What Happened To...'Previous in Blog: License Plate Sensor Protects You'

The cops are more powerful than you think--or want...

my father still drives like an idiot at the age of 74, so i bought him a set of diffacting plate covers 10 years ago "i can't afford to bail him out of jail" lol.. when i asked him if they work or not, quote " Hell i don't know, i haven't got caught yet"

'....diffacting....'

Whether that is supposed to be 'diffracting' or 'de-facting', the meaning it carries is about the same.

http://dvice.com/archives/2012/10/license-plate-s.php
viva la reveloutione',,,lol...

This tech is not new...and you have these reflective paints, both are questionable as to whether they work or not...better to just stop....

http://theexpiredmeter.com/2009/07/red-light-camera-101-do-license-plate-sprays-actually-work/

http://www.photoblocker.com/photoblocker.html

I agree that it is better just to stop.

There are some serious problems with red light camera, but the technology mentioned can't be justified by those problems nor is it an effective way to combat the problems.

One of the main issues I see with red light cameras is that it creates a ethical conflict for the city. The city profits more when it keeps the length of the yellow time low enough to maintain a steady level of tickets. Unfortunately, this is likely to cause more accidents, and certainly causes increase costs on drivers much higher than the increased revenue generated for the city.

If I remember correctly, there have been some studies showing increased injury rates when for similar traffic lights when red light cameras are installed as compared to those that did not receive red light cameras..... I'll look for the link.

I agree. Most red light cameras are owned and operated by 'independent' contractors. In the past, some contractors would only install cameras if the yellow time was less than a certain time. So, in some cases, the cities were shortening the yellow in order to qualify for camera installation. I don't know if this is still going on, but it is the biggest problem I have with the cameras.

I'd be interested in some proof of your assertion that municipalities are reducing yellow light duration, for any reason at all.

I know that in my city, the yellow duration was increased, some time after cameras were installed.

Cities don't make money on red light, or speed cameras. In Arizona, the state gets a big share in addition to the contractor.

So, if municipalities aren't doing it for money, maybe they think it helps save lives and reduce accidents.

For the record, I support red light and speed cameras, even though I got nabbed by a red light camera once.

Sorry Kevin.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I think you have provided clear proof that some cities are not as concerned with safety as they should be.

Cheers.

I meant to opine that I suspect that the safety gains from lengthening the yellow will probably taper off when drivers figure out how much longer they can 'stretch the yellow', much as they have where the delayed green has been in use. Makes me wonder how much fun we could have if our signal sequence was like what I saw in Berlin year ago - green, yellow, red, yellow, green!

congradulations lyn, you've just made a major leap in understanding the daily corruption that occurss in this country on a minute to minute basis

That's a bit daunting to realized that in places, the first layer of internet censorship begins prior to the finger keyboard interface.....

At least here, we don't typically delete posts, and when we do we inform the author about it (because if we had to delete it, it probably broke the rules).

I don't recall advance notice being given for impending deletion.

Actually, what I am referring to is the self-censorship made apparent when you noted concern about making a non-big-brother-approved search (on a subject that isn't a how-to for an illegal activity, is non-treasonous and non-terrorist related, and isn't in the least bit violent nor seditious.)

If that rolls off your head near the beginning of a short discussion on internet searches, even in jest, it means it is probably on of your primary associations....never far from your mind. Pretty short leash.

That is a zone of comfort for some people. Probably not worth worrying too much about.

Oh NO! No, no no no ...NO!

Another CR4 Red Light Camera thread.

Just relax and let it run its course.

It's alllllll gonna be allllllright

Quickly, bring me another cup of Kool-Ade, would ya please?

Mmmmmm... Grape. Thanks, that's better.

Clever idea, but of questionable efficacy. It is basically a strobe light that is triggered by the red light camera strobe, so the question becomes can the second strobe trigger while the camera's electronic shutter is still open. I'll leave that to better minds than mine, the other wrinkle is motor vehicle law, many of which don't allow strobe lights on vehicles without a permit. From the Connecticut MV code:

"...Are strobe lamps on my headlights and taillights legal?

Strobe lamps may only be utilized in operation on the road with a DMV issued permit that is issued only for specific reasons identified in Connecticut State Law Title 14 Sec. 14-96p and Sec. 14-96q..."

I somehow doubt that defeating a red light camera is a good "...specific reason..."

just a thought,, do these camera transmit a radio singal that could be dedected by radar detector type sensor?

Why would red light cameras have significant emissions in radar bands?

There are already signs (and other clues) alerting motorists to the presence of red light cameras.