svt32v99 said:I think people complain about minor traffic violations because of their frequency of enforcement. It seems awfully disproportionate in comparison to what we presume officers COULD be doing instead of enforcing laws that are admittedly LESSER than others.
svt32v99 said:Going by the same logic, it seems as though officers in California should have an easy time catching people smoking cigarettes where they shouldn't be. Right?
svt32v99 said:If officers don't "like" enforcing these laws any more than the public likes getting cited for these "lesser" laws, but officers enforce them with a startling regularity, then there must be a motivation for the officers to enforce these laws.
svt32v99 said:Is there a coincidence that these minor violations and the frequency that they are enforced? You bet. I am not allowed to say it though...though everyone knows what I am hinting at.
svt32v99 said:On a side note, I believe that an officer CAN choose which laws to enforce. Every single day officers let people go for violations all the time. They have the discretion. No one will change my mind of that. What it comes down to is who is motivating the officer and why.
FordSVTFan said:And what scale are you using to judge the proportion? Everyone has laws they dont like and consider minor. The car guys dont like traffic laws and consider them minor. The guys who smoke weed, dont like the possession laws and consider them minor. The taggers, who vandalize and paint graffiti on buildings and private property dont like the vandalism laws and consider them minor. It is all in your perspective. Like I said before, there isnt an officer I know that wouldnt prefer to stop a rape, murder, burglary, etc over a traffic stop. But looking for those crimes while ignoring the so called "minor" ones isnt the answer.
I dont gather your reasoning.
Yes the motivation is called doing your job. L.E.O.s arent hired to enforce only the laws they agree with and support wholeheartedly, they enforce all the laws regardless of personal belief.
I dont know what you are hinting at! I can assume you are making reference to the so called "ticket quota". If that is the case, you are barking up the wrong tree. Because if you follow the threads most people bitch about being stopped for minor violations and then let go. If there was such a quota, then why would an officer let anyone who is in violation go? They wouldnt. Because if they did, they wouldnt get a new toaster.
Officers like anyone else can make their own choices, but then again they will be the ones paying for those choices. We have checks and balances in place. There are "tests" done all the time of officers by I.A. to make sure they are doing what they are hired and sworn to do. There is an old saying in L.E. "do whatever your career can handle".
Discretion for certain violations is granted by each individual agency. As quickly as it is granted it can be taken away. For instance, if there is a rise in accidents being caused by not using a blinker, the powers that be will start a strict enforcement detail for turn signal use, and discretion for that violation is not within the officers purview.
As long as no one will change your mind of anything, then there is no reason to have a cogent and constructive conversation with you. Have a nice day. No reply this is necessary as it will lead nowhere, according to you.
svt32v99 said:They have been accused to have caused more accidents than they have prevented. Just another arm of the local IRS.
vegaspackerfan said:This is a very big sore spot with me. I wish Vegas had these at EVERY intersection. Stop whe the light is turing red and you are fine. Run the light, you are busted. Plain and simple.
JUST BECASUE A DRIVER STOPPED FOR A RED LIGHT, AND SOME AZZHOLE REARENDS THEM. DOES NOT MAKE IT THE CAMERAS FAULT. IT'S THE AZZHOLE WHO DID NOT STOPS FAULT.
It is obvious to me that you don't live in an area that has A-holes running redlights and 4 way stops at almost every intersection. And these A-holes run the lights at an alarming rate of speed. When you are stoped and cars go by you so fast that your car moves a bit, they are moving. If you have to wait a few seconds before you go when the light turns green, for fear of your saftey, there is a problem.
Red light running has cost me more money on my insurance becasue of the major crashes in the area I live in. And most of them are at intersections. And I am sure most are from A-holes running red lights. I figured when I bought my new house my car insurance would go down becasue of the gated community and side of town I live in. Nope traffic crashes took care of that.
VPF
svt32v99 said:Ticket revenue is the ONLY reason why intersection cameras exist. They are not there to prevent anything. They have been accused to have caused more accidents than they have prevented. Just another arm of the local IRS.
Juiced-03 said:There are 'minimum yellow intervals' which must be followed. Also, as long as any point of your vehicle is crossing the limit line and the light is still yellow, you are not running a red light, so you will not be cited. So if you have passed the limit line and it's still green, what's the problem?
eci said:I see you are in California. You have our laws wrong.
You have to be "free and clear" of the intersection when the light turns red or you ran it. The " my front tires were over the limit line when it turned yellow " myth is ages old and has never been correct.
The INSTANT the light turns red the camera starts snapping, if you are in the intersection you're busted.
mswaim said:Exactly as it should be, although the photos are only used to prosecute those cars entering the intersection or in the middle. Those exiting the intersection are not prosecuted.
Also, I would love to see the quote you speak of and who was the speaker who stated the timing was altered to generate additionhal citations. That minimum timing is regulated by DOT, with no exceptions unless a municipality decides to lengthen the time.
Most cities have found red light cameras to be more of a problem than an aid to traffic enforcement, however the fact remains red light runners cause accidents and need to be stopped.
The cameras provide a cheap alternative to assigning officers to stand watch and they pay for themselves through a portion of the revenue they generate.
If people have a problem with them the solution is quite simple - stop running red lights!!
Their usage is clearly spelled out in the vehicle code, I would suggest reading the material before replying since I have quite a bit of experience with them.
Juiced-03 said:Thanks for clearing up the vehicle code on the red lights. I totally agree, just stop running the red lights and there will be no complaining about the cameras!