Red light cameras: bad invention or the worst invention

[wiegeabo]

rear-ending someone doesn't automatically make them at fault. Take, for example, someone who decides to slam on their brakes because the person behind them is riding their ass. Generally, the person who slammed on their brakes will be at fault: reckless driving. Basically "willfully causing an accident or dangerous situation." The person riding the ass would get a tailgating ticket as well though but not be considered "at fault."

I was actually a witness to an accident exactly as described above and had to give my account of what I saw to the police officer. This is what he explained to me about who was at fault. I can't say that it's the norm or the same everywhere, but that's how he explained it to me.

In California, it does. If you rear-end someone, no matter the situation, it's automatically your fault.


In this case, that would be a good thing for AM because, even though they had to slam on the brakes to avoid the ticket, it's the other guy's fault for hitting them.

 

[wiegeabo]

There have been studies that show shortening yellow lights increases ticket revenue for the city, while decreasing yellow lights reduces the number of accidents. But that situation is defendant on the length of the yellow light, not if there is or isn't a camera.

Camera's aren't dangerous. People overreacting to them are. Red light cameras are no different than a cop being at the intersection (they just take fewer breaks ).

 

[katie_girl09]

I haven't had a problem with those cameras... Surprisingly.

 

[huskerwebhead]

In California, it does. If you rear-end someone, no matter the situation, it's automatically your fault.

I'll have to take a look at that, cause I think that's a bad law. That means anytime you want a new car just go out, wait for someone to get a little close and slam on your brakes! There has to be "some" kind of circumstance variation. If not, that's stupid.

There have been studies that show shortening yellow lights increases ticket revenue for the city, while decreasing yellow lights reduces the number of accidents. But that situation is defendant on the length of the yellow light, not if there is or isn't a camera.

Yup, saw that too. Not entirely surprising.

Camera's aren't dangerous. People overreacting to them are. Red light cameras are no different than a cop being at the intersection (they just take fewer breaks ).

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Gutter tell the man what he's won!!!

 

[wiegeabo]

I'll have to take a look at that, cause I think that's a bad law. That means anytime you want a new car just go out, wait for someone to get a little close and slam on your brakes! There has to be "some" kind of circumstance variation. If not, that's stupid.

Well, it's not that simple. You've gotta make sure the guy hitting you has insurance. Otherwise your company has to put up the cost, and that won't fly with them for long.

There was a lot of controversy with the law. But Californians are notorious for tailgating. And since that's such a frequent cause for accidents, the law was made to try and stop it.

 

[Majic Walrus]

At the same time, he rear-ended you... which down here would make him liable because you're supposed to allow enough space for if things like this happen.

That's the way it is here too.

rear-ending someone doesn't automatically make them at fault. Take, for example, someone who decides to slam on their brakes because the person behind them is riding their ass. Generally, the person who slammed on their brakes will be at fault: reckless driving. Basically "willfully causing an accident or dangerous situation." The person riding the ass would get a tailgating ticket as well though but not be considered "at fault."

I was actually a witness to an accident exactly as described above and had to give my account of what I saw to the police officer. This is what he explained to me about who was at fault. I can't say that it's the norm or the same everywhere, but that's how he explained it to me.

I wish that were true where I am. Here regardless of the person's actions in the front the rear-ender will always be considered at fault (by the police, not necessarily by insurance companies) or in a tricky situation the accident will be marked as "no fault".

 

[Carcharodon]

There have been studies that show shortening yellow lights increases ticket revenue for the city, while decreasing yellow lights reduces the number of accidents.

Um...what?

 

[wiegeabo]

Um...what?

Reducing the length of yellow lights usually generates more red light violation revenue for the city.

But, by lengthening yellow lights, it been found that there are few accidents at intersections because people have more time to decide whether to slow down go through the intersection before it turns red.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

In California, it does. If you rear-end someone, no matter the situation, it's automatically your fault.

In this case, that would be a good thing for AM because, even though they had to slam on the brakes to avoid the ticket, it's the other guy's fault for hitting them.

I'm 90% sure that's the law in Illinois as well.

As for purposely getting rear ended, you also have to make sure the car behind is going fast enough to cause significant damage. The only damage my car sustained was a cracked bumper, I don't think the car that hit me even sustained any damage. If I have to pay out of pocket, I may not even get the car fixed.

 

[Alistair]

I think Red Lights are dumb, IMO. Even the State of NM agrees! There just isn't enough evidence to support that it really does help, and it appears it's a money nabbing scheme. Heck, a 100 dollar fine it's just unreal to be honest, and a little overboard, and just keeps going higher and higher until you lose your license over these.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_14706482?IADID=Search-www.lcsun-news.com-www.lcsun-news.com

This is what's happening in town right now at any rate, and I hope they don't relocate them or what not. =/

-Ali

 

[redmarvel]

Of course red lights are dumb - you certainly wouldn't want your traffic lights to have their own intelligence

Actually all intersections should probably be replaced with roundabouts. Then people would have an excuse for feeling like they're going around in circles.

 

[Alistair]

Thanks for taking me post so literal, when I was just referring to "Red Light Camera's" and putting it short. Yes, I do believe they are ******ed, and just a money nabbing scheme by both parties involved. There has been no real evidence that they do help with any of this at all.

In the article, what NM is saying that cities should have better planning than using camera's, which I agree with. They should plan better routes, and use the money from tickets to do this. Will the residents see a dime of it? I doubt it. =(

-Ali

 

[Carcharodon]

Reducing the length of yellow lights usually generates more red light violation revenue for the city.

But, by lengthening yellow lights, it been found that there are few accidents at intersections because people have more time to decide whether to slow down go through the intersection before it turns red.

Oh. That's not what you said before.

 

[wiegeabo]

...um, yes I did.

 

[Carcharodon]

...um, yes I did.

Yeah, okay...

There have been studies that show shortening yellow lights increases ticket revenue for the city, while decreasing yellow lights reduces the number of accidents. But that situation is defendant on the length of the yellow light, not if there is or isn't a camera.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

So on my way to the doctor this morning, I had to slam on my brakes to avoid getting a red light photo ticket. In exchange I got rear ended! How exactly do red light cameras help?

That's only the beginning.

When I was in Europe, there are not only red light cameras, but speeding cameras. Go over the speed limit and well placed cameras take photos of your license plates. (That might explain why license plates are so ginormous in Western europe vs the US.

Soon you will see more cameras than cops on the streets. And if you don't think this is bad, you can get ticketed in Europe for going 4km over the speed limit..thats like 2.4 miles over the speed limit. They are hefty tickets too, over $100 American.