OT - Obscuring licence plate for lawlessness

[QuikSand]

Here in Maryland, we have seen a recent proliferation of automated enforcement devices to assist the local police departments. That's a long-winded way to say we have cameras at intersections that take pictures of cars who run red lights.

On a recent visit to the center where these tickets are processed, I was pretty impressed by the standards used in determining whether the car was clearly violating the law in any situation -- there are an awful lot of pictures thrown out because it's not perfectly clear that the person entered the intersection while the signal was already red. That was reassuring to me.

For what it's worth, the jurisdictions using these cameras have generally seen pretty impressive results -- a significant drop in the number of offenders (especially when the cameras are adjoined by signs indicating their presence) and over time, a drop in the number of accidents. Cameras at the most dangerous intersections are bound, statistically, to save lives by their presence.


However, in passing, one of the managers mentioned a trend that is apparently picking up steam here -- a product you can buy and spary (I think) onto your license plates, which makes your tag number very hard to read, at least by these cameras. Apparently, the product is getting hawked on political talk radio shows, and is selling pretty well -- and I'm seeing more and more plates with a dull gray sheen to them, indicative of this product.


Okay -- I have a pretty healthy libertarian bent, and I'm not really a fan of this technology on balance. I even have a certain (though perhaps incomplete) sympathy for people using radar detectors, as I can understand the mentality involved.

But here -- I just don't get it. I can't interpret the use of "tag spray" as anything but saying "It's very important to me to be able to run red lights." Who is out there who would argue this?

I guess I'm just frustrated a bit at the notion of fair-minded concept of civil disobedience gone wrong here. If you reject a law because it doesn't seem fair... I think you're on to something. But who wants to see more people running red lights? Does anyone really rebel against order in traffic? Even an anarchist likes to be able to go on green, doesn't he?


Grumble, grumble...

[HornedFrog Purple]

Do you feel the same way about radar detectors?

Edit: Misread the part in your post about them. To me, it's the same thing and if they are being allowed, I guess it's hard to determine which one of these products are the greater evil.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Do you feel the same way about radar detectors?

Only to a modest degree. I guess I don't feel that driving 70 in a 55 zone on an open highway creates a material risk to anyone. I recognize that it's against the law to do so, and I'm not a "letter of the law" hardliner in any sense.

That's where I see a difference -- wanting to protect yourself from a ticket when conducting an activity that nearly every driver does, with presumed minimal risk to others, doesn't seem totally outrageous to me. But aggressively defending your right to run a red light -- that, to me, is taking the same concept too far. Running a light is clearly unsafe behavior, it directly contributes to countless accidents and injuries, and it's very hard for me to sympathize with anyone who stands up for the right to do it without fear of retribution.

To me, it's along a continuum that might end up with something like a "clean breath" pill that would allow an intoxicated driver to beat a breathalyzer test. Even if I'm a libertarian, I don't really want a bunch of people feeling emboldened enough to continue driving drunk, knowing they won't get caught because they use some device. I prefer that that kind of law stay in place, and remain enforced effectively -- for the sake of society.

I'm not to the point where I'd ask for a ban on the "tag spray" stuff ... but I just really question the motivations of the people who are using it.

[albionmoonlight]

I share your frustration. This isn't about libertarianism; it's about not paying fines. I wish that people would just admit that rather than somehow relate their rather boring desire to run red lights and not get caught to the high minded ideals of personal liberty and freedom.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But here -- I just don't get it. I can't interpret the use of "tag spray" as anything but saying "It's very important to me to be able to run red lights." Who is out there who would argue this?

A couple of things - one, I think there will always be a certain percentage of people who believe it's their duty to thwart law enforcement surveillance technology, whether or not they actually intend to actually break the particular law the technology is designed to enforce.

Second, I'm guessing that some of these people may have heard of a case here in California (San Diego, I believe) in which the "integrity" of the system in place was called into question because of the financial arrangements with camera vendor (i.e. the vendor was getting a cut of the fine for every ticket issued). I think a judge found that the cameras were being too aggressive and giving out some unwarranted tickets, made a mass dismissal of cases based on his findings, and San Diego (or whatever city it was) renegotiated the contract as a result. There were also some legal problems early on with the implementation in Sacramento County, but I can't remember what they were now. But a mass dismissal of tickets resulted from those problems, too.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm not to the point where I'd ask for a ban on the "tag spray" stuff ... but I just really question the motivations of the people who are using it.

I disagree. If there is a product, the sole purpose of which is to prevent the enforcement of a good law against you, I see no problem with making it illegal.

Of course, I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that there is no other use for this stuff.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Well when it comes right down to it, these are products that are both intended to circumvent the law. One tells you when you are breaking it, the other intends to "hide" you.

The other thing I would think it would be for is to get through an automated toll booth.

I see your point though, I also am pretty much convinced from my line of work that 5-10 mph difference in a moving car(s) accident is just as if not more deadly.

[stevew]

Perhaps some feel that the cameras will be used by the government to track peoples movement as well. Not that i agree with these people, but it could be more than "i just want to run stop lights."

[Ksyrup]

One problem I have with these systems is that (a) they aren't everywhere; and (b) up until this technology became functional, hardly anyone was being busted for running red lights. And now, in places that don't use this technology, no one gets busted. So, we've all learned to drive a certain way - it's been condoned, as far as I'm concerned, when someone runs an obviously red light, and the cop at the intersection does nothing about it - but in some areas, it's now gone from a judgment call that is largely passed up, to an absolute violation.

Not saying I agree with using these products to get out of paying fines, but I understand the frustration with it. The entire system of "policing" has nearly always been about exercising discretion, with a lot of it being "if they aren't around, I can break the rules." Suddenly, that's all being replaced with an automated system. But no one has even been taught to actually drive the speed limit, or that obeying the traffic rules is an absolute. Or, at least, in practice, absolutes are never enforced.

Hell, when you're driving next to a cop doing the speed limit, and you pass him going 5 miles over, he still doesn't pull you over. But at the next light, if you run through it and he does nothing about it, you could still get a ticket in the mail. The two systems can't peacefully co-exist because they create uncertainty and confusion.

I think there's a Questec analogy in here somewhere. But I guess my opinion is, if that's the way it's going to be, it should be done that way everywhere, so that people can get used to driving under those conditions.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

One problem I have with these systems is that (a) they aren't everywhere; and (b) up until this technology became functional, hardly anyone was being busted for running red lights. And now, in places that don't use this technology, no one gets busted. So, we've all learned to drive a certain way - it's been condoned, as far as I'm concerned, when someone runs an obviously red light, and the cop at the intersection does nothing about it - but in some areas, it's now gone from a judgment call that is largely passed up, to an absolute violation.

I don't share your perception that running red lights has become an accepted practice, either by drivers or law enforcement. I don't have any real first-hand knowldege, but there's a pretty firm sense in my mind that were I to run through a red light in the presence of an officer, I'd get a ticket (correctly).

Maybe I'm wrong about that, and there is the kind og "slippage" you suggest.

The lines get even more blurry when you start to talk about automated, camera-based speed enforcement... but I hadn't even intended to raise that issue.

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Hell, when you're driving next to a cop doing the speed limit, and you pass him going 5 miles over, he still doesn't pull you over.

Don't ever come to Rhode Island

[Solecismic]

I don't know why, but I speed all the time, and don't see anything wrong with it. But I see someone running a red light, and it really bothers me.

I consider radar detecters "cheating," and won't use one. I'd be in favor of banning the use of plate spray, not necessarily because of the red light thing, but because increasingly, crimes are being solved by camera surveillance of places like parking lots, and I could imagine that this spray would become de rigeur for criminals.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't know why, but I speed all the time, and don't see anything wrong with it. But I see someone running a red light, and it really bothers me.

I agree with this statement in its entirety.

[Rich1033]

In Toledo they have just added radars to certain intersections. So now it will take a picture of cars speeding and cars who run red lights. I believe that is going a little overboard.

[albionmoonlight]

Another wrinkle to this discussion: The use of the criminal law as a revenue generation mechanism by municipalities. Part of the reason that we ticket and fine people for speeding, running lights, etc. is to discourage behaviour that we consider dangerous. However, a nice side benefit of these fines (esp. in small towns) is that the money goes to the city coffers.

I would imagine that having automated radar detectors is driven more by the need to get fines without paying cops to issue the tickets than it is by a legitimate concern for preventing speeding.

[albionmoonlight]

Dola: I don't really know which way the above point cuts--but I think that it certainly part of the calculus.

[NoMyths]

One reason speeding is a concern (and that folks don't always think about): it's not always the danger you may pose by driving unsafely, but the potential for a mechanical problem to become catastrophic. If your tire blows out while you're traveling 70+, for instance, most drivers will have a harder time controlling the results than if they were traveling 50. Having had tires blow out at both speeds I consider myself a bit experienced with the distinction.

Besides, if you consider the amount of time you're actually saving by speeding--in most cases, a matter of seconds-- it's really not worth the added danger.

At any rate, it's something I remind my girlfriend about whenever she's leadfooting it to Olive Garden.

[QuikSand]

I am very familiar with the revenue argument. An interesting "spin" on it is this...

Okay, let's assume what you're saying is basically true. The city is having trouble getting enough money to its police department to support the number of officers needed to properly patrol the dangerous intersections. So, they opt to put up these red light cameras, which pay for themselves with revenues generated by offenders.

Would it have been better for the city to raise taxes to provide the services they felt were necessary? Should they raise taxes to put more officers on these corners?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

At any rate, it's something I remind my girlfriend about whenever she's leadfooting it to Olive Garden.

I think you are attacking the wrong problem. There's nothing at Olive Garden worth hurrying for.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think you are attacking the wrong problem. There's nothing at Olive Garden worth hurrying for.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think you are attacking the wrong problem. There's nothing at Olive Garden worth hurrying for.

You haven't had their raspberry white-chocolate cheesecake, apparently.

[NoMyths]

Another reason I think about it: on average, three people a day are killed in automobile accidents in this state. Three.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't share your perception that running red lights has become an accepted practice, either by drivers or law enforcement. I don't have any real first-hand knowldege, but there's a pretty firm sense in my mind that were I to run through a red light in the presence of an officer, I'd get a ticket (correctly).

It has in this state. In fact, sometimes I wonder whether people are competing to be the last car through an intersection after the light has turned red. And, I've seen cop cars sitting at intersections (maybe they're off duty, maybe they're doing something else, I don't know) who do nothing about it. I remember one instance in particular, because I made the typical comment to wife, "Where's a cop when you need one?" when we saw someone blow through a red light obviously late, and then I saw one on the other side of the intersection, first in line, just sitting there.

I'm not saying you can do that everytime in front of a cop be confident you aren't going to get pulled over, but I've seen enough non-enforcement of it that even I've pushed the envelope when it's close. The old joke, "A yellow light doesn't mean slow down, it means speed up" is pretty accurate in Florida.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think you are attacking the wrong problem. There's nothing at Olive Garden worth hurrying for.

Unless you're Jeeber, in which case it's your paycheck.

[Franklinnoble]

I think you have to consider that perhaps the "tag spray" (or whatever it is) could also be effective in thwarting photo radar - which I despise, and I consider to be nothing more than an easy cash-cow for most local governments.

Overall, I have a problem with the proliferation of "big brother," Minority Report-style government and law enforcement for petty crap like traffic violations. Traffic laws are, frankly, easy to enforce and easy to collect fines from, and the whole system is a big, fat, smelly scam. There's bigger criminal threats to society that are patently ignored for the sake of developing a better speed trap.

And what's the end result? People get speeding tickets while they're going about their otherwise law-abiding, taxpaying lives. They have to pay fines for the tickets, and then they have to take absurd remedial driving school classes that are overpriced and generally condescending and useless wastes of time so that they don't get points on their driving records which will only serve to jack up their insurance premiums. Yeah, that's good government.

As a footnote, I'd like to add that I'm not ranting about this because of any personal circumstance. I haven't had a ticket in over 6 years. I just think the system is corrupt, convoluted, and counterproductive.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I consider radar detecters "cheating," and won't use one.

Funny story about radar detectors...

In the neighborhood my wife and I used to live in, we lived next to a guy who worked as an EMT. He had some sort of device - I have no clue what it was or what it's true purpose was - that could set off radar detectors. At that time, we had relatives in South Florida and made the 7 hour drive fairly often, so to keep ourselves amused during the drive, we would borrow the device for the trip, and when some shithead doing 95 and using his radar detector would fly up behind us or someone else and flash his lights/generally act like an asshole, we would let him pass by us, then activate his radar detector. And it never failed. They would all jump off the accelerator and look around. It was hilarious., I remembe one guy we kept repeatedly hitting for like 45 miles, until he just figured it was a malfunction or something, and he took off.

Great stress and boredom reliever.

I know, I'm evil.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I think you have to consider that perhaps the "tag spray" (or whatever it is) could also be effective in thwarting photo radar - which I despise, and I consider to be nothing more than an easy cash-cow for most local governments.

Overall, I have a problem with the proliferation of "big brother," Minority Report-style government and law enforcement for petty crap like traffic violations. Traffic laws are, frankly, easy to enforce and easy to collect fines from, and the whole system is a big, fat, smelly scam. There's bigger criminal threats to society that are patently ignored for the sake of developing a better speed trap.

And what's the end result? People get speeding tickets while they're going about their otherwise law-abiding, taxpaying lives. They have to pay fines for the tickets, and then they have to take absurd remedial driving school classes that are overpriced and generally condescending and useless wastes of time so that they don't get points on their driving records which will only serve to jack up their insurance premiums. Yeah, that's good government.

As a footnote, I'd like to add that I'm not ranting about this because of any personal circumstance. I haven't had a ticket in over 6 years. I just think the system is corrupt, convoluted, and counterproductive.

I agree wholeheartedy, and I'll add to that footnote that I haven't gotten a ticket since the early 90's (and I'm still pissed off about that one )

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Funny story about radar detectors...

In the neighborhood my wife and I used to live in, we lived next to a guy who worked as an EMT. He had some sort of device - I have no clue what it was or what it's true purpose was - that could set off radar detectors. At that time, we had relatives in South Florida and made the 7 hour drive fairly often, so to keep ourselves amused during the drive, we would borrow the device for the trip, and when some shithead doing 95 and using his radar detector would fly up behind us or someone else and flash his lights/generally act like an asshole, we would let him pass by us, then activate his radar detector. And it never failed. They would all jump off the accelerator and look around. It was hilarious., I remembe one guy we kept repeatedly hitting for like 45 miles, until he just figured it was a malfunction or something, and he took off.

Great stress and boredom reliever.

I know, I'm evil.

I want a similar device, except one used for cell phones. Figure someone is loudly talking on one in an enclosed room....boom, their signal goes out, and they have to go outside or something.

[Fritz]

I have this general concern about unmanned surveilance.

All of this stuff is just data, and once collected it just sits in some database waiting for someone to access it.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Would it have been better for the city to raise taxes to provide the services they felt were necessary? Should they raise taxes to put more officers on these corners?

In general, I do not think that it is good public policy for governmental entities to have a tangible stake in the outcome of criminal proceedings.

A little background to help inform the discussion. Academics like to talk about two different types of crime. Malum per se and Malum prohibitum. We say that some crimes are bad in themselves (murder, theft, etc.)--that they target behaviors that are just wrong on a deeper level. Other crimes (speeding tickets, etc.) are just wrong because we say they are wrong. There is nothing inherently immoral about going 51 mph on a road when the limit is 50. There is something inherently wrong about killing someone with malice. There are, of course, crimes which fall between these two extremes (complex environmental regulations come to mind), but that need not really concern us now.

In addition, certain crimes require no wrong intent. It is a crime to go 51 MPH, even if you did not mean to. It is not a crime to kill someone if it was an unforeseeable accident.

These two factors taken together make certain "crimes" like speeding different from other "crimes" like murder. There is no sense that you are a bad person--no stigma--if you are caught speeding. Everyone knows that speeding laws are arbitrary, and for all we know, you may not have even meant to speed, but just got careless. Indeed, some people really just view speeding tickets and the like as just some form of tax.

Which gets to your question--is that proper? Should cities use the criminal law as a revenue generator? Even if it is just that subset of criminal law that everyone knows is "not really a crime?"

I still come out no. I give my government the power to tax me and the power to enforce the laws. I beleive that it cheapens the awesome power of the second grant to turn it into a weakened version of the first. It's not a huge deal, but it does start to water down what exactly it means for the state to enforce criminal laws generally.

Also, on a practical level, when a cop pulls you over for speeding and sees the joint in the ashtray, things just got a lot more complicated. I don't really appreciate the state giving officers more reason to stop us and search us and our possessions--solely to make more money.

And they can always just start a lottery if they want a non-tax tax.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

To make the point more clearly: I beleive that the government should do all it can to limit the instances in which officers need to detain and/or search people. Revenue generation is not a good enough justification for encouraging such detentions and searches, IMO.

[judicial clerk]

The cameras are used for more than just stop light enforcement. They are used to catch speeders. I know b/c I got one. So the spray is not necessarily used by people to facilitate running red lights.

I do hate red light runners. I always wish I was a cop when I see it. I imagine that I would be such a prick when I pulled them over... "Looks like you are in a hurry! Well, I guess you are going to be really late now, cause this is gona take a while." same goes for the people who dangerously spped and weave through heavy traffic on the freeway or big streets.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

There's bigger criminal threats to society that are patently ignored for the sake of developing a better speed trap.

Actually, that is not necessarily the case. Here in Cary a few months ago the town sent out an e-mail warning that they were going to put more cops on traffic enforcement, and so people should be a bit more careful about how they drive. The reason is that what most people think of as "crime" (robberies, etc) is pretty low around here, but traffic accidents and the accompanying loss of life, property, and money is growing. Significantly more damage is being done to people by red-light runners, speeders, and reckless driving than by people breaking into houses.

Cary makes plenty off taxes, so traffic fines are not a huge revenue source.

[gstelmack]

To throw another log on this fire: what about people driving with NO tags at all? I think this is finally dying down, but there was a span of a year or two where it seemed like once a week I'd spot someone with no tag in their car at all...

[albionmoonlight]

How does your city know your email address?

[TRO]

I hate the argument that speeding isn't bad because everybody else does it. If everybody jumped off... you get the picture.

The faster you go, the more damage is done. If everybody is going faster, it just makes the potential damage worse, not better.

I readily admit that I don't always adhere to a posted speed limit. Partially because I don't want to be going 20 MPH slower than the general traffic flow where it would be driving dangerously slow. But I also don't always adhere to a speed limit because some speed limits are slower that the situation calls for.

I feel no sympathy for people who receive speeding tickets (and I have 1 on my record), the fines need to be paid because if we all slow down, people will walk away more than they are carried away from accidents. I would like to see the fines go to charities or to see volunteer work instituted in lieu of fines, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

How does your city know your email address?

I registered on their web page. I get e-mail a couple of times a week talking about town news (street closings / work, sewer spills, etc), upcoming events (sports league signups, weekend activities at town parks, etc), any important news releases from the town, etc.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by TRO

I readily admit that I don't always adhere to a posted speed limit. Partially because I don't want to be going 20 MPH slower than the general traffic flow where it would be driving dangerously slow. But I also don't always adhere to a speed limit because some speed limits are slower that the situation calls for.

Neither do I. I'm relatively young, my car is in good running condition and I've always had extremely fast reflexes. I've never been in an accident. We all analyze situations and set our own limits. I almost never even go the speed limit when there's significant snow on the road.

I realize we need speed limits, and by and large most police officers are good about determining whether someone is speeding recklessly or just going a little fast. I've only had four tickets my entire life, two of them when I was 20 and was always that guy who was zooming past you on the freeway going 85. None in nine years now. And I speed just about all the time.

I just don't want to see the patrollman's judgment taken out of the equation here. These cameras are going to miss the idiot who cuts someone off and causes real damage. Traffic laws are important because otherwise, people would test their limits (as I have) and might misidentify them (as I haven't).

But using cameras loses sight of the big picture (pun intended), which is trying to lower the number of accidents. If you cause an accident, regardless of the speed you were traveling, you should be held responsible.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TRO

if we all slow down, people will walk away more than they are carried away from accidents.

So how far do you take it? If everyone drove 30 on the freeway, it would save lives, but I don't think anyone is advocating a speed limit that low. OTOH, almost all people agree some limit should be set, but as evidenced by their actions on the roads, ~90% of people feel they are too low (at least in MA, where 80-85 is the average rate of travel on highways). Usually, engineering studies bear this out (at least in the Northeast. Some states like Montana actually set theirs higher.) This leads to an attitude where "If everyone is doing it, then I don't deserve to get a ticket." and unless you want to increase the speed limits across the country, things like radar detectors and this spray will have high demand.

If they are being used to run red lights, that's disgraceful, but I'm betting most people get them for speeding cameras (I'm pretty sure DC has installed some, at the least.)

[Abe Sargent]

we have an America Tools of Crime law, that makes certain, ennumerated tools that are solely used for crime and have no other legal purpose illegal. For example, there is this machine that simulates the sound ofa quarter falling into a payphone. You could make free calls with it, and it had no other purpose, so it was added to the list. The spraying of a plate may also end up thusly.

-Anxiety

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I do hate red light runners. I always wish I was a cop when I see it. I imagine that I would be such a prick when I pulled them over... "Looks like you are in a hurry! Well, I guess you are going to be really late now, cause this is gona take a while." same goes for the people who dangerously spped and weave through heavy traffic on the freeway or big streets.

we have an intersection in our town that without fail will have 2 or 3 people running the light each time it changes. I have always said that if I was a cop, I would just plant myself near that intersection and write tickets all day long.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

we have an intersection in our town that without fail will have 2 or 3 people running the light each time it changes. I have always said that if I was a cop, I would just plant myself near that intersection and write tickets all day long.

That's pretty much every intersection in New Jersey.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by sabotai

That's pretty much every intersection in New Jersey.

yeah, but my state doesn't suck.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

we have an intersection in our town that without fail will have 2 or 3 people running the light each time it changes. I have always said that if I was a cop, I would just plant myself near that intersection and write tickets all day long.

Is it that one with the separated left turn and that confusing crosswalk downtown? If so, that's the last red light I ran.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Is it that one with the separated left turn and that confusing crosswalk downtown? If so, that's the last red light I ran.

I think you mean the "circle" downtown, but no that's not it.
this is the big intersection by the post office closer to 101.

[mtolson]

QS:

I don't condone the tag spray of clear lense cover users but I do understand why some use it. I live in Maryland close to the DC line and have a couple of friends that use the products. They each have been to court numerious times regarding bogus tickets generated from red lights cameras in DC. A little while back it was documented on local news regarding problems with DC red lights cameras not working correctly and people getting fined huge amounts of money. Lights jumped from green to red in less than a second, cameras went off prematurely. DC may not be as advanced in this area as MD.

Hell, DC can't even get high school schedules printed out before the first week of school ends this week.

Marc

[kcchief19]

Speeding and running red lights to me are almost apples and oranges. There are degrees of speeding. I only have a problem with speeding when the speeder endangers other drivers. Frankly, I don't want to pay a ticket or the resulting insurance increase, so I keep it pretty close to the speed limit when I know or think cops are on the prowl and 10 miles over at other times -- like one of my cop acquantices says, "9 nine you're fine, 10 you're mine."

I don't have a problem with someone speeding on an open highway -- it's your funeral. I'm a little put off with people who do 85 in the passing lane at rush hour because they make it impossible for people to get into the passing lane, but that's another issue. The "speeders" I want to go to prison are the "weavers." The closest I have ever come to an accident are the times when someone is going 25+ over the speed limit and weaving from lane to lane. We can pass all the pound-me-in-the-ass laws against those people that we want in my book.

But red lights are different. Running a red light almost always puts someone in danger. My observations have been that it is not speed that causes most accidents but rather the "differential" in speed -- two cars going 75 in a 55 zone are not as dangerous as one car going 75 interacting with another car going 55. The differential in red light areas is even greater -- you run a red light at 45, you're going to have a hard time avoiding a car turning into traffic going 5 mph.

I was like everyone else when I was younger. I had a car with a top speed of 140, although the fastest I ever had the guts to get it up to was 125. I would drive 90 in a 55 on my way to work all the time. I was an idiot. As I have gotten older, I find myself drawn to "zero tolerance" laws in other countries -- few speed limits and few laws, but if you get involved in an accident you lose your license for life and if you get caught driving without a license you got to jail.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by sabotai

That's pretty much every intersection in New Jersey.

is that why they made those right turn only thingys?

[JimboJ]

Another big use for that license plate spray is so people can go through those EZ Pass toll booths without paying. If you go through the EZ Pass booth, and you don't have a transmitter in your car, a camera will take a pic of your license plate and they'll fine you.

[Buccaneer]

I'm surprise Quik didn't link this since we both share some experiences with this organization

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/esnr/autoenfor.htm

Colorado is a state that permits 'photo red' but being a Home Rule State (thank the Lord), each jurisdiction can opt out. Of course Colorado Springs, being quite conservative and libertarian, does not permit the use of this technology. The great 'govt of the people' bastions of Denver and Boulder do, so I have no direct experiences or comments on its use (and abuse).