There are traffic engineering standards that describe this in every state and the country itself. However, that doesn't prevent a person with revenue generation intent from tampering when they install or maintain the signal, even remotely I suppose these days. If the same team that operates the things is also in charge of auditing the settings for compliance with standards.....you see where this is leading
That's no different than letting the police do the testing when you challenge their radar guns' accuracy. Have an independent review system. Then if someone challenges the RLC, you have documentation to back up the claim that the yellow timer is reasonable for that intersection.
And once you've done all that, and you still have people running the red?
My city did all of the above, and now people run the red because they know the other side doesn't get the green right away, so it's "OK".
Then have the camera ticket in that instance. But switching the times lower to gain more tickets is that antithesis of safer.
So why not mandate a standard for yellow light length based on speed, so you eliminate the potential conflict of cities "tweaking" it to maximize fine returns. Instead we get the boneheaded idea that we should just ban the cameras, as if they were the problem...
Now that Samsung has failed so miserably, Apple knows what worked and what didn't, and can better bring their design to market when it is ready.
IMHO Samsung failed to include the front-facing camera and the ability to play video. This is supposed to be a Dick Tracy watch dammit!
More people die from nut allergies each year (about 150) and I don't see us declaring a War on Nuts
Tried to pack a kid's lunch lately? Or held a birthday party? Or baked anything for a bake sale?
Nuts are the new communism party. "Are you or have you even been in contact with nuts?"
Correction: TFA says they can apply for REIMBURSEMENT. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $5000 now and then wait several months to get my money back.
As opposed to TFA, the actual law says:
Where registrar investigates (4) If the registrar is of the opinion that an investigation under subsection (1) would impose an undue financial burden on the land owner, the registrar shall undertake the investigation. 2002, c. 33, s. 96 (4).
Nowhere in the law does it say they have to apply for reimbursement. They can challenge the order to hire the archaeologist by stating they don't have the funds to hire him.
TFA - the original one in The Star, that is - does mention the option to apply for financial relief. Helps if you read it before commenting on it.
The Star does that a lot. Gins up a headline, then reports the actual facts down at the bottom after they've finished editorializing.
It's not GOVERNMENT BAD, IT IS LAZY LEGISLATION! Whoever wrote the bill did a half ass job!
You must pay. Unless you can demonstrate it's a financial burden. These clauses are within a few lines of each other in the legislation. How is that lazy?
It depends on the local bylaws.
May the bluebird of happiness twiddle your bits.