|
I guess that makes sense. Those things are a total clusterfuck though. Like what if you need to pull into the intersection to let a firetruck through. Bam $200 ticket.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
revmoo posted:I guess that makes sense. Not to mention that everyone slams on their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow... not least because they always have the shortest yellows I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:I think they only point it into the middle of the intersection. If you're doing a right turn from the right lane you never enter its sensor cone. The ones around here have some kind of pressure sensor in the concrete. On a red right turn, you just have to stay on the plate for x amount of time. If you roll over then slowly enough they don't trigger either. When I was delivering pizza I made a game of triggering one near work while still making a legal stop. Not long after they stopped ticketing on red right turns entirely. I like to think I contributed to that but the real reason is there were too many edge cases and they were losing money and time investigating the legitimacy of a ticket.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Hmm that is interesting. How in the world does a red-light camera know if you're making a legal turn on red or not? The systems I've encountered work in conjunction with radar to determine if there is a vehicle in the camera's field of view that is not likely to stop in time based on vehicle speed and where the light is in its cycle. As a result of what I suspected was deliberate rigging of the yellow to red timing I made a crash stop in such an intersection and despite being stopped at the line in the picture I was still issued a ticket because my plate was in the frame and "the system only triggers when you run the red light." Also probably why they are supposed to have an actual person look at the picture before issuing a ticket. RE: my wife got a school zone camera speeding ticket issued on a day when school was not in session, but since it was 100% administered by a private company they just spam the fake citations to anyone who ends up on camera and can't really enforce collections of them if you don't pay so we just ignored it until they hosed off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:I think they only point it into the middle of the intersection. If you're doing a right turn from the right lane you never enter its sensor cone. No, these totally get people turning on red without a full stop all the time. They are optical sensors, from what I can tell. It takes a photo (complete with blinding flash so it can see your plate at night from a significant distance away) if it sees you cross the line without stopping, then another shortly after. Crossing/stopping on the line isn't an issue, just not coming to a complete stop before turning, so it uses the two images to check and see if you actually stopped or just rolled through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Uthor posted:No, these totally get people turning on red without a full stop all the time. They are optical sensors, from what I can tell. It takes a photo (complete with blinding flash so it can see your plate at night from a significant distance away) if it sees you cross the line without stopping, then another shortly after. Crossing/stopping on the line isn't an issue, just not coming to a complete stop before turning, so it uses the two images to check and see if you actually stopped or just rolled through. I got one in California from rolling thru a right turn at a red light, video and all, but it came from a private company in Phoenix so they can suck my dick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
revmoo posted:I guess that makes sense. This is a very real issue in the UK, where we have a lot of them. Taking it to court and saying "but there was an ambulance behind me that I had to let past" will be met with "well, gently caress you, you weren't specifically directed to make that maneuver by a policeman. Have some costs on top of your fine and points"
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Uthor posted:No, these totally get people turning on red without a full stop all the time. They are optical sensors, from what I can tell. It takes a photo (complete with blinding flash so it can see your plate at night from a significant distance away) if it sees you cross the line without stopping, then another shortly after. Crossing/stopping on the line isn't an issue, just not coming to a complete stop before turning, so it uses the two images to check and see if you actually stopped or just rolled through. Oh that's right, there are two flashes. I've been single flashed before while I was doing a legal turn and freaked out until I saw someone get tagged with a double later on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
I got a redlight camera ticket a couple years ago for running a red to get out of the way of an approaching ambulance. You could clearly see the flashing lights in the picture but they wouldn't cancel the ticket so I refused to pay. Fast forward 8 months, I am at the DMV and they wouldn't let me renew my registration until the ticket was paid. gently caress YOU DELAWARE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
revmoo posted:I guess that makes sense. At least they're moving! I was behind a car coming up to a T intersection. Single lane roads on both intersecting streets, we have to turn left or right. Fire truck comes around the way lights and sirens. I stop way back from the intersection because its really tight and I know the fire truck will have to come over into my lane to turn. This genius continues up to the stop sign and stops about 5 feet past it. Fire truck has to stop because there isn't enough room. Start gesturing to the guy and using a horn. He finally kind of creeps around the corner to move. Fire truck driver just gives me an exasperated loom as he goes by.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Red light cameras in Australia don't take photos until the traffic light is red and they take two photos, 1-2 seconds apart. All photos are then manually reviewed by a person who will see (a) did the car enter the intersection before or after the light went red and (b) did the car continue through the intersection between the two photos. They also check to see if there were any emergency services vehicles visible in the photo or other possible extenuating circumstances like that. Once the photo is reviewed you only get an infringement notice if you entered the intersection after the light had already turned red and you drove through the intersection with no compelling reason to do so (ie. if there was an ambulance right behind you you wouldn't be ticketed). If you nose into the intersection as the light goes red but jump on the brakes and stop just at / ahead of the line you'll probably trigger the camera but won't get a fine. The notice will also state how long the light had been red before you entered the intersection so you can't argue that it had 'just' turned red if the notice said that it had been red for 2 seconds or whatever. It's a pretty foolproof set of criteria, imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
cyberia posted:Red light cameras in Australia don't take photos until the traffic light is red and they take two photos, 1-2 seconds apart. All photos are then manually reviewed by a person who will see (a) did the car enter the intersection before or after the light went red and (b) did the car continue through the intersection between the two photos. They also check to see if there were any emergency services vehicles visible in the photo or other possible extenuating circumstances like that. Most take 2 photos in north america, but are mailed by an automated system even if they only get 1 picture, and they try to discourage you from fighting it by making losing in court a demeritable offense, or charging you money to fight it even if you win. They're also almost always handled by private companies who take the lions share of the fine, and yellow lights at intersections with red light cameras are statistically shorter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:It's kinda funny, actually. Seems so far this year bicyclists have finally learned that riding on a no-shoulder 70mph highway isn't a good thing. I guess after enough of them getting RAN THE gently caress OVER and not only getting a nice long trip in a meatwagon, but a ticket ontop of it, they have finally loving learned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
A bunch of towns in New Jersey got red light cameras a few years ago as a 'pilot program' which is almost over thank god. It has led to a few legal issues and at least one moral? one. Many of the intersections' signals (there was a specific yellow light duration outlined in the initial legislation) and cameras weren't properly calibrated leading to a class action lawsuit where people who received and paid $85 tickets at those intersections got about $8 back per ticket. Some municipalities changed their right-on-red laws so that you needed to be at a complete stop for 3 or 5 seconds before proceeding, but did not post this at any intersections, so drivers who proceeded after coming to a complete stop were ticketed anyway. If they tried to fight the ticket, the reaction was 'too bad, you broke the law'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
A full three second stop at each and every stop sign is what they taught me in driving school, but I've never actually done it. Three seconds is a goddamn eternity at an empty intersection, and if you wait that long at a busy intersection you'll either get run over or someone laying on the horn. Even coming to a full complete stop for a fraction of a second pisses people off. In short, gently caress that law and whoever passed it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
xzzy posted:A full three second stop at each and every stop sign is what they taught me in driving school, but I've never actually done it. Three seconds is a goddamn eternity at an empty intersection, and if you wait that long at a busy intersection you'll either get run over or someone laying on the horn. Not my precious seconds! Why, if I did that every single stop I might wast HALF of minutes every day/week!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
I always come to a complete stop in my car. That moment just as it's about to stop is the best time to shift into 1st, especially with a transmission with over 200k miles. Roll through them on the bike though if I don't have to wait for oncoming traffic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:Seems so far this year bicyclists have finally learned that riding on a no-shoulder 70mph highway isn't a good thing. I guess after enough of them getting RAN THE gently caress OVER and not only getting a nice long trip in a meatwagon, but a ticket ontop of it, they have finally loving learned. You know, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. The whole reason that things like driving licences exist is because you have to earn the ability to drive heavy machinery around other road users at high speeds. After all, the car showed up a long time after roads and their users did. You should probably be thankful that bicyclists lobbied for things you enjoy as a motorist, such as road signs and asphalted roads, rather than getting angry at them because someone ran them over. If you're concerned for their safety, and concerned for the inconvenience mixing different traffic speeds, consider getting involved in local politics and campaigning for a way of segregating traffic in a safe and convenient matter, such as a cycle path. Blaming them for what a stranger who was mistakenly trusted to drive heavy machinery around them did helps nothing. Then again, this is america, where instead of stopping people being ran over by teaching drivers to look out in crowded areas, they instead banned crossing the street. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
You realize here in america, his example (bike on a no-shoulder highway running at 70mph, AKA an interstate) would be illegal for the bicyclist, right? Have you ever read those signs on interstate on-ramps that say "no bikes, horses, or pedestrians"? Try it sometime, it might teach you something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Quit scaring my horse with your speeding bicycling you hooligan  Why are cyclists so thin skinned that they can't accept criticism? must be all the shaving. "BMW drivers are cocks, always drving at twice the speed limit" yeah  "audi drivers are assholes always 3 inches away from my rear bumper" yup  "miata drivers are homosexuals" guiiiiltyyyyyyyy  "cyclists have no respect for the fact that they're unprotected from the 4000lb chunks of steel they're weaving between" I HAVE A RIGHT TO gently caress UP EVERYBODY'S DAY, AND SOME PEOPLE'S LIFE. I HAVE A RIGHT TO EVERY ROAD NO MATTER HOW UNSUITED IT IS FOR CYCLING. I'M NOT USING THE BIKE PATH BECAUSE I'M IN THE FUCKIN ZONE. WE BUILT YOUR ROAD SIGNS  Being on the road is a god drat privilege, that's why crosswalks and j-walking tickets exist. Being on a bicycle doesn't exempt you from that, nor stop signs and red lights. When someone does something stupid on the road within view of a goon, they get called out in this thread. If the person doing something stupid is on a bicycle, it starts a loving shitstorm and sends out a batsignal to the most ignorant cyclists imaginable to defend the indefensible actions of the idiot on the bicycle. There are millions of miles of roads and highways suited to being shared by vehicles and bicycles. It's not hard to stay off the ones that aren't. It would be a ton of fun to drive a car down some of the bike paths here, but i don't because it's unsafe, it should't be too hard to extend me the same courtesy. Hitting a bicyclist with a car often fucks up the driver of the car too, most of the time mentally, sometimes legally and physically. It's not always a collision either. "swerved to avoid" and "panic braked to avoid" aren't entirely without consequence. "Share the road" doesn't mean "i own it, work around me" for either side of the argument. Powershift fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:You know, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. The whole reason that things like driving licences exist is because you have to earn the ability to drive heavy machinery around other road users at high speeds. After all, the car showed up a long time after roads and their users did. Hmm. Many valid points. Points that I would respect more if I didn't have to come to an ABS stop a couple of times a week due to some suicidal idiot ignoring a stop light while protected only by a wiffle ball helmet. Oh, and living in the Bay Area for 12 years and getting to see the Critical Mass...um....participants first hand definitely colored my opinion more than a bit. kastein posted:You realize here in america, his example (bike on a no-shoulder highway running at 70mph, AKA an interstate) would be illegal for the bicyclist, right? Have you ever read those signs on interstate on-ramps that say "no bikes, horses, or pedestrians"? Try it sometime, it might teach you something. Yeah, what he said. Powershift posted:It would be a ton of fun to drive a car down some of the bike paths here, but i don't because it's unsafe, it should't be too hard to extend me the same courtesy. I have seen a couple of bicycle paths that looked like they would have been a blast on a motorcycle. Didn't do it, but was tempted. Flint Ironstag fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:You know, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. The whole reason that things like driving licences exist is because you have to earn the ability to drive heavy machinery around other road users at high speeds. After all, the car showed up a long time after roads and their users did. Is this poo poo for real, or are you having a giggle?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Why are cyclists so thin skinned that they can't accept criticism? must be all the shaving.  And don't even get me started on loving BLACK GHOSTS! It's dark as gently caress, no light because light pollution is BAD, I'm going to go bicycle riding, or go for a walk, wear nothing but black, and if I'm on a bicycle, I'm not running a light and I have taken off all my reflectors. This happens more times than I care to think about, and last time it was real nasty a girl did it on the loving interstate in the loving travel lane at 1am. I don't think they found all the pieces of her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
kastein posted:You realize here in america, his example (bike on a no-shoulder highway running at 70mph, AKA an interstate) would be illegal for the bicyclist, right? Have you ever read those signs on interstate on-ramps that say "no bikes, horses, or pedestrians"? Try it sometime, it might teach you something. Unless there is a sign specifically prohibiting it (like you see on freeway ramps in cities), you can ride on the interstate and I've done it plenty of times. Where I am (Montana), there is literally no other choice in many cases. Interstates have very nice shoulders with plenty of room so I didn't mind it at all and you generally don't have to go more than a few miles before you can get on another side road. Even in southern california, if you want to ride between LA and San Diego, you can go through camp pendleton certain hours of the day, but outside of that you have to ride on I-5. A few weeks ago I rode about 75mi on this highway:  70mph speed limit in places, lots of people hauling boats, but it's still a pretty popular route for bike tourists and I didn't have any problems short of one guy who blared on the horn as he passed even though we were in a town, so the speed limit was like 35, there was a shoulder, the road was straight, and there wasn't even any oncoming traffic so he could have given me a whole lane worth of space with no inconvenience. The one thing I don't get is how all bikes seem lumped together as one group who are all the same, or not viewed as another person just trying to go somewhere. There are lovely cyclists just like there are lovely drivers. At least the lovely cyclist isn't piloting 6000lbs of suv at 70mph while posting on facebook. Or 80000lbs of truck while trying to coordinate truckstop handjobs on grindr. jamal fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Topical video of a douche in a truck throwing poo poo and rolling coal on a random cyclist: http://youtu.be/2HlZXCWha6Q?t=30s I don't bike and even I would like to break both the Dodge occupant's femurs and leave them down a mine in rain season. I also hate cyclists who have a shocking disregard of safety and road smarts. Difference is I wouldn't have to leave them down a mine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
tuna posted:Topical video of a douche in a truck throwing poo poo and rolling coal on a random cyclist: http://youtu.be/2HlZXCWha6Q?t=30s He claims it was the third time they gave him some carbon free tax, but don't see the videos from that. Wonder what started it all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Sometimes it's hard to pull out a phone and take video while riding a bike and trying not to get killed. Here's a fun one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdDxjge5hmY jamal fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
jamal posted:The one thing I don't get is how all bikes seem lumped together as one group who are all the same, or not viewed as another person just trying to go somewhere. There are lovely cyclists just like there are lovely drivers. At least the lovely cyclist isn't piloting 6000lbs of suv at 70mph while posting on facebook. Or 80000lbs of truck while trying to coordinate truckstop handjobs on grindr. Confirmation bias and outgroup homogeneity with a side of overconfidence effect. There's the perception of cyclists breaking the law, so we always notice when one does. Since they're usually a tiny majority of road users, they become an outgroup, and we tend to lump everyone in an outgroup together (not just cyclists, we do this for tons of things). ~90% of drivers think they're better than average, so we don't tend to judge our own driving with a critical eye, and think everyone we see is worse by default. There's also a term I can't remember right now, it basically describes how the fact we see a near constant number of drivers break the law while we're on the road, we pretty much become desensitized to it, plus we're one of them. Selective perception might be it, but I swear it was something different than that. I mean, think about it, we're probably affected by other drivers on the road a million to one vs cyclists, but we'll always mutter "loving cyclist" even just seeing one, while being completely oblivious to the constant law breaking of cars around us. 4 years of cycle commuting (and yeah, I still get unjustifiably annoyed by bikes) made me extremely aware of lovely driving, and now that I'm back in the car for my daily commute, I can't unsee just how bad things really are. The "technical" red light running is the big one I never noticed before. This is entering when the light is already yellow and turns red while still in the intersection. Illegal almost everywhere, but I see if all the time, and do it myself more times than I care to admit. I suppose that's the overconfidence effect kicking it, we all think we've got plenty of time until it turns red. And Jesus wept, nobody wants to really know how many people are using phones when they drive. Have a good serious look around you the next time you're sitting at a traffic light or stuck in bumper to bumper to traffic on the freeway. Or better yet, don't, and just live under the mistaken assumption that half the people next to you aren't spending much of the drive staring at their crotch. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:He claims it was the third time they gave him some carbon free tax, but don't see the videos from that. Here is all the internet has been told: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oc-cyclist-gatorade-bottle-road-rage-charges-20140708-story.html posted:Orange County sheriff's investigators have reviewed Bryan Larsen's video (warning: cyclist utters a profanity) and recommended charges be filed against him and the truck passenger, the department's spokesman Lt. Jeff Hallock said. Nothing about the driver veering close across the divider to the cycling lane or "rolling coal" or anything. Charging the cyclist for swearing at the truck trying to make him crash? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
tuna posted:Here is all the internet has been told: Lucky he didn't get a ticket for riding and using his cellphone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
jamal posted:Sometimes it's hard to pull out a phone and take video while riding a bike and trying not to get killed. Here's a fun one: Then you best not do it and be unsafe!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:Lucky he didn't get a ticket for riding and using his cellphone. OCSD must've had a call about a homeless man to murder, they don't got time for no tickets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/aq2XWYjc96E This guy has killed more sagebrush than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
rip
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
jamal posted:A few weeks ago I rode about 75mi on this highway: If that picture is of a 70 mph stretch of road I sure hope you were riding that bike as far into the ditch as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
What in the gently caress? That road has 140mph closing speeds assuming everyone is driving the limit. That's a dangerous loving road.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
There are narrower roads in the UK with 60 mph limits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
jamal posted:70mph speed limit in places, lots of people hauling boats, but it's still a pretty popular route for bike tourists Bicycles are still vehicles and must play by the rules of the road. I'll bet there's a law similar to this one on the books pretty much anywhere: Ohio Revised Code 4155.22 posted:(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law. If the speed limit is 70 MPH the normal movement of traffic is around that speed. Few bicycles will ever achieve anywhere close to that speed and as far as I'm aware none can maintain it unassisted on normal roads. Even half the normal speed would be fast for anything human powered. If someone was choosing to drive bike speed in a 70 MPH zone in a car, you'd consider them a loving idiot. Why does choosing to bring a slow vehicle on to a fast road make it any different? I have no problem with bikes on the road as a general thing but when we're talking highway speeds there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
Don't think you've ever lived in an area with literally one way in or out. Not defending the bike, but you need to think more deeply about this subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 14:16
|
|