urbanSTL

quincunx wrote:I'm talking about speed governors and cars authenticating license, registration, and insurance before they will move (maybe they could go max 10 mph without it). Actual enforcement, not cat and mouse, not "no cop, no stop, " no "I was only 5 over," no "I can drive 100 mph if I decide my emergency justifies it." Traffic laws are popular for the other drivers - see the whining over the red light cameras. When they think they'll get caught when they break the law, then it's an overreach.

Most of the opposition to speed governors is due to a lack of understanding on what they actually do. There is a fear that it impacts the ability to accelerate as needed when driving or that it will slam on the breaks and cause an accident. There’s also concern on the cost.

I’ve never heard any broader conversation on validation of insurance/registration before a car starts. I’m not sure most people are even aware of that.

The concern over hyper enforcing speeding by giving tickets for just going a couple mph over the limit is understandable when we’ve had so many issues with inflated suburban and rural police departments creating speed traps to generate revenue rather than enforce safety. Plus we know the police aren’t fair and equitable in who they tend to ticket.

The opposition to red light camera’s is also driven by much more than not wanting to get caught. There were so many lawsuits during the last go around such as changing the timing on the lights to get more ticket revenue and inconsistent warnings/communication once the ticket was issued, which led to additional fines. Some cities definitely treated it as a cash grab.

They did, thus the passage of SB5. The bill enabling the return of cameras sets up the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Improvement Fund, the money doesn't go towards funding the police or the city in general.

quincunx wrote:They did, thus the passage of SB5. The bill enabling the return of cameras sets up the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Improvement Fund, the money doesn't go towards funding the police or the city in general.

Right. And I am in favor of reintroducing cameras under this model.

"Most of the opposition to speed governors is due to a lack of understanding on what they actually do. There is a fear that it impacts the ability to accelerate as needed when driving or that it will slam on the breaks and cause an accident. There’s also concern on the cost."

reference? i think most of the opposition is due to people just not wanting to be told what they can/can't do. freedumb and such.

urban_dilettante wrote:"Most of the opposition to speed governors is due to a lack of understanding on what they actually do. There is a fear that it impacts the ability to accelerate as needed when driving or that it will slam on the breaks and cause an accident. There’s also concern on the cost."

reference? i think most of the opposition is due to people just not wanting to be told what they can/can't do. freedumb and such.

Look up some of the conversation around Rep Scott Weiner’s proposal to start phasing in speed governors in California. Polling showed a majority in support of passive speed governors and a slimmer majority even supported active speed regulators.
The questions are mostly around how it’s executed:
1) What to do with out of state drivers?
2) Emergency vehicles and other potential exceptions.
3) How will it work on side streets and other potential GPS related issues?
4) What kind of cost of this tech will be passed on to the drivers?

i'm not seeing any info about public poll results, only NTSB recommendations based on traffic fatality rates and predictable republican opposition to any kind of regulation ever. can you give us a hint as to which poll(s) you have in mind? even if there is majority support in california, it's not at all clear that translates to deep red, rural-dominated states like missouri.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jul 09, 2024

I'm talking about speed governors and cars authenticating license, registration, and insurance before they will move (maybe they could go max 10 mph without it). Actual enforcement, not cat and mouse, not "no cop, no stop, " no "I was only 5 over," no "I can drive 100 mph if I decide my emergency justifies it." Traffic laws are popular for the other drivers - see the whining over the red light cameras. When they think they'll get caught when they break the law, then it's an overreach.

Just don't break the law, and you won't have to worry about it.

I'm all for cops patrolling and enforcing stuff. My gripe with light cameras is that someone blasting through an intersection is looked at the same as someone not coming 100% to a stop at a red light to make a right turn. That is something I think goes against the spirit of the law but will constitute a large percentage of tickets. If we are to believe the politicians then the cameras are meant to prevent dangerous driving and accidents at intersections but someone going 5mph on a right turn is not dangerous. Reminds me of cops in the county giving stop sign tickets if you don't fully stop and do a 3 count. 
What you're describing above is big brother stuff that would have personal privacy implications and I think ultimately lead to a social score type system like they have in china.

flipz wrote: ↑

Jul 10, 2024

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jul 09, 2024

I'm talking about speed governors and cars authenticating license, registration, and insurance before they will move (maybe they could go max 10 mph without it). Actual enforcement, not cat and mouse, not "no cop, no stop, " no "I was only 5 over," no "I can drive 100 mph if I decide my emergency justifies it." Traffic laws are popular for the other drivers - see the whining over the red light cameras. When they think they'll get caught when they break the law, then it's an overreach.

Just don't break the law, and you won't have to worry about it.

I'm all for cops patrolling and enforcing stuff. My gripe with light cameras is that someone blasting through an intersection is looked at the same as someone not coming 100% to a stop at a red light to make a right turn. That is something I think goes against the spirit of the law but will constitute a large percentage of tickets. If we are to believe the politicians then the cameras are meant to prevent dangerous driving and accidents at intersections but someone going 5mph on a right turn is not dangerous. Reminds me of cops in the county giving stop sign tickets if you don't fully stop and do a 3 count. 
What you're describing above is big brother stuff that would have personal privacy implications and I think ultimately lead to a social score type system like they have in china.

I disagree that someone going 5mph is not dangerous. I have been nearly hit many times because someone coasted through a right on red instead of stopping to look where they were going. If people don't want the ticket they should stop, it's an easy solution.

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 10, 2024

flipz wrote: ↑

Jul 10, 2024

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jul 09, 2024

I'm talking about speed governors and cars authenticating license, registration, and insurance before they will move (maybe they could go max 10 mph without it). Actual enforcement, not cat and mouse, not "no cop, no stop, " no "I was only 5 over," no "I can drive 100 mph if I decide my emergency justifies it." Traffic laws are popular for the other drivers - see the whining over the red light cameras. When they think they'll get caught when they break the law, then it's an overreach.

Just don't break the law, and you won't have to worry about it.

I'm all for cops patrolling and enforcing stuff. My gripe with light cameras is that someone blasting through an intersection is looked at the same as someone not coming 100% to a stop at a red light to make a right turn. That is something I think goes against the spirit of the law but will constitute a large percentage of tickets. If we are to believe the politicians then the cameras are meant to prevent dangerous driving and accidents at intersections but someone going 5mph on a right turn is not dangerous. Reminds me of cops in the county giving stop sign tickets if you don't fully stop and do a 3 count. 
What you're describing above is big brother stuff that would have personal privacy implications and I think ultimately lead to a social score type system like they have in china.

I disagree that someone going 5mph is not dangerous. I have been nearly hit many times because someone coasted through a right on red instead of stopping to look where they were going. If people don't want the ticket they should stop, it's an easy solution.

They could just as easily hit you if they stop and go as well. That is a matter of paying attention. I have been almost hit many times by people not checking their blind spots but we're not talking about putting cameras to ticket them. The point is that it is not the same as someone flying through the intersection which is causing these deadly accidents.

flipz wrote: ↑

Jul 10, 2024

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 10, 2024

flipz wrote: ↑

Jul 10, 2024

I'm all for cops patrolling and enforcing stuff. My gripe with light cameras is that someone blasting through an intersection is looked at the same as someone not coming 100% to a stop at a red light to make a right turn. That is something I think goes against the spirit of the law but will constitute a large percentage of tickets. If we are to believe the politicians then the cameras are meant to prevent dangerous driving and accidents at intersections but someone going 5mph on a right turn is not dangerous. Reminds me of cops in the county giving stop sign tickets if you don't fully stop and do a 3 count. 
What you're describing above is big brother stuff that would have personal privacy implications and I think ultimately lead to a social score type system like they have in china.

I disagree that someone going 5mph is not dangerous. I have been nearly hit many times because someone coasted through a right on red instead of stopping to look where they were going. If people don't want the ticket they should stop, it's an easy solution.

They could just as easily hit you if they stop and go as well. That is a matter of paying attention. I have been almost hit many times by people not checking their blind spots but we're not talking about putting cameras to ticket them. The point is that it is not the same as someone flying through the intersection which is causing these deadly accidents.

Not the same, but still dangerous and still should be enforced. Just because one is more reckless doesn't mean the other shouldn't ticketed as well.

flipz wrote: ↑

Jul 10, 2024

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jul 09, 2024

I'm talking about speed governors and cars authenticating license, registration, and insurance before they will move (maybe they could go max 10 mph without it). Actual enforcement, not cat and mouse, not "no cop, no stop, " no "I was only 5 over," no "I can drive 100 mph if I decide my emergency justifies it." Traffic laws are popular for the other drivers - see the whining over the red light cameras. When they think they'll get caught when they break the law, then it's an overreach.

Just don't break the law, and you won't have to worry about it.

I'm all for cops patrolling and enforcing stuff. My gripe with light cameras is that someone blasting through an intersection is looked at the same as someone not coming 100% to a stop at a red light to make a right turn. That is something I think goes against the spirit of the law but will constitute a large percentage of tickets. If we are to believe the politicians then the cameras are meant to prevent dangerous driving and accidents at intersections but someone going 5mph on a right turn is not dangerous. Reminds me of cops in the county giving stop sign tickets if you don't fully stop and do a 3 count. 
What you're describing above is big brother stuff that would have personal privacy implications and I think ultimately lead to a social score type system like they have in china.

A police state with lots of cops patrolling and enforcing stuff is OK as long as they are using their discretion to enforce others, right? You're making my point. 
We've already given into the big brother stuff with our phones. And cars manufactured lately already know where they are and what speed they're going. Supposedly AVs will be popular, and they have this stuff.

quincunx wrote:

flipz wrote: ↑

Jul 10, 2024

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jul 09, 2024

I'm talking about speed governors and cars authenticating license, registration, and insurance before they will move (maybe they could go max 10 mph without it). Actual enforcement, not cat and mouse, not "no cop, no stop, " no "I was only 5 over," no "I can drive 100 mph if I decide my emergency justifies it." Traffic laws are popular for the other drivers - see the whining over the red light cameras. When they think they'll get caught when they break the law, then it's an overreach.

Just don't break the law, and you won't have to worry about it.

I'm all for cops patrolling and enforcing stuff. My gripe with light cameras is that someone blasting through an intersection is looked at the same as someone not coming 100% to a stop at a red light to make a right turn. That is something I think goes against the spirit of the law but will constitute a large percentage of tickets. If we are to believe the politicians then the cameras are meant to prevent dangerous driving and accidents at intersections but someone going 5mph on a right turn is not dangerous. Reminds me of cops in the county giving stop sign tickets if you don't fully stop and do a 3 count. 
What you're describing above is big brother stuff that would have personal privacy implications and I think ultimately lead to a social score type system like they have in china.

A police state with lots of cops patrolling and enforcing stuff is OK as long as they are using their discretion to enforce others, right? You're making my point. 
We've already given into the big brother stuff with our phones. And cars manufactured lately already know where they are and what speed they're going. Supposedly AVs will be popular, and they have this stuff.

You are missing the point. It’s not about wanting cops to enforce laws for some and not others. It’s about wanting cops to enforce laws that actually help make us safer vs overreaching and infringing on people’s freedom, which is important.

Using a camera to punish people blatantly running a red light is great and useful because it’s an effective way to improve public safety

Using a camera to punish a driver for running a red light by a fraction of a second (at a safe speed) is not. It’s been used in the past as a way to unfairly generate revenue and doesn’t make us safer. We also know it can be used to unfairly punish poor people.

Freedom to run a red light?

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 12, 2024

quincunx wrote:

flipz wrote: ↑

Jul 10, 2024

I'm all for cops patrolling and enforcing stuff. My gripe with light cameras is that someone blasting through an intersection is looked at the same as someone not coming 100% to a stop at a red light to make a right turn. That is something I think goes against the spirit of the law but will constitute a large percentage of tickets. If we are to believe the politicians then the cameras are meant to prevent dangerous driving and accidents at intersections but someone going 5mph on a right turn is not dangerous. Reminds me of cops in the county giving stop sign tickets if you don't fully stop and do a 3 count. 
What you're describing above is big brother stuff that would have personal privacy implications and I think ultimately lead to a social score type system like they have in china.

A police state with lots of cops patrolling and enforcing stuff is OK as long as they are using their discretion to enforce others, right? You're making my point. 
We've already given into the big brother stuff with our phones. And cars manufactured lately already know where they are and what speed they're going. Supposedly AVs will be popular, and they have this stuff.

You are missing the point. It’s not about wanting cops to enforce laws for some and not others. It’s about wanting cops to enforce laws that actually help make us safer vs overreaching and infringing on people’s freedom, which is important.

Using a camera to punish people blatantly running a red light is great and useful because it’s an effective way to improve public safety

Using a camera to punish a driver for running a red light by a fraction of a second (at a safe speed) is not. It’s been used in the past as a way to unfairly generate revenue and doesn’t make us safer. We also know it can be used to unfairly punish poor people.

What is a safe speed to run a red light?

quincunx wrote:Freedom to run a red light?

I understand you hate cars and I think you’re being intentionally obtuse here.

I OFTEN see drivers speeding up and entering the intersection when a light is ALREADY red.  Their goal, get through before the other drivers start to move.  I see it on Chouteau, Gravois, Jefferson and others.   In a perfect world the traffic cops would help curb this behavior.  I do agree that each case should be reviewed, but I want to see the behavior corrected.

STLCityMike wrote:I OFTEN see drivers speeding up and entering the intersection when a light is ALREADY red.  Their goal, get through before the other drivers start to move.  I see it on Chouteau, Gravois, Jefferson and others.   In a perfect world the traffic cops would help curb this behavior.  I do agree that each case should be reviewed, but I want to see the behavior corrected.

Absolutely this happens often. I’m all for punishing drivers for doing this via traffic cops or cameras because it’s dangerous.

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 12, 2024

_nomad_ wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 12, 2024

You are missing the point. It’s not about wanting cops to enforce laws for some and not others. It’s about wanting cops to enforce laws that actually help make us safer vs overreaching and infringing on people’s freedom, which is important.

Using a camera to punish people blatantly running a red light is great and useful because it’s an effective way to improve public safety

Using a camera to punish a driver for running a red light by a fraction of a second (at a safe speed) is not. It’s been used in the past as a way to unfairly generate revenue and doesn’t make us safer. We also know it can be used to unfairly punish poor people.

What is a safe speed to run a red light?

Missing a red light by a fraction of a second at a speed within an acceptable range of the posted limit is not a significant enough safety issue to be expending resources to prevent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree, it is still a safety issue and if the infrastructure is there to address it then it should be addressed

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 12, 2024

_nomad_ wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 12, 2024

You are missing the point. It’s not about wanting cops to enforce laws for some and not others. It’s about wanting cops to enforce laws that actually help make us safer vs overreaching and infringing on people’s freedom, which is important.

Using a camera to punish people blatantly running a red light is great and useful because it’s an effective way to improve public safety

Using a camera to punish a driver for running a red light by a fraction of a second (at a safe speed) is not. It’s been used in the past as a way to unfairly generate revenue and doesn’t make us safer. We also know it can be used to unfairly punish poor people.

What is a safe speed to run a red light?

Missing a red light by a fraction of a second at a speed within an acceptable range of the posted limit is not a significant enough safety issue to be expending resources to prevent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are practical solutions to this.  #1 - longer yellow lights mean fewer (though not no) folks caught in an intersection when the light turns red. #2 introduce a delay between the light for one direction turning red and the other direction turning green. Even ½-1 second should be enough to weed out the edge cases. A ticket should be automatically issued, not when the light turns red, but when a car is still in the intersection when the other direction turns green. Potentially the former could trigger a human review to judge whether a ticket should be issued anyway.

Same thing for the other use case - coming to a stop before turning right on red. Do the wheels literally need to stop moving? If so, for how long? Or is creeping through okay? Someone who blasts through clearly needs a ticket, as does someone who doesn't yield to pedestrians in or entering a crosswalk. But other incidents could be judgement calls, and those might also require human review to determine whether it was dangerous or not.

100% red light cameras were abused as revenue generators by some municipalities (e.g: more than one city was caught actually shortening yellow lights specifically to induce more red light ticket revenue), so it's natural to be skeptical. But there is a real safety benefit to having them - both as a deterrent and as a way to capture those who choose to drive recklessly. If implemented correctly, cameras can be used to capture and punish truly dangerous activity while not unduly burdening everyone else.

-RBB

Tickets won't be automatically issued. All of them have to be reviewed. That's how it is compliant with the court ruling.

Does this get a ticket from the camera?

Saw three different cars pulling people over at the same time couple weeks ago in the I-70 express lane. I've been blown past by cars going 100+ mph there more times than I can count