Posted on 09/01/2006 8:58:53 AM PDT by Snickering Hound
The simple anwer is to find out if these spray and plates acutally work.
If they work then the proper protest is to put the spray on as many autos as possible.
There must be a reason the city commissioners paniced.
"How about using these cameras as target practice?"
in britain they are mounted on a 2m tall pole.
in the states, they are a good 8m up on the light pole.
the cameras here are also about 2" square as opposed to britains which are about a foot square.
bit tougher here.
"The simple anwer is to find out if these spray and plates acutally work."
I bought a can of this. it works ok with a digital camera with flash when you first do it. but when it gets dusty or dirty and doesnt "reflect" as well, the digital camera pics come out perfectly normal.
but amazingly, even after a wash, the plates on my jeep ALSO seem to be constantly muddy. must be a jeep thing.
It always is. My Dad told me he paid 50¢ for his first drivers license. He bought it at a local store. No drivers test or anything like that. It was simply a way for the state to get some more money.
BTW, My Dad passed several years ago. He was 89 years old. He'd been around this 'ol world for a while and saw a lot of things happen.
I wonder what the city would charge if some activists "tagged" the license plates of a bunch of random cars parked at the curb or in a parking lot with this blocking paint.
And each generation accepts just a little bit more intrusion.
The city had to fight the state to implement this.
That's for rear-view mirrors. :)
They should just spray that stuff on the camera.
If you rear end someone you're following too closely for safety, period. Sure, we almost all do it, at least sometimes, but that's still a fact.
Litigate them out of existence.
No appeasement with the city on this issue. Stop it now before it gets worse.
We have seen this "civil penalty" ala parking ticket revenue system.
I would like to see an increase in state wide referendums which prohibit this.
The city routinely bags meters at night now downtown. In the 1990s they had blocks restricted for "no parking at any time". They later admitted to the Chronicle that they generate more parking fines with meters on those streets.
It is an unhealthy local economy when the city must fund the "necessities" by exploiting the locals. Then again much of what Houston is funding is NOT essential.
And it extends beyond our city limit. We just got 10 FBI agents to help reduce our gang problem since the local cops won't. Some new gangbangers in town from NOLA but also have MS13 moving in.
True enough.
The problem with that is that these cameras have been shown to have been mounted on lights where the yellow-time is reduced, rigging them against the driver.
And frankly, if I'm approaching an intersection and the light begins to change, my decision about whether to stop is based both on cross-traffic and how close the driver is behind me. If I slam on the brakes and am rear-ended, tossed into the intersection and T-boned, am I any less dead? All to avoid a ticket from meddling big-brother?
This isn't about safety. It's about screwing you down and making you comply, and if you so much as flinch, they're going to take it out of your wallet
I think this is one of those situations where they WANT you to not comply.
Compliance does not equal revenue.
12 Gage, No 5 bird shot. You do not need to aim all that carefully. Just point in the general direction.
For those that do not believe there is ANY improvement in safety:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm
A study by the Institute of Transportation Engineers who have been setting standards for traffic signals since the 1930's.
Short list. The cameras increase rear-end accidents and reduce right-angle (T-bone) accidents. Because T-bones are generally more severe (and cause more deaths), the overall safety of the intersection increases (slightly fewer accidents, much less severe accidents, less repair costs, fewer medical costs).
No doubt the politicians are NOT doing this for increased safety. But safety is still benefitted.
OH, I agree. OTOH, what are the chances you're going to get rear-ended hard enough to punt you all the way out into the intersection to get t-boned, assuming you have a firm foot on the brakes? If you're already stopped and they slam into you full speed, well then that's not likely the fault of the red light cameras, is it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.