FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


traffic laws





TurtleShell
At the corner of Sunset and Whittier is a sign that shows a traffic light and then below it says: Photo Enforced. Except, I have noticed no camera (and, I've seen enough to know what they look like) at the traffic light at Whittier and Sunset. Either this camera is cleverly disguised as a traffic light, the camera is there and I haven't noticed, or the sign is lying. My question: are they allowed to post signs that are technically untrue? I can see the sign preventing people from running the light, so I understand why they would put it there, but is it legal?
deanhills
If a sign says it is photo enforced, maybe it would cover anything, maybe even a photo by satellite? One would probably have to establish for sure that there is no camera, it may be hidden anywhere. If there were no camera, I don't think that would be unethical, it would be the same as the writing that says "mind your step", just to cover the other person from damages, so that if a photo is taken of a traffic violation at the traffic lights, that they are covered by the "photo enforced" sign.

I guess it could also be as simple as that they intended for a camera to go up there, and then the Government went broke and could not afford cameras everywhere, but maybe they will one day, in the meanwhile the sign may have the effect of getting people to pay attention.
ocalhoun
Run the red light and find out?

A disguised/hidden camera makes no sense. Why hide the camera, and then post a sign saying there's a camera present?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Run the red light and find out?

A disguised/hidden camera makes no sense. Why hide the camera, and then post a sign saying there's a camera present?
Good point. It sure is a mystery. Maybe the original posting that said there was no camera is correct. In which case it could have something to do with lack of budget and hoping to put up the camera at a future date that was a bit more immediate at the time when the notice was put up. I don't see anything wrong with that. Maybe they are still planning to install a camera at a future date when they get their next supply of cameras?
watersoul
Here in the UK we have speed/red-light camera's everywhere it seems, and there are also many signs warning of camera's even when a "fixed" unit is nowhere nearby.
The enforcement authorities also use mobile camera's and vehicles fitted with the same, which appear randomly at various sites when you least expect them.

A couple of years ago there was a big campaign against these sly camera's hidden behind tree's etc, so to make the system seem fairer, at all site's where there might be a camera, a huge number of signs have been put up to warn drivers. All camera's were also painted flourescent green/yellow to make them obvious.
The reasoning behind this was that if you're still caught after being warned by a sign and a brightly painted camera box, then tough luck and just pay the penalty.
Stolich
ocalhoun wrote:
Run the red light and find out?

A disguised/hidden camera makes no sense. Why hide the camera, and then post a sign saying there's a camera present?


Some years ago, there was an organisation in Belgium that set speed-camera's on fire, so that could be a possible reason to hide a speed/redlight-camera. But probably that sign is just there to prevent people from running the light, and I can believe that works.

I don't know where you live TurteShell and so I can't say for sure whether this is illegal or not where you live, but here there a no problems with those signs. In fact, we even have camera's who don't function, which only purpose is to prevent people from over speeding or running the light.
ProfessorY91
ocalhoun wrote:
A disguised/hidden camera makes no sense. Why hide the camera, and then post a sign saying there's a camera present?


Exactly. I'm under the impression that the more people that run the red light, the more money they make through fines, etc... People are less likely to fight the charge when they find out after the fact.
dragoth
so true
standready
TurtleShell wrote:
My question: are they allowed to post signs that are technically untrue? I can see the sign preventing people from running the light, so I understand why they would put it there, but is it legal?

It is the government, they can do anything they want (ie even rewrite the law so they can if needed). I have several intersections around me that have "dummy" camera boxes mounted as well as "live" ones but no warnings signs posted are posted at any intersections.
Insanity
I really don't think the primary purpose of a camera at a traffic light intersection is to make more money for the city. Especially if their primary means of achieving this is to have more people run more red lights. This only creates a more dangerous environment for all drivers, bad or good. They obviously would like to have more money, but I seriously doubt they would place the money over the safety of its citizens. Unless I'm a lot more naive than I thought.

Anyways, a hidden camera could have a lot of purposes, such as reducing the risks of vandalism and what not. Plus, just because you can't find it doesn't mean that it's hidden. It could just be naturally hard to see on top of a traffic light.
carlospro7
I thought that too before. I once got a ticket because one of those cameras took a picture of my plates when I was going 10 miles over the speed limit, but the camera was clearly visible and no signs. I have also seen the signs before with no visible camera. It should be illegal if there isn't one.
Ghost Rider103
carlospro7 wrote:
It should be illegal if there isn't one.


Why should it be illegal to have a sign warning you of a camera, but there really isn't one?

If anything, I think they should do that more often. It's cheaper, and it will definitely make people pay more attention in fear of getting a ticket or in an accident.

Theirs nothing wrong with fooling people into thinking there is a camera to stop people from purposely running red lights. You shouldn't be running a red light in the first place.
deanhills
Ghost Rider103 wrote:
Theirs nothing wrong with fooling people into thinking there is a camera to stop people from purposely running red lights. You shouldn't be running a red light in the first place.
How about the other way round. Fooling people with hiding cameras, without having a notice around to warn you? Where I am currently in the middle east, they hide cameras high up in buildings with view of traffic lights and major intersections. They also hide cameras in stationary cars on some of the longer stretch suburban roads. There are also the odd cameras that you can see if you look for them. Usually you pick up on them when cars in front of you go slower. But obviously if there are no cars in front of you, and you are new to the city, you can get some nice surprises in traffic violations. The closest you get to knowing is when you see a flash going off, if you are chanelled into being aware of that.
Related topics
Driving Permit Test
Man proves God does not exist?
Flying Car ?
Lowering the age limit for Drivering
Cellphones...Should they be Banned in Some Uses?
The Nature of Sin, or Lack of
Should texting and driving be legislated against?
Is Capitalism Evil?
What should the punishment be for drowsy driving?
Logic or feelings - which is more powerful?
Daily Lift on Traffic Laws
Enumerate the crimes committed against you
Is there anywhere in the law that specifies number base?
Weird Traffic Laws in the United States
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.