Red Light Cameras - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #31 12-09-2010, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

If they do not have a front tag number to MATCH the rear tag number - tell 'em to go F_____ themselves - because it isn't proof that it's your car.

The guy above that apparently just went ahead and paid was a fool IMO. Around here, you just contest them, and they go away - or so I've heard. They are not legally binding when it gets down to it - around here anyway. The sheep just send their money in without contesting it.

If your wife doesn't know that you are driving around with a naked girl in your car, you have marriage problems beyond the picture. You should fix that by not concealing the information from her - or why are you married?? You're not very sensible it seems to me, that is hiding anything from your wife..

Yes, you can do that. Doesn't mean the judge will buy it. Like I said, I am not 100% sure that they must have both to charge you.

That is a new one on me. I have never had a ticket I contested and it went away. Admittedly I have never been photographed by red light or speeding camera but I would really like to know if that does go away or whether it comes back with a vengeance.

Be that as it may, I have heard stupider things. How about this guy who got rear ended IN A CAR and claimed it made him leave his wife and move in with Mom and watch gay porn? It was a claim made by someone years ago but it was in the paper.

Jim B. · #32 12-09-2010, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Be that as it may, I have heard stupider things. How about this guy who got rear ended IN A CAR and claimed it made him leave his wife and move in with Mom and watch gay porn? It was a claim made by someone years ago but it was in the paper.

This was in about 1966 but it was famous. Prolly it was before you came here to this country....

Ever heard of the "Cable Car blonde"?

She was a passenger on a San Francisco cable car.

And claimed AFTER it got hit, it turned her into a nymphomaniac !!!

there was a trial and everything 4 years later.

"Laying down some cable.

/bow chicka bow wow "

aklim · #33 12-09-2010, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

This was in about 1966 but it was famous. Prolly it was before you came here to this country....

Ever heard of the "Cable Car blonde"?

She was a passenger on a San Francisco cable car.

And claimed AFTER it got hit, it turned her into a nymphomaniac !!!

there was a trial and everything 4 years later.

"Laying down some cable.

/bow chicka bow wow "

66? What was I doing again? Maybe a twinkle in Daddy's eye.

If I ever see an accident like that again, I might just consider asking all the hot women there for a romp in the hay. "Hey, I know you just got into an accident. You wanna shack up in a motel for a few hours?"

catmandoo62 · #34 12-09-2010, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I was also wondering if there was anything that can defeat the rear camera.

drive wet gravel roads.there is no way in hell a camera is gonna cut thru that.my back plate right now is a brown blob.

TX76513 · #35 12-09-2010, 10:27 AM

Cams started to go crazy here - Jack town had hundreds of them. Then Gov. Barber said - take em down - signed a bill banning them in the state
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/bill_banning_red_light_cameras_signed_into_law_032309/

iwrock · #36 12-09-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

well, tell santa to send it

Santa could possibly mail you his old one...

The Clk Man · #37 12-09-2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselPaul

I just one in Columbus... $95 f'in dollars.

I was about to start a thread on the flash blurring spray paint.

I went to a Benz gtg in Norwalk last year and in Columbus they got me for $200.

elchivito · #38 12-09-2010, 02:05 PM

Avoiding brake slammers? Seems to me like going the speed limit, or whatever's reasonable and prudent at the time, and allowing safe distance between one's car and the car in front is the best way to avoid brake slammers. They used to call it defensive driving or something like that...
I see some DB run a red almost every time I go into town at a particular intersection. They start trying to "beat the yellow" about halfway thru it's yellow cycle and about 5 car lengths from the intersection. ********* drivers deserve to be in jail.
If the cameras don't significantly decrease accidents, they're a waste of money. If they do decrease either accidents or ********* drivers, bring 'em on.

MTI · #39 12-09-2010, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Clk Man

I went to a Benz gtg in Norwalk last year and in Columbus they got me for $200.

Were you in violation of the local law? Or is that not relevant.

aklim · #40 12-09-2010, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Were you in violation of the local law? Or is that not relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdz_-06wGqc

MTI · #41 12-09-2010, 04:36 PM

I've often thought that the problem driver's have with electronic enforcement of traffic laws isn't that it's inaccurate . . . it's exactly the opposite. If someone is driving like a jerk, they deem it their right to be caught by a human being, where the odds are not in favor of "the house."

kknudson · #42 12-09-2010, 04:59 PM

Well I am very careful of my driving, sometimes to an extreme.

But they setup these cameras etc as $ grabs, I have a friend high up in a local municipality who verified this. Note this is the suburb that removed most because they were affecting the traffic to the shopping malls.

But there are so many traffic laws violated they could do much more.

I guarantee I can sit at any major intersection here in Illinois and nail 40% of the drivers for AT least one Mover.

Turn signals, and the simple Right turn Right lane, Left turn Left Lane rules would probably nail more than that alone.

MTI · #43 12-09-2010, 05:04 PM

Is it a "money grab" if lawfully enforces the stop sign/line law, which some drivers treat as a "grey area" when it comes to compliance?

In other words, if only the guilty are subject to the fine, while law abiding drivers are not, what's the core objection?

kknudson · #44 12-09-2010, 05:23 PM

Well I technically agree with the concept of red light cameras.

Although I have often wondered how much energy (gas + wear and tear) would be saved if MOST Stop signs were changed to yield. In my neighborhood the town went crazy and just about every intersection has stop signs. Some 4 way, some 2 way.

What I object to is things like IL law states that a Muni MUST prove that the intersection where a camera is being placed has a high percentage of certain types of accidents (t-bones and or deaths etc) yet most do not.
Several that the Muni "provided" data for were shown to not match corresponding state data.
This was all reported in the Tribune, which did an extensive study of the subject.
They found that most were being placed based on revenue NOT safety.

Local2ED · #45 12-09-2010, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Avoiding brake slammers? Seems to me like going the speed limit, or whatever's reasonable and prudent at the time, and allowing safe distance between one's car and the car in front is the best way to avoid brake slammers. They used to call it defensive driving or something like that...
I see some DB run a red almost every time I go into town at a particular intersection. They start trying to "beat the yellow" about halfway thru it's yellow cycle and about 5 car lengths from the intersection. ********* drivers deserve to be in jail.
If the cameras don't significantly decrease accidents, they're a waste of money. If they do decrease either accidents or ********* drivers, bring 'em on.

x2, sure is funny listening to people whine about nothing and all the armchair lawyers we have here

The cameras are so insignificant to me I couldn't even tell you where one is in my area