urbanSTL

Then don't make a right on red. Would you do it if a cop was sitting there?

MattnSTL wrote:Then don't make a right on red. Would you do it if a cop was sitting there?

There are times when the traffic on Skinker is dead, and you can safely make that right turn on red. Why should anyone be ticketed for doing something safe? It's like giving a driver a ticket for speeding in a school zone when school is closed for a holiday.

School zones are typically only in effect during school hours.



Basically, if the sign is there follow what it says even if the turn or whatever may be safe to make. It was obviously put up for a reason. Since I'm not a conspiracy theorist I would think it's because there is obstructed vision that makes the turn unsafe. Can't say I've ever paid too much attention when going through there.

MattnSTL wrote:When you are not breaking the law you do not get a ticket.

Not true. Brentwood Police gave me a ticket for something that I didn't do, and I had to get a lawyer straighten it out.

MattnSTL wrote:Basically, if the sign is there follow what it says even if the turn or whatever may be safe to make. It was obviously put up for a reason. Since I'm not a conspiracy theorist I would think it's because there is obstructed vision that makes the turn unsafe. Can't say I've ever paid too much attention when going through there.

It's only dangerous to make a right turn on red at that intersection during certain times when many cars are moving south on Skinker, but when traffic is dead on Skinker, it's perfectly safe. There should be one of those "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED DURING [insert hours here]" signs instead, but that would cut into their revenue.



I'm not a conspiracy theorist either, but some traffic cops really are on a mission to generate revenue. If they truly had safety on their minds, then they would crack down on those jaywalkers instead, but there's just no money in it.

:smt015

How old are you, Resurrectus? 16?

Resurrectus wrote:If they truly had safety on their minds, then they would crack down on those jaywalkers instead, but there's just no money in it.

I'm not quite sure why you think people who walk don't have money, but OK. Even given that, IMO pedestrians should ALWAYS and without question have the right-of-way. Our sidewalks, streets and neighborhoods should be made for those on foot, not cars passing through with more-thank-likely one person in them.

Grover wrote:

Resurrectus wrote:If they truly had safety on their minds, then they would crack down on those jaywalkers instead, but there's just no money in it.

I'm not quite sure why you think people who walk don't have money, but OK. Even given that, IMO pedestrians should ALWAYS and without question have the right-of-way. Our sidewalks, streets and neighborhoods should be made for those on foot, not cars passing through with more-thank-likely one person in them.

It's easier to identify the driver than the jaywalker, and the driver is more likely to have more money than the jaywalker. I'm not suggesting that the police crack down on jaywalkers either (I'm also one of them)--I'm just saying that these cameras are excessive and that drivers are too often targeted as a source of revenue for a city.



Don't even get me started on excessive parking meter fines.

I noticed the red light camera on southbound Memorial is working. Either that or Britney Spears and the paparazzi were at Memorial and Walnut last night. I swear that thing was flashing like crazy. It's a good thing IMO, I've seen a lot of crashes on Memorial Drive caused by people going thru reds.

STLgasm wrote:Be careful at Delmar & Skinker. I just got a ticket in the mail for running a yellow light that turned red. The ticket featured several color photographs of my car (zoomed up on my license plate) and subsequent photos going through the intersection. $100 fine. AGGGH!!! Thankfully, it still says it is a non-moving violation.

Does the picture show a yellow light? Is there a way to fight it? I think its dumb for them to ticket someone for a light as it turns yellow just as they are driving through the intersection.



I just think of these cameras as a driving tax, a really expensive driving tax, when driving in the city or in Florissant. Just becareful around the areas where these are located. I don't like them along with many others, but it seems that the city is finding anyway it can to generate more revenue by installing more. The company in Arizona that operates the cameras also gets more than half of the revenue generated from these. Not much we can do, other than find ways to avoid areas where these mounted revenue generators installed.

^American Traffic Solutions only gets about 1/3 of the revenue.

CMD+H wrote:

10-intuition wrote:Not much we can do, other than find ways to avoid areas where these mounted revenue generators installed.

Or obey the law.

If a policeman has his mind made up that he's going to ticket you, then he'll find something. In a big busy city, motorists don't drive to perfection.

^Maybe in the suburbs around here, but not in the city. You have to do something pretty wrong or obvious to get pulled over in the city. I've never managed to get pulled over in the city in four years of driving.

I was pulled over once in the city, it was 11:30 at night, and I was going 35 mph through Tower Grove Park. He gave me a warning.

Resurrectus wrote:

CMD+H wrote:

10-intuition wrote:Not much we can do, other than find ways to avoid areas where these mounted revenue generators installed.

Or obey the law.

If a policeman has his mind made up that he's going to ticket you, then he'll find something. In a big busy city, motorists don't drive to perfection.

"Do you wanna try me? You want to try me? You think you've had a bad night? I'm gonna ruin your ***** night. Do you want to try me? Do you want to try me young boy? Do you want to try me tonight young boy? Do you want to go to jail for some ***** reason I come up with?"

"Don't tase me Bro!"

I have to think that these cameras are having the intended effect - it seems like no one goes through the Hampton and Wilson light when it's yellow any more. Now, the only people I see running the light have Illinois plates and seem to be going to Dirt Cheap, providing a nice double cash infusion into our local economy. Accidents used to be very common at that intersection, but it's been a while since I've seen one there (knock on wood).



I'm interested to hear the statistics related to the cameras, both in terms of reduced accidents and increased revenue to the city.

MattnSTL wrote:^Maybe in the suburbs around here, but not in the city. You have to do something pretty wrong or obvious to get pulled over in the city. I've never managed to get pulled over in the city in four years of driving.

That used to be true, but I think they're changing.



- Last week I saw a city cop doing speed radar on Skinker by Wydown.



- A few weeks ago on 44 the cops had one guy on the bridge at Arsenal with the radar/laser gun and 5 or 6 cars after that pulling people over.



- A buddy got a speeding ticket back in September along Holly Hills by MorganFord. 43 in a 35.

^Maybe I just drive in the right places.



I can't say I speed too much anymore. Driving fast is too expensive, in terms of fuel. Then throw in the possibility of an expensive ticket, there's no reason to.

DeBaliviere wrote:I have to think that these cameras are having the intended effect - it seems like no one goes through the Hampton and Wilson light when it's yellow any more. Now, the only people I see running the light have Illinois plates and seem to be going to Dirt Cheap, providing a nice double cash infusion into our local economy. Accidents used to be very common at that intersection, but it's been a while since I've seen one there (knock on wood).



I'm interested to hear the statistics related to the cameras, both in terms of reduced accidents and increased revenue to the city.

If the Interstate speed limit were reduced to 30 mph, and there were cameras literally everywhere, then there would be less accidents and revenue would skyrocket, but it's not what the people want. In America, the government works for the people, and the people hate those intruding cameras.

MattnSTL wrote:^Maybe I just drive in the right places.



I can't say I speed too much anymore. Driving fast is too expensive, in terms of fuel. Then throw in the possibility of an expensive ticket, there's no reason to.

I wasn't saying you were wrong. Up until the last few months I would have agreed with you 100% in saying that living/driving in the city meant you would only get pulled over for the most wild offence.



But I'm thinking the St. Louis city is now out to gain some more revenue by having more cops out there pulling people over. Plus more police visibility would be a deterent to real crimes.

Really! After all, what's the average light-cycle anyway, 40 or 50 seconds? We all just need to learn to relax and slow down a bit.

Resurrectus wrote:If the Interstate speed limit were reduced to 30 mph, and there were cameras literally everywhere, then there would be less accidents and revenue would skyrocket, but it's not what the people want. In America, the government works for the people, and the people hate those intruding cameras.

I guess "The People" have spoken.