Stoplights to Mete Out Punishment?

gilrain writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that traffic engineers have created a stoplight that deals with speeding. According to the article, 'It senses when a speeder is approaching and metes out swift punishment. It doesn't write a ticket. It immediately turns from green to yellow to red.' This is not just a prototype: it is in use now at an intersection in the Bay Area. Does stopping speeders before others serve a purpose other than petty revenge? Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?"

Comments

Timing it right could be tricky

[Frisky070802]

I know I'll get flamed for this, but I see no reason why lights can't be changed to red to slow down flagrant offenders.

Still, one thing to be really clear about is (a) don't set it up so that if you really speed you make it through the yellow, but (b) don't make it so far away that you catch someone ahead of the speeder with the red light!

By the way, I've had lights change to red on me for no apparent reason, and wondered if this policy was already implemented. It was in the Bay Area, but not Pleasanton.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[Rinikusu]

I'll go along with this ONLY if a spotlight also illuminates the offending car and it becomes legal to exit your own vehicle and pummel the offending driver for fucking up traffic for the rest of us.

Isn't this supposed to be covered by, I dunno, speeding tickets and cops? If speeding tickets aren't the proper deterrent, maybe we should stiffen the penalties if we wish to reduce speeding. Or maybe we should raise the speed limits.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[UID1000000]

This would be nice, if we could make it similar to how the pisser in the pool turns purple. The car becomes some obnoxious color so that we can honk and flash (fingers).

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[jamonterrell]

The point is that they believe the risks involved in changing the light are outweighed by the potential that it will cause mass reform in regards to speeding. They think that this will save more accidents and lives by slowing everyone down.

I think this is poposterous. Not only will it not slow people down other than while approaching lights they've remembered do this, just to speed through even faster when they get close enough to get away with it. It's been proven by scientific studies that people are more likely to speed due to a stopsign or stoplight because the subconciously feel the need to make up for lost time.

There are far too many risks to just implement this willy-nilly. The parent brings up a good point with timing, how can you be sure you won't cause an accident by going red so quickly that they can't stop? People are not going to be prepared for this behavior, it's likely to cause mass confusion and accidents during it's implementation.

I'd rather see automated ticket-writing machines than this... as much as I'm against automated ticket-writing.

Jamon

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[the_2nd_coming]

it is a behavioral punishment.

if you always get a negative reinforcement for an action, operant conditioning will cause the drivers to slow down. tickets and cops are not regular enough to train people to stop.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[tsg]

They think that this will save more accidents and lives by slowing everyone down.

Except that:

The punitive nature of the signal on Vineyard appears to have the united support of neighbors and the Police Department, which hasn't seen an unusual number of accidents on the route but envisions a low-cost way to make people feel safe.

In other words, it's fixing a problem that doesn't exist and is only meant to make people feel better.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[trentblase]

Unfortunately, there have been studies that show that drivers will drive at what they consider a safe speed regardless of the speed limit. Tickets are less of a deterrent and more of a revenue source for underfunded municipalities. Check out http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html (although you always have to consider the source in any study).

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[Vihai]

I saw a traffic light working exactly as described in Italy more than 8 years ago in a mountain locality.

It was tuned to become red if the speed of the car approaching was more than the 50 Km/h allowed in the town.

It has a strong psycologic effect :)

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[Glonoinha]

That is exactly why I envision this working. It is Pavlovian-esque, subliminal, always present, and there is a direct link between action and consequence.

Normally when you speed nothing bad happens. You don't generally get stopped, you don't generally get a ticket. With a single punishment for every 300 times you do something, there is a disconnect.

With the light trick it happens every time. By trying to go faster you are forced to wait out the light so you get where you are going later than you would have had you driven the speed limit. Every time. Which sucks. So you learn. Fast.

People slow down in town without those pesky (and expensive) tickets, cops are free to go do real police work catching bad guys, damn - I think this is brilliant. Sure beats getting a $100 photo-radar ticket in the mail.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[dr_canak]

It is punishment,

but it is not "negative reinforement." Negative reinforcement is removing something from the environment (Negative) to increase a behavior (Reinforcement).

This would be considered "Positive Punishment." Introducing something in the environment (Positive; in this case a ticket for running the red light) to decrease a behavior (Punishment; in this case speeding).

The changing of the light is the discriminative stimulus letting the driver know they are about to be punished if they run the light.

There ya go, 3 free Intro Psych credits ;-)
jeff

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[Marvelicious]

This looks to me like another very bad idea. I can see this CAUSING traffic problems, not eliminating them.

For instance:
In my personal experience driving through the Vancouver WA area into Portland OR on I5 at aprox 7:30a.m. I have noticed some things:

1: Reaching what seems to be the "bad stretch" for traffic at the same time can result in a ten minute drive through or a one hour drive through.

2: On mornings that take ten to twenty minutes, I see no cops enforcing speeding, seatbelt tickets, carpool lane violators, etc...

3: Mornings that take more than twenty minutes have cops enforcing those "major offenses." In fact, the more cops I see, the longer it takes to get to the Oregon side of the I5 bridge.

The only thing I can conclude is that the Washington State Police are screwing up the morning commute! If human beings can cause such a clusterfuck, imagine what an automated system (with no understanding of traffic backing up, etc...) could do!

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[infinite9]

tickets and cops are not regular enough to train people to stop.


It doesn't matter. This will go over like a lead baloon. Cops don't want people to slow down. How would they raise revenue? If cops really wanted to stop speeders, all they have to do is drive one marked police car though the area at the posted speed limit. No one will pass them. Instead, they hide in alleys and behind bushes waiting to jump out and fine people. Isn't it obvious what their real motivation is?

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[Oriumpor]

This is a good idea behaviorally anyways... but if these intersections have the same "advances" infra-red sensors (I would bet) that were put in place not too long ago for "safety" reasons it will just be another thing people will abuse.

If you think the average joe will slow down, a sadist will speed up and just run the red, especially since the consequences are only effective if the person cares enough to break one law, but to follow another without repricussions. I dunno about you, but when I'm driving in the bay area there are sure as hell a lot of sadistic drivers. And this is *REALLY* gonna curb the street racing groups who care a whole lot about traffic laws to begin with.

That, and will it change anything if the same guy who's speeding has an IR remote to change the signal back? Good god no more messing with these systems. PLEASE GOD NO INPUT DEVICES in public systems like this AT ALL.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[TheCarp]

but can we define speeding?

While speed limits make sense in many situations, they don't always.

There are plenty of places that I can point to where speed limits are entirely too low. That is to say it is perfectly safe given normal driving conditions (no fog, dry or even slightly wet roads) to go 15-20 MPH over the posted speed limit.

This is both in town and out. In fact, I can say from my own experience, as someone who regularly "speeds" that about 95% of the time that I have had a close call with a pedestrian or another car it has not involved speed, but rather has involved crowded intersections where traffic is moving well below posted speed limits where it is needed for the driver to track moving objects in several places.
(Cars in 2 other lanes of trafic, and pedestrians walkin gou tinto the street with abandon etc)

The simple fact is that speed limits are usually sweeping "30 in the city" which are really only needed in certain places within the city. Most wide city roads are no more dangerous at 45 than they are at 30, except when traffic is too heavy to do 45 anyway, in which case it self limits to safe speeds anyway.

All in all I agree this is a fine solution to real speeding... but generally speaking I think that speed limits are set too low for normal conditions and I shudder to think what decreasing the speeds people drive in such a hevay handed and sweeping way will do to traffic around here during the time periods at the ends of rush hour where speeds are starting to naturally pick back up.

-Steve

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[gilmour14]

About Peeing in the Pool...

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[John Courtland]

No way... The key is proper civil engineering. You have to build the infastructure properly to handle the load. This includes light timings and placements, road sizes and turning lanes, pedestrian foot traffic, etc. You also have to take into account the psyhcology of the motorists that will travel on the roadways. You can't force people to change, so why not make a better system? Instead of spending tax money on ridiculous schemes to "stop" speeding, make it possible to speed. Make it safe to travel 80mph. People can do it, it just takes training.

Part of the problem with speeding (in fact, I'd go so far as to say most of the problem) is the ease at which motorists can obtain driving privilidges. It costs next to nothing, the DMV's are so overworked in metropolitian areas that the "barrier for entry", is VERY low. As a good anecdotal example, I had to take my driving test twice. I took one in the boondocks (no wait time) and one in the city (4 hour wait time for the test alone, 7 to actually complete the license). Here's the run down of my experiences:

Boondocks (where I failed):
I had to, in no particular order -
back around a corner,
park on both an uphill and a downhill grade,
drive along streets with varying speed limits of 20-45mph
park in a parking lot
there was more to the test, but I failed by rubbing on the curb during downhill parking (I guess that's a "dangerous action", and considered an instant failure. Oh well.)
total time elapsed: > 30 minutes not including what would come after the failure.

City: back around a corner
drive on one 20mph street
total time elapsed: < 5 minutes.

As you can see, the test where there were no people waiting was FAR more involved and probably a better test of my driving ability, although I still claim shenanigans on the curb thing, dangerous my ass... Any how, make it more difficult to get it, like in Germany, where license costs are almost two orders of magnitude more expensive than ours are. And they test to make sure you know your machine and your rules. (As an aside, I say the German idea of "road etiquette" should be adopted as soon as possible in the States. Pass on the right my ass. Once you hit your intended crusing speed, hit the right lane. Pass only on the left. Perfection if I've ever seen it.)

But regardless, I will concede that for the foreseeable future, there will be jackasses who absolutely have to get ahead, feel the need to swerve in and out of traffic because they just saw the "Fast and the Furious", etc. I say, make it easy for them to do it so they stay the hell away from motorists who are safe and conscientious, while still allowing Joe Average to get where he needs to go in a reasonable amount of time without the hassle of stop and go.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[reverendG]

With a single punishment for every 300 times you do something, there is a disconnect.

Obviously you've never gone driving with my girlfriend (or someone like her)...

Watch out for the yellow light! ... Aren't you going a little fast? ... That guy has his turn signal on ... You're a little close, could you back off?

She has other winning attributes, but sometimes I really wish I had the Homer-mobile. The funniest thing is that she gives me a hard time about my road rage, and I'm fine when she's not around!

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[Adriax]

Normally when you speed nothing bad happens. You don't generally get stopped, you don't generally get a ticket. With a single punishment for every 300 times you do something, there is a disconnect.

I hit a deer at 75 on the interstate once, now I generally drive around 5mph slower than the speed limit.

See, life threatening situations can cause a drop in average speed a lot better than tickets ever will, so maybe they should setup a system that releases deer when it detects an oncomming speeding car.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[JohnFluxx]

So in your admission, at least 20 times you have almost hit a person or another car, and at least one of those times it was at high speed.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[ChaosDiscord]

While true, actual implementation would require an unfeasible number of police and police cars to maintain a regular presence. So, given the limited resources, let's find another option.

Instead, they hide in alleys and behind bushes waiting to jump out and fine people. Isn't it obvious what their real motivation is?

Actually, the motiviation of "we must reduce speeding" could also describe their actions. You know cops are, as you phrase it, hiding in alleys and behind bushes. You don't know which alleys and bushes. To be safe, you need to treat all alleys and bushes as suspect. The result: they effectively cover more area than they can afford. If the cops were always easily visible you would have no incentive to not speed; instead you've have incentive to slow down when you saw the police car. That completely defeats the purpose.

One might point out that it doesn't entirely work, as people regularlly speed. Possible reasons: 1. The speeder has decided that the risk of being cause multiplied by the cost of being caught is worth the benefits of driving faster, or 2. the person has bad judgement. This doesn't eliminate the logic from the enforcement side.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[EboMike]

If you are twitchy enough to flash your high beams 14 times per second. Good luck.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[rustv]

Dump her. She has trust issues. I'm serious.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[AmericanInKiev]

In a really bad country

The police would only catch one out of every million criminals - but that poor guy would be beheaded publicly as an example to the rest not to sin.

In a utopian country - every sin would have an immediate but porportionate punishment - and no one would do wrong on the assumption that they might "get away with it."

I think that on balance this is a very good move.

The general trend towards catching everyone (cameras, IRS requiring employees to collect taxes, searching every box that crosses the border) tend to sacrifice privacy in exchange for a more balanced distribution of the punantive burden.

This is brilliant - no fun intended - because it is a strong move toward utopia with a zero increase in big brother intrusion. The traffic engineer should be applauded by both sides on this one - and I think the complainers here would do well to reconsider.

Even the hassle of a unequally timed light is trivial next to the cost in human suffering caused by speeding.

AIK

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[Grog6]

This is going to be intersting, especially for the pedestrians, who will get a green light so they won't be inconvenienced. (per the article)

So, the guy thats trying to beat the early red light , toasts the guy, who's getting a green corossing signal.

Great use of technology.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you've never gone driving with my girlfriend

Actually, I have. Almost ran off the road too. Do you really want to hear anything more?

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[hazee]

"but can we define speeding?"

How about this:

At 40mph, 9 in 10 pedestrians struck by cars are killed.
At 30mph, half are killed.
At 20mph, 9 in 10 survive.

Seems like a pretty compelling statistic to me. As you state, pedestrians can wander out in front of you whatever speed you're doing, but if you end up hitting them, surely it's better to be doing 20mph than 40mph?

Yes, you could argue that maybe at 1mph, 999 out of 1000 would survive, which is even better, but obviously a practical limit has to be established, and given the dramatic change in numbers above, it would seem to lie around 20-30mph.

This applies just as strongly on an apparently deserted city road at 2am as during the day, probably more so, as you're probably even less likely to anticipate that lone pedestrian suddenly jumping out at you.

So I'd argue that the numbers above should apply to anywhere there are likely to be pedestrians, ie: urban areas. Freeways/motorways on the other hand, could reasonably be expected to be clear of pedestrians at all times, and hence subject to much higher limits.

Re:Timing it right could be tricky

[lcsjk]

You missed my point. By monitoring, I meant having police "on-site" at the intersection to ticket those who speed up and go on through an intersection just after the light turns red, knowing that the side street traffic does not have time to get started.
These local people will soon learn whether they can safely(?) go on through at a speed that causes the light to turn red (and whether it turns red for them only). If the police are present they will get tickets. After the police no longer attend the intersection daily, there will be fewer tickets, but still attempts to "beat the light". The police may be able to use other monitoring methods including CCTV, but that is not what I meant. It is not presently useful to install CCTV at all major intersections, but that would be a way to help reduce the intersection rushers.

great!

[wankledot]

That's good, instead of speeding, now they can speed *and* run a red light. I hope it's timed so that the light is far enough away that they have time to stop, and not run through it.

Re:great!

[realdpk]

This is one of the problems with a society that derives a significant portion of its revenue from crime (through fines). Anything they can do to tack on more charges just lines their budget.

Re:great!

[ackthpt]

That's good, instead of speeding, now they can speed *and* run a red light. I hope it's timed so that the light is far enough away that they have time to stop, and not run through it.

Could be a revenue generating device... Turns red and you suddenly get a ticket for running the light, too.

My main worry is that it's going to punish other drivers and screw up traffic flow. There are a few lights near where I live, which I truly despise (first off: I'm a bit spoiled because we have sensors which may switch the light for you if nobody is coming from ther other directions) because they take ages to change, usually posisitioned strategically near a mall or a shopping center. Further mucking about with these timings could lose sympathy with voters.

Re:great!

[bmwm3nut]

That's good, instead of speeding, now they can speed *and* run a red light

or you could speed up and go fast enough that the light looks green to you in your frame of reference :)

Re:great!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

IMHO this is the big problem with the system. Moving violations are no longer deterrents because people are willing to hire a lawyer and piss away court time to fight it, and it seems that most of the time they get off.
Break the law? No problem, just take it to court. Personal responsibility? No thanks, this is America where we have the right to break the law and not be punished, apparently.

The law was written with the understanding that the has a minimum amount of time that it stays yellow, allowing somebody to stop or go through. When you break that bargain, then the law becomes unreasonable.

Re:great!

[PingPongBoy]

Even if you can't go that fast, just spin out hard enough to go through sideways. You'll see a green light.

Old Tech

[BillFarber]

In the town where I grew up about 20 years ago, there was a light that did that. It was on a 25 MPH road, and if you were going faster than 28 or so, it would turn red. We would go out of our way to avoid that light.

Re:Old Tech

[zeromemory]

I agree that this seems to be an old technology.

While I was visiting Portugal during the winter, I ran into many traffic lights setup in a similar fashion. They were a necessity: often times parts of a major road would run right through the center of a town. If speeding cars were allowed to pass through (mostly empty roads in the country, so speeding was not uncommon), they would put the townsfolk walking around in a lot danger.

It's really a security move.

[glomph]

The office of homeland security has determined that the Enemies of America (R) are using the public streets, and as such, these must be closely controlled, if not eliminated altogether. Dissent only helps the terrorists, and shows that you are not a true Patriot(R).

what about other drivers?

[Frizzle Fry]

It would certainly piss me off if some guy was speeding ahead of me and caused the light ahead of us to turn red, stopping both of us. People on the road get mad at other drivers too often already; do we really need to give people another excuse to get mad at someone, blaming "that idiot speeder" for making them late?

Re:what about other drivers?

[bladernr]

It would certainly piss me off if some guy was speeding ahead of me and caused the light ahead of us to turn red, stopping both of us.

But isn't peer pressure a good motivator? Now, speeding will not only get you more redlights (making it, in fact, take longer to get anywhere the faster you go), but you also run the risk of being the jackass that stopped all traffic.

Seems to me that this solves the speeding problem in a way that doesn't involve fines, which have had almost no effect.

Re:what about other drivers?

[DocTBone]

A similar system has been in place for a few months on W. Glebe Road in Arlington, VA. I haven't found it particularly burdensome, but it has made me slow down a bit. I think of it more as positive reinforcement than negative: I get to go through the intersection faster in exchange for obeying the posted speed limit.

Re:what about other drivers?

[Ralph Wiggam]

You're missing an important thing about peer pressure. You have to care what your peers think for it to work. In heavy traffic in a large city, people do obnoxious shit all the time. They do it because nobody they'll ever speak to will see it.

I heard a related funny story a few weeks ago. The police have these trailer units that detect speed and usually just show the number to make people aware of how fast they're going. The new ones check if you're speeding and take a picture of the back of the car as it passes and the owner of that license plate is issued a ticket (they do the same thing with stoplight mounted systems, but these are mobile for smaller towns). Someone with huge brass ones stole the license plate off of the back of the trailer. They put the plate on their own car and drove in front of the trailer a dozen times at 100 MPH. The next week a dozen reckless driving tickets were delivered to the police department. I hope it's true.

All this stuff is just another step towards our 24 hour survailance. "If you're not a criminal, then you won't have anything to hide."

-B

Re:what about other drivers?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Seems to me that this solves the speeding problem in a way that doesn't involve fines, which have had almost no effect.

Hehehe. Iduno about where you're from, but here in San Francisco (and much of California), traffic laws aren't about solving "the speeding problem." They're about solving the budget problem. Fines are designed to not solve the speeding problem, as that would reduce their ability to fine...

Re:what about other drivers?

[spiffturk]

...The problem of speeding..

Laws against speeding are stupid. See this report by the US Department of Transportation.

In a nutshell: people ignore speed limits and drive the speed they feel is safe, regardless of what the speed limit is.

As a result of this, it can be inferred that speed limits (for the most part--though there are exceptions) are set unreasonably low and as such serve no true purpose other than to generate revenue. It seems to me that laws that exist for no other reason than to fund their own enforcement shouldn't exist.

And for those that say speeders cause accidents--read the report I linked to. It begs to differ.

--
Will

Re:what about other drivers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Urban Legend, http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/snaptrap.asp

This reminds me...

[Creepy Crawler]

Of the Dukes of Hazard where the local pig... er umm Sheriff had a pop-up Stop sign to charge passerbys and new residents.

It was deemed crooked by the show, and it's crooked now.

from the crash-your-car-and-get-a-new-one-dept.

[Sn_wC_t]

So when the light turns red early, does it give a green to the next in line? Sounds like a recipe for disater.

Bad Idea...

[Metallic Matty]

Speeding is a habit, and another related habit is that of running red lights quickly after a yellow (ie, its yellow when they see it, so it MUST be yellow when they go through it.) I've seen quite a few near misses because of people burning through a sudden red becuase they'd rather not have to slow down.

Re:Bad Idea...

[nharmon]

In my home town, the yellow light gives you 4 seconds before it turns red. It does not matter if the street being traveled has a 25mph limit, or 55mph limit. 4 seconds is not enough time when you are traveling 50mph.

The Result:

[Alethes]

This will just mean more people running red lights. That could mean more accidents, or it may not, just like speeding causes accidents sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. The end result is that it doesn't really accomplish anything; it just converts the offense.

What a bad idea

[mindless4210]

That seems incredibly unsafe. Not only could it cause a serious accident, think about what it's going to do to traffic. Especially in a major city like San Francisco, you've gotta have coordinated traffic lights or the streets will be a mess.

Re:What a bad idea

[MoeDrippins]

What's safety got to do with it? It's the People's Republik of SF, NOTHING gets in the way of Social Engineering, comrade.

Aww, unfair to speeders!

[American AC in Paris]

Does stopping speeders before others serve a purpose other than petty revenge?

Well, y'know, there's that whole enforcement of the law thing. Unless that falls under 'petty revenge' in your book. One might also imagine that it'd be effective in encouraging the typical driver to actually obey posted speed limits (though I can't speak for the asshats who'll take it upon themselves to try and 'beat the system' by speeding faster or running the light.)

Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?

Oh, heaven forfend that drivers be expected to pay attention to the road and traffic signals, especially so when they're in a hurry and thus simply have no choice but to violate traffic laws! Gee, officer, I just wasn't expecting that kid to cross the road--and I was in a hurry, so you can hardly blame me for it!

Just because it's easy to get away with speeding doesn't mean it's legal. Just because you're busy, late, or otherwise incapable of managing your life and time in a reasonable fashion doesn't mean that it's somehow more okay for you to speed than somebody who speeds for the hell of it. The fact that you can manufacture any number of scenarios detailing How This Can Go Wrong doesn't change the fact that the person triggering the system is violating traffic laws in the first place. Try following traffic laws. Seriously. You'd be amazed at how well the universe keeps from collapsing on itself when one follows the speed limit, signals lane changes, and maintains adequate braking distance.

On a side note, these aren't all that new--they have 'em in Alexandria, VA, and Bethesda has something similar (warning lights flash at you if you're going too fast.)

Re:Aww, unfair to speeders!

[lukewarmfusion]

If you're driving the speed limit, but the jackass ahead of you is speeding - you may just get stuck at every damn light.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you... it's hard to come up with any good reason why this isn't a good idea. Follow the damn law.

Re:Aww, unfair to speeders!

[Mattintosh]

Traffic laws are meant to be broken. Want proof? Look at how many times local law enforcement gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, changing speed limits, moving stop signs, and in general, making traffic laws become a big fat cash cow instead of a safety precaution.

Want a real safety precaution? Scare people straight. Make all the roads' speed limits something like the "safe and prudent" stuff they use in remote rural areas. Then, impose a severe penalty for unsafe driving. If you cause an accident, you lose your license for a year. Cause another one, make it 5 years. Drive without a license? No license ever again, and 1 year in prison. Drunk driving? Go for it, but stay in your lane and don't wreck. Kill someone, and you get a minimum of 3rd-degree murder. I'd guess that'd be about 30-50 years in prison.

Basically, drive at your own risk, 'cause the government is done babysitting your cellphone-talking, makeup-applying, shaving, radio-retuning, newspaper-reading, kid-slapping, drowsy, drunk, high, and/or just-plain-stupid ass. You are responsible for your own actions, whether you like it or not.

Of course, this is America, land of the free, home of the brave, abode of the irresponsible. It'll never happen.

Re:Aww, unfair to speeders!

[nojomofo]

Want proof? Look at how many times local law enforcement gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, changing speed limits, moving stop signs, and in general, making traffic laws become a big fat cash cow instead of a safety precaution.

Err, not to be rude, but how is this proof of anything? It's just a blanket statement with nothing to back it up. No logic, no links to studies, etc.

Re:Aww, unfair to speeders!

[Grishnakh]

the funny part is that speeding does NOT get you there any faster than the guy driving the speed limit.

What kind of idiotic statement is this? Simple math proves that faster speeds equate to less time spent in travel.

Suppose you're driving to a city 400 miles away. At 60 mph, it'll take you 6.67 hours to get there. If you go 15 mph faster, you'll get there in 5.33 hours, which amounts to a 1.34-hour savings. Do you really want to sit in your car that much longer on a long trip?

The using more gas part is incorrect too. Fuel consumption is fairly complex, and is different for every vehicle, depending on aerodynamics, gearing, engine design, etc. Many vehicles get better fuel economy at speeds over 60.

Re:Aww, unfair to speeders!

[American AC in Paris]

Traffic laws are meant to be broken. Want proof? Look at how many times local law enforcement gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, changing speed limits, moving stop signs, and in general, making traffic laws become a big fat cash cow instead of a safety precaution.

Then be a renegade! Buck the system! Fight The Man! Follow every single traffic law. That'll really stick it to em!

Won't their faces be red when they see an army of cars observing posted speed limits and following traffic laws! I can just see them now, huddled in their secret subterrainean command center, cursing and waving their fists as car after car proceeds down the street in an orderly, safe, courteous manner!

Take that, federal, state and local government! Muah-ha-hah!

Re:Aww, unfair to speeders!

[BgJonson79]

They can certainly influence the civic ones, of which speeding is an offense.

Besides, not sure if this is a chicken/egg or if this is a causational/ correlational issue, but ever notice the "natural" speed of a road is about 10 MPH over the limit, and 10 MPH over is where the fines are actually worth giving out?

Re:Aww, unfair to speeders!

[tsg]

the funny part is that speeding does NOT get you there any faster than the guy driving the speed limit.

Yes it does. You said so.

over a 40 mile stretch of road between cities, the speeder going 15 mph faster than the other driver will only arrive ~7.5 minutes earlier

Backing in your numbers, you are comparing are 65 mph to 80 mph, so the 15mph difference is a 25% increase in speed, which results in a 25% decrease in time. The implication you are apparently making is that a 25% reduction in time is insignificant. Over an hour, that's 15 minutes. Over two, it's half an hour. If your argument is that 7.5 minutes is insignificant (which is subjective and arguable), then, possibly, in your very specific example, you might be right. But a specific case does not prove a generality.

IF he kept his speed constant never slowing below the 15+mph he has on the other driver

Your calculation is meaningless unless you're using average speed, so this is implied.

slowing for other traffic obeying the law or not as brazen will significantly reduce that time saved

Again, you have to assume average speed or the calculation is meaningless. Any conditions which slow the driver down throw your 15mph difference out the window. If he can go faster, he gets there faster. If he can't, he doesn't.

People who speed all the time are usually not bright enough to understand that concept anyways.

Possibly because they understand the concept of physics.

Note: this is not a defense of reckless driving which is not necessarily a function of speed compared to an arbitrary limit. There are times when 80mph is not reckless and times when 25mph is.

Re:Aww, unfair to speeders!

[merdark]

Ho hum. What a weeny do gooder you are. I speed when I want, regardless of some stupid law. If it's safe, then I'll do it.

Take for instance highway driving. On the highway I drive regularly people *always* speed. And it's not just a few, no, the majority of people go 20 km/h over the limit (120 km/h), a smaller group go 130-140 km/h regularly (third lane, or even second lane depending on the day), and very very very few people go the limit, 100 km/h.

So you have all these weeny do gooders who had the limit lowered from 135 or so to 100 to "improve safety", when in actual fact the speed on the road as not changed much! All that has changed is that cops can now harass you easier. Not all traffic laws are correct.

City street limits are usually ok, but even those can be unreasonable in many cases. For instance, there is one road near by that is *four* lanes wide. What is the speed limit on this road? 40 km/h, for a LONG LONG distance as well. Completly unreasonable for a four lane road. The result? No one travels it. It is pretty much a useless road except for the area residents, who certainly don't need 4 lanes.

Stoplights say a lot about the people

[mabu]

I was in Switzerland last year and I noticed that the stoplights there would show the yello signal in both directions. So if you're at a red light, the yellow will go on to let you know the green is getting ready to change in the opposing lane.

In the states, this doesn't happen. It's almost as if we can't do that to people in the US - they'd run the yellow at the red. More evidence that Europeans are a more civilized in their driving?

Re:Stoplights say a lot about the people

[Anonymous Coward]

In the states, this doesn't happen. It's almost as if we can't do that to people in the US - they'd run the yellow at the red. More evidence that Europeans are a more civilized in their driving?

Maybe drivers are more rule-abiding in Switzerland. But you should try going to Italy sometime. In Italy, stop signals are regarded as mere suggestions. Many a tourist has been rear-ended by naively deciding to actually stop at a stop signal, and thus catching all other drivers completely by surprise.

Re:Stoplights say a lot about the people

[Debillitatus]

More evidence that Europeans are a more civilized in their driving?

Are you insane? You ever been to Rome?

Re:Stoplights say a lot about the people

[devnullkac]

One possible reason for the red-yellow-green sequence is that in many European jurisdictions, drivers are required to take their manual transmission completely out of gear, rather than simply keeping the clutch in. The yellow light warns them to get the car in gear so they'll be ready to go when it's green. Not as relevant in these days of cheap automatic transmissions, but it's the sort of thing that's tough to just get rid of.

Re:Stoplights say a lot about the people

[sevenmonkey]

The logic behind this is because most people in the red-yellow-green countries drive stick shifts, and it lets everyone know when to get into gear, since it takes a second to do so. Also, if you notice, the moment the light turns green, a block of cars all takes off at the same time. In the US, the light goes green without warning, so the first car goes, and the second car doesn't move until the first car has moved a bit, and the third car doesn't move until the second car moves a bit, etc... and it takes longer than if they all moved in a block... It's not stupid. It's just that their driving customs are different. (And more efficient.) 7m

Re:Stoplights say a lot about the people

[palion]

I live in Switzerland and I can tell you the real reason for this. If you're waiting at a red light you are actually supposed to turn off the motor in order to avoid burning useless fuel (it's your money, of course, but the (clean) air is everybody's, and the noise isn't nice either). When the yellow turns on then you can not start (the red's on, too, remember). But you have time to turn on your motor. Especially when you're not the first in line then the time's really enough to start in time.

Another solution looking for a problem

[Safety Cap]

For all you that don't RTFA:

Many neighbors are so peeved with the popularity of the road that they didn't want a traffic signal at all at Montevino because it would allow traffic to flow better than the stop sign it replaced. At least the stop signs made speeding impossible and persuaded some commuters to steer clear, neighbors said.

As far as speeding tickets goes, it is a doucmented fact that traffic laws are not for safety but revenue generation. This bad boy will probably pay for itself in no time and continue to reap dividends for years to come.

Combine the "smart" light with the auto ticket-giving camera (don't need to pay for the copy to write tickets!) and city budget problems will be cured overnight. Oh, and when people get smart and start slowing down, just decrease the yellow-light time and watch your profits rise!

America: Best profit-making government money can buy.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Dr Rick]

"As far as speeding tickets goes, it is a doucmented fact that traffic laws are not for safety but revenue generation"

And the documentation you mention would be...

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[2nd Post!]

Many neighbors are so peeved with the popularity of the road that they didn't want a traffic signal at all at Montevino because it would allow traffic to flow better than the stop sign it replaced. At least the stop signs made speeding impossible and persuaded some commuters to steer clear, neighbors said.

So this new gadget becomes a stop sign for speeders, and actually smooths out traffic flow for the residents.

Seems like the local community wins with this new stop light/traffic signal.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Safety Cap]

>And the documentation you mention would be...

Pick a city, any city. Check out NTSB stats on that city's traffic accident rates. Now check out that city's municipal revenue from the traffic courts. For bonus points, do a time series.

Correlate, interpret, conclude.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

1) California normally allows the establishment of speed limits for roads and highways only after an engineering survey determining the appropriate safe speeds for those roads. (California Committee Analysis, StateNet, af Bill No. AB 872, May 9, 2003 hearing.) People v. Goulet (13 Cal.App.4th.Supp. 1; 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 801) pointed out that speed limits set more than 5 miles below the 85th percentile "do not facilitate the orderly movement of traffic." They do, however, generate larger revenues for cities, because more "reasonable and prudent" people will speed.

2)http://www.roadsense.com.au/homepage.html
Qou te - Based on the facts that we have researched from around the world as well as Australia, not even two percent (2%) of road crash fatalities occur above the speed limit while over ninety eight (98%) occur below the speed limit. (Based on government research - exposed in "Below the Radar" book.)

3)http://www.motorists.com/issues/speed/fhwa_rep or t.html
-Ouote "Based on the sites selected for this study, it appears that highway agencies have a tendancy to set speed limits slightly below the average speed of traffic"

-Ouote "There is not sufficient evidence in this dataset to reject the hypothesis that crash experience changed when posted speed limits were either raised or lowered." Translation - The raising or lowering of speed limits did not have any effect on automobile accidents.

And the beat goes on....

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[thelexx]

Start here:

www.hwysafety.com

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[silicon not in the v]

I actually know of a specific instance proving this in at least one city. There is a section of Missouri state highway 54 that goes North off of Interstate 70 that we used to have to drive through to get to my grandparents' house. The speed limit on most of that section was either 55 or 65 (It's been a few years so I forget which). At one point it briefly passed through the edge of the city limits of Auxvasse for about a mile or two, even though there was no intersection or turnoff that actually went into the town at that point. Because it was "in the city", however, they marked the speed limit 10mph lower, and it was a great source of revenue from the speed trap that always caught people who were just driving past.

The farmers who owned the land on each side of this speed trap were getting upset at the bad name their town was getting from this, so they put up billboards next to the highway on their land announcing to slow down for the Auxvasse speed trap. The city told them to take the billboards down, and their response was, "Why? We're trying to help people obey the law like you want them to, right?" They agreed to take down the signs when the city raised the speed limit there back up to match the rest of the highway.

If this is new it ain't very new

[phearlez]

I drive on Herndon Parkway in Herndon, Virginia every day to and from work and there are 3 stoplights over an a stretch of about 3 miles that behave this way. Been in place for the last year I've lived in the area, I dunno how much before that.

Re:If this is new it ain't very new

[baggachipz]

I grew up the town over from Herndon, and these speed-trap lights have been in use there for 20 years at least. Far back as I can remember. It's not just on Herndon Parkway, it's on other roads in town too. Herndon is notorious for pillaging the pocketbooks of its drivers.

This is the Problem Here

[Fortress]

Hear! Hear!

It's intrinsically wrong to punish other people for one person's crime. One idiot blazes through a bunch of traffic but everyone has to stop for his speed-induced red light? Aren't there enough causes of road rage already?

Re:Danger

[Mattintosh]

It's called "thinning the herd." If you cause enough accidents, the number of people that speed in these areas WILL go down.

I bet it's the all-powerful casketmakers' lobby behind this... Get your tinfoil hat.

I saw this

[mcc]

This is the worst idea EVER. Yeah, I'm going to feel *real fucking safe* when suddenly the most batshit nuts, speeding drivers on the road are unexpectedly and without warning coming to sudden stops because they've triggered the "punishment light". To say nothing of the collateral damage caused by the fact that everybody on the road winds up stopping.

Vehicular safety ONLY FUNCTIONS when the behavior of all of the drivers is as PREDICTABLE as possible. That's why we have stoplights in the first place, if you think about it.

I can't wait for the first time it rains in this area. One person will speed, the light will suddenly turn red, half the cars will notice and come to a sudden stop, some of the cars will stop more slowly than others because of the slippery road, some will hydroplane... just THINK of the number of rear-end collisions you'd get. (And, of course, in each case, the insurance companies would place "at fault" the person in rear for failing to notice the without-warning red light immediately and stop immediately, or for failing to predict the person in front of them might come to a stop without warning...)

Re:I saw this

[YrWrstNtmr]

As long as it goes through the yellow cycle as well, how is this much different from a normal red light?

You're coming up to the intersection, the light changes, either because the cycle changes, or because a speeder has triggered it. br>
In neither case does the speeder (or anyone else) know where the signal is in its cycle.

So it changes as he approaches. Big deal.

without-warning red light
if you RTFA, it specifically says there is a yellow pahse before the red.

Re:I saw this

[Godeke]

Having been rear ended for being observant, yes the jerk who isn't paying attention *is*at*fault*. I was rear ended by a pregnant woman who decided that "blowing though the yellow" was more valuable than a bit of caution. Unfortunately, there was a stalled car on the other side of the intersection, which I had to stop for, because traffic flow in the lane next to me wasn't giving me a break.

Mr. officer of course got an earful about how I "stopped suddenly" and there was no way she could stop that quickly. His response: "he did". She was cited and her Honda Accordian (yes, I know crumple zones are a safety feature, but boy they fold up real pretty) was totalled with her insurance company upset about an "at fault" accident. (So much so she tried to sue me, but the lawyer folded the instant he got the details of a stalled vehicle in the road).

Moral of the story: give yourself a safe stopping distance and you only have to worry about being rear ended by people who think they are too good to give *themselves* a safe stopping distance.

Excellent plan!

[ke4roh]

This will make for excellent driver behavior modification. In the town where I used to live, people habitually stopped their cars in the intersections for red lights (just past the stop bar). When they put in sensors, people quickly figured out they needed to stop on the sensor - which was where the car was supposed to be in the first place. Likewise, if speeding produces no benefit, people will stop speeding.

As for running red lights, cameras can mete out punishment for that, too.

Re:Excellent plan!

[drewness]

I guess you have smarter drivers where you live. I've seen plenty of cars sit out in the intersection at a red light until someone comes up behind and stops in the right place. I don't think people pay enough attention to how things work to notice that there's a correlation between stopping at the stop bar and getting a green light.

California

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC in california they already let cars run red lights if they are turning right, under the "pedestrian culling" program.

Re:California

[Le Marteau]

Denver, however, not only allows right turn on red, but in some cases, LEFT turn on red.

They'd better. Denver's whack. Is there any other town in the WORLD where pedestrians can cross an intersection DIAGONALLY, right through the center of the intersection? So that pedestrians can pull off this amazing stunt, you'll be sitting at a four way stop light for a minute or so to allow granny to walk through THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION.

With weird ass customs such as this, Denven had BETTER allow left turns on red!

Re:California

[Dirtside]

Quite a lot of places allow diagonal pedestrian crossing, and for very good reason. The places that do it typically have very high pedestrian traffic volumes, and it's better for both vehicle and pedestrian throughput (and safety) to have distinct vehicle and pedestrian walk cycles. Pasadena, here in southern California, has numerous diagonal crosswalks in the Old Town area (which is an extremely popular entertainment/dining area). Beverly Hills has several of them in its downtown, due to the relatively large amount of pedestrian traffic.

And here's a general idea: Next time you feel yourself getting really INDIGNANT and ANGRY about something you don't UNDERSTAND, you might want to stop and think about it, or maybe look into it, before posting a BLITHERING SCREED that makes you look like an ignorant nitwit. :)

Re:Danger

[the_2nd_coming]

most people speed... but most people obey the traffic signals as well.

if the traffic signals stop rewarding speeders by making them miss a light, then the speeders will slow down.

These are already in use all over NoVA

[AcquaCow]

Going to reply rather than moderate...

These lights are in heavy use in Northern Virginia. They are mostly in place around residential neighborhoods to keep speeds and road noise down. They also double as extra safety, as kids are around.

It's a lot easier to time crossing an intersection if you know that all the cars are going one speed or slower. This is true wether you are walking across it or making a turn in a car at said intersection.

The biggest concern are Kids. They are careless. They may look left then right, but if they see a car FAR off to the left, they won't pay any attention to it...even if it is going 90mph and will overtake them before they can cross the road.

More social engineering

[ErikTheRed]

Not to defend unsafe driving, but the reason that nearly everyone speeds is that many speed limits are set so such a low common denominator that you'd assume that brain-damaged chimpanzees were used as the baseline cases. Most people will drive a reasonable speed regardless of what's posted. There are always a few idiots that will drive at insane speeds regardless of what's posted.

The reason that they do this is that they're addicted to traffic ticket revenue, which is essentially a randomly-enforced "tax lottery" - especially in my area where average highway traffic moves at 80 MPH+ (I've been "going with the flow" along with two dozen other drivers at 95+ in the city). I'm just waiting for them to pair this up with red-light cameras and 2-second yellow lights for the ultimate in revenue generation...

Yes, this sounds cynical (and it is), but if these jackasses were really interested in little things like public safety then they'd probably put some actual effort into designing safe intersections, traffic interchanges, force land developers to plan traffic flow, setting speed limits that are reasonable, etc.

Re:More social engineering

[ad0gg]

Its show LA metro and average speed, Its not uncommon to see 80 to 85(the max it registers) in most areas during non commute hours. I personally go the speed of traffic, if traffic is going 85, i'm going 85. Its puts me and other traffic at risk if I go 65, the limit, when everyone is going much faster.

In my city

[zakezuke]

I've noted that alot of the lights are actually timed so if you go a given speed, it's all green. But in most cases, if you actually go the speed limit, you are assured to actually catch every light. Specificly there is this 30 zone that goes right into downtown. I can either drive the entire distance at 30mph and stop every 3 or 4 city blocks or I can go 35mph and stop only a handful of times.

While the timming is off in this case, I find it an excelent system to keep me within the speed zone that they approve of.

Holding hearings on repealing the laws of physics?

[LostCluster]

In poorly designed stoplight situations, there can be an area called "the dilema zone" where drivers get caught in the situation where they cannot stop their car without crossing the stop line. If one is going the full speed within the dliema zone when the light first turns yellow, they are screwed... they will physically have to run the red light because slamming the brake pedal won't be enough.

Usually, dilema zone situations are created by there being too short of a yellow light sequence to allow the car in the zone to go through, or the speed limit being too high to corrispond to the yellow light time they wanted to use. Fixing one or the other elimiates the zone.

Therefore, I fear this stop light project is headed for failure. A true speeder is either going to run the yellow or red light. The only people its going punish are the legal speed cars behind the speeders...

Speeding vs. running a red light

[radioactive-one]

These lights used to be installed in some residential areas around Herndon, VA. The speed limit was 25MPH, and if you were going over 30-35, they'd turn red. A friend discovered that if you went 60MPH, you could make it through before the light turned red :)

Better Way

[m1a1]

Seriously, there is a better way. If you time the lights so that taking off from a step, smoothly accelerating to the speed limit and then maintaing the legal limit to the next light causes you to hit concurrent lights just as they turn green then it becomes useless to speed and all drivers get the best results by going the speed limits.

I'm not a civil engineer or city planner or anything, but I've seen well planned traffic light systems and I know what they look like. People move through stopping AS LITTLE as possible. It is easier on vehicles, safer for drivers, and much less stressful to drivers if they can just get up to speed and maintain it. This light is all for show as it will probably be more detrimental than helpful. It is just a way for local government to wave its dick without accomplishing... well, dick.

Speeding in perpindicular directions?

[scovetta]

| | |
| | me, 85 mph |
| V |
--------- -------------
you, 85 mph O
-----> O light, changes quickly
O from red to green to red...
--------- -------------
| |
| |
| |
here is some text to prevent the postercommenter filter from not letting me post my message. this is really dumb, i think i should be able to post it, it's not like it's totally off topic, and who doesn't like some good ascii art once in a while, not that i'm saying that mine is good, but that it's technically art, and it's, well, ascii.

Re:Speeding in perpindicular directions?

[kavau]

Did it occur to you that the traffic lights may show red in all four directions?

All over the place over here

[greppling]

Where I live (Germany), we have plenty of such traffic lights. Contrary to the sensationalist /. reply, this hasn't caused any accident or has made people start running the red lights by habit. To the contrary, they work well.

An effctive alternative is a traffic light that is red and turn green a fixed amount of time after an approaching car has come to a certain distance. Those who were going too fast have to stop, others can drive on smoothly.

Re:All over the place over here

[rif42]

Just goes to show again how "sooo advanced" US is.

Yet /. will post it as news. It is about time that /. administrators gets a world view and do some research before stories.

Re:All over the place over here

[betis70]

Do you also have synchronized lights?

When I was living in Albuquerque, New Mexico, we had a couple streets that lead to and from downtown. The speed limit was 30 (I think) and if you went 30, you had a green light all the way. If you went over 30, you were likely to get a red at least once.

Oh and there were signs telling drivers this.

It worked great. No one ever sped on those roads. Now the other roads ...

Re:All over the place over here

[moonbender]

Do you also have synchronized lights?

Yes, of course. Occasionally, we also have little extra signposts which dynamically advise you of the correct speed ( < speed limit, obviously) to get the next light in time.

The two systems aren't contradictory, though, they complement each other fairly well. Synchronized lights work extremely well in urban areas with a lot of traffic, on main roads. The system referred to in this story works very well in rural areas, where there aren't that many traffic lights to start with.

Speed is boring, but acceleration is fun

[mudder]

I drive a fairly fast car, and the truth is, driving it at high speed isn't that much fun. Going 100 on the freeway really doesn't feel that much different from going 65 (apart from being really nervous about the impending ticket). However, acceleration is a totally different story. I really enjoy being at the front of the line at a stop light. When the light goes green, I accelerate as quickly as possible until I hit 5 - 10 mph over the limit. I then let off the gas and back down to whatever the speed limit is. I've been known to stop for yellow lights when I could legally continue, just to get that feeling from stomping on the accelerator.

So, a light like this is a dream come true for me. If I approach the light just a bit over the speed limit, I'm gauranteed to get an opportunity to race away when the light goes green. Yay!

HOWTO: How to speed and avoid a red light

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the article, the camera that measures speed is 350 feet from the intersection, and the speed limit is 40 miles per hour on one direction. Assuming a speeder is speeding 50 miles per hour in that direction, and assuming that the camera can accurately measure the speed of the vehicle 50 feet out, for a total of 400 feet from the intersection, that means the speeder has to get their vehicle 400 feet at least before the light turns read. Most lights have an absolute minimum safety margin on the yellow light that is around 3-4 seconds before the red goes on. Let's say 4 seconds. In order to get out INTO the intersection before the light changes red, the speeder only has to increase her speed when approaching the intersection from 50 MPH to 70 MPH, or 102.7 feet per second times 4 seconds, thus traversing the distance out into the intersection BEFORE the light turns red.

Of course the speeder has to accelerate to 70 MPH before entering the "zone" where the camera can measure speed.

Now what was once an only slightly unsafe problem (someone doing 10 over the limit) becomes VERY UNSAFE, someone doing 30 over the limit.

All I can say, is BRILLIANT!

Perhaps these brilliant traffic engineers will then think, "Ah ha! We can decrease the yellow light duration to nothing. That will solve it!"

Wrong again. Someone like that obviously doesn't understand the psychology of those speeders. Removing the minimum yellow duration makes the intersection VERY dangerous. If they just turn the light instantly red, and keep the lights in the other directions red too, speeders will learn that the "instant red" light is "not really a red light at all" and will learn to ignore it and speed on through. Now you'll have speeders AND red-light runners. That's a lovely combination.

Brilliant!

Lights can render speed limits irrelevant

[rewt66]

I remember a small town that we went through in the 1970s. They didn't have speed limits at all. But they had signs that said, "Traffic lights synchronized for 25 MPH". As soon as you figured out that the signs were telling the truth, you drove 25. If you didn't, you hit every single light red.

What about emergency vehicles

[roderick]

So, what's it going to do to recognize when, say, an ambulance, a firetruck, a cop car responding to a call, etc., are speeding up to pass through the intersection on their way to an emergency?

Yes, I know, they already "run" red lights to respond to emergencies, but they are slowed down by virtue of pulling to the intersection, making sure other vehicles have recognized that they're about to pass through and then continuing towards the emergency.

Still, do we need to complicate the jobs of first-responders by making sure every stop-light between them and someone in need of immediate assistance will turn RED?

They had these in my area, they don't work

[Eagle5596]

They have had these for a LONG time in my home town. They don't work, the speeders end up either running the red light, or gunning it and making through the yellow. The end result? Speeders pass, and everyone else is punished.

Things like this are a Good Idea(tm) in theory, but when put into practice fall quite short of the mark.

Additionally, their triggers are often set to unreasonable levels, such as 5 miles over the speed limit, which can easily happen due to sensor differences and upward drift of speed in between glances.

We have them in sweden - they work very well

[jaclu]

We have speed-triggered traficlights on a lot of places, typically on places with one-lonely light on a 70kmh road.
The only differense is that they idle red 4-ways, as soon as somebody comes close, a sensor notices it. After the time legal speed would require, it goes green (unless crossing trafic is in a green of course ;). So when you get close to those lights, there is no point in going to fast - you know that will force you to stop, so you just slow down to legal speed ;)

Severe Tire damage

[wowbagger]

So a speeder is supposed to be challenged by a red light. Open question to the designers of this system: "What is the speed of light in the little universe you are living in?"

You want to stop people from running red lights (and with these lights by extension speeding)?

Put retractable "Severe tire damage" spikes on the entrances to the intersection. Raise them on the directions for which the light is red. Couple the system to a SECURE RF system for emergency vehicles to lower them. Thus the only way a scofflaw can enter the intersection in these cases would be to veer to the other side of the road where the spikes are not facing the correct direction.

Extra points for putting spikes in the media to prevent that.

Teach people that YELLOW means "Stop if at all possible DAMNIT!" and RED means "STOP. No option. STOP. NOW!"

The great thing about this is that you need issue no fine to punish the bad drivers - the cost of replacing their tires will do that nicely.

Of course, I want to mount a land-mine dropper to drop mines with a two second delay behind me - that should teach people what "safe following distance" is (Fire the mine out at rest relative to the road surface, "One Mississippi, Two Mississipp-BANG!").

Seriously - stop people from needlessly tailgating, running yellow and red lights, and I think you could actually RAISE the speed limits in many areas without a reduction in safety.

Wouldn't he/she just run the light?

[Ra5pu7in]

If a driver is already "in a hurry" and speeding faster than much of the traffic, what on earth would make them say "ooh, the light turned yellow so I'd better stop at this intersection". Most speeders I know would just accelerate more to "beat the red light".

Safety-wise -- the only way this would be safe is if no other light change until the speeder either stops fully or exits the intersection (having run the light). If drivers in the other direction are given an early green, that would be a recipe for disaster.

It all balances out..

[Dutchmaan]

Yeah sure you may be made late by a speeder.. on the other hand you may get a bonus green light from a speeder on the intersecting road.

I can also see this system training people to apply a burst of speed once they get to a certain point before the intersection, after the timing of the light has subconciously set in to the brain.

It's not the first time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this sounds kind of like something that was pulled in St. Louis a few years back...A police officer got a hold of a button that would change a light quickly from green to red when he saw a motorist approaching. They wouldn't have time to stop, and he would pull them over and give them a ticket for running the light. Made the news and everything. The courts quickly ruled it illegal. Is it much different when a computer does it instead of a cop? And although they're not handing out fines yet...

Swell

[Greyfox]

Most states and counties these days have to run any tax hikes past the voters. The voters almost always vote no. With incomes from sales and income taxes dwindling and towns more cash stapped than ever, we could always be sure that if we needed a little something extra to get us by, we could increase enforcement of the speed limits for a few days. Not for long mind you -- motorists will eventually slow down if you do it too much, just enough to bring in an extra couple-hundred grand here or there.

Now technology proposes to eliminate this source of revenue too? What the hell is wrong with these people, are they a bunch of communists?!

have some fun with the light

[OglinTatas]

Drive the speed limit until you are within 7 seconds of the light, then floor the gas. Works best with supercharged or big block engines. I wish my car had more than 90 horsepower.

What happens when...

[Dutchmaan]

you get two speeders approaching an intersection at the same time?

Do you get a blue light of death!?

hrmm

[nomel]

most speeders I see tend to run the yellow light by flooring it as soon as it turns yellow. I would think this would increase speed!

ever wondered ...

[Chip7]

Speeding is not the trouble, it's never been. Humans in control of the cars are the problems, and a automatic red light certainly won't fix anything. How would you react to it?

1- "hmm ... maybe i'm being unsafe to my fellow citizen and this radared red light is only warning me that i am a potential danger! I should slow down so as to no longer endanger the lives of my fellow, taxpaying citizen! i'll just be late to my meeting and the boss will have to wait"

2- "GODAM@#$*(@# STOOPID @#$*()@*@# LIGHT GONNA GET ME LATE TO THE MEETING !!!!! COMON YOU STOO@()#*$(*@ B*TCH GO GREEN ALLREADY COMON!!!!!!"

Like it not not, rightfull or not, this isn't gonna help anything.

Re:automatic transmissions

[dollargonzo]

cheap is often not the issue. i was in germany and there a lot of people still have manuals. why? because the engine has to have a certain minimum amount of power to not stall with an automatic. this is around 100hp. the ford mondeo (at least when i saw it) was about 80hp.

The cops will love this ...

[scharkalvin]

because now they can write TWO tickets, one for speeding, and another one for running the red light.

The city will love this because they collect more money from fines.

The laywers will love this because they will have more clients who will pay more to try and get out of two moving violations instead of just one.

Great idea!

Re:Fruitless?

[Tactical Skyrider]

> cars are grossly overpowered

no... speed limits simply haven't kept up. sure, back in the day 35mph made sense in a lot of places. cars travelling faster than that were dangerous. today those same roads can be safely navigated at 45 or 50 mph thanks to improved vehicle technology.

as for the problem being that everyone speeds.. i think that's looking at it completely backwards. If everyone were driving the same speed, roadways would be a far safer place, even if that speed were 10 or 20mph over the posted limits. a river with a flat bed flows smoothly. random rocks jutting to the surface disrupt that smoothness. would you rather take a canoe down a smooth flowing river, or one with violent rapids?

drivers will always drive at whatever speed they feel appropriate. when you take that into account, it's only logical to adapt to those speeds so the roadways will be a safer place for all.

Something better here in Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Florianopolis (Brazil) we have something much better. We have 5 lights for green and red lights; 5 green, 1 yellow, 5 red. The way it works is that the go in descending order, in other words, when it's on green and its about to go yellow, it goes down the 5 green lights first, then go to the yellow one and red. And the same way for red lights, when it's about to go green it goes down the 5 red lights and then green and so forth...It works very well because the drivers know when it will turn green, yellow and red.

Re:Something better here in Brazil

[mritunjai]

Oh really ? You call it advanced ??

In major cities in India we have 2 digit LED displays on traffic lights that actually count down... it helps in many ways-

1. Reduces driver axiety - So people are less tempted to "gunning" their engines

2. Reduces road rage - People are less tempted to jump lights

3. You can see the signals from a distance and read the timer counting down... so you slow down well in advanced if you find you can't make it in time.

4. Less (well almost) fuel wastage since if the time reads anything above ~30 seconds you can easily switch off the engine and start it when the count is down to 5.

And it doesn't cost too much money either!!

Re:Negative Reinforcement?

[surgeonsmate]

So if these light thingys would work in the real world via negative reinforcement how come it doesn't work on the 401?

For the same reason it doesn't stop traffic jams. The individual is not directly penalised. You said it yourself - it makes *everybody* later to get home. But I bet those who weave and cut people off and so on get home just a little bit faster than everyone else, even if the average person is slowed. Let's face it, who is delayed, the person cutting someone off, or the person being cut off?

The traffic light idea is interesting. In theory it precisely punishes the offender. You speed, you get stopped.

In practice, I can see any number of problems with the notion, even before reading the discussion here, which I'll bet is full of smartarses poking holes in the system.

-- Pete, registered smartarse

My Driving Test

[Simonetta]

I got my driver's license in Louisana in 1973. A school friend offered me a ride home and mentioned that she needed to stop at the Motor Vehicles to get some paperwork.
I thought that I would use the opportunity to get a learner's permit. I filled out the papers and took the eyetest. Then the written test with pictures of the correct answer in order to aid the large number of people in Louisana who can't read.
As soon as I passed the written, the state trooper stood up and said 'Ready to drive?'. I borrowed the keys to my friend's car and very slowly and carefully drove around the block. Thank god it was an automatic transmission.
I thought that I was doing OK until the last stretch of the block which was an expressway. I actually got up to about 45 MPH and then pulled back into the Motor Vehicles lot and cut the engine.
The state trooper started to write something on the form and then just looked at me and said "Girlie, You don't drive worth a piece of shit! You'se lucky you didn't get somebody killed back there! Well, I'm gonna give you your license anyway, but I strongly suggest that you learn how to drive!"
I went in, completed the papers, paid the fees, took the photo, and became a fully registered driver in the great state of Louisana.
When I got home I started laughing and couldn't stop for ten minutes.

I had never driven a car before in my life!

(But I had read a book on it at the library.)