Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#71

Post by Karunamon »

unprepare wrote: post #68
Karunamon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The camera isn't your accuser. The municipality is your accuser, using the evidence from the camera as proof of the law being broken. If you break into a building and get busted by an automated silent alarm, the alarm isn't the one accusing you.

If i get pulled over by a cop and he doesnt show up to court, my ticket is dismissed. When i get mailed a ticket from a corporation, who is expected to show up in court to be my 'accuser'?

A local prosecutor, at least at the one RLC challenge I ever saw in person in Denver. Going by memory, the guy ended up getting out of the ticket because the law required cammed intersections to be clearly labeled, and the sign was obscured by a bush, a tree, or something else.

Some cursory googling turns up this as pretty common, occasionally it will be a police officer.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#72

Post by seanmcdirmid »

falcolas wrote: post #35
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can see the pedestrian crossing light, they usually have countdowns to yellow at least. I use these a lot to estimate the staleness of a green light. Many traffic lights in China have countdown timers.

I've attempted this, but if the car which triggered the light change clears the intersection in a particular time (say, with a right turn), the countdown completes only to go back to a "walk" signal. Makes for some confusing signaling; but it's better than a red light for an empty crosswalk and cross street..

On the busy intersections I'm used to, this never happens.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#73

Post by 15155 »

Karunamon wrote: post #71
unprepare wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If i get pulled over by a cop and he doesnt show up to court, my ticket is dismissed. When i get mailed a ticket from a corporation, who is expected to show up in court to be my 'accuser'?

A local prosecutor, at least at the one RLC challenge I ever saw in person in Denver. Going by memory, the guy ended up getting out of the ticket because the law required cammed intersections to be clearly labeled, and the sign was obscured by a bush, a tree, or something else. Some cursory googling turns up this as pretty common, occasionally it will be a police officer.

Aren't RLC tickets civil (unless served by a LEO) in CO?

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#74

Post by Balgair »

ferentchak wrote: post #60
omegaworks wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The red light cameras are not distributed equally. You'll find more of them in minority neighborhoods. Look at what redlining hath wrought: http://www.radicalcartography.net/chicagodots_race_big.jpg http://www.photoenforced.com/chicago.html#.WNKlsxLyufc

I know it's an anecdote but in Denver they are only in the very wealthy neighborhoods. Usually here those parts have the city have much lower speed limits than a comparable street in a poorer neighborhood would have so they can generate more revenue from them.

No, they are not at all in the wealthy neighborhoods, they are out in Aurora in the poorer areas and around Buckley AFB to nab the servicemen. I drove past many of them going to work/home and they erroneously flash when a bird flies past or the wind gusts too hard. There seems to have been no correlation at all with the many people I would see running red lights, just random.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#75

Post by eli »

iaw wrote: post #23
eli wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly disagree. A reasonable grace period of under a second seems much safer.

Your internet sarcasm is strong.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/03/04/countdown-signal...

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#76

Post by jmcdiesel »

mhluongo wrote: post #7
jmcdiesel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's advocate though : you can choose to not be affected by them by simply not running red lights. So.. while I agree on the unconstitutional part (im on your side), the other side of this, its an opt-in system, in practice

Breaking any absurd law, by that logic, is "opt-in".

And it is.

Every single action you take is opt-in, right?

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#77

Post by ferentchak »

Balgair wrote: post #74
ferentchak wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's an anecdote but in Denver they are only in the very wealthy neighborhoods. Usually here those parts have the city have much lower speed limits than a comparable street in a poorer neighborhood would have so they can generate more revenue from them.

No, they are not at all in the wealthy neighborhoods, they are out in Aurora in the poorer areas and around Buckley AFB to nab the servicemen. I drove past many of them going to work/home and they erroneously flash when a bird flies past or the wind gusts too hard. There seems to have been no correlation at all with the many people I would see running red lights, just random.

I was talking Denver not Aurora or the outlying suburbs. I guess I could of been more clear. Around here they camp outside of Cherry Creek Golf Course and in uptown around 17th. I was also speaking of the speed limit cameras.

The red light cameras here are mainly on large intersections, 6th and Speer etc. Not really poor nor rich more based upon volume of traffic.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#78

Post by jakobegger »

cfraenkel wrote: post #39
jakobegger wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your car can't stop safely at an intersection, you should have had it towed in the first place, instead of endangering everyone else on the road. The way you tell this story, those $100 were absolutely justified.

He didn't say the car couldn't stop - there was no mention of any problems with the brakes. He chose to roll through the intersection after evaluating the safety of doing so. Please don't put words in others' mouths.

I thought this was obvious, but stopping safely at an intersection includes being able to leave the intersection when the light turns green.

When your car is stalled in the middle of the road, it can pose a danger to others.

You shouldn't be driving a broken car, and saying "well but the brakes work" doesn't make it okay.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#79

Post by rl3 »

jakobegger wrote: post #78
cfraenkel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say the car couldn't stop - there was no mention of any problems with the brakes. He chose to roll through the intersection after evaluating the safety of doing so. Please don't put words in others' mouths.

I thought this was obvious, but stopping safely at an intersection includes being able to leave the intersection when the light turns green. When your car is stalled in the middle of the road, it can pose a danger to others. You shouldn't be driving a broken car, and saying "well but the brakes work" doesn't make it okay.

I already addressed those specific concerns. Wide, empty roads. Not a safety issue. Did you know that plenty of mechanics will take vehicles in far worse shape on the road, in traffic, because it's the only way to test them?

As much as I enjoyed being put on trial here, I would have preferred to actually talk about red light cameras instead. Maybe next time stick to the topic, rather than derailing a large part of a thread with self-righteous moral pedantry.

Post reply on HN