TexasCHLforum.com

lunchbox wrote:the camera cant see that you broke the plain of the intersection or not before the light turned red

Without covering stuff from my previous post, yes, the "camera" cannot tell if or when you broke the plane of the intersection, but the associated timing equipment can, and then they tell the camera that you have been naughty and it takes a snapshot to "prove" that you have.

The only possible way to "beat" a red light camera is to prove that the timing is off or the camera is aimed wrong. The system I worked on was to be audited daily, weekly, and monthly for accuracy, with a variety of automated tests. The camera aiming points were registered when the system was finally established after all of the turn up testing, so it is a simple task to check them daily to see whether they are looking at the right spot.

The system I worked on is entirely digital, rather than film based. One of the systems in this area uses film based cameras and they are collected on a regular basis, which entails a time delay that does not exist in the digital domain. The original proposal for the system I worked on was for store and forward of the images, but we proved in testing that the images could be handled on a real time basis under just about all circumstances because our network was very robust. Even store and forward would have resulted in the images arriving in Maryland, where they would take the first step in the review and fine process, on the same day.

The system I worked on uses two cameras, one high resolution still camera which takes three flash pictures of the offending vehicle in rapid succession, and a second which takes a video of the offending vehicle. The video camera runs continuously and buffers the video, and upon a violation event it tags the buffered video from a time interval before the violation to a time interval after it.

The video interval and the timing of the camera and trigger are all software controlled and can be adjusted remotely, which is why I am not sure that going out and doing an on site timing audit for yourself would accomplish anything, if there was a problem, and it was discovered during one of the many audits built into the system, then it may have been fixed by the time one conducts an "independent audit."

The video is supposed to be enough to show the system operators, during the first step of the process, that you made a legal right on red by stopping before the motion detector found you entering the intersection after the light turned red. The video also can show whether the vehicle in question proceeded under other "legal" circumstances, such as clearing the intersection for an emergency vehicle, as well as establishing "probable cause" by showing that the vehicle did indeed proceed at the time and date shown and that the still pics were accurate in their portrayal.

I am all for red light cameras. If they send me a picture of my truck, I will be paying the fine.

The only way to get people to change their habit patterns is for them to understand the consequences of the action. The trick is there has to be an expectation that there is a consequence.
You have probably somewhere in a 1:10,000 chance of getting pulled over for running a red-light. You get the ticket, but know that the next time the cop is not going to be there and you keep running the light. But with a camera at the intersection, you know that the next time you run the light there is a good chance that you are getting a ticket. After a while you subconsciously associate running any red light with paying $75 and you quite doing it.
Yes the city generates revenue from the cameras, so what, that much less taxes that I have to pay.

The Audubon is one of the safest and most efficient highways in the world… Why? because they have very strict enforcement of the rules.

lunchbox wrote: i dont believe in cops being replaced by a camera and a secretary

They aren't. In Plano, at least, one of the review steps is a peace officer reviewing the pictures and video (12 second, six before the light turns red and six after) for each violation before they're finally assessed and sent out.

TX_shooter wrote: The Audubon is one of the safest and most efficient highways in the world… Why? because they have very strict enforcement of the rules.

I think you mean 'autobahn' and they are generally safer, but that is because they are designed for higher speed over the other roads. if you compare the other roads, they are less safe than non-highways in the U.S. Also, the vehicles that usually run at higher speeds are also designed to handle better (BMW, SAAB, etc.)

But I can tell you, when you DO see an accident on the autobahn, there is a good chance it is a fatality do to the higher speeds. Some of the nastiest wrecks I have ever seen were in southern Germany and Austria.

Keith B wrote:

TX_shooter wrote: The Audubon is one of the safest and most efficient highways in the world… Why? because they have very strict enforcement of the rules.

I think you mean 'autobahn' and they are generally safer, but that is because they are designed for higher speed over the other roads. if you compare the other roads, they are less safe than non-highways in the U.S. Also, the vehicles that usually run at higher speeds are also designed to handle better (BMW, SAAB, etc.)

But I can tell you, when you DO see an accident on the autobahn, there is a good chance it is a fatality do to the higher speeds. Some of the nastiest wrecks I have ever seen were in southern Germany and Austria.

it has more to do with the road and driver education than anything

Keith B wrote:

TX_shooter wrote: The Audubon is one of the safest and most efficient highways in the world… Why? because they have very strict enforcement of the rules.

I think you mean 'autobahn' and they are generally safer, but that is because they are designed for higher speed over the other roads. if you compare the other roads, they are less safe than non-highways in the U.S. Also, the vehicles that usually run at higher speeds are also designed to handle better (BMW, SAAB, etc.)

But I can tell you, when you DO see an accident on the autobahn, there is a good chance it is a fatality do to the higher speeds. Some of the nastiest wrecks I have ever seen were in southern Germany and Austria.

But they also have electronic surveillance and automatic ticketing. Man you can learn a lot from watching the discovery channel. One of the byproducts of being able to determine the orbit of a satellite is you can't spell worth a crap. I would be in trouble without spell check.

I wonder what I'm supposed to do if one of my company vehicles gets one. It's registered to a company not a person. Furthermore multiple folks get in an out of each one everyday. So if it doesn't take a picture of the person who am I supposed to blame? I guess I would just have to have the company pay for it? But then again what are they going to do? Sue a fortune 500 company over a $75 bill? There isn't a credit score they can put it against!

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

kidder014 wrote:Actually, no they dont.

A law was passed that states the registered owner is responsible for red light violations regardless of the driver of the vehicle at the time.

Gotta love those legislators. I wonder how much money from the redlight cameras goes toward building their summer homes?

A LOT of it!! And that's after they get back from their "citizen paid" vacation...

gregthehand wrote:I wonder what I'm supposed to do if one of my company vehicles gets one. It's registered to a company not a person. Furthermore multiple folks get in an out of each one everyday. So if it doesn't take a picture of the person who am I supposed to blame? I guess I would just have to have the company pay for it? But then again what are they going to do? Sue a fortune 500 company over a $75 bill? There isn't a credit score they can put it against!

Actually, some of the cameras DO catch the driver. A buddy of mine got a really good photo of him running a red light in Ft Worth. It was an excellent photo! He paid...

gregthehand wrote:I wonder what I'm supposed to do if one of my company vehicles gets one. It's registered to a company not a person. Furthermore multiple folks get in an out of each one everyday. So if it doesn't take a picture of the person who am I supposed to blame? I guess I would just have to have the company pay for it? But then again what are they going to do? Sue a fortune 500 company over a $75 bill? There isn't a credit score they can put it against!

Tell your employees that if one of them gets an automated ticket, they ALL get to pay the $75 out of their paycheck for it.

IT'll take care of itself at that point.

nitrogen wrote:Tell your employees that if one of them gets an automated ticket, they ALL get to pay the $75 out of their paycheck for it.

That'll work until someone calls the labor board. About 5 minutes, in other words.

KBCraig wrote:That'll work until someone calls the labor board. About 5 minutes, in other words.

My HR department would beat them to it. I would get mad and fuss but in the end that's all I could do. If I can't prove who was driving the truck then I can't punish anyone! It would just suck because I have a feeling my company would just tell me to pay them and be on my way.

have any of you guys tried this?

http://www.photoblocker.com/

i watched a news report on it, it seemed to work and the cops said its not illegal in Texas.

sivart-dod wrote:have any of you guys tried this?

http://www.photoblocker.com/

i watched a news report on it, it seemed to work and the cops said its not illegal in Texas.

Anything that covers the license plate is illegal
and I don't see that working well anyway I mean come on really

sivart-dod wrote:have any of you guys tried this?

http://www.photoblocker.com/

i watched a news report on it, it seemed to work and the cops said its not illegal in Texas.

Mythbusters did a thing on it a while back, it didn't work.