C'mon Imo, I know better than that crap. Do I need to publish supporting data for that as well? Give me a break. It is common knowledge.

Gretch:

I have non-photo license covers, which I use on the open road when traveling in strange places. Around here, the Sheriff and I have had our exchanges though it costs $10 for a fix-it ticket versus a speed or red light ticket at 30 X that amount. I am not concerned about the red lights, as I stop for them. I am concerned about the legality of instant photo camera radar in residential or other areas. Once when a deputy was writing a ticket for my rear photo radar cover, and hadn't looked at the front cover or my registration, he wrote my license number on the ticket. He claimed his vision was blocked by the cover, although he clearly wrote the number on the ticket. I was itching to go to court to ask him how he determined the number since he claimed he could not see the plate. The law says nothing can obscure the number. The court case would put to rest the issue since he could clearly read the number and tags. I copped out and just paid the $10 fix-it ticket and then re-installed the covers. What a joke. Any day now we are going to have to pay daiper fees with our registration and be required to wear them while driving. (See Gretch's post above. I couldn't agree more).

Red, I won't publicly advocate your recommendation, but I will say that someone in the position of advising accused persons has advocated tossing such "citations" and has reported that nothing more was heard of the cases after as much as a year's time. The system works on numbers and compliance by fearful citizens. No one he knows has yet been convicted after tossing one of them. Sort of like getting a parking ticket for parking in a private lot during off hours; the "citation" states that you will be prosecuted for not responding on time, and the fine will increase. I got one of those, and used it for toilet paper. That was a couple of years ago. Nothing yet.

 

Quit stealing my material/talking points which I use on Sydiot whenever he cheerleaders us into another war, this case traffic cameras.

I hate it when other countries insist on big brothering my neighborhood. I don't go around insisted XYZ country install cameras every block for their safety and wage a war too!

 

I read a lot of the Virginia study. They mentioned the argument that you just made and dismissed it. The number of accidents you are talking about is so small compared to the number of rear end collisions that even if they are usually (but not always) more severe it is not significant. Lowering 50 accidents of one type per year to 40 is not worth raising another type of accident from 5000 to 6000, especially when it is not clear which is more severe.

Just because angled crashes in the intersection are more spectacular doesn't make them any more dangerous. One of my brother's friends is paralized from the neck down from being rearended in a parking lot at about 5mph. The airbag went off and broke his neck. Just because his car wasn't smashed and torn to pieces make his accident less significant? What about cars that run under the backs of trucks? Just because the driver's get decapitated instead of having their legs crushed, they're less significant? Those are the kinds of accidents that have increased from red light cameras.

 

I think Imo is generall wrong but his intent is good. And I know from history that he is a very good guy and 928 fan. Shall we let this thing go?

 

Same with Randy btw, a good guy. Not an evil red light runner.

 

Heinrich you have to believe anyone who drives around with a well stocked portable bar in the back of his 928 is not going to be a scofflaw .

 

My point exactly JimB

 

Oh alright Heinrich, have it your way then. As much as I like to gripe and rant and rave, maybe I'll just sit this one out. Besides, I need to work. My friend says to toss the damned ticket anyway, and not worry about it. ( .......walking off with head down and mumbling about nuts not knowing **** about anything.....................................)

 

The path to HELL is paved with good intentions...................SPARE ME from those kinda people ......That fancy *** gubmint spying/toll taking technology is not welcome in my neighborhood, and if it ever shows up (not likely, we have one street light in the whole town. hell, we got more outhouses.....) We will likely be using something more substantial than a sissy laser to "remove it"......We be using the "Mossberg" tool to properly "adjust" its rattin', thievin', pitchur takin' abilities. And the same thing goes for them socialist flatlanders who installed the GD thing.

Socialist flatlanders........"Live Free or Die"........that last part means you, fool!

 

Who pissed in your lagavullin??

 

Lag..................MMmmmmmmmmmmmmm



And H, if you are using **** to make your 'shine, Ron is right. You don't know **** about ANYTHING.



Red, Sorry. Agreeing with ya was an unintentional F^&%-up on my part....I will try to be a bit more discerning in the future...... din't mean to steal yer schtick man.....

 

Nuther thought from the peanut gallery here...

If it's all about intersection safety, how 'bout keeping all lights red for a couple of seconds?

In other words, when my light turns red, engineer the lights so the cross traffic light doesn't turn green for two whole seconds. One would think that would allow the intersection to clear and avoid T-bones. That would seem to be a rather simple solution to the safety issue.

 

Simple and safety don't pay the bills.

 

There you go again, Bigs. Trying to fix something that is intentionally broke......I suppose you look for "logic" in the tax code too?

 

Just trying to inject a little bit of thinly-disguised sarcasm for the safety *****.