Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by HowardsNeckFlap, Aug 14, 2013.
The spray you put on your license plate so red light cameras cant read it. Does it work?
myth busters says no
From what I understand, only an IR blaster works at blocking cameras.
Don't lie to him Vashier
I do see a good deal of license plates where the top clear layer has been peeled off. Maybe that would help. Or maybe you can just drive like a decent human being.
Is this the douchebag that asked if he should buy a funnel cake maker and a cotton candy machine?
is it an infomercial product?
maybe you shouldn't go through the lights.
Exactly! Better get a shitty and some prison tats too, so you don't get ass-raped when you go to prison for killing some family after t-boning their car on one of your red light adventures.
I despise red-light cams, not because I run the damn things, but because people get paranoid about the damn things and slam the brakes when they see a yellow on a red-light cam light.
They're ridiculous. And generally are some kind of profiteering bullshit that has nothing to do with public-safety.
But according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety they do:
A 2011 Institute study comparing large cities with red light cameras to those without found the devices reduced the fatal red light running crash rate by 24 percent and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 17 percent. 18
Previous Institute research in Oxnard, California, found significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent. 19 Front-into-side collisions - the crash type most closely associated with red light running - at these intersections declined by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries fell 68 percent.
An Institute review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras lower red light violations by 40-50 percent and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent. 20 The Cochrane Collaboration, an international public health organization, reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light camera effectiveness. 21 Based on the most rigorous studies, there was an estimated 13-29 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right-angle injury crashes.
And about those rear-end crashes:
Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. However, such crashes tend to be much less severe than front-into-side crashes, so the net effect is positive.
A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities. 22 The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million in the seven communities. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras.
Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The review by the Cochrane Collaboration did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end injury crashes.
Ah, okay Bundy, you've got a point.
Still not a fan, but if they limit fatalities, fine. I haven't gotten a red-light tick yet and am a way conservative driver, so I have no problem with not running the reds anyways.
Still not a fan of the things, though.
NP, Ip. I'm not a fan of profiteering either, but if less people die, then I am for it. And I hope the revenues go to keeping my taxes down, but I fear that some politician could be lining his pockets with the coin.
I guess that's my only problemo with the red light cams, then. It gives a private co a profit motive.
I personally think that anytime a ticket is given out, it ought be given out by some sort of copper, even if it's a cop behind a desk looking at pics.
My understanding is some municipalities contract out red light cams for X dollars and the contractor pockets the ticket cash.
That seems to be a conflict.
But otherwise if it's really saving lives? Fine by me.
Here's the issue with red light cameras. The accidents associated with blowing through red lights occur because people continue on through lights that have already been red for a while. Taking into account the time needed by the "innocent" driver to accelerate from a stop, to meet the violating car mid-intersection the light has to have been red for a second or two. Meanwhile, the cameras are often set to nearly instantly trigger on a vehicle still in the intersection after the red, even if it is not dangerous. This is done to maximize revenue as the folks who install the cameras are in for a "cut" of the "take".
I don't run red lights, and almost daily watch as others do. But to this day I'm not sure I've witnessed more than a handful of times where someone has blown through so blatantly that it could have caused an accident. So, the cameras are ok, but the way they are set up is ridiculous. And the IIHS should try living with back and neck pain caused by a rear-end collision before they decide if it's serious or not. Also, unlike an officer, the cameras are unable to distinguish between a sports car that guns it to get through and a big truck with a heavy trailer that would cause more problems with a sudden stop.
I see some pretty strange behavior at intersections where the cameras are. Traffic is worse, because some drivers refuse to go through at normal speeds, crawling up to the light so they can be assured of not getting a ticket if they're still in the intersection when it turns.
And the contractor kicks back to the city council or city manager. Driving through very wealthy areas I often wonder what all those rich people do for a living. I guess they became contractors for government projects. I'm not a fan of those tether and alcohol testing contractors either.
That's my first instinct, too.
But my understanding is if you are past the white line at stops when the red hits, you're okay.
I believe it is the case because I've been out in the intersection when it's red, but have cleared the white line before the red.
Although I've hit the brakes way too much because of that split-second "I don't want a ticket" shit where it would have been safer to simply continue through the light. This has been especially true in rain. There are times in rain where it's far better to keep going if someone is right behind you.
You know how it is in Atlanta, especially in the last few years with many drivers eschewing new tires and keeping their bald ones that can't grip for shit.
There aren't many cameras where I live, but there are a few roads that have large trucks going 50 mph that routinely blow through the red lights. Sometimes there is an idiot right behind him trying to sneak through also. I am affected almost daily by some intersection accident although granted I am on the road a lot for work. Around here, we have to wait a few seconds after the light turns green to advance because some asshole runs the light.
I know rear-end collisions can be bad too. I have had a bad rear-end accident and a roll-over accident caused by a side collision. With the first I had a whip-lash injury but the second put me out of work for a year.
If my city ever installs those fucking things, I'll be broke in 3 months.
Red light cameras aren't operated by the state, they're run by an independent third party and are designed to fail (read: require monthly maintenance to avoid failing) as a revenue stream. They're very fight able in court. So much so that California is on the edge of banning them outright.
not to mention that the photo must clearly show the driver (license plate isn't enough). You can argue successfully that it isn't you in the car, and you have no duty to identify who it was.