City trying to place speeding cameras. State has a bill awaiting approval as well. They've had problems passing them in the past though (big bro watchin' etc)...so let's hope history repeats itself.
Jeff
Jeff
-
***Text Box Error UPDATE*** Folks- we were able to fix the underlying issue with the missing text box on the forum. Everything should be back to normal. - Honcho
Beverly Hills & CA Bill for speeding cameras
- Thread starter Racerxjling
- Start date
buy a radar detector and let big bro watch
buy a radar detector and let big bro watch
Better yet a radar jammer as well :biggrin:
Jeff
Better yet, go faster than the camera reaction time. Mythbusters tested a speed camera once and found they're not functional for objects travelling over 120mph.
Or a plate flipper
I have heared it does work, have yet to try it. Have you seen those license plate frames that are chrome or those lovely cds hanging on view mirrors, appearantly they deflect either the lazer or radar not sure which just heresay.
Mythbusters busted those ideas. None of them work.
Cite please? I googled and found plenty mythbusters has busted in relation to speed cameras, but this wasn't one. I did see an episode of Top Gear where they attempted to beat a speed camera, but it took a TVR doing 170+ mph to do it. The last part of the episode where they finally succeeded can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph-qv4gYAE8
Um... how is a photograph "proof" of speeding? Okay... supposedly, the red-light cameras are activated by speed. That is: if you are speeding when you pass the first sensor, you "activate" the second sensor. If you trip that one (which goes off just before you enter the intersection), then you get a snap shot from the camera just as you pass the crosswalk into the intersection.
But there are a lot of problems with this:
1. What speed will trigger the camera?
2. How much will it cost to maintain the calibration or whatever of the cameras?
3. How long will a person have to be traveling at the "trigger speed" to get photographed?
It seems like this will cost more money than it will generate (Especially if it actually stops people from speeding). I honestly think this is something that tax payers should vote on whether they want it or not, and it should be a local thing (city/county), not state.
On the plus side, this could help to get cops out of the speed traps and onto doing more "important" things... I guess... I don't know...
But there are a lot of problems with this:
1. What speed will trigger the camera?
2. How much will it cost to maintain the calibration or whatever of the cameras?
3. How long will a person have to be traveling at the "trigger speed" to get photographed?
It seems like this will cost more money than it will generate (Especially if it actually stops people from speeding). I honestly think this is something that tax payers should vote on whether they want it or not, and it should be a local thing (city/county), not state.
On the plus side, this could help to get cops out of the speed traps and onto doing more "important" things... I guess... I don't know...
They produce money because it produces a HUGE bundle of tickets. Statistically, very few people will try to fight these camera tickets so these tickets get paid anyways.
Oh, and this stuff is commercialized. The city just pays the company contracted to do it.
Oh, and this stuff is commercialized. The city just pays the company contracted to do it.
Similar threads
