That's still no reason for running the light. I don't care if the cycle is so short that only 3 cars at a time go through (and yes we have one of those here too) ... when the arrow goes off you lose your right of way. Period. It's the law.
red light cameras
- Thread starter phillyFX4
- Start date
- Status
No, it's not a reason for running the light.
It's a shame that you don't care if the cycle is so short that only 3 cars at a time can go through.
Fortunately, here in Virginia, we have people that do care. They work in the Dept. of Transportation. They recognize that proper light timing is essential to smooth traffic flow, and work to make it happen.
So if a signal is so short that only 3 cars can make it through on a left-turn arrow, the answer is "We need to fix that".
Not "They need to stop, it's the law, we aren't going to change anything".
Must be why I can't think of a single traffic signal in this area that will only let 3 cars through on a left-turn arrow.
With the traffic volumes we have here, that sort of thing simply won't work.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
We had a safety company come in with mulitple programs for reducing workers comp claims. They had posters made up for the employees and such. One poster was specifically for the engineers. It showed a rickety 3 ft catwalk that the task was on the other side of. The planned, and "safe" route went through a maze of turns and stairs and doors.
The caption read "Don't make SAFETY the difficult alternative".
You don't make a rule, policy, or anything else difficult to comply with if you expect it to be obeyed.
You don't make a light a difficult thing to naviagate ..unless you want people to fail to easily comply with the law. If you make the law in conflict with the masses. They will have difficulty obeying it.
Again ..the death penalty(or any fine) for j-walking ..and no cross walk for 20 miles in either direction. What do you think is the common sense outcome? A bunch of people with sore feet or a few that get picked off with lightened wallets??
It would be foolish to have a j-walking ordinance if you did not provide a legal way to cross the street in relative ease. It is just as foolish to regulate a light to the point that it PROMOTES running it.
The caption read "Don't make SAFETY the difficult alternative".
You don't make a rule, policy, or anything else difficult to comply with if you expect it to be obeyed.
You don't make a light a difficult thing to naviagate ..unless you want people to fail to easily comply with the law. If you make the law in conflict with the masses. They will have difficulty obeying it.
Again ..the death penalty(or any fine) for j-walking ..and no cross walk for 20 miles in either direction. What do you think is the common sense outcome? A bunch of people with sore feet or a few that get picked off with lightened wallets??
It would be foolish to have a j-walking ordinance if you did not provide a legal way to cross the street in relative ease. It is just as foolish to regulate a light to the point that it PROMOTES running it.
City of Philadelphia just announced the total for 1 WEEK the amount of "violaters" at ONE intersection.
1569 vehicles going tru red ights, or so THEY say.
Let's see 1569 X $100./pop = $156900.
One week / one intersection.....nah, nothing to do with revenue.
Or 1569 divided by 7 = ****** 224 ******/ a day
ONE INTERSECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, SURE ?????????????????????????????????
1569 vehicles going tru red ights, or so THEY say.
Let's see 1569 X $100./pop = $156900.
One week / one intersection.....nah, nothing to do with revenue.
Or 1569 divided by 7 = ****** 224 ******/ a day
ONE INTERSECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, SURE ?????????????????????????????????
On 4 lane streets, I see many people going on through a light I managed to stop for. Poor design of the intersection is a problem, but not as much of a problem as those so important they go through red lights by design.
$156,900? How does that compare to the expense of a family of 4 that is T-boned because the driver was dumb enough to go through half way through the green?
Frankly, I think we need more semis hitting the intersection just as the light turns green.
$156,900? How does that compare to the expense of a family of 4 that is T-boned because the driver was dumb enough to go through half way through the green?
Frankly, I think we need more semis hitting the intersection just as the light turns green.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
If safety was the #1 consideration ..then there would be no limit to the yellow lights or dual reds. This would assure that no traffic was in conflict and that everyone easily obeyed the law ...for that matter..even in the presense of law breaking red light runners, others would be afforded more protection....but we don't see this. We see shortened yellows ...and cameras that generate revenue.
Sounds safety minded to me.
(visions of requiring everyone to do cartwheels or get fined ..it's the law!!)
Sounds safety minded to me.
(visions of requiring everyone to do cartwheels or get fined ..it's the law!!)
NO matter how long you make the yellow and the dual red, arrogant idiots are going to risk their lives and everyone else's running the red.
I wonder how many got away because they'd used a Red Light Camera Defense?quote:
Originally posted by phillyFX4:
City of Philadelphia just announced the total for 1 WEEK the amount of "violaters" at ONE intersection.
1569 vehicles going tru red ights, or so THEY say.
Let's see 1569 X $100./pop = $156900.
One week / one intersection.....nah, nothing to do with revenue.
Or 1569 divided by 7 = ****** 224 ******/ a day
ONE INTERSECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, SURE ?????????????????????????????????
Yeah, we need more semis hitting the intersection just as the family of 4 runs the red light.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Absolutely!!! But if longer yellows and dual redlights were employed ...the ONLY people caught by the camera would be THOSE people. Chronic "scofflaws" ..not the otherwise law abiding citizen. I've seen this technique used in many forms of civil managment. You just do everything you can to make compliance the most sensible and productive thing to do. It's very simple. Those who employ intricate hurdles and labyrinths for compliance are more into toltalitarianism or profit motivations (or both) ..effectively boobtrapping things for the unaware.
It's all in how you view fellow humans and how you are either trying to assist them in being good citizens ...or how you intend to form them into your idea of being good citizens ...whether or not that formation truly takes place.
Now there are some issues like drunk driving that frustate the society. The effort to rid drunk driving has somewhat failed in some respects. It was reduced to a "process" that you have to go through as a penalty for getting caught. So instead of making the penalties more severe and expensive ..they reduce the legal limits to a lower level ..encompassing MORE people into the criminal fold ..adding MORE to the "process" and the beurocracy that it supports. Effectively making perfectly responsible people ..who sensibly complied with moderation and restraint ..criminals.
I, btw, other than typical youthful drinking habits ..never had alcohol as a habitual/perpetual part of my life. I surely can enjoy a good beer with a spicy pizza ..or a nice wine with a dinner ..but other than that ...it's purely a truly "social" thing with me. My diabetes takes care of the rest..
[ March 08, 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
People who want to, can stop for red lights with short yellows and no dual red. That is the way it was when I started driving. Unfortunately we now have hordes of people too arrogant to stop for lights. Making the yellows longer and the dual reds do not stop these idiots. They quickly learn and compensate by running the red later and later in the cycle. No matter how easy you make it for somebody to comply, they won't if they don't want to. The true way to make compliance easy is to eliminate unneeded lights and increase the green cycle by getting rid of the ineffective long yellows and dual reds, a dumb idea that only works for a short period. Most people would quickly adjust to the new pattern. Publicity would save lives in the transition period. Announce that as of a date, the dual reds would be gone and the cameras on. No mercy for those that continue to endanger others by running lights.quote:
Originally posted by Gary Allan:
snip... But if longer yellows and dual redlights were employed ...the ONLY people caught by the camera would be THOSE people. Chronic "scofflaws" ..not the otherwise law abiding citizen.
snip....
I think you're giving them far too much credit.
If they were truely capable of learning how long a yellow light is, they'd also learn to go fast enough to get to that light before it ever turned yellow, because most lights are on a fixed cycle.
By the way, in general, yellow lights have gotten shorter, not longer, over the last 30 years, due to chances in the way the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) directs traffic engineers to calculate yellow time.
There are exceptions since some localities may not have adopted the latest MUTCD or may be using the older instructions for calculating yellow time.
In general, however--they've been getting shorter.
There are exceptions since some localities may not have adopted the latest MUTCD or may be using the older instructions for calculating yellow time.
In general, however--they've been getting shorter.
True but....
Some localities have shortened the yellow light time to below state standards after the cameras were installed because they weren't getting enough money from red light tickets.
I pretty agree with nailing red light runners, but when the primary purpose is income for the camera company and government, there is a problem.
The companies that install and operate the cameras typically get the large majority of the money collected. There is a lot of incentive for them to set it up as a trap rather than rational traffic control.
Here, if anyone was wondering, is the formula for yellow time:
YT = Tp + V / (2 * a + 2 * Gr * G)
And for all-red clearance time:
RT = (w+l)/V
Where:
YT = yellow time in seconds
RT = all red time in seconds
Tp = driver perception time in seconds (1.0 sec)
V = vehicle speed
a = vehicle deceleration (10 feet/s^2)
Gr = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 feet/s^2)
G = grade
w = width of street
l = vehicle length
Source:
http://courses.washington.edu/cee320/Lecture 10 -- Traffic control .ppt
The two main changes that have resulted in the lowering of yellow times in the last 30 years are the following:
1)The posted speed limit, instead of the 85th percentile speed, can be used for V, vehicle speed.
2)The all-red clearance time used to be part of the yellow time, and there was no all-red clearance time.
YT = Tp + V / (2 * a + 2 * Gr * G)
And for all-red clearance time:
RT = (w+l)/V
Where:
YT = yellow time in seconds
RT = all red time in seconds
Tp = driver perception time in seconds (1.0 sec)
V = vehicle speed
a = vehicle deceleration (10 feet/s^2)
Gr = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 feet/s^2)
G = grade
w = width of street
l = vehicle length
Source:
http://courses.washington.edu/cee320/Lecture 10 -- Traffic control .ppt
The two main changes that have resulted in the lowering of yellow times in the last 30 years are the following:
1)The posted speed limit, instead of the 85th percentile speed, can be used for V, vehicle speed.
2)The all-red clearance time used to be part of the yellow time, and there was no all-red clearance time.
Brian, Thanks for the interesting post on how it's calculated.
I recently saw some traffic lights in a large foreign city where there was a digital countdown timer below the light showing how many seconds left on the light. I think that would cause problems with US type drivers.
I recently saw some traffic lights in a large foreign city where there was a digital countdown timer below the light showing how many seconds left on the light. I think that would cause problems with US type drivers.
What's interesting is that there are pedestrian signals with a countdown timer, and you can often use those to gauge how long you have till the light changes, I think about 5 seconds plus the displayed time.
Even if the pedestrian signal doesn't have a countdown timer, if it's flashing an orange "don't walk" then you have a few seconds before before the "don't walk" becomes steady and the light changes to yellow a few seconds after.
Unfortunately, a lot of signals around here don't have pedestrian signals.
Even if the pedestrian signal doesn't have a countdown timer, if it's flashing an orange "don't walk" then you have a few seconds before before the "don't walk" becomes steady and the light changes to yellow a few seconds after.
Unfortunately, a lot of signals around here don't have pedestrian signals.
It's not that I don't care about the timing. I just don't think that ppl should be so self centered as to think "I'm goping through this light regardless of whether you have right of way or not".
The light that is constantly being run is NOT the short-green-cycle light. The one that keeps getting run turns into a shopping center (gasp!) and during the green cycle, as many as 10-15 cars can get through during the green cycle (it extends the light for each car that passes the sensor).
Anyway, the short-cycle light (a different light on the same State highway) actually doesn't have many people running it! However, the short cycle has been an issue for over 20 years now and has yet to be resolved. The issue is that two STATE roads intersect and neither the state nor the municipal gov't wants to take action. It has been brought up locally, and the local officials say "We can't do anything about it - it is a State issue" - complaints to the state go unanswered.
In my book, insisting on running a light long after you lost your right of way is just plain rude and uncalled for - like the 5 ppl who rush into an intersection in rush hour, knowing full well that they can't get through - and block half the gree for the oncoming traffic - causing gridlock for an entire light cycle. If I could, I'd drive right over their sefish a***es.
[ March 08, 2005, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: kreigle ]
I'm amazed--in 20 years I would think that traffic light controller has been replaced at least once, and the problem fixed at that time.
As far as the left turns into the shopping center, it sounds like the intersection is over capacity. Does the left turn lane back up into the through lane on a frequent basis?
As far as the left turns into the shopping center, it sounds like the intersection is over capacity. Does the left turn lane back up into the through lane on a frequent basis?
I imagine so. Like I said earlier, you can usually get 10-15 cars through before the light changes, but the turn lane itself only holds 5 or 6 cars, so they are still coming through when after the light turns green for oncoming traffic - they never actually see a red light because that side of the road already had the green long before we get the green on our side.
- Status
