CQRT

The law requires that you operate your vehicle in such a fashion that you are in control of that vehicle at all times - - whether that's speed not prudent for conditions, changing lanes without a signal or following too closely.

If there vehicle in front of you stops- for whatever reason- you are expected to adjust your speed, following distance and braking to be able to stop without hitting it- period- no exceptions for weather, distractions or why that driver slowed or stopped.

There can be an animal in the road, debris or a pedestrian that started out into the intersection - - so the argument that someone stopped too quickly, you thought he was going to proceed through the light and you hit him simply doesn't fly.

And as an aside, there is no 'double jeopardy' in a traffic event.

strand rider

You can fault the drivers all you want, but wishing they were better won't get you a better reality . The reality in my area is that accidents went up, increasing the overall danger.
Turns out the camera had no way to make people better drivers, it just triggered them to do their thing more often.

I agree it is not the camera's fault that people drive the way they do, but I also realize they are not going to improve because of a camera. The camera triggers the danger, at least in my town, so they were turned off.

Applying reality to a situation is the only way to improve it. Blaming bad drivers for doing what they do won't effect a change in outcome. When my blood is on the line, I care about results, not concerns over fault.

I don't use hand signals anymore, although they are legal and people should recognize them as part of their driving knowledge.

The reality is that my arm would be snapped off in short order. True , it would be a very bad driver at fault, but that wouldn't really help my arm much. so I accept the reality that poor drivers are out there and it is best to not screw with them, they are probably at the limits of their ability , and if you ask for more, you will soon be disappointed and probably looking for a body repair shop.

( hand signals are from the old days, arm straight out the window is a left turn signal, down signals stop, bent at the elbow hand up, signals tight turn. Handy if your signal lights went out, or your car is so old it doesn't have that stuff. ) Now as obsolete as signal flags.

I forgot to add, most insurance companies figure a regular rear end collision at 80 / 20 , placing some responsibility on the car in front.

mrlmd

That's the first time I ever heard of that. You hit someone in the rear. it's your fault. How was the front car at fault, for being there allowing you to hit him?

mrr23

your fault for not maintaining a safe enough distance to control your vehicle. been around for decades.

cor28vettes

Failure to reduce speed to avoid collision is the terminology.

cor28vettes

Back for a minute or two on OP's case in FL. -


The 4th District Court of Appeals phrased it like this:

"The city is not authorized to delegate police powers by entering into a contract that allows a private vendor to screen data and decide whether a violation has occurred before sending that data to a traffic infraction enforcement officer to use as a basis for authorizing a citation."

The court went further and said...

"Dismissal of the citation is the appropriate remedy where a private third party effectively decides whether a traffic violation has occurred and a traffic citation should be issued."

Dave concrete

Thinking the same. I believe it works because when you know it's there you won't be overly speeding or tailgating. Here we now also have radar cameras at school zones everyone is freaking but your suppose to go slow in a school zone.

o2bnkc

Huh? He's asking why the car in FRONT is 20% at fault. What decades old law are you talking about?

Merlin02

That's not the way the system works. The sensors imbedded in the roadway detect motion after the light has turned red. If you were stopped, as you claim, the camera should not have taken the photo.

got-20z

This is one of my big reasons of being against them.

FLZapped

http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-t...es-for-profit/

Yeah, looks like it does happen. 3 seconds isn't necessarily long enough. There is a formula that is used to determine the appropriate length.

FLZapped

*should*

We have a camera at 441 and Atlantic Blvd. that takes pictures of people obeying the law all the time.

FLZapped

If these cities were really concerned about making the road safer, they would do what some cities have done instead of red light cameras, which is to make all lights red for one second during the transition.

Crosis

Where do people come up with this nonsense?
That claim is 100% BS

sfc rick

We have a few cameras that will trigger and flash even if the vehicle is under a yellow, it's just more gravy for the city if they can dupe the car owner into thinking he accidentally ran the red light(which they clearly haven't) and have them mail the fine in. If they contest it....the city says OK, and drop it. But I've seen it dozens of times flash unsuspecting car owners....

It's a city road tax, cleverly designed to mimic public safety concerns plain and simple. Hats off to the politicians(not a smidgen of corruption) who only have public safety in mind when they contract with the private corporations to shackle the pocketbooks of it's citizenry.

Crosis

There are many misconceptions about red light cameras out there and in here. A flash does not mean a tickets is issued. The flashes go off almost all the time as part of self diagnostics as well as triggering. The photo (in most cases but not all) are backed by video. The photos and video are then reviewed by people (nothing is automated) and violation is determined by the review. Yes, it does violate the drivers right to face his accusers but only if they pay the citation. You always have the right to request a trial. Are red light cameras just for revenue? Maybe they are but the system isn't nearly as flawed or sinister as you people think it is

I challenge any of the delusional people out there to show proof that there is a pattern of red light tickets being issued under what was clearly a yellow light. You cant do it.

mrr23

I stand corrected. The person in the rear automatically being at fault isn't a "law", but been around for decades.

mrr23

You can use whatever terminology you want. Failure to maintain a safe distance to avoid a collision is the proper terminology. Your terminology suggests the person in the rear did nothing to slow down.

CQRT

When I was on the job, the short-hand expression was "ACDA" - - -failure to maintain an "assured clear distance ahead" - -in other words, following too closely and unable to stop in time to avoid a collision with the vehicle ahead.

mrr23

Works for me.