Public Service Announcement:

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

In BC it is a offence in the BCMVA to leave the flag person sign up when there is no flag person.

There are two thought I have about construction zones.

First, if you set up ten miles of signs, and then have nothing happening, and no obvious reason for the speed zone, you diminish the importance of the zone, and make drivers less likely to follow the rules.

Second, and this can get controversial, but I was watching a chunk of video recently of a guy near here who passed a line of cars on the right, then swerved left to go through the zone on the wrong side, then hit the ditch and rolled.  THE GUY WITH THE CAMERA NEVER MOVED OUT OF THE PATH OF THE CAR.  I am 100% in favor of people not running me over, but I probably need to contribute by paying attention to whether my life is in danger, and then doing something about it.

We have these in PA now. It was a demonstration effort like 02 posted for about 6 months before they gave it real teeth, and points. The cameras are mounted on top of white Grand Cherokees (at least the ones I saw) and there are 2 officers in the Jeep monitoring the system. If you challenge it in court one of them shows up. They seem pretty visible from a good distance, and I have been in high volume traffic when I have seen, them, within the posted limit.

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

Chicago has been cranking down the speed camera thresholds and (I assume) cranking up the profits. 5 over now gets you a ticket. 

 

I'm pretty sure that, around here, the only speed cameras are in the city of chicago, and all of those are near a school or a park - surface roads for sure. 
 

Now, red light cameras? That is another issue. 

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

Takes a long time to set up 10 miles of cones - but it's possible for workers to be roaming back and forth so what looks like an empty site might not be. Closing roads is a PITA and expensive  so usually you don't do it more than you have to, and the local department of transport doesn't want you to either. Traffic plans are part of the original job design, it's not just made up. 

In reply to Keith Tanner :

In NYS, all they do is put up a "Begin Road Work" sign - no need for cones, or anything else. I drove through a ten mile "construction zone" earlier today - perfect pavement, no closures, not a single indication of any work or workers. I'm all for making it safe for people to work along the road, but NYS being NYS, traffic plans and worker safety are quite likely below revenue generation (wink wink, nudge nudge) in the mind of the legislators involved.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

The city set up a speed zone coming to an overpass they were going to work on, six weeks early.  They then proceeded to hand out speeding tickets through the six weeks before they started work.

They were training us to obey the signs, they said.

mtn said:

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

Chicago has been cranking down the speed camera thresholds and (I assume) cranking up the profits. 5 over now gets you a ticket. 

 

I'm pretty sure that, around here, the only speed cameras are in the city of chicago, and all of those are near a school or a park - surface roads for sure. 
 

Now, red light cameras? That is another issue. 

I agree 100%. And the red light cameras will also get you for not full stopping while turning right on red.

BUT! I see signs on highways (and in constructions zones) that say "speed monitored by camera" or something similar yet everyone is still going 65-75 in the 45 construction zone. That makes me the most mad. I'm causing a legit safety issue driving 45 amongst the 65-75 semi trucks, but I'm also eligible at any point to get smacked with a heckuva ticket. Either enforce it or take down the signs.

I rarely drive the highways, so I'm not in that no win situation often, but I know people must do it everyday. Imagine if they turned the cameras on, some people would have a ticket every day for 60 days or so before the system finally got the citation for the first day in the mail...

02Pilot said:

While small sections are under actual work, the rest (miles and miles of it) are either complete or not yet touched, containing no workers or equipment.

I hate this so much. DOT takes 95 down to 1 lane for 2 miles just to work on a 15 foot section of road. 

TurnerX19 said:

We have these in PA now. It was a demonstration effort like 02 posted for about 6 months before they gave it real teeth, and points. The cameras are mounted on top of white Grand Cherokees (at least the ones I saw) and there are 2 officers in the Jeep monitoring the system. If you challenge it in court one of them shows up. They seem pretty visible from a good distance, and I have been in high volume traffic when I have seen, them, within the posted limit.

Yes, and ours are pretty lenient.  They have to post a white light at the beginning of the work zone, and I think you have to be  going 10 or 15 mph over the limit.  First catch is a warning.  Second catch is $50 and no points.  Subsequent violations the price goes up.

The folks against it (myself somewhat included) have a pretty firm grasp on the lawsuit that is coming soon.  Their main argument is a good one... that the owner of the vehicle might not be driving, and without adequate proof that the owner IS driving, it is a violation of their constitutional rights to due process and burden of proof.  Basically they're saying you can't ticket a vehicle for speeding because it's a driver in control, and since they can't prove WHO was in control, it's unconstitutional.

It's like if someone murders someone and the weapon was a hammer that is in your toolbox, it doesn't prove you did it.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

They may now have cameras good enough to identify the driver. The toll both cameras used to enforce EZ Pass certainly do. They now record everyone.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Due process and the right to face your accuser is why SC pretty much banned all ticket cameras. The legislature basically said, you can use a camera but you have to have an officer taking the picture and you have to give them a summons in person at the time the violation occured. 

I'm perfectly fine with that. 

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I believe they tried that in NY.  It was allowed to stand because ticketing the vehicle is basically what a parking ticket does. They can't issue points to a particular driver because they aren't identified but ticketing vehicles is nothing new. 

In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :

In PA, parking tickets fall under our implied consent laws.  Traffic violations (I believe) do not.

If you get a parking ticket, it's not a fine, it's a fee you pay to the municipality for a privilege to park.  You know that you have to pay to park.  A traffic violation is a fine punishable by the full backing of the agency (DOT) and the law of the state.  Edit to clarify:  If you get a parking ticket, you have violated an implied contract and pay an additional fee. (which could escalate to legal action if you don't pay, but the parking ticket itself is not a violation of the law)  If you get a traffic ticket, you have broken the law and are required to pay a fine.  Different critters.

It's one of the ways PA gets around those pesky civil liberties.  We're an administrative state.  State bureaus are above the law and have absolute say.  If you get a traffic violation and plead not guilty and a judge throws it out, PennDOT can still charge you the fine and put points on your license as they are above the courts.  Having said that, they usually comply with the courts' decision for smaller things like speeding or not stopping at a stop sign, but in larger offenses like DUIs, the entire court part is a complete formality.  The court is simply dotting I's and crossing T's.  It's PennDOT that has you by the balls, and no amount of fighting changes the fact that you were driving under the influence.

Even if a judge throws out your DUI case, the only person in the state who can put in a good word for you is the state secretary of transportation or the governor.