traffic school...just finished

kevhed72

I received a ticket in Illinois awhile back for "accelerating through" a yellow light of a busy intersection. The officer said I should have stopped vs. increasing speed...

madmax

beardog03 wrote: »

but even though they admitted to having the timming set to early, they say that it is unbeatable....the adjuste dthe cameras timming to go off when it`s red now.........many people fought and lost and they said it was fixed, and there is no winning it in court

one guy did win and the said they fixed them since then, but they LIE !!!


end of rant....carry on...:rolleyes:

I got myself and everyone after me off on this "mis-timing" citizen abuse set up by the local police. What I did was to make a map of a 10 block radius, listed the yellow light times for each and it was pretty obvious that this particular light was fixed to catch people after becoming familiar with all the other lights timing. This one was 3 seconds of yellow and all the other ones were 4 seconds. Sure, it took me awhile to time them all, not to mention I had to buy a stop watch, but there was no way I was letting it go. I started my statement off by saying "I think I'm the only one in this courtroom who is actually guilty of running this red light". It was awesome.
madmax

fossy

sarah_9 wrote: »

Hello,

Online traffic schools are an easy and fast way to learn driving, there are many cheap driving school too, so choose most suitable driving school for your self ad make your driving lessons easy.


Regards,
sarah_9

good grief ---

The cities are hurting for money just like everyone in this crappy economy.Giving ppl tickets without actually paying a police officer to hand that ticket out is simply a way of making a higher gross profit.......

FIGHT THAT MOTHER to the last judge/jury. They admitted you ran a YELLOW light. NOt a red light.you have broken no law.

snow

cfrizz wrote: »

I certainly hope you are smarter than that Robert.

The cities put up these camera's because they know people are stupid, impatient, & in a big hurry to go NOWHERE! Instead of slowing down & stopping (providing they are not speeding in the first place) when the light turns orange the first 3 cars actually speed up to try to beat it & then **** when they get busted!

I see this happen all the time, then I walk past the morons having had to stop at the very next light!

But they have them caught on tape & are able to make money off of it. Oh well, TOO BAD! Slow down and obey the rules of the road & you won't have a problem.

cfrizz wrote: »

Of course it's a source of revenue. It beats raising everyones taxes. If they can benefit on other people's careless, negligent, dangerous, stupidity...GO FOR IT! And if some of them manage to change thier behavior for the better, then the population will be a tiny bit safer. Unfortunately there are always plenty of others to take thier place.

These two posts ought to win first and second place for the most inconsiderate and stupid statements this year. Some day if and when you become someone that both owns a car and drives then your thoughts might have some merit. $400.00 for that offense is offensive BTW



REGARDS SNOW

Norm Apter

Yeah, the huge fine must be a Cali thing. Last September, I got one of those tickets in the mail after having turned right on a red. Yes, right on a red...never mind that no cars were coming but they included two shots supposedly proving that I hadn't come to a full stop. (truth be told I hadn't but I made my turn just as it was turning from yellow to red well ahead of the traffic which would be coming from the left later -- something a human cop would have seen.

OK, so even if I did "break the law" and you want to fine me, fine. But $430 for my first moving or non-moving violation in over 7 years. Yep, $389 for the ticket, plus another $40 for processing and traffic school fees so that I could expunge the points from my record (my understanding is that if I had fought it in court and lost, I would not have the traffic school option and not knowing my chances didn't want to risk my insurance going up).

Again, $50 or $75...Ok. But over $400 for turning right on a red caught on camera.

I'm seriously considering that spray (as long as I'm stilling living in CA at least).

cfrizz

Well Snow I guess one of my old neighbors that got hit & run by an **** that ran a light & to this day still walks with a cane would agree with you huh?

It's mostly drivers who are inconsiderate & again in a big hurry to get nowhere. Running orange & red lights just to have to stop at the next one.

snow wrote: »

These two posts ought to win first and second place for the most inconsiderate and stupid statements this year. Some day if and when you become someone that both owns a car and drives then your thoughts might have some merit. $400.00 for that offense is offensive BTW



REGARDS SNOW

madmax

cfrizz wrote: »

Well Snow I guess one of my old neighbors that got hit & run by an **** that ran a light & to this day still walks with a cane would agree with you huh?

It's mostly drivers who are inconsiderate & again in a big hurry to get nowhere. Running orange & red lights just to have to stop at the next one.

If that were really true they would just make the time between red and the next green light longer, end of problem. Its strictly about $$.
madmax

snow

cfrizz wrote: »

I certainly hope you are smarter than that Robert.

The cities put up these camera's because they know people are stupid, impatient, & in a big hurry to go NOWHERE! Instead of slowing down & stopping (providing they are not speeding in the first place) when the light turns orange the first 3 cars actually speed up to try to beat it & then **** when they get busted!

I see this happen all the time, then I walk past the morons having had to stop at the very next light!

But they have them caught on tape & are able to make money off of it. Oh well, TOO BAD! Slow down and obey the rules of the road & you won't have a problem.

cfrizz wrote: »

Of course it's a source of revenue. It beats raising everyones taxes. If they can benefit on other people's careless, negligent, dangerous, stupidity...GO FOR IT! And if some of them manage to change thier behavior for the better, then the population will be a tiny bit safer. Unfortunately there are always plenty of others to take thier place.

cfrizz wrote: »

Well Snow I guess one of my old neighbors that got hit & run by an **** that ran a light & to this day still walks with a cane would agree with you huh?

It's mostly drivers who are inconsiderate & again in a big hurry to get nowhere. Running orange & red lights just to have to stop at the next one.

I stick by my original statement and this is why. First Robert said he wasnt speeding and was unable to safely stop, I believe him, there is no reason not to, here is his statement.

As I approched the intersection line it turned yellow, and when I got to the line on the other side it turned red,,
Had I stomped the brakes (@44mph), I would have slid through the intersection...instead I punched her up and made it to the other side before it was red..

In every town of any size at all even the little town where I live at there are lights that change suddenly and without warning you can and will create a hazard and quite possibly an accident involving people behind you or going through the intersection the other way or even running down a pedestrian by attempting to stop. By accusing him of being careless reckless stupid etc even after he said that he had not intentionally ran a red light is both inconsiderate and stupid.

The way most traffic lights are set up is that there are motion detectors that detect automobiles X amount of yards away from the cross walk and depending on what the posted speed limit is have a time set when the light both turns and how long it stays yellow. Also most have a delay of at least 2 seconds before it turns green the other way after it turns red to allow for any vehiciles to safely make it through.

I have actually seen intersections where the calibration was off so bad that the lights were green both ways at the same time for a few seconds.

$400.00 for a first time offense is absurd and IMHO should be criminal in and of itself.

I would hate for you to be my judge in traffic court because im sure I would get the maximum penalty irregardless of whether I was actually guilty or not .

Now you know I both like you and respect you but you are wrong this time.



REGARDS SNOW

cfrizz

I wasn't calling Robert stupid Snow. But at the same time going 44mph at an intersection seems very fast to me.

But I have seen more than enough stupid drivers going way too fast in congested cities & at busy intersections running red lights because they sped up to go through an orange light.

Orange to my way of thinking means slow down to STOP not speed up to go through what ends up being a red light. But it seems that most drivers think the very opposite. It's wrong, dangerous, & careless. Most accidents could be avoided if people would simply go slow enough to be able to come to a stop before impact.

billbillw

cfrizz wrote: »

I wasn't calling Robert stupid Snow. But at the same time going 44mph at an intersection seems very fast to me.

But I have seen more than enough stupid drivers going way too fast in congested cities & at busy intersections running red lights because they sped up to go through an orange light.

Orange to my way of thinking means slow down to STOP not speed up to go through what ends up being a red light. But it seems that most drivers think the very opposite. It's wrong, dangerous, & careless. Most accidents could be avoided if people would simply go slow enough to be able to come to a stop before impact.

He said he wasn't speeding, so I take that to mean the speed limit was 45mph or greater. Why should he be going any slower?

If the traffic light was properly timed/setup, it should have a long enough yellow timing so that cars that within 100 feet or so from the intersection when it turns yellow can get through before it turns red. It sounds like this wasn't the case for him since he said it just turned yellow when approached the line and it was red by the time he got to the other side. That is not long enough. Most people have a reaction time of more than 1/2 second when driving. So, at 45mph, that means you travel over 30 feet before you can react to a light changing. If you are already within 100 feet of the intersection when the light changes, there is really no safe way to stop in time unless you do a full out panic stop (and have a car with good brakes).

In a 45mph zone, the minimum recommended yellow light timing (from recommendations by the ITE technical committee) is 5.0 seconds. That would allow a car to travel over 300 feet (@45mph) during the yellow interval.

I don't know how wide Robert's intersection was, but 300 feet is the length of a football field and is much wider than most intersections that I see in the city. I would guess an average intersection on a typical city 4-lane divided road with right and left turning lanes, crosswalks, and a shoulder would be less than 120 feet (based on an average lane width of 11 feet)

That means, he should have been able to get through with 100 feet to spare if the timing was correct even without speeding up. I venture to say that particular light had an extremely short yellow (3 seconds or less) which is unsafe by any standard and is only set that way to entrap citizens with over-priced tickets and boost city revenues. Add the fact that the cameras are flashing too early, then I'd say its a real fleecing going on out there.

bobman1235

Bravo bill, very reasonably and excellently argued.

madmax

I've never heard anyone call them orange lights. Look more like grapefruit to me.

cfrizz

Oops, but I was thinking yellow while I typed it.:D

madmax wrote: »

I've never heard anyone call them orange lights. Look more like grapefruit to me.

reeltrouble1

sure you were, I was LMFAO reading that orange light stuff, very freudian stuff there Cat.

RT1