red light cameras

[Reg# 43897]

Just to let you in on a little-known fact: In many legal jurisdictions a driver SHALL yield to a yellow light the same as a red IF it is appropriate to do so. That is usually interpreted by the courts to cover those circumstances where a driver actually acellerates to get through the light. If you see the light go yellow then you are obligated to stop if you have not yet entered the intersection.

Of course the problem comes from the idiot on your &rse who sees the yellow and nails the throttle when you are going for the brake...

But that is a situation that cannot be helped by the first driver: He is going to drive prudently and slow to a stop. He will be focussing on his driving and not likely monitoring the following distance of every person that is behind him. The following driver must maintain a safe following distance from you and SHALL be able to stop his vehicle without striking your at all times. That's HIS responsibility. Of course that becomes an academic point in the case of being followed by a loaded semi...! But, if I am confronted with a yellow light, in most situations I stop for the coming red as I am supposed to do - my speed is usually in line with the speed limit so it is 'do-able'. I would rather do that than possibly run the light. If I found a particular timing problem with a set of lights I wouldn't hesitate to make an inquiry with whatever jurisdiction looks after same.

On a side note, I ride motorcycles and have had to inquire about the light sensors for certain sets of lights. I have always been listened to and have always had the problem adressed.

I wish that we had light cameras here...

John.

 

[moribundman]

About the yellow phase duration: That's all good and nice that the duration is (supposedly)based on the speed limit, unfortunately the speed limits are generally ignored. People here in SF go routinely 50 where the speed limit is 35. If the yellow phase is made for 35, and if I'm going with the flow of traffic at 50, I may be a tough call whether I risk the idiot behind me running into me if I brake for a yellow light, or whether I risk running a red light. People speed and don't even keep a safe distance! In my opinion, anybody who at 35 gets closer than 2 car lengths should have his license revoked. That would be about 40% of all drivers here!

I don't see the speed limit in the city enforced at all. Sometimes I see one of those speed displays, and sometimes I see cop go after someone who is obviously way out of line. Drivers show pretty much 0 discipline and no consideration for others.

 

[andrews]

I'll let others keep beating the poor dead horse. As for me and my "simplistic" and "perfect world" view of life...I'll be doing just fine obeying the law......and avoiding tickets quite well, thank you.
I'm all spent on this subject!

 

[Reg# 43897]

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrews:
I'll let others keep beating the poor dead horse. As for me and my "simplistic" and "perfect world" view of life...I'll be doing just fine obeying the law......and avoiding tickets quite well, thank you.
I'm all spent on this subject!

---

What he said...

 

[phillyFX4]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenw:
"Did you know these things have caused a marked increase in rearend MVC's?"

absolutely, positively wrong.

The increase in rear-end MVC is purely due to tailgating and/or failure to maintain proper separation. period. Or more simply, it is caused by the idiot behind the person with the nerve to actually stop for a RED LIGHT....or a yellow, which is perfectly legit, btw.

If a guy in front of me stops for a RED LIGHT (which btw, will be visible to me as well if I am maintaining proper separation), and I rear end him, how on earth is that the camera's fault?

---

You're making my argument for me, thanks

Don't forget the average driver is NOT like the people who frequent this site, who care about their cars, engines, tire wear, driving skills, etc., etc.
30 years in a big city FD and I've seen way MORE than my share of MVC's. As soon as it starts to rain we WILL get a call for an MVC, gauranteed. WHY?, simple, because unlike knowledgable motor vehicle owners like us, the average driver won't slow down in the rain, forgetting that stopping dstances expand greatly on water. Now factor in all the cell phones(SHOULD BE BANNED) in use, how that affects the attention span of MOST average drivers. Auto's are also quieter inside greatly removing our touch, grasp with whatever we need to hear in and around the traffic we are a part of. My opinion, our ELECTED officials are stealing $ from those who put them in office.
JMHO.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by moribundman:
That's all good and nice that the duration is (supposedly)based on the speed limit, unfortunately the speed limits are generally ignored. People here in SF go routinely 50 where the speed limit is 35.

---

This is why the MUTCD used to say that the yellow light time shall be based on the 85th percentile speed (probably 50 in this case), not the speed limit (35 in this case).

As of about 10 years ago, it was revised to say that the yellow light time can be based on the speed limit instead of the 85th percentile speed. Why? Who knows. It wasn't a good change.

That the speed limit is lower than the 85th percentile speed is another discussion entirely.

 

[Jimbo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by phillyFX4:
How about just delaying the soon to be Green Light another second or two?, standard, across the country.

---

That is the current stupid, ignorant system that encourages people to blast through the intersection after the light turns red.

---

This brings up the point that at least in CA, you are legally obligated to wait until it is safe to proceed even after the light turns green. There would be very few intersection accidents if that was obeyed. You are also obligated to avoid a collision, if posssible, even if you otherwise legally have the right of way.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

You are also obligated to avoid a collision, if posssible, even if you otherwise legally have the right of way.

---

That's pretty much universal, I would think. The way they word it in the PA drivers manual is "If you have "right of way" and are going to cause an accident, you don't have the right of way.

Most however, exercize "right of weight".

 

[moribundman]

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by moribundman:
That's all good and nice that the duration is (supposedly)based on the speed limit, unfortunately the speed limits are generally ignored. People here in SF go routinely 50 where the speed limit is 35.

---

quote:

---

This is why the MUTCD used to say that the yellow light time shall be based on the 85th percentile speed (probably 50 in this case), not the speed limit (35 in this case).

---

And that's what makes the yellow phase duration unpredicatable, which is not a safe. You'd have to be in advance familiar with any particular light to know whether or not you are going to deal with a short or long yellow phase. I think it'a very dangerous system.

In the end it comes down to herding the largest possible number of reckless, oblivious, negligent drivers without crashes across intersections. In the presence of lack of common sense, this isn't easy.

I still propose

- a uniform duration (4 seconds) of yellow phase for lights in the city (for city speeds up to 45 mph).
- to an additional yellow phase (2 seconds) between red and green (for those who don't have the brains to look left and right before going)
- to enforce speed limits
- to enforce safe distance between cars

 

[labman]

''- to enforce speed limits''

I am afraid there is no way to either enforce the current, absurdly low limits, or raise them.

 

[robbobster]

Here's the deal:
Red light cameras are installed to reduce the incidence of intersection crashes.

Problem is, studies show that merely extending the yellow to 4.5 seconds significantly reduces such crashes.

The same studies show that red-light cameras increase lower-speed accidents at intersections. This is believed to be caused by motorists who panic for fear of getting a ticket, so they slam on their brakes even at yellow lights.

So yes, it's about the revenue. Especially when you consider that in many municipalities, the vehicle owner gets the ticket, unless you rat-out the fellow who is behind the wheel in the picture they take.

I agree that red light runners are a danger. But the solution - extending the yelolow slightly - is proven, free, and of course unused by many cities.

Here are some link that bear this out:
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/van....html?id=53eee32d-c5a7-48fd-a95b-6759137bae27

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=2843

http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/studies.html

http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/sandiego.html

 

[kenw]

"Problem is, studies show that merely extending the yellow to 4.5 seconds significantly reduces such crashes."

temporarily. Longer-term studies also show the rates slowly return to previous levels once the drivers realize and acclimate to the change.

I see the same with our new "double-red" here in Houston. All lights were changed to go red for the minimum 3 seconds before the other turned green. For a few months (yes, just months) it worked. Now instead of running late yellows, drivers now routinely run late reds.

Humans are quick learners.....

btw, the highmount brake light that reduced rearend collisions? yep, just temporary. Rates are now approaching previous levels....

next "solution"?

 

[labman]

1 Get rid of unneeded lights, or at least only have them running when traffic is heaviest.

2 With fewer lights it is easier to time them correctly. When I lived in Detroit in the 60's, when there weren't too many idiots out, you could drive for miles without hitting a red light. Most of the lights were on half mile roads and a 60 second cycle. Drive 30, and you would hit the next light at the same point in the cycle as the last. The old spoke streets did mess up the grid.

3 A reasonable yellow, and no 4 way red.

4 Reasonable people that aren't continually hitting red lights, are more likely to stop for them.

5 Fine, suspend, and jail habitually offenders.

Both rear end and T-bone accidents would likely go up at first. Most people would catch on quickly. Those that didn't, would either be dead or in jail.

 

[robbobster]

At any rate, red light cameras are shown to reduce t-bone type collisions less than 1% long-term. But rear-end crashes at such intersections increase long-term as well.

So such cameras are a poor solution as well.


At least extending the yellow is free.

With modern computing power, you would think that lights in the big city can be timed to keep traffic flowing at a good clip. I think this would have the added benefit of saving fuel.

 

[Palut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
1 Get rid of unneeded lights, or at least only have them running when traffic is heaviest.

4 Reasonable people that aren't continually hitting red lights, are more likely to stop for them.

---

These are both very, very good points!

I drive 50-100 miles each day that I deliver pizza, and that's all in urban areas. The idiots who designed my city's road system have built areas in the city where there are 5 stoplights in 1/2 mile stretches of road. Shopping center parking lots have multiple entrances, each of which have stoplights. There are more "protected only" lights (the kind where you either have a red arrow or a green arrow and have to wait whether there is traffic there or not), than there are "left turn yield on green" lights. Nothing erodes my respect for traffic laws more than being able to look 1 mile down the road, and see that there are NO ONCOMING CARS within 1/4 mile of me, but still having to come to a stop and wait at the intersection, simply because I'm facing a red arrow.

As if its not bad enough that I must do battle with an overwhelming number of stoplights, those lights seem to be perfectly synchronized so that I must stop at ALL of them. I can think of a pair of intersections where there are two lights about 200 feet apart. When the first one turns green, you have time to travel about 50-75 feet, and the second one turns red. That happens about 40% of the time I use that intersection.

Intersections can be designed so much better than they are now. If an intersection has too much traffic for stop signs, but still isn't that busy, put in a roundabout. Roundabouts often eliminate both traffic backups and the need to stop at the intersection, making traffic flow much more smoothly; I love them! Dont have "protected only" lights, but instead of "phased protected lights", where the light at first gives left turners a green arrow, then changes to become a "left turn yield on green" type light. That's the operation of the classic "doghouse" style light, and its infinitely more efficient!

Stoplights should not be used to obstruct or regulate traffic flow. They should be designed to allow the maximum amount of traffic to pass through a given intersection with the minimum amount of waiting, in the safest possible manner.

Traffic lights should behave differently at different times of day. For example, a stoplight at the intersection of a major and minor street that stops traffic in 4 directions during busy rush hours should become a flashing red light for the minor street at night. This would effectively turn the stoplight into a 2-way stop. Since the major street has much lower traffic volumes at night or so, the cars on the minor street will have no trouble navigating the intersections as 2-way stops. This prevents cars on the major street from being stopped at every single minor street.

If unnecessary traffic lights were eliminated in favor of stop signs or roundabouts, if intersections were better, more efficiently, designed, if stoplights were properly synchronized, and if stoplight programming was adjusted to account for time of day, people would not spend near as much time stopped at red lights, nor would they have to stop as often. I believe that this would reduce driver frustration, dramatically increase complance with stoplights.

 

[Palut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3000GT VR-4:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkC:
And having them do the slective enforcement, and just letting themselves be seen doesn't work very well either. If it did, they wouldn't be having to write tickets.

---

No, it doesn't work well, but it does work to some extent. Every time I see a police car on the road I notice the speeders slowing down to his speed. Also, when the speeders see a police car at the side of the road, they slow to the limit. Better than nothing.

There's a small town nearby that put a police car in the median of the highway with a "safety man" dummy in the driver's seat dressed as a cop. Everyone approaching on the highway slows down to the limit thinking it's a real cop who's clocking them. I'm sure it helps to reduce the number of accidents in their town.

---

Cars always slow down when driving the same road as police officers. People usually follow traffic laws to the letter when in sight of a police car.

Just drive down the interstate near a cop, traffic balls up behind him, while everyone passes him at 2 or 3 mph over.

If the police wanted to create as much compliance with traffic laws as possible, they would not hide behind signs and bushes running speedtraps, or drive unmarked, even camouflaged, cars. That's what you do in order to issue tickets, and raise money.

Automated enforcement technologies do absolutely nothing to increase road safety. All they do is cause people to obey selected laws in the immediate vicinity of the technology. Speed cameras make people slow down near the camera, then speed back up, for example.

If law enforcement really wanted to get the maximum number of motorists to obey traffic laws, they would be as visible as possible, driving around on as much road as possible. Everywhere they are seen, people will follow the law.


There is a case in England where local police installed a photo radar camera. Some teenagers found out about it, and set up a sign several hundred yards ahead as a warning to drivers. This caused drivers to slow down, which was supposedly the intent of the camera system. Were the young people rewarded for helping the police achieve their stated goal of slowing down motorists? No, they were cited for interfering with law enforcement.

From the National Motorists Association website:

(01/05) D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams cited the "urgent need" to collect revenue in his recent request to continue the city's automated traffic-enforcement program. He wrote, "There is an urgent need for the approval of this contract to ensure the continued processing of District tickets and the collection of District revenues," in a December 16 letter to D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp. Since August 2001, speed cameras have generated more than $63 million in fines. In addition, fines from red-light cameras have brought in more than $28 million since 1999.

These cases show that automated enforcement is primarily put in place to raise local revenue (the overriding goal of most local governments), and that safety is only a secondary concern.

 

[srivett]

Palut:
You are on the right track about police presence. I've heard of the police parking old cruisers on the side of the highway during holidays known for bad accidents. There isn't even anybody in the cars, the cars themselves slow down traffic.

But then again, the only speeding ticket I've gotten was when I passed a slow trolling cop on the highway. I think I hurt his feelings by passing him...the guy told me he was doing exactly the speed limit according to his radar. Well, my motorcycle doesn't happen to have radar to tell me my speed and the speedo showed that he was going slow. The fine was 50/50 government/victims group. I wonder if the cop thought he was the victim of my crime and tried to cash in?

Steve

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbobster:
With modern computing power, you would think that lights in the big city

---

I'm pretty sure that Washington,DC is still using electromechanical timers on at least some of their traffic lights. That's due to incompetence, not a lack of funding.

 

[brianl703]

Here's an interesting PDF about the computer technology that Virginia uses to synchronize and maintain signals?:

http://www.virginiadot.org/infoservice/resources/nova-smart-signal.pdf

 

[robbobster]

I can tell you that in Long Beach, the lights are still on lame-arse timers.

Nothing like getting stuck at a red light at 11PM, with no cross-traffice anywhere...