CarTalk.com Blogs Car Info Our Show Deals Mechanics Files Vehicle Donation

HOV infrared camera?

MNDOT is testing an infrared camera system to notify cops that it has detected cars in the HOV lane with single drivers and no passengers and to perhaps stop cars to investigate. cop can than see if car has backseat passenger or baby on board. which is legal

There has been some contrversy in my area about red light cameas. Several local town were getting ready to put them in but changed their mind when the California company that was going to install them for free for a share of the revenue would not do it unless the yellow light time was shortened.

In California we have "express " lanes that are free for car pools, and cost for anyone else. You have a Fastrak device that has a setting for 1, 2 or 3 passengers. Of course there are cheaters, but there are cameras that shoot photos of cars as they pass so they can bill people without a Fastrak and maybe see the passengers. It’s not a perfect system by any means.

our freeway entrance ramps have 2 lanes for HOV cars and the other cars is a better place for the cameras. make all cars stop at lights and camera will look for passengers. the 2 person cars just stop and go. vs waiting in line with a dozen cars waiting for green light

The solution to the ‘problem’ of who’s driving is simple: fine the car. If there’s less death and injury, isn’t that good?

I’m just happy the American Motorcyclist Association went to court to make it legal for a single motorcyclist to ride in HOV lanes.

As a motorcyclist, I’d like to see increased enforcement of red lights and stop signs. I don’t really care whether the enforcement is automated or manual.

I’m not aware of any red light cameras in the San Jose CA area. There used to be quite a few, but at some point they all got removed. Not sure if it was a legal challenge or some sort, or the company that installed and made their profits from them went out of business. I’d prefer that red light cameras only issue warning tickets to the owner of the car. A friendly reminder that if a police car was there, they’d be getting a $450 fine, or to the owner that someone who’s driving their car (who presumably would be in the photo including with the warning) isn’t being cautious enough.

There are red light cameras and speeding cameras around me. If you drive through a school zone, red light, or construction zone a camera will likely catch you and you will get a fine. No points are assessed since there is no way to determine who is driving.

The odd thing about the construction zones is that’s the speed limit is almost always the same as before the construction started. Now they really, really mean it.

So, Cali is now selling “indulgences,” huh? For a small fee, you can live according to newer, better laws than the peons?

That’s SO far from the founding principles of this country, that I’m having a hard time envisioning a scenario in which ol’ George is NOT spinning in his grave…

2 Likes

If you think that strays from the founding principles of this country, let me remind you the country was founded by white male aristocratic land owners who deemed black people worthy of slavery and deemed women unworthy of voting. Many of the founding fathers had little regard for even the common white man.

I sure wish people would stop rewriting history to suit their narrative. For goodness sake, look up the 3/5 comprise. Human beings in this country were living in chains and being raped and beaten for wanting to be free.

If slave owner George Washington is spinning in his grave over pay-to-use express lanes, that would make him the worst kind of hypocrite.

1 Like

Reminds me of Great America Theme Park, pay extra for a speedpass, and skip the lines. Catering (empowering) the people that don’t have to worry about money, money can buy happiness.

1 Like

Same thing in airports - you can pay more and the airline will get you through a privileged security line; or pay more and the TSA will investigate you and give you a “Known Traveller” number, so you go around the security lines.

It costs more to get more. Might as well be our national motto.

2 Likes

But that’s a private business, with no mandate to “serve and protect” its citizens. Yeah, I totally get why people who pony up for the “sky box” get preferential treatment to us in "peanut heaven. It’s when this “profit-maximizing” credo is applied to our civil liberties that I cry foul.

2 Likes

…and???

Who, exactly, are you comparing our Founding Fathers to, who were SO MUCH MORE eglitarian than they were? (Contemporary to their time, please.)

Prior to 1776, liberty was reserved for “nobles,” “peerage” and the like, and deprived to the great majority. AFTER 1776, the MAJORITY of people (though not all, as you pointed out) had liberty. I can proudly hold my head high that MY country made the first tentative steps in that direction.

(Also please note that the evil institution of slavery was FOISTED upon us by the Crown, all the better to enrich said crown. Some teeming vestiges of Monarchy take longer to excise than others, I suppose.)

Whitey, have you ever heard the “stood on the shoulders of giants” quote? It means that LATER discoverers “see more” than earlier ones, by benefit of “building upon” the works of their predecessors. In that vein, faulting Washington for coming up short of our understanding of “liberty” is akin to faulting Sir Isaac Newton for not knowing as much about physics as Albert Einstein.

1 Like

I’m not comparing them to anyone. I judge them based on their behavior, because I stopped using “what he did was worse” arruments as a deflection when I was a child.

The yardsticks I judge them by are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and how well they executed the values they espoused but didn’t practice, such as “all men are created equal.” I judge them by THEIR OWN standards.

1 Like

They’ve done this with other aspects of criminal law, which has led to people being convicted of murder under “felony murder” laws which allow anyone connected with a murder to be charged with murder even if they didn’t actually kill anyone, because they lent their car to a person who used it to get to the person they killed.

To my mind, this is a travesty of justice. If I lend my car to you it’s with the implied understanding that you are not about to use it to transport yourself for the purpose of murdering someone. It is therefore not my fault if you murder someone after having gotten there in my car, unless you specifically told me that you wanted to borrow my car so that you could drive somewhere to kill someone.

While that’s a much more serious charge, I view all “penalize the car” suggestions through the same lens. If I’m not driving it, then I’m not at fault when the person that is breaks the law.

It’s no different than parking tickets. They go against the car registration. Moving violations are mostly civil penalties and so I don’t see an issue with it. If you lend your car to someone, you accept those consequences. If it exceeds civil penalty, then they need to find the actual driver.

Moving violations at least in some states, including mine, add points to your driving record. Get enough points in a given amount of time, and they take your license away. Get any points that your insurance company finds out about, and your rates increase. That’s quite a bit more severe than a parking ticket.

At what point would you stop lending out your car to someone that was racking up violations? Hopefully after one…

2 Likes

I forgot to mention, if it were me, I would show up in court and explain the situation. They will likely still fine you but eliminate the points if you have a compelling argument. When much younger, I had a ticket and was waiting my turn to plead my case. A slick lawyer ahead of me said his client would plead guilty to “disobeying an official sign” rather than the speeding violation. It carried no points but same fine. Judge accepted it. Guess what I said when it was my turn? Judge didn’t like it but what could he do? :slight_smile:

4 Likes