLICE!

Some of the cities doing it are Bakersfield, El Cajon, El Monte,
Emeryville, Encinitas, Garden Grove, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood,
Maywood, Poway, San Jose, Santa Ana, South Gate, Stockton, Union City,
Upland, and Vista.  As far as I know, it is only happening in California.

Your Snitch Ticket will look a lot like a real photo enforcement ticket.
 But they are not a real ticket. The police have not filed them with
the court, so you won't find the Superior Court name and address on it.
 You won't find the usual order saying, "You must respond to the court
on or before (date)," and in fact, the Snitch Ticket will even say (in
small print, on the back), "Do not contact the court."

It's a phishing expedition, to get you to snitch on the driver - which
could even be yourself!  I recommend that you ignore such a notice - do
not respond to it in any way.  For more information, see the Your Ticket
page on the free-of-any-charge website http://www.hwyrobbery.com.

Don't be a snitch.

Jim
Ted Mittelstaedt - 04 Sep 2005 10:46 GMT
> Dear California Motorist:
>
> Don't fall for fake red light camera tickets, a.k.a "Snitch Tickets"
> or "Nominations."

In summary, if you get a photo ticket and it doesen't have a pic
of your face included, then it's not a real ticket.

The URL is interesting, but the real way to fight photo tickets
is to not run red lights or not speed.  It also doesen't hurt to put
one of the "camera blinding" filters over your license plate.

Ted
JazzMan - 04 Sep 2005 13:53 GMT
> > Dear California Motorist:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Ted

This has been gone through before.

Red light timing is often set at or below the bare legal
minimum for yellow tim so as to increase to the absolute
maximum the probability of getting ticketed for running
a red light, so as such, red light cameras actually
encourage accidents, injuries, and fatalities. I've seen
articles that indicated a substantial increase in rear-end
accidents at intersections with cameras, presumably because
the light timing change for the cameras turned many borderline
stopping situations into full panic stops.

The license plate covers are strictly outlawed in every
single place a camera has ever been setup, not only for
red lights but for speeding as well. Being seen with a cover
is an automatic major traffic fine.

JazzMan
Signature

**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************

Ted Mittelstaedt - 05 Sep 2005 10:25 GMT
> > > Dear California Motorist:
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Red light timing is often set at or below the bare legal
> minimum for yellow tim

If you treat a yellow like it's a red, your fine.  I don't, but
I'm also not the one bitching about photo cameras, and I
drive through one every day of my commute.  I do treat the
yellow at the photo camera intersection like a red, though.

> so as to increase to the absolute
> maximum the probability of getting ticketed for running
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the light timing change for the cameras turned many borderline
> stopping situations into full panic stops.

rear-end collisions are just about always considered to
be caused by inadequate following distance, I don't know
how many times that drivers need to be told, but your
responsibility is to watch out for the people in front of you
not behind you.

Consider also that in a rear-end collision, the occupants of the
car in front are merely rammed further back into their seats,
while the driver that caused the crash is flung forward into
nasty things like steering wheels and other hard surfaces - the
fatality rate among the people in the back in a rear end
collision - ie: the people that cause them - is worlds higher
than the fatality rate of the people in the front - who are
the victims of the tailgater.

That makes rear-ender accidents among the most satisfying of
all accidents for society - because the one causing the
accident takes virtually all the risk of being killed.- which is the Theory
of Natural
Selection in perfect operation.  All of society benefits when one
more habitual tailgater is taken off the road, permanently.

And, once again I have been in rear-end collissions as the
hitter - but you don't see me whining about being blamed
for it.

> The license plate covers are strictly outlawed in every
> single place a camera has ever been setup, not only for
> red lights but for speeding as well. Being seen with a cover
> is an automatic major traffic fine.

Are you dumb or what?  Did I say plate cover?  I said
camera blinding filter.  These come in a handy spray can.

As I said I go through a photo camera controlled intersection
every day I commute to work.  I am well aware of the
tricks in use.  But you are completely ignoring the fact that
these devices are dumb robots, you just have to develop
a strategy that works for them.  I've gotten caught once in
the intersection that I go through, fortunately beat that rap
because they stupidly ticketed the owner of the car I was
driving which didn't happen to be me (it was my wife)
After that happened I got very observant of how the
camera worked in that intersection and developed a
strategy for going through photo-controlled intersections
that has worked ever since, with all photo intersections I
go through.  Anyone else can do it, it's not hard.  You
simply have to treat these intersections differently than you
treat normal intersections that do not have the red light camera.

Ted
JazzMan - 05 Sep 2005 14:07 GMT
> > > > Dear California Motorist:
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
>
> Are you dumb or what?

Oops, stopped reading here, saw no point in continuing...

JazzMan

Signature

**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************

Ted Mittelstaedt - 06 Sep 2005 11:07 GMT
> > Are you dumb or what?
>
> Oops, stopped reading here, saw no point in continuing...

As you just realized you claimed I said something that I didn't,
you have my permission to run away yipping with tail
between legs.

Don't worry Jazzman, you will get plenty of future opportunities
to claim that I said something I didn't.

I just hope you pay better attention to your driving
than you do to what people say in their Usenet posts ;-)

Ted
JazzMan - 07 Sep 2005 02:20 GMT
> > > Are you dumb or what?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Ted

Uhh... Tedster, I went back and retrieved your original post
and re-read it, and indeed you said, and I quote, "Are you
dumb, or what?" I saw no point in continuing at that point
because, as has become clear, you are a ****sack.

You can claim you didn't say that all you want, but the wonder
of usenet is that once you say something it's forever archived
for all to see, and I invite anyone and everyone that has any
doubts about what you said to go look it up. Most news clients
make this so simple to do that it rarely takes more than a
second.

Isn't technology great?   :)

Have a *wonderful* day!

JazzMan
Signature

**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************

Ted Mittelstaedt - 09 Sep 2005 09:56 GMT
> Uhh... Tedster, I went back and retrieved your original post
> and re-read it, and indeed you said, and I quote, "Are you
> dumb, or what?" I saw no point in continuing at that point
> because, as has become clear, you are a ****sack.
>
> You can claim you didn't say that all you want,

No, you are claiming I said "license plate covers"
when I said no such thing.  I said "camera blinding
filters" you stupid idiot.  A filter isn't a cover.  A filter
changes the properties of light that passes through it.
For the camera blinding filters these come in a spray can
that you spray on the plate and they are not visible or
noticeable in normal light, but in the light of a camera
flash they are cause the plate to be overexposed
and make the plate come out black.

If you pulled your head out of your a.s for a few
minutes and acutally read what I said, you wouldn't have
assumed I was talking about some kind of cover.  Any
moron can look these up on the Internet several places
sell them.

Ted
Jim - 06 Sep 2005 04:31 GMT
>>>>Dear California Motorist:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> drive through one every day of my commute.  I do treat the
> yellow at the photo camera intersection like a red, though.

>>so as to increase to the absolute
>>maximum the probability of getting ticketed for running
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> Selection in perfect operation.  All of society benefits when one
> more habitual tailgater is taken off the road, permanently.

Ted:

> And, once again I have been in rear-end collissions as the
> hitter - but you don't see me whining about being blamed
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Ted

You've said that some times you prematurely slam on the brakes on a new
yellow.  I hope that you check in your mirror before you do that, 'cause
sometimes there will be a big ol' truck back there, which will perform
"natural selection" on you.

Jim
Ted Mittelstaedt - 06 Sep 2005 10:52 GMT
> > As I said I go through a photo camera controlled intersection
> > every day I commute to work.  I am well aware of the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> sometimes there will be a big ol' truck back there, which will perform
> "natural selection" on you.

I have a variety of tricks I use to avoid prematurely slamming the brakes on
a new yellow in an intersection.  One of the simplest tricks is when
approaching
an intersection, even when it is a green light, put your foot on the
brake petal just enough to turn on the rear brake lights but not to actually
apply
braking force to the vehicle.  Do this way in advance of the intersection.
The vehicle behind you of course thinks your braking so they wake up from
whatever they are doing, and start braking as well.  By the time they figure
out
your not actually slowing down, they have opened a USABLE separation
distance between themselves and you.  This technique is discussed
in the drivers manual and particularly in the motorcyclist manual (as
motorcycles
have a lot shorter stopping distance than cars do and have to use these
kinds of
tricks to avoid getting pasted)  If you do it at every intersection it soon
becomes habit and you do it automatically whether someone is behind you
or not, then the day that your not paying attention to behind you and you
have a tailgater on your a.s, you don't get slammed.

Another trick is to slow way down before going through the intersection.
A panic stop from 10 MPH to zero at one of the "red light gotcha" photo
controlled intersections is survivable even if the truck driver behind you
is
sleeping and tailgating.   Most people unfortunately learn some really bad
habits when dealing with intersections, and one of those is to speed up
during the approach in hopes of "making the green"  This habit is compounded
because of the fact that the stop light to the intersection in many
intersections
is visible very very far in advance.  The driver sees the green 8 blocks
away
and subconsciously feels that they have a chance of making it if they just
gass it, even though a moments rational thought would tell them that they
are going to see the light go red before they get there.

There is a lot to be learned too about modifying the decelleration curve
on an intersection approach.  Most people gradually slow down, but
sometimes speeding up during the approach, then stomping on the brakes
at the last minute to slow WAY down to the stop line then stomping on
the gas to burn rubber through the intersection is a better way to do it.
This technique is very useful on uncontrolled intersections because it
drops a tailgater off your a.s, gives you excellent last-minute
stopping decision control, and because you seem to appear from thin
air to the crosswise traffic, and particularly because you are agressive
through the intersection, other drives of crosswise traffic are startled and
will wake up and not proceed through the intersection, instead of the usual
sleeping travel though.  It is also extremely useful if the crosswalk
approaches
are covered with trees as a ped may step out into the crosswalk at the
last minute, with no warning, then you can easily keep from pasting him.

Just today in fact I scared the sh.t out of a bicyclist who was riding in
the crosswalk, doing this.  That was a good thing as riding a bicycle in a
crosswalk is illegal - the bikers are supposed to either be in the street
or off their bike walking it through.  That in fact happened to be a
tree-covered
walk so the bicycle rider couldn't even see me coming before he
rode out into the crosswalk.  Extremely stupid on his part so he needed
to be taught a lesson.  I am a nasty boy at times.

Another trick on controlled intersections is to look at the WALK/DON'T WALK
pedestrian signs as an indicator of the imminent state of the light - it's
not
always reliable but usually these will turn to DONT WALK about 10 seconds
BEFORE the yellow goes on.

And of course, if your in congestion and are waiting in a line of cars,
another
trick is to pay attention to the light as it goes from red to green to red
to green
(assuming you can see it way in advance) and pay attention to the interval.
This is another thing that is also contrary to human nature since people
hate
waiting and waiting in a line makes them impatient, then when they are at
the intersection their impatience makes them lose their heads and they will
rush the light at the last minute.

Anyway, as I said this stuff isn't rocket science.  However it takes paying
attention
to the traffic and the other cars and observing what is going on - things
that
most drivers seem to not bother with these days.  And it absolutely requires
that
you simply cannot treat an intersection like any other part of the road and
just
cruise on through it without slowing down or doing -something-!

Ted
Jim - 04 Sep 2005 19:03 GMT
>>Dear California Motorist:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Ted

For Ted:

Sorry, your summary is not correct.

The presence or absence of a pic of your face won't tell you if it is a
snitch ticket.  The "tell" is if the court's name and address is absent.

Jim
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 06 Sep 2005 00:06 GMT
> Dear California Motorist:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> on or before (date)," and in fact, the Snitch Ticket will even say (in
> small print, on the back), "Do not contact the court."

I'd say that one's first move would be to contact the court about the
ticket.

> It's a phishing expedition, to get you to snitch on the driver - which
> could even be yourself!  I recommend that you ignore such a notice - do
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Jim

How do you know its not a real 'phishing' expedition? It could be that
someone has gotten a mailing address, sent out a bunch of 'pay up or
else' letters and is going to cash the cecks until the bunko squad moves
in?

Signature

Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
A limerick packs laughs anatomical
Into space that is quite economical.
       But the good ones I've seen
       So seldom are clean,
And the clean ones so seldom are comical.

Jim - 06 Sep 2005 04:21 GMT
>>Dear California Motorist:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> I'd say that one's first move would be to contact the court about the
> ticket.

If the lack of the courts name & address and lack of "you must respond
to the court..." is not enough to assure you that it's a fake, you can
certainly contact the court - which will tell you that they have no
record of the ticket.

>>It's a phishing expedition, to get you to snitch on the driver - which
>>could even be yourself!  I recommend that you ignore such a notice - do
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> else' letters and is going to cash the cecks until the bunko squad moves
> in?

That has already happened, with some fake automated speeding tickets in
San Diego.  The difference between that guy and the police is that his
fakes asked for money whereas the police's just ask for information.
But either way, you handle the fakes the same:  Ignore, File 13.

Jim
John S. - 06 Sep 2005 15:29 GMT
> Dear California Motorist:
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Jim

Gawd!!! Not you again...I thought you had gone back to the land of the
trolls.

Why not try something new and take responsibility for your actions and
pay the fine.  Then use this as a reminder to not run red lights in the
future.  Or do you think it is your god given right to disobey the
traffic rules that most of us choose to follow.
Jim - 06 Sep 2005 19:48 GMT
> Why not try something new and take responsibility for your actions and
> pay the fine.  Then use this as a reminder to not run red lights in the
> future.  Or do you think it is your god given right to disobey the
> traffic rules that most of us choose to follow.

John:

You take a very lofty ethical stand.  But I am wondering if you would do
as you suggest the rest of us should do.  Let us suppose that you got
one of the snitch tickets, which you now know you can ignore.  Would you
go ahead and turn yourself, or the wife, in, knowing that it would
needlessly cost the family $400?

Jim
John S. - 06 Sep 2005 19:59 GMT
> > Why not try something new and take responsibility for your actions and
> > pay the fine.  Then use this as a reminder to not run red lights in the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Jim

A couple of points.

If you are asking whether I would try to figure out a way to get out of
paying for a ticket that resulted from my running a red light - well
the thought would probably never cross my mind.  Tickets and fines were
never meant to be comfortable pleasant experiences as you imply with
...needlessly cost the family $400....  They are meant to encourage you
to drive safely.  Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Additionally your advice about being able to just walk away from
tickets is flat out wrong in the localities I'm familiar with.
Jim - 07 Sep 2005 09:30 GMT
>>>Why not try something new and take responsibility for your actions and
>>>pay the fine.  Then use this as a reminder to not run red lights in the
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Additionally your advice about being able to just walk away from
> tickets is flat out wrong in the localities I'm familiar with.

John:

Well, I admire that you are able to put your money where your mouth is.
 I wish I always could.  And I suspect that most other people can't
afford such high standards.

I stand by my advice that one can "walk away" (your term, but correct)
from the Snitch Tickets.  The fact that a well-informed person such as
yourself is not familiar with the Snitch Tickets is why so many people
fall for them.  And it is also why I took the trouble to put up this
post.  It's something new every well-informed person needs to know about.

Jim
John S. - 07 Sep 2005 13:16 GMT
> >>>Why not try something new and take responsibility for your actions and
> >>>pay the fine.  Then use this as a reminder to not run red lights in the
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Jim

I love it.  Jim is a proponent of situational justice.  He only takes
responsibility for his actions when he feels like it.  Fortunately most
of us have a more permanent concept of right, wrong and personal
responsibility.

Jim, I don't know your age, but it is time to take on the
responsibilities of adulthood.
Ted Mittelstaedt - 09 Sep 2005 10:12 GMT
> I love it.  Jim is a proponent of situational justice.  He only takes
> responsibility for his actions when he feels like it.  Fortunately most
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Jim, I don't know your age, but it is time to take on the
> responsibilities of adulthood.

What is worse is that Jim's site is all about how to get out of the damn
things
when you get them, with little to nothing about how to avoid getting them in
the first place.  And, frankly, there's a lot more to it than just driving
the
speed limit.

You can drive exactly the speed limit on a road, yet be driving in a very
unsafe manner.  And you can routinely exceed the speed limit on a
road yet be driving in a far far safer manner than the first way.

Jim is able to comprehend that the robots that issue snitch tickets are
issuing them to people who might possibly be driving within the speed
limit and following the traffic rules.  What Jim doesen't understand is that
the people in this category - while they might be following the exact
letter of the law - are still driving in an unsafe manner, that is why they
are
getting ticketed.

When a driver comes to an intersection and as his front tire crosses the
stop line the light changes yellow, if he is not going fast enough to make
it through the intersection before the light changes to red and the camera
fires, then he is causing an unsafe condition and should deserve to be
ticketed.  There are plenty of warnings that a green is about to change
to a yellow and a safe driver is going to be paying attention to these, and
will NOT proceed into an intersection when the green is about to change to
a yellow.  Nor will he come barreling up way to fast to stop to an
interesction
that has 'hot" lights in it.

Jim seems to think that drivers should be able to drive straight into an
interesection on either a green or a yellow or even a yellow that is
10 milliseconds away from changing into a red, and if the camera goes
off by golly they damn well better not get a ticket because, boy, they
managed to slide into home plate just a cat's whisker under that ball.

I'm just waiting for the day that Jim slides "safe" into his intersection
at the same time an eager beaver decided to get the jump on the green,
and they both smash into each other.  Then they can take the opportunity
to explain to each other why each of them had the right to be there in
the intersection at the same time, all the while that the traffic camera is
busy snapping pictures.

Ted
John S. - 09 Sep 2005 14:44 GMT
> > I love it.  Jim is a proponent of situational justice.  He only takes
> > responsibility for his actions when he feels like it.  Fortunately most
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> Ted

And one more point.  I suspect that Jim may be one of those dangerous
drivers who doesn't drive defensively but demands the right of way and
ignores what the other driver is doing.
Jim - 09 Sep 2005 21:59 GMT
> When a driver comes to an intersection and as his front tire crosses the
> stop line the light changes yellow, if he is not going fast enough to make
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> interesction
> that has 'hot" lights in it.

....

> I'm just waiting for the day that Jim slides "safe" into his intersection
> at the same time an eager beaver decided to get the jump on the green,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Ted

Ted -

You wrote:   "....a safe driver... will NOT proceed into an intersection
when the green is about to change to a yellow."   Ay yi yi!  Are you
saying that you STOP on greens?  Because if that near-suicidal behavior
is really what you do, and other people are thinking the same way, that
would go a long way to explain why rear-enders go up at red light camera
intersections.  The highway safety people have an educational program
called "red means stop."  Because of you, I will suggest to the auto
club that they do a program entitled "green means go."

You also wrote:  "...an eager beaver decided to get the jump on the
green."  The accident you envision has been caught on film by a Ventura,
CA red light camera.  But the fault for the accident was the guy who
jumped the green.  He not only ran a red light, but violated one other
important safety principle - if you are in the front row when the light
turns green, look both ways before proceeding.  I hope you have taught
your kids that.  And I hope they are not copying your scary habit of
stopping on greens.

Jim
KENG - 10 Sep 2005 00:09 GMT
>> When a driver comes to an intersection and as his front tire crosses the
>> stop line the light changes yellow, if he is not going fast enough to
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> Jim

We can all agree that RED means stop and GREEN means go. The
disagreement lies in what is the definition of yellow. Some (you)
subscribe to the definition of YELLOW means "GO VERY FAST". Others (me)
subscribe to the meaning "STOP IF YOU CAN (SAFELY)". I've spent some
time in Japan, and the rules there are the same, except for driving on
the wrong side of the road. Of course the steering wheels are on the
wrong side, so I guess it all works out. While the rules are the same,
in practice, it is very different. There, it is generally accepted that
5 cars can go through the light after it turns red. The most common
accident there is when some gaigin (foreigener, mostly American) stops
for a yellow and gets rear-ended by the driver that that is going
through the red that follows. At-Fault rules are different also.
Percentage of fault is assigned are assigned, another factor is
situational fault. In other words the person rear-ended, and the person
we would consider "at fault", are assigned a percentage. Then, say the
rear-ender is a taxi with a fare en-route to a destination, the fare
might be assigned some small percentage of fault, since were it not for
the fare, the taxi would not have been there. Now this was a few years
back and things might not be the same now. All that being said, there is
no excuse (here) for crossing the line when the RED is lit.
Nate Nagel - 10 Sep 2005 00:05 GMT
>>> When a driver comes to an intersection and as his front tire crosses the
>>> stop line the light changes yellow, if he is not going fast enough to
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> back and things might not be the same now. All that being said, there is
> no excuse (here) for crossing the line when the RED is lit.

so what the heck is your point?  There is no law stating that it is
illegal to cross the line when the light turns yellow, nor is it in all
cases a bad thing to do so.

nate

Signature

replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

John S. - 10 Sep 2005 17:34 GMT
> We can all agree that RED means stop and GREEN means go. The
> disagreement lies in what is the definition of yellow. Some (you)
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> back and things might not be the same now. All that being said, there is
> no excuse (here) for crossing the line when the RED is lit.

Or said another way don't enter an intersection on a yellow light if
you can't exit before it turns red.  Unless you happen to be named
"Jim" and want to build a website around beating red light tickets.
JazzMan - 10 Sep 2005 18:39 GMT
> > We can all agree that RED means stop and GREEN means go. The
> > disagreement lies in what is the definition of yellow. Some (you)
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> you can't exit before it turns red.  Unless you happen to be named
> "Jim" and want to build a website around beating red light tickets.

So, what happens if the yellow light is too short? If the
length of time of a yellow light is not relevant is there
any particular reason why yellow lights aren't all just
set to 0.01 seconds?

JzzMan
Signature

**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************

John S. - 10 Sep 2005 21:34 GMT
> > > We can all agree that RED means stop and GREEN means go. The
> > > disagreement lies in what is the definition of yellow. Some (you)
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> any particular reason why yellow lights aren't all just
> set to 0.01 seconds?

What is too short.....

I have never had a problem being caught in a short timed yellow and we
have red light cameras all over.
Nate Nagel - 11 Sep 2005 01:23 GMT
>>>>We can all agree that RED means stop and GREEN means go. The
>>>>disagreement lies in what is the definition of yellow. Some (you)
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> I have never had a problem being caught in a short timed yellow and we
> have red light cameras all over.

never had a problem - YET.  If you really have red light cameras all
over likely many of your yellow lights are timed too short.  Otherwise
the cameras wouldn't be profitable.

nate

Signature

replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Jim - 11 Sep 2005 01:17 GMT
A few messages ago Ted wrote:

When a driver comes to an intersection and as his front tire crosses the
stop line the light changes yellow, if he is not going fast enough to
make it through the intersection before the light changes to red and the
camera fires, then he is causing an unsafe condition and should deserve
to be ticketed.

> Or said another way don't enter an intersection on a yellow light if
> you can't exit before it turns red.

Ted and John:

Nobody could be that stupid, so I have to conclude that you guys are
just yanking my crank by writing this nonsense. But the problem is that
some gullible person reading it will think that it actually reflects the
law or safe driving practices here in the US, will adopt it as his
practice, and get hit from behind.  Not everybody is as smart as you guys.

I didn't say anything about it when Ted published it, because his "stop
on green" position was far more dangerous and needed to be the sole
focus of my reply.  But when John S. repeated it, the time came...

We seem to have lost our focus, so here is the message that started all
this:

Dear California Motorist:

Don't fall for fake red light camera tickets, a.k.a "Snitch Tickets"
or "Nominations."

The Snitch Tickets come in the mail, from the POLICE!

Some of the cities doing it are Bakersfield, El Cajon, El Monte,
Emeryville, Encinitas, Garden Grove, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood,
Maywood, Poway, San Jose, Santa Ana, South Gate, Stockton, Union City,
Upland, and Vista.  As far as I know, it is only happening in California.

Your Snitch Ticket will look a lot like a real photo enforcement ticket.
  But they are not a real ticket. The police have not filed them with
the court, so you won't find the Superior Court name and address on it.
  You won't find the usual order saying, "You must respond to the court
on or before (date)," and in fact, the Snitch Ticket will even say (in
small print, on the back), "Do not contact the court."

It's a phishing expedition, to get you to snitch on the driver - which
could even be yourself!  I recommend that you ignore such a notice - do
not respond to it in any way.  For more information, see the Your Ticket
page on the free-of-any-charge website http://www.hwyrobbery.com.

Don't be a snitch.

Jim
Alex Rodriguez - 13 Sep 2005 22:25 GMT
>Or said another way don't enter an intersection on a yellow light if
>you can't exit before it turns red.  Unless you happen to be named
>"Jim" and want to build a website around beating red light tickets.

The problem is many folks mistakening think that the definition above is
the right one.  It isn't.   The text below is straight out of the MUTCD:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4D.10 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals
Standard:
A yellow signal indication shall be displayed following every CIRCULAR GREEN or
GREEN ARROW signal indication.
The exclusive function of the yellow change interval shall be to warn traffic
of an impending change in the right-of-way assignment.
The duration of a yellow change interval shall be predetermined.
Guidance:
A yellow change interval should have a duration of approximately 3 to 6
seconds. The longer intervals should be reserved for use on approaches with
higher speeds.
Option:
The yellow change interval may be followed by a red clearance interval to
provide additional time before conflicting traffic movements, including
pedestrians, are released.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty straight forward once you know what the signals mean.
-----------------
Alex
Alex Rodriguez - 13 Sep 2005 22:18 GMT
>We can all agree that RED means stop and GREEN means go. The
>disagreement lies in what is the definition of yellow. Some (you)
>subscribe to the definition of YELLOW means "GO VERY FAST". Others (me)
>subscribe to the meaning "STOP IF YOU CAN (SAFELY)".

That is the problem.  You have given the light a your own definition.  A
yellow light means that shortly the red light will go on.  It means nothing
more than that.  
-----------------
Alex
KENG - 14 Sep 2005 00:05 GMT
>>We can all agree that RED means stop and GREEN means go. The
>>disagreement lies in what is the definition of yellow. Some (you)
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> -----------------
> Alex

As I stated. I subscribe to... The diff is that, my definition will
result in no tickets, and a reduced risk of accident.
KenG
Alex Rodriguez - 13 Sep 2005 22:16 GMT
>When a driver comes to an intersection and as his front tire crosses the
>stop line the light changes yellow, if he is not going fast enough to make
>it through the intersection before the light changes to red and the camera
>fires, then he is causing an unsafe condition and should deserve to be
>ticketed.

Please cite the law that says that you have to exit the intersection before
the light turns red.  You can't because there isn't any such law.  The law
only states you can't enter when the light is red.  Nothing about being out
of the intersection.

>There are plenty of warnings that a green is about to change
>to a yellow and a safe driver is going to be paying attention to these, and
>will NOT proceed into an intersection when the green is about to change to
>a yellow.  Nor will he come barreling up way to fast to stop to an
>interesction
>that has 'hot" lights in it.

The problem is that in some places the yellows are shorter than they should
be.  Yellow timing should be set based on actual travel speeds on the road,
but often they are not.  Many intersections could be 'fixed' with a simple
change in the yellow light timing.  That would make red light cameras
unecessary.  But of course there is no money to be made by doing that.

>Jim seems to think that drivers should be able to drive straight into an
>interesection on either a green or a yellow or even a yellow that is
>10 milliseconds away from changing into a red,

That is perfectly legal.  

>and if the camera goes
>off by golly they damn well better not get a ticket because, boy, they
>managed to slide into home plate just a cat's whisker under that ball.

No, you should not get a ticket because you did not break any law.  

>I'm just waiting for the day that Jim slides "safe" into his intersection
>at the same time an eager beaver decided to get the jump on the green,
>and they both smash into each other.

In a well designed intersection you have a period when red lights overlap.
That will usually prevent most of these mishaps.  
---------------
Alex
Ryan Underwood - 14 Sep 2005 20:34 GMT
>Please cite the law that says that you have to exit the intersection before
>the light turns red.

Actually, I know that people have been pulled over for obstructing traffic if
they are not out of the intersection before the light turns red.  Think when
you have a busy 4-way intersection and some people want to beat the light, so
even if there is traffic ahead they continue through the intersection.  Traffic
stalls, and the light for the other direction is now green and they are now
blocking the intersection, and cannot reverse because the traffic behind them
has pulled up.  Not the same thing being discussed here, but technically you
could be held accountable for it, if the law sees a momentary obstruction as an
obstruction nonetheless.
John S. - 14 Sep 2005 21:23 GMT
> >When a driver comes to an intersection and as his front tire crosses the
> >stop line the light changes yellow, if he is not going fast enough to make
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> only states you can't enter when the light is red.  Nothing about being out
> of the intersection.

Just keep repeating this little stanza set to your favorite rap music:

Don't Block da Box...
Alex Rodriguez - 13 Sep 2005 22:09 GMT
>If you are asking whether I would try to figure out a way to get out of
>paying for a ticket that resulted from my running a red light - well
>the thought would probably never cross my mind.  Tickets and fines were
>never meant to be comfortable pleasant experiences as you imply with
>...needlessly cost the family $400....  They are meant to encourage you
>to drive safely.  Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Why should be all of the burden of safety be on the driver?   The local
DOT should also share the blame if they have a poorly designed intersection
that they could fix, but don't.  Cameras should be the a tool when other
options have been exhausted.  Unfortunately most municipalities just see it
as another income generator.
--------------
Alex
 
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.