Yugoboy - If as you claim these red light cameras are unconstitutional then some court must have issued a ruling of which I am unaware as only the courts, not you nor I, are qualified to do so. So could you post the link to that decision?
I'll avoid repeating the obvious fact that the violation of ANY traffic law can result in a fine (or worse) and that Rochester's use of red light cameras is therefor no more mercenary or unjust than is the enforcement of any law, and instead focus on those two decisions that plague you when you approach a red light with an attendent camera. You say you have to decide either to brake and risk being rear-ended, or stomping on the gas to beat the light. Out of curiosity, how does this differ from the available options in pre-camera days? Surely you're not implying that you would have violated the law and run a red light in former days because you knew that the chances of being caught were practically nil?
The NY State Assembly has done its part. Now it is our turn to do our part. Contact your NY State Senator and urge her or him to pass the Senate version of the 2 year fracking moratorium.
Find your NY State Senator: http://www.nysenate.gov/senators
Contact NY Senator Joe Robach: http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/joseph-e-r…
The red light camera$ are $uppo$ed to be for $afety. The obviou$ interpretation i$ that the City of Roche$ter $ee$ it$ citizen$ as nothing more than ATM$.
When I $ee a red light camera inter$ection and I think I might be at ri$sk, I take 1 of 2 action$: either I $lam on the brake$ to avoid the ticket, thu$ ri$king getting rear-ended, or I jam on the ga$ to get through before I get bu$ted.
I, for one, do not feel any $afer with the$e uncon$titutional robocop$, nor with law enforcement being done by private for-profit companie$.
(NOTE: Sarcasm Alert !)
Cicero - If as you posit , these suburbanite drivers are going to stay away from Rochester because so many of them will be receiving tickets for running red lights, then perhaps we city dwellers will be a lot safer if so many poor drivers stay off our streets.
The one issue that no one has talked about is that this idiotic red light camera program gives suburban drivers one more reason to avoid going downtown. The city of Rochester desperately needs suburbanites to spend $ downtown in High Falls and the East End. One or two $50 tickets will make them think twice and could be enough incentive for them to decide to spend their hard-earned money at Tinseltown or the neighborhood bar instead.
Think about that, City Council...
How many more illicit tickets need to be issued, and how many more tax payers' dollars must be wasted before Rochester simply dismantles this idiotic program? In LA it was found that because the driver does not sign a promise to appear in court they can simply ignore the ticket without fear of prosecution. LA became so overwhelmed with the backlog of non-paying alleged red light runners that the entire program was ultimately ignored and dismantled by the city officials. Oh, let's not forget how many millions of dollars LA was expecting to earn ended up costing them millions more in unexpected costs while Redflex did just fine. What a waste there, and here, too. For me my vote will do my talking when it comes to upcoming elections, where the fools who bought into this little sham will not get my nod of approval.
One of the problems with the short yellow lights is a traffic engineer explained it to me is the "dilemma zone". That is the time when you are close enough to the yellow light that you have to decide:
1. Do I have enough time to safely stop without slamming into the windshield
2. Should I just do the yellow light since I can't meet #1
Those who say, "well they ran the red light" don't get the "dilemma zone". If you are driving at or below the speed limit you should have time to stop safely. If the yellow light is shortened that time disappears and as a driver you are now stuck with a real problem.
I have to side with Sheppard on this one, more or less.
The "less' is that this current problem would probably have been detected, identified, explained and resolved sooner were the red light cameras and the ticketing process operated by city employees out of the Public Safety Building rather than by some sleazy out-of-town company.
The "more" is the fact that the fines imposed for running red lights are no less legitimate than the fines imposed on speeding tickets, parking tickets or any other traffic violation. Does the city make a few bucks? Of course. Do they make a few bucks on ALL traffic and parking fines? Of course. So do we dispense with these laws or alter the manner in which they are enforced simply because the city makes a few bucks? Of course not. Bottom line. You break the law, you get fined.
Oh yeah, by the way, I've been nailed and fined by one of these cameras for running a red light. But apparently I'm the only recipient of such a ticket willing to admit that I was guilty as hell.
Define deception: " . . . a whole lot of people are not stopping for lights,” - Its more than a definition of Fairness when the angle of the camera isn't the 'Won-by-a-Nose Angle' and the Red Light has been Red Only for one-tenth of a second after a Yellow Light that lasted for roughly 3 seconds. Its not just the Yellow is too short the Green is Variable and makes driving dangerous. The vast bulk of these Red Light Robo-Tickets aren't folks that Clearly Ran A Red Light! These Robo-Cam Red-Light contraptions are an Ugly Festering Painful Reminder that Capitalism's Greed and Corporations have Taken Over our Once Great Country.
The best way to keep guns out of buildings is to declare them 'gun free zones' and put up signs stating as such. It works in schools, doesn't it?
Has anyone noticed that all of the measures taken by the city involve screwing workers? There's no talk about taxing huge projects fairly or maybe to stop giving away so much in tax breaks and low-interest loans to out of town developers. Why isn't anyone calling the Mayor and City Council on this?
So he's wearing a big curly wig. He's not speaking in any dialect that could be mocking anyone. I used to hate those old 'Irond-a Quoit-a' Dodge commercials with 'Vinnie' and 'Angelo'. Talk about stereotyping. But everyone seemed OK with that.
On the topic of offensive TV ads, what about the incredibly tastless Time Warner spot in which a zombie is shot in the head with an arrow splattering blood across a door? Great family viewing for the kiddies to watch again and again and again and again.
All of their stuff is junk. If not offensive, just truly tasteless. Kind of like, "really, you wanna' go there?". Why not just put on black face. Shakin' my head.
I don't think so. I think it's a bad joke though. "White guy basketball player with an afro" was funny when it was in Fletch in 1986. Now, it's a dated joke. Seriously, how prevalent is the blown out afro anymore? As sloppy as it looks, it's almost like parody of "white guy basketball player with an afro".
However, I think reflecting on this kind of stuff IS important and it is to be expected. This country is moving in a post racial phase. We can debate the speed at which it is happening. but it is happening. We shouldn't be afraid to ask ourselves whether something is racist. Just as we shouldn't be afraid to make a distinction between cultural insensitivity and cultural humor.
Asking if something is offensive is not the same as being offensive.
Seriously? You're offended by that?
Since now the simple wearing of a black fright wig is going to get you labelled a racist? There was NO use of any "hot words", no fake "ebonic" accent, nothing at all but one guy wearing an exaggeratedly curly wig. It wasn't exactly tightly "Afro," it was loose.
Had there been any sort of other loaded references or terms, I might be with you, but to be offended by that AND to bring it to the public's attention in this way just screams "knee-jerk liberal" as well as over-the-top political correctness.
At some point you just gotta let it go. It's not like they are known for Cleo-winning, slickly-produced, well-thought-out ads. It's quick, cheap ads done almost amateurishly. Due to the sheer number of ads they produce every year, somewhere there's going to be something you don't like. Wait a week or two... they'll move on to some other dumb, loud ad.
which one? There are a few horribly produced commercial spots on their website...
"The report also points out the disparity in the amount of aid Rochester gets from the state compared to the other three “Big Four” cities"
Not to worry - That's why we sent the Honorable Mr. Bob Duffy to Albany. No doubt he's hot on the case... right?
Just curious about the deal for the city to build a police substation in Sibley? How much is that costing the city? The mayor is certainly ensuring that Winn profits from Rochester and Monroe County any way he can. He put the substation there and now is trying to strong arm a COUNTY entity to contribute to Winn’s bottom line. My perception is my reality and right now my perception is that some sketchy deals are taking with the mayor and Winn.
Understanding that the original deal with RochWil, the Wilmot’s shell company, was struck by Mayor Ryan many years ago, I’ve always found it interesting that the local media have steadfastly refused to demand answers from the Johnson and Duffy administrations as to what actions, if any, they took to mitigate the fact that RochWil was millions of dollars in arrears in payments to the city and getting further behind every day.
Considering that Mayor Richards was the city’s corporation counsel from 2006 -2010 perhaps this re-election season would be an appropriate time to ask Hizzoner exactly what he did to try and collect on the unpaid loans. Certainly Richards should want to clear up any suspicion that backroom deals might have resulted in millions of dollars being left unrecovered by the city.
Website powered by Foundation