Slashdot Mirror
Cities Tampering With Traffic Lights To Generate Revenue
Techdirt is reporting that there has been a rash of reports indicating that red light cameras are being used to generate revenue rather than to promote safety. "Time and time again studies have shown that if cities really wanted to make traffic crossings safer there's a very simple way to do so: increase the length of the yellow light and make sure there's a pause before the cross traffic light turns green (this is done in some places, but not in many others). Tragically, it looks like some cities are doing the opposite! Jeff Nolan points out that six US cities have been caught decreasing the length of the yellow light below the legal limits in an effort to catch more drivers running red lights and [increase] revenue."
Would these sneaky moves be grounds to contest the validity of all of the tickets given by traffic cameras in these cities?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I guess I will have to drive faster to make those yellow lights, You know, lights timed for 35 mph are also timed for 70 mph.
No, then you just have the result where cars jump the light knowing that there is a pause.
Doesn't this already happen in Boston?
Quite simply, if they were there for safety, cities would put warning signs up at intersections that have cameras, people would slow down, less people would run lights, and less accidents would occur. I have never seen a warning sign at such an intersection, so their financial motives are pretty clear.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
between a bureaucrat's understanding of technology and a technologists understanding of technology.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Speed traps exist to generate revenue. Parking tickets have always existed as a way to generate revenue. If cities actually wanted to stop speeders and parking violators, they'd make the financial burden too much (i.e., raise the fine associated). This will be old news when more cities decrease the length of the yellow light and it becomes as much a matter of common fact as is the speed trap and the "you may only park here for 2 hours" areas.
Where I live, the yellow light blinks 4 times for the change between green to red. Seems a much better system.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
My impression is that this is a regional difference in the US: it's the norm in the East and a rarity in the West.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I think the cash flow will ultimately come out worse, as the city is forced to pay out wrongful death and dismemberment lawsuits to all the people injured or killed at these intersections, which they are deliberately making unsafer.
It has also been shown that those intersections have more rear-end collisions. Why? People jamming on their brakes to avoid red light tickets.
... I leave the rest to you as an exercise.
Also to be noted is that it isn't necessarily the cities who are tampering with the light timing. Many cities have contracted out the stop light camera enforcement to private industry. They are in business for a profit
If you don't run red lights, don't pay any fine at all.
Corner of Ironwood and Jefferson Blvd, in South Bend, Indiana. Same city with Notre Dame... You know the fighting irish? Them. I guess they're also trying to find drunken football fans.
Put no Turn on Red Sign. Be sure to place them just out view of the Red Light for the person who is stopped in front of the line, even if they are infront of the line. Then have someone honk their horn behind you and make some jesters to to. You check both ways see no cars and go... Then a cop pulls up and tickets you.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
At least on Armitage and Ashland; I think Irving Park and Western is unmarked.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Yeah, I knew it did
Is it a question of people slamming on their breaks because it "suddenly" turned red or them slamming on their breaks because they realized they "couldn't beat it". Yellow means: caution, Light is going to change. Slow to a stop. Now if the City is not allowing enough time on the light for breaking that is a public safety problem.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
After jumping through two blogs (neither of which are the actual story), you'll come to Motorists.org -- the National Motorists Association -- and find the story, dated March 26, 2008 (3 weeks ago). Reading the story, you'll see they cite six different local newspaper articles, some dating back more than a year ago:
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
So while indeed this is interesting, it is not particularly "new" nor "news." Cities have been doing this for over a decade, and they occasionally get caught, but more often than not, they do not. They will continue to push for the cameras since they generate virtually "free" revenue (free in the sense of little manpower and little initial investment cost).
Here in the UK we've had cameras of some sort looking over traffic for years. Initially they were speed cameras; today there are also red light cameras.
The entire system is set up to make money and it's as clear as day. When a speed camera is placed at the bottom of a steep hill or in the middle of a 2-mile straight, clear stretch of road (with a tree hiding it), it's pretty unrealistic to claim they're purely for safety reasons
I only have anecdotal evidence to back this up, but:
I used to live in Minneapolis. There, yellow lights are relatively long, and there is almost always a delay between signal changes. You know what happened? People figured out there was a delay and were willing to run an even redder light. Eventually, they lengthened the delay, and people just ran the light even further. Last I checked, people were almost always egregiously running red lights as many as several seconds into the red, enough that 1 or 2 cars usually go through after my signal has turned green.
On the other hand, here in San Francisco, very few lights have delays before the next signal is green. Yet, I usually only have to wait for 1 or 2 cars once my signal has changed.
In both places I have to watch carefully before entering, because it's still not impossible for some idiot to blow through the light long after I'd be in the middle of the intersection if I didn't stop and look
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
People always complain about traffic stops, speeding tickets, etc. Sure, they police make money off them, but if you're breaking the law, they're well within their right to ticket you - it is the law where you live. If you don't like it, then a) change the law, or b) move.
Red Light Cameras have drastically decreased the death toll through traffic collisions in toronto, canada.
On the other side, they increase rear end collisions, which is why the state of florida is avoiding them - rear end collisions tend to be very damaging to senior citizens.
A link to the original article. Techdirt links to a Leftlanenews site that in turn links to the original article.
.5 miles beforehand warning of the speed camera.
The cities involved are Union City, CA, Dallas and Lubbock, TX, Nashville and Chattanooga, TN, Springfield, MO.
As others have pointed out, if the government were truly interested in safety and not revenue, they would put up signs well ahead of the intersections. They would do the same with speed cameras - find where people are driving to fast for conditions (with accident data to back it up), put up a speed camera and then put up a sign
Of course, if safety were actually a reasonable cause for speeding, we would have speed limits actually based around the 85th percentile and other statistically proven safe policies.
Instead we have the police using tickets as a revenue source.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
In all the cities near me, there are yellow diamond signs with a picture of an old brownie camera in black in the middle on all approaches to intersections with cameras.
The biggest solution to decreasing accidents at intersections is actually not to increase the amber light and provide more delay before the cross street's green -- the biggest solution is to decrease the number of light cycles per day. The fewer cycles, the fewer accidents per day, even if the same number of accidents occur per cycle.
The trick is to measure the volume of through traffic on both streets per hour on weekdays and weekends and adjust the light timings accordingly, finding the "sweet spot" between causing congestion due to long waits and causing accidents due to short waits.
The long amber and green light delays are only an aid that can help tweak the system once these other factors are accounted for.
Of course, in many cities, the amber light is referred to by drivers as the "go faster" light -- having a long amber actually promotes speeding through intersections in such cities, and results in more pedestrian injuries and deaths.
In downtown Seattle, the pedestrian crosswalks have a digital countdown now. So the pedestrians can SEE that they only have 2 seconds remaining to cross the street.
Now, do you want to guess how many times my light goes green and there are still pedestrians in the middle of the street?
Systems such as this only keep the honest people honest. If you were the type to just go and depend upon everyone else to over-compensate for you, then you'd do it no matter what.
Which is what the cameras were ORIGINALLY pitched for (and revenue from those people). Now it seems that the accidents (rear-end collisions) have removed a portion of that population and the revenues are dropping. I can live with fewer jerks on the road.
Ok, Let's see, here.
1. +$50,000 in increased ticket revenue for 2008.
2. -$50,000,000 class-action settlement in 2010.
Even to some sad misanthrope on the city council without the slightest regard for human life and the suffering of others, didn't at least this occur to them?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Here in Arizona we have as many cameras for speeding as we do for red lights. Some of the red light cams in Scottsdale also double as speeding cameras too. If you go through an intersection to fast you will be popped. To make the issue even worse, if you have a questionable yellow light and you speed up to not get the ticket for the red light, you'll get one for speeding instead. I am not sure if the speed camera is working when the light goes yellow, but I would guess that is able to watch both at the same time.
Now we also have speed cameras on the highways too. Those have been on and off several times for different reasons, but the general rule is, when on, if you go 11 over (not 10), you will get popped. If they lowered that by 3-4 for even a day they would get countless tickets and would anyone really suspect anything?
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Yellow lights just tell me to go faster, or I'll hit the red. So when I see one, I speed up... and I usually make it through.
Sometimes I don't make it before the red light, but thats okay - I havn't hit anyone yet!
Most...obvious...article...ever.
Does anyone actually think they were installed to promote safety?! A quick Google search will show that at intersections with cameras, accidents AND fatalities have gone up in 90% of the cases, and in the other 10%, the fact they were reduced is probably a coincidence or related to some other factor.
"Know but never fear the consequences of your actions."
In my town (Austin, TX) they recently created a large network of toll roads that cuts travel time across town by a lot. However, with the advent of the toll roads, I've noticed the "access" roads (the non-toll roads that run alongside the toll roads) have not only gotten MORE traffic lights installed, but they aren't in synch at all. Matter of fact (and more often than not) one can find themselves at a red light along the access road, and as soon as the light turns green the next light a little further up ahead will just be turning red. Now one could possibly argue it's to control traffic congestion, but I wonder if it isn't the state's way of mentally pushing drivers onto the toll roads in order to garner more revenue.
Dallas recently installed red-light cameras. I'll testify that red-light runners were a major problem here, but I didn't support the cameras because of the potential for abuse. There was concern at City Hall, too, especially from the city's most with-it councilperson, Angela Hunt.
To the surprise of just about everyone, the cameras worked! People actually started slowing down in time to stop if the light turned yellow. The city became safer.
But there was an inevitable downside... the cameras' revenue no longer supported their operating cost.
Once again, the unexpected happened. Dallas did NOT tweak yellow light timing to generate more tickets. Instead, they turned off some of the cameras. Apparently, the contract with the third-party camera operator has a clause that reduces the monthly charge from $3,800 per camera to "a fraction" of that cost (blame the Morning News for failing to tell whether that fraction is 1/10 or 9/10). So they're turning some of them off, noting that "most motorists won't realize this and behave as if the cameras are operational."
Which is what we wanted all along.
The city of Dallas is mired in several messes of its own making, resulting in high-profile FBI probes and even a suicide pact between two of its best-known (and most-troubled) behind-the-scenes power brokers. But in this case, the city comes shining through. And the Rangers won a double-header last night, too. Wonders never cease.
More info available from the Dallas Morning News article.
More info NOT available from "theNewspaper.com", a self-described "journal of the politics of driving" that never hesitates to pass on a story of red light camera *abuse*. I sent a link to the DMN story, but it never showed up. Agenda much?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I like driving when the intersection has a pedestrian countdown, 3..2..1, I know when the yellow light is coming and can stop/dash.
Give enough information to make an informed decision whether I can make it or not.
Anyone injured in an accident at an intersection, in those cities, now is going to be looking very hard at the light timing and if it contributed to the accident. Is the city culpable? Let a jury determine. Is the company that set the timing culpable? Let a jury determine. And on, and on.... This could get interesting.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Buy one of these: http://www.hideaplate.com/h/hideaplate/
Then blow through as many red lights as you wish!
"Know but never fear the consequences of your actions."
Maybe I'm new here ( after a decade ), but it seems to me that referencing a blog that's giving out information not only second hand, but maybe third-hand isn't helping much. I tracked the links to Motorist.org, that's as far as I'm going. Here's the article I found that appears to be relevant:
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
This also appears to be a blog, but gives attribution to TheNewspaper.com's archives as the source material for their commentary.
Let's blame Traffic James. I mean, he is a dick.
www.purevolume.com/martyd
Are you telling me the evolution of public law enforcement agencies into de facto for-profit corporations has a down side? Say it ain't so!
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
but for crying out loud, HARMONIZE YOUR ROAD LAWS, there's nothing more likely to cause accidents than different people expecting roads to work in the same way as other roads which look pretty much the same, when they infact work differently. There is no reason why individual cities should be able to set the length of the amber light AT ALL. There's no reason to have some states where you can turn on a red, and some states where you can't, red should mean the same thing everywhere. When driving you need as little distraction as possible, and that includes having to apply local interpretation to the traffic signals and road markings.
Charging through on the red becomes the norm.
In a particularly ironic case, an acquaintance of mine was rearended because he actually stopped for the red when the guy behind expected him to race through with enough time for him to follow inches behind!
I had to double check this, and it's probably going to get modded down, but nonetheless:
According to the 08 Illinois Rules of the Road: Yellow Light -- The Yellow light warns when a light is changing from Green to Red. When the red light appears, you may not enter the intersection.
This seems to be the way to go IMHO. You can't ticket someone for running the red light unless they entered the intersection when after the light turns red. I know in Missouri, however, it is the opposite, if any part of your car is in the intersection after the light is red, you can be fined. (This was something I had to remind myself of when I moved to St. Louis, and something I had to remind my wife of when we moved into IL). Just one reason I prefer IL to MO.
I got nuthin
Try a set of Phantom Plate or Photoshield license plate covers.
(Don't bother with the spray, though; it doesn't work.)
Then I will have to travel fast enough that the red shift causes the reflection of the yellow light off my windshield to appear green.
Should screw up the radar too.
105mph? In that case why not put a ramp ahead of the intersection and jump it. Crash problem solved! I plan on getting a copy of the General Lee if they ever implement this.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
The traffic cams in Dallas are "too successful."
People are actually stopping at red lights. T-bone accidents are down. Revenue is well below expectations and for some lights is a net loss.
The city pays a third party $x/month for every active camera and $y/month yx for every inactive camera to maintain the equipment. They are seriously thinking about deactivating cameras in a round-robin rotation, hoping people will think it's real and obey the signals while saving the city money.
The newspapers and TV news crews caught several Dallas-area cities shortening yellow lights and there was a big stink about it. That boiled over awhile back so I assume the cities went back to normal timings.
Personally I think the anyone caught with a local moving violation should have a mandatory trial at the same time and day of the week as the original violation. You can plead no contest or ask to take defensive driving but you still have to show up for court. Try explaining to your boss that since you got caught speeding to work on Monday morning at 7:30, you have to be in court NEXT Monday at 7:30 to talk to the judge.
Our society and our governments are in serious need of a reboot...Shit needs to change people................
It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
I live in Leuven, Belgium.
Every kilometer You find a traffic camera here.
Best way to generate revenue is:
1) running through a yellow light is equal to running through a red one
2) let the traffic lights adapt their timing to ridiculous times (3 seconds) 1 car passes, the second not. By preference never keep the timing constant, otherwise drives get to know the quirks of the system.
I personally encountered such a traffic light in kessel-lo at approximately 5 km from the town of leuven.
Next proposal: any car standing on a cross roads when the lights turn red is equal to one having crossed a red light. Try turning left in leuven in the future.
dirk
Sure, the original, and perhaps main intent in most installations is still to discourage the behavior of running red lights. But the problem is that the traffic control systems are being tweaked to maximize revenue, and not safety (obviously, the whole point of this story). The system now takes on a whole new purpose for its existence, and consequently works against its original intent.
It's akin to putting a 55MPH (or 90kph) speed limit, followed by a 25MPH (or 40kph) then followed by a 55MPH sign all with a stretch of 100 feet. It doesn't make sense, and it increases the danger of someone who is flagrantly disobeying the traffic controls getting tangled up with someone that is slowing down to anticipate and comply with the traffic controls. Meanwhile the speed camera is set in place, ready to capture as many hapless "speeders" as possible.
I'm just glad that the state I live in has a law that essentially makes any kind of automated traffic violation system unconstitutional. You need to be confronted by your accuser (i.e. cop) to be issued a traffic citation.
---We shall temporarily suspend the moratorium on car analogies for the duration of this story...
There is some truth in it ;)
Privacy is terrorism.
He is a dick.
www.purevolume.com/martyd
... six US cities have been caught decreasing the length of the yellow light below the legal limitsWould these 'legal limits' by any chance be federal traffic standards? The sort of standards municipalities must comply with to receive federal matching funds or whatever for road projects? And what would the penalties for violating these limits be? Forfeiture of said funds? And how would a municipality go about obtaining the money to make such a reimbursement? Laying off a few dozen cops and traffic court judges? Is there a program to reward whistle-blowers who bring such infractions to the attention of the federal authorities?
All questions I'd like to ask if ever I get nailed at such a light and get my day in court.
Have gnu, will travel.
We need to standardized the timing on all yellow lights.
"It's gonna turn red soon" doesn't mean shit.
"It's gonna turn red in 5 seconds" is useful information.
I would love standardized timings. The duration of yellow lights greatly affects traffic patterns, and a fixed time of 4 seconds or something would not be ideal.
We can't put a visible timer on them either, because that costs $$$, and some people will see it and think "1 second is PLENTY of time!".
A good solution is to simply scale the delay of the yellow light to the speed of the road.
45 MPH zone? 4.5 seconds.
25 MPH zone? 2.5 seconds.
Also - the solid white lines (dividing lanes) before many intersections are a good rule of thumb.
If you're traveling at/near the speed limit, look at the light when you reach the solid white line.
I believe they are measured out so that if the light is green when you reach that line, you'll make it. If the light is yellow once you reach that solid line, you should stop.
I believe they are measured out for this, but there's definitely no standard, and since they keep fucking with the timing on yellow lights, it's all gone to shit.
Wow now yellow really does mean speed up, you're going to have to to avoid the ticket.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I am not really going to sweat this on my part. This because I live in New Orleans. If you have ever been here, you know how it is... The rules of the road are pretty much winner takes all. The yellow lights last a few seconds at best, there is no pause between yellow for oncoming and green for cross-traffic. As a matter of fact, I really think that the cross-traffic gets the green before the oncoming switches from yellow to red. Regardless, people notoriously run red lights (from a dead stop even) here, let alone yellow. This town just late last year put up cameras at some choice intersections, but I assure you, it will do little at least in this town for either safety or revenue. Maybe the other country bordering us, aka the US will be get better results in either category.
Studies show that these cameras don't decrease the total number of accidents at an intersection anyway; they increase the number of rear-end collisions as people slam on their breaks to avoid being caught by the camera. They do reduce the number of t-bone collisions, but the total number of accidents may actually go up.
Of course you have a choice. You can choose to observe traffic laws and slow down in preparation to stop, because that's what a yellow light is for.
3 seconds or 6 seconds, the purpose of a yellow light doesn't change. Maybe what should change is your driving habits.
In my field, I work with city depts quite a bit. I'm in southern California by the way. Each city has its own traffic engineering department. The timing on lights is based on traffic surveys which are typically requested by the city whenever a development goes in which will affect traffic patters. This has to be paid for by the developer. So though there are DOT and county guidlines, CalTrans in my case. The city does have jurisdiction over the timing of the light.
Now as a citizen it is your right to attend your next council meeting and protest this matter in a public forum. If your lucky someone might request a study be done. your best bet will be to point out inconsistencies between similar public intersections with and without lights, or better yet before and after the light was installed.
As a general rule yoru traffic engineer dept is full of lazy donut eating public servants who avoid teh private sector because of there inability to perform. ie he/she is usually a ripe target.
Red light cameras are bad for safety precisely *because* they're known, and people slam on their brakes for fear of getting tickets. It gets brought up every time someone tries to take down these obnoxious things here (DC).
GP is incorrect, mod him down please.
I'd rather sue for gas costs. Forcing people to suddenly change their speed is a complete waste of gas. I'd imagine every day these "short lights" (and I have to go through 3 of these every day to work) waste at least 30 bucks worth of gas EACH- EVERYDAY. There is, for example, a poorly set up light I have to drive through that is up-hill on each side (so its downhill approaching the intersection, in other words). When it turns red, that means your wasting gas by braking and then wasting gas some more by accelerating back up the hill. Its very poorly set-up as the light is only 3 seconds for 45 mph, and the farthest back sensor is just too close - if there is even a moment it doesn't detect cars it will switch from green to red, which I found results in a LOT of instances where an oncoming line of 50 cars all have to stop for it because one car pulled up to the intersection to make a left turn.
One thing that really irritates me are those poorly put together lights that somehow glitch-out, and will be stuck giving the wrong side green until a car hits the farthest back sensor. It then instantly goes to red as that car approaches the intersection, and the way the farthest back sensor is usually set-up, you'd be running the light unless your a bit above the speed limit. It actually becomes designed to waste as much gas as possible.
And its not people running red lights that are dangerous (unless its by an extreme amount, which I've only seen semitrucks and military people who came back from iraq do) its people JUMPING green lights (which you dont see much of). As I saw in a study, these lights increase rear-endings, which is no big deal- you know, costing people more money for repairs and giving them whiplash is no big deal. I honestly don't see how a camera that takes a picture when the light turns red can possibly increase safety - the time it takes for a car to even accelerate into the intersection is at least 2 seconds from the time it turns green (reaction time + normal acceleration). If anything it should be taking a picture of the other side of the intersection...
And I saw in another study that these red light cameras actually decrease a city's revenue - they make everyone paranoid so nobody gets a ticket...
Its complete bullcrap that a city's means of getting revenue is to falsely get them to do something wrong. It just detracts from their focus on people who legitimately do something wrong.
Their Flux Capacitor needs the DeLorean to reach 88 miles per hour to make the jump.
...the timing of the Yellow and All-Red intervals are pretty straightforward. The Yellow should be 3-6 seconds long, and is based upon the approach speeds (the higher the speed, the longer the Yellow). The purpose of the Yellow is warn traffic of an impending change in Right-of-Way assignment. On a typical urban roadway with speeds of 30 mph, the Yellow should be 3 seconds long.
The All-Red interval should also be 3-6 seconds long, and should be based upon the geometry and size of the intersection, as well as the approach speeds. The purpose of the All-Red interval is to ensure that the intersection is clear of crossing traffic prior to assigning the Right-of-Way to a side street or pedestrian crossing. To determine the appropriate length of an All-Red interval, you need measure the distance from the stop line to the far side of the intersection (typically past the far crosswalk) and determine the approach speed. 30 m.p.h. = 44 ft/sec, so if the distance from the stop line to the far crosswalk is 88 feet, the appropriate All-Red interval would be 2 seconds. To be conservative, you can also add the length of a typical vehicle (~25 ft.) into the equation.
With that knowledge in hand, you may be able to fight a red light-running ticket if you believe the timing provided for you was too short. Those are the general guidelines across the US. Individual states, counties, and cities may have different criteria, though.
The city of Baltimore has been under constant scrutiny for red light camera policies that appear to be unsafe and/or in financial conflict with the public interest. In the report mentioned here, Administrative Judge Keith "One T" Mathews wrote the following summary:
The one thing that red light cameras have always consistently accomplished, however, is revenue generation on a large scale.
No, I have not RTFA. Anything that begins with the standard "they must want the revenue" rationalization is self-deluding crap.
I used to work in Santa Clara, CA, on a street where the drivers where demonstrably crazy. It had 2 lanes plus a center left turn lane. The 35 MPH posted limit was eminently reasonable. Yet people routinely drove much faster, even using the center lane as a passing lane. Worst of all, it was a short street, so that speeding cut a few seconds at most off your commute.
One day, I narrowly escaped a headon collision with a particularly stupid speeder-weaver. I pried my fingers off the steering wheel, went to my office, and wrote a letter to the local police chief detailing conditions on this road, and suggesting a few minor improvements in enforcement.
I didn't get a few minor improvements — I got a major crackdown. I guess that letter was even scarier than I realized. A lot of my co-workers got ticketed. Did any of them admit to being bad drivers. No of course not. They were all perfect drivers. They all agreed that Santa Clara must need the extra revenue.
Face it, bozos. None of you is as good a driver as you think you are. If you think yellow lights are two short, don't fucking race them.
When I lived in Europe I noticed something that should be used here. Their lights don't go Green->Yellow->Red->Green. Instead, they go Green->Yellow->Red->Yellow->Green. That extra yellow for those starting from a stop helps make the intersections a little bit safer. Also, some intersections have 3 cycles instead of 2 (north/south, east/west). The three cycles are north/south traffic, east/west traffic, and crosswalk traffic.
~smith55js
I can attest from direct observation, that lengthening the yellow light and leaving a gap between the time the cross traffic light turns green, does not work. On my way to work, all the lights I hit are configured that way. You know what happens? People use that 1-2 second gap to continue driving through, even if there is no room for them on the other side. Thus, they end up blocking the intersection for the cross traffic people.
In some cases, I've nearly had my nose taken off because people are still trying to cross the intersection or make a turn across my bow when my light turns green. Figure that's 4 seconds after their light has turned red (2 seconds for the gap and 2 seconds for my car to move into the intersection).
An easier, though slightly more costly method, of catching people who run red lights is to leave the lights the way they are station 2 cops at an intersection. One watches the light and notes who has run the light then relays that information to his partner just down the way who pulls the people over. Record it on a video camera so there is absolute proof of who actually did run the light.
Yeah, yeah. This doesn't solve the issue of changing the timing patterns but at least there is no question of who did what. You can always use the video in your defense to show how short the lights are since the issue is being recorded.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
For those interested in the real article, it's here:
/. links to doesn't actually link to it. Even this article is a summary of 6 articles from TheNewspaper.com (which it does link to).
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
The blog post
I just did a 4 month internship in San Diego, and I drove to work. I'm used to Ontario traffic lights being a certain length of yellow. And then, there's usually a pause between the two sets of traffic lights (i.e. there's a small amount of time where all lights are red). Imagine my surprise in Southern California that this was not the case at all. The yellows were MUCH longer, throwing me off completely. I'd slow to a stop in anticipation of the red, only to see it stay yellow for a while. So a few times, I "dared" to just go through the yellow. I thought they were questionable, but to my surprise, at least one or two drivers would follow behind me. If it was questionable for me, how are they pulling it off? There's no pause between reds either. The whole situation just seemed so unsafe. And then I saw a piece on the local news about red lights, and how the city is earning lots of money from it. If you want an example of who's got the traffic light timing perfect, look to Ontario.
Out here in Southern California, there's been a local scandal about 1 million plus people being issued secret plates that send cameras a message to ignore the picture, in effect giving them the right to run the light. It's also been used to violate tolls out here, etc...it's just such a disgusting system now.
...in bed
What kind of garbage is this?
The slashdot article links to another article, which links to a third, which vaguely reference a report done by motorists.org. With no direct link.
Just link us the content, dont take us on a tour of the internet.
And while we're making more traffic circles we should probably teach people how to use them CORRECTLY. (in the US at least)
We need to ammend the US constitution to prohibit all forms of government revenue generation other than the income tax. These innane taxes and fees, fines, and loans are a huge waste of time and money, and now it appears that they may be costing lives! We all just need to get a bill in the mail every month for the ammount we owe to the government and that is that.
There are better ways to enforce traffic laws than imposing inane fines that government agencies use to pad their coffers. Manditory traffic school, having your license suspended, increased insurance rates, and the threat of jail time or probation are all better deturants than traffic fines.
Where I'm from, city hall hasn't bothered to try keep pace with development, so there is cronic and unnecessary traffic. Rather than upgrading the publics'infrastructure, they'd much rather raise revenues via enforcement and punishment. IMHO, the only thing improving is their salaries and the budgets they get to spend. The latest development around hee is the Speed On Green camera. Not only is it a red light camera, it also enforces artificially low speed limits.
Thieves; either they take time from your day, or money from your wallet. What's the difference?
Living in Nashville, I was a little surprised to see this headline... since I've NEVER seen or heard of a traffic camera here. The google reports there is at least one in Gallatin, TN, and they're thinking of putting one in Murfreesboro, TN (both could be considered *extremely* distant suburbs of nashville, I suppose, but separate local and county governments) The original article reveals:
"Even without red light cameras, police in Nashville, Tennessee have been earning hundreds of thousands in revenue by trapping motorists in conventional ticket traps at city intersections with the shortest yellow warning time."
Dirty yes, but no traffic cameras involved.
In downtown Cleveland, the city has put the traffic cameras in high-traffic areas, but where there is no cross traffic, nor any foot traffic. They actually got in a pile of trouble with the state, and now, people from cleveland SLAM on their brakes as they near these stop lights (they have signs to warn motorists). This is OBVIOUSLY to generate revenue, in fact, the city has bragged about it on a number of occasions! People don't actually run these lights anymore, but the city monetizes speeding violations with the cameras. In the State of Ohio hearings on the matter, it turned out that 97% of the tickets issued were for speeding.
About a year or so ago, a redlight camera was installed near my home at a busy intersection. Recently, I was driving down the road and an SUV pulled out of a parking lot at an alarming speed, barely stayed in its lane, and nearly collided with me. Although I was safe, my attention was clearly diverted for a span of about 1-2 seconds.
When I looked back at the road (and the approaching intersection), I noticed that the light was yellow. But how long had it been yellow? I had no idea at this point, but knowing that I couldn't get out of a ticket by claiming that another car almost hit me, I slammed on my brakes, burned tons of rubber, and barely made the stop before the white line (with my car rotated at about a 15 degree angle from the normal direction).
Knowing that the intersection has about a 2 second pause between my red light and the other road's green light, I would have been quite capable of "safely" running a yellow or red light. Instead, I endangered myself and nearby cars to avoid one ticket.
While I support red light cameras, do they really make an intersection safer than a 2-second pause between lights?
and I am not surprised in the least to see Chattanooga on this list. I've been seeing yellow light times decrease (especially at the red light intersections) for as long as I can remember, and I've been seeing more and more near misses and bullshit tickets given out as drivers who have no safe choice but to continue through a yellow light get bitten by the flash of the camera.
As for myself, I just risk the rear-ender and tend to slam on my brakes when I see camera lights go yellow. Those $50 tickets can add up.
After reading this (thanks for the link!!), it appears to be entirely based on a few anecdotes collected by an advocacy group with an axe to grind. One or two of the stories seem suggestive, but the rest look like general sloppiness having nothing to do with the cameras themselves.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Here in Connecticut, specifically New London County, there is a more-sinister problem afoot:
From time to time, you'll be driving down the road and see one of those smaller "trailers" with the bright LED numbers indicating your speed, and the sign with the actual speed posted above the digital readout. If you're speeding, the 1-foot tall numbers will blink. If you go under the speed limit, they stop blinking.
They look like this: http://www.newtonpolice.org/images/speedtrailer.jpg
These were originally intended as a way to see if the majority of traffic is going higher than the posted limit, or lower, etc. so they can change the posted limits accordingly.
However, the evil part of this plan, is that on the BACK SIDE of that little trailer is a speed camera, which snaps a photo of your license plate when you pass it. I've personally seen it take snaps of cars exceeding the limit, but NOT take photos of those who were not exceeding the limit. There is no signage telling you that this "indicator" is really a hidden traffic/speed camera, or that you're being photographed (presumably to have speeding tickets mailed to you in the mail at a later date).
According to this site the legal yellow light times in the state of California are:
Posted Speed or Prima Facie Speed Minimum Yellow Interval
MPH KPH Yellow SECONDS
25 40 3.0
30 48 3.2
35 56 3.6
40 64 3.9
45 72 4.3
50 80 4.7
55 89 5.0
60 97 5.4
65 105 5.8
Sorry, the lameness filter prevents this from being easily read.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I'd like to remind you that a data protocol, and the data it carries, are two separate things. Just because someone doesn't write an article in the method (data protocol) you like, doesn't mean that the actual data contained (data payload) is invalid.
You're superficial.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Remember the episode where the mayor left town and the city charter said the most intelligent people (ie nerds) would then run the town? Well one of their great ideas was to eliminate the green and red lights completely to speed up traffic. Then at the end Stephen Hawking comes to show them all the error of their ways.
Jeff Nolan points out that six US cities have been caught decreasing the length of the yellow light below the legal limits in an effort to catch more drivers running red lights and [increase] revenue
I list the areas with the cameras as a traffic hazard in my GPS. Expect sudden panic stops, sudden expenses in the mail, etc. When I shop, I avoid these areas. the risk for an accident or financial accident are high. I'll let them fall to urban decay and let the local businesses know why I seldom drop in anymore. I'll let the businesses move out of the urban decay areas or decay with the area. Many motorists do the same. Red Light cameras are good for reducing congestion. This topic is seldom covered, but it is part of the plan in many areas. Please ride light rail, bus or other transportation, but leave the car home. I have 4 areas nearby marked in the GPS as a hazard. Auto-routing takes me around these areas. As such I don't buy gas, fast food or other along the route shopping there.
The truth shall set you free!
We have a few of these, the accident rate is so low that I have never encountered one at an intersection where traffic goes one direction only through it.
Now we do have a few sites where there are cameras and the initial reaction is more rear end collisions as people are more likely to panic stop because the light goes yellow.
I recently read of one city looking to remove the cameras as people have become to attentive that revenue is actually below the cost of paying for the cameras.
The best punishment for any city caught reducing the yellows below legal limits is loss of federal funds. Give them a TICKET!
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
For major roads with higher speed limits, there is a simple solution. Install flashers ahead of the light such that if you reach that point and see them flashing, start slowing down because by the time you reach the intersection, they'll be red. If the lights aren't flashing, keep on going at the speed you are going (the speed limit, presumably) and you're guaranteed to make it through the light on green. For those cars close to the intersection when this happens, the yellow light is long enough to let cars that are already committed through. No more slapping on the breaks or racing through. There's just no need for it, and no excuse for it either.
Another good idea is how many countries in the world operate their lights. When the green is getting pretty stale, rather than switch to yellow, they blink green. That's a sign to slow down or speed up, depending on where you are. After that a short yellow light is sufficient. There are not many excuses to end up running red lights in this system. It works extremely well, particularly on city roads. The difference between a yellow and blinking green light is just a psychological thing, but it does work very well in the cities I've seen it.
Another similar revenue-trap I've noticed in the city where I live: most all of the major arterial roads are posted at 60km/h. In general if you keep it to 70-75km/h you're safe and won't be ticketed for speeding, but on quite a few of these streets I've noticed that the lights are timed out so you have to do 80-85 km/h in order to hit the greens and keep going - if you go any slower you just get caught at red after red and you can see all the greens changing in sequence up ahead of you.
I am nowhere near convinced this is unintentional.
Even assuming the obvious financial incentives aren't in play, actually increasing people's safety is more complicated than is being represented.
Sure, increasing the length of the yellow light and the pause while all lights are red will unarguably reduce the number of accidents... TODAY. Humans are learning creatures, and in particular they use their learning abilities to engage in "risk homeostasis". They will tend to expose themselves to the same level of risk of running a red light (or more precisely, the possible consequences thereof in terms of tickets/accidents/insurance hikes) over time, and as the system gives them more leeway they will take up the slack.
What is needed is to make intersections PREDICTABLE. The more predictable intersections are, the fewer driving errors will be made. Yellow lights should be of a consistent length (and based on the expected speed/attention of the drivers on that particular stretch of road at that particular time of day). If there are red light cameras, put up big honking signs letting people know! Cameras are put at specific intersections because they have been labeled as "high risk" or "congested", and the goal is to reduce risk of accidents and congestion from people left inside during the change. The more people are aware of the presence of the cameras, the greater the effect.
For providing the first facts I've seen on this topic.
Come up to Massachusetts and ply your trade. From what I've been able to observe of our traffic controls, they're badly in need of some engineering!
So people who get through the lights without getting hit become revenue, and people who get hit going through lights become justifications for increased monitoring of intersections and more cameras! Truly an inspired plan, by a truly devious government.
When I was in Brazil (Sao Paulo) during May - July 2005, I noticed a very efficient traffic light system in most parts. The traffic lights had LED signs next to them with a number countdown. For example, if you're driving and you see a 3 displayed, you have 3 seconds until the light turns yellow and yields an additional second or two. Using this system, a driver knows better than to keep going if the number is 3.
This is one (among many) good reason to not tolerate the "surveillance society" that we are allowing to be built around us. Power is just too tempting to abuse.
I don't condone breaking the law, even WRT minor traffic violations. But for a long time I've believed that the increase in cameras and automated law enforcement was a Bad Thing(tm). People may argue that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I would say, in this case, we'd better figure out how to cram that genie back where it came from. I don't want to be monitored 100% of the time, and bollocks to the argument that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't need to worry". The drivers were technically in violation of law, but gaming the light timings to get more automated tickets? That's abuse at its finest.
If they can do that, they can do more. In this case we have cities abusing the technology to get more money, but it's pretty obvious that there are things even more stinky that could (and will) be done with all this surveillance and "enforcement" power.
See the handwriting on the wall? It says "Speak now, or forever hold your peace."
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
There was an article in the Denver post a few weeks ago about this very issue as Denver wants to "test" the program. One of the lights they want to test has had many accidents. An independant firm went out there at looked at the light. The yellow was a full second below the federal limit for the posted speed on the road. Accident heaven. The city said they will not change the light timing if the cameras were installed. I wonder if you would be able to counter-sue for not following federal highway regs if you get a ticket. A side note, they said all revenue would go to the PD, to increase traffic safety more. I read that as the top brass gets bigger bonus for bringing in more money, to buy more cameras, to get more bonus. Colorado Springs has motorcycle cops, exclusively for traffic stops. All revenue they get goes straight back into the motorcycle cop program. They get nice new bikes every 2 years, an ever increasing force, and loathing from other patrol cops. And, the police helicopter is being shut down due to budget issues.
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/cityattorney_page.asp?id=37933
Are you too lazy to do a little googling before you accuse someone of bs?
This is not entirely true, at least in the long term. Once you know the all red clearance time is there, you tend to cross red lights more often.
For instance, this report says:
As for whether red light cameras increase safety, studies usually find that angle and left-turn crashes are reduced but rear-end crashes tend to increase. See, for example Kangwon Shin and Simon Washington, The impact of red light cameras on safety in Arizona, Accident Analysis & PreventionVolume 39, Issue 6, , November 2007, Pages 1212-1221.
For the local cities here in California, traffic tickets are a much-needed source of revenue. Nobody pretends that it is anything else. The entrepreneurs supplying red-light cameras simply get paid a cut of the revenue.
For anyone that's interested, the video referred to above is titled "A Meditation On The Speed Limit."
Do not read this sig.
New York City has shortened the yellow light for as long as I can remember and it was for practical reasons. The four-second (and sometimes shorter) delay discourages yellow light runners and theoretically makes the intersections slightly safer. The temptation to run the yellow is quickly squelched
It has been criticized over the years, too, and the delay goes up and down depending on what year you're talking about.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5342/nydrive.htm
http://www.allcarrentacar.com/driving-in-queens.php
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-r-0540.htm
Kriston
This amuses me because our SoundOff column in the newspaper today had this gem:
"I am guilty of just passing a yellow light that I cut a little bit short, because I saw the red light come on just as I went under it, but I was okay because five other people came through behind me."
The sad part is, they weren't exaggerating. I see this happen all the time, and I wish Biloxi would come down harder on people who run the intersections like that. There's got to be a happy medium between letting people keep going through even after the other people get their green, and ticketing people who just happen to be in the intersection WHEN it turns red.
Sadly I've gotten to the point where I'm so frustrated about it, I'll start to go when my light turns green, even if they're still in the intersection. You should see the looks on their faces when a big-ass pickup truck is headed right for them. Am I in the wrong? Probably. But damn is it fun!
Your conclusions are correct, but you're a bit off in your definition of the yellow. At least here in California, a yellow light means, "...stop if you can do so safely. If you can't stop safely, enter the intersection cautiously."
Contesting a ticket...
1. Take a day off work (I'm a consultant, so I've already lost more than the ticket right there). But for the sake of argument, let's say it's my normally-stay-at-home wife.
2. Park near the courthouse. The courthouse parking lot costs $40 per day. So you are already out $40, even if you win. And if you lose, now you are out $40 more. The ticket is probably only $100 or so, so that's already half. Add in the gas money (about 3 gallons) and that's another $10, so $50 no matter what. (And don't think you're going to park on the streets. Because the courthouse is located in a part of town where your car will be in some chop shop before you get out of court.)
3. The judge doesn't really listen to your feeble arguments anyway. He's just feigning interest for a minute or so before saying, "Guilty." I mean, after all, this is his salary we're talking about...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ Actually, they don't site six different local newspaper articles. They site six articles from TheNewspaper.com, and I am disgusted by the level of bias they're showing. They titled the article, "6 Cities that were caught shortening yellow light times for profit" Being from around Springfield, MO, that was the one I was concerned with. That section of the article leads in with: The city of Springfield, Missouri prepared for the installation of a red light camera system in 2007 by slashing the yellow warning time by one second at 105 state-owned intersection signals across the city. Oh, no! They reduced the length of the yellows in preparation for the cameras, before they were installed, not after. The article then admits: The city defended its effort to the Springfield News-Leader by claiming it was "standardizing" and had increased the yellow time at 136 city-operated lights to meet national standards. So, they increased the time at more intersections than they decreased it. <sarcasm>Those sneaky bastards! They standardized the length of their yellow lights!</sarcasm> How is that "shortening yellow light times for profit"? With the lights standardized, there's no guessing how long the light will last, it will be yellow for the same amount of time as every other light in the city.
Apparently, the writers of the article have some idea the standardization might be good, so they try to muddy things a bit. During the city council meeting last October where the red light camera ordinance was approved, however, Assistant Director of Public Works Earl Newman gave a different explanation for the reduction. Newman said he was, "concerned that many individuals run the light if the light remained yellow too long." I think the attempt was to make people think they weren't just trying to standardize, but doesn't that help explain the need to standardize? If someone knows that a certain yellow is extra long, wouldn't they be more likely to try to get through on the yellow, rather than stop before the change to red?
Also, the article makes no mention of the fact that the city ran the cameras in "warning mode" for a month. Meaning that if you were caught by a camera, you just got a warning in the mail, rather than a ticket.
that's disturbing about decreasing the yellow light time if it's true. Just confirms that this whole thing is not truly about safety at all- it's about generating revenue. The fact they evangelize this technology under the guise of safety is disgusting.
A little over a year ago, I got a license plate that was composed of 0's, O's and D's to defeat photo radar. I proposed a nation-wide "vehicular Thomas Crowne Affair" to protest this crap. It made a stir in the local media here in AZ and there's at least one confirmed case in Texas of a guy who has successfully used this technique:
http://www.scrollinondubs.com/2006/12/19/the-vehicular-thomas-crowne-affair-how-to-creatively-defeat-photo-radar/
sean
Physics will beat the law each and every time. Why? 'cause, right now at least, basic laws of physics are so far infallible at traffic speeds. It's easy to show that w/ a standard deceleration and speed @ the speed limit, and a yellow light changing when you crossed landmark X that any significant percentage of vehicles may not have the capabilities to stop in that timeframe. Especially if your driving an SUV or heavier car.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
I like how my town has longer yellows then elsewhere. The downside is that I have to stop whenever I see a yellow in any other nearby smaller town, otherwise I'll have my timing off and end up with a red light. Consistancy would be nice.
Outsmart those silly government hacks! http://www.photoblocker.com/
I thought I noticed that all the stop lights where these "auto ticket" devices were located, were about .5 seconds -- an eye-blink. Two cars get through and then the third is on candid camera. I'm glad this wasn't my imagination.
Making a financial incentive to catch crime, increases in incidence of crime? I guess that explains the 2.6 Million people we have in prison, and why the corporate prison systems were behind lobbying for the "three strikes and your out" laws and mandatory sentencing.
We should be paying the health system when people LIVE and are healthy, and we should be paying the Police and Prison system when crimes don't happen. That should solve these issues.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
cops always mess with you in your car. they can give you tickets, search you, pull you over because you are black.
on the bus, they totally ignore you.
and you will never get in a deadly car crash on the bus
and you help save the environment
Thanks to wonderful traffic laws that make the person who rear-ends the other car always at fault while at the same time instilling an equal demerit value on running a red light. They recently decided to put cameras at every busy intersection, instead of just a few choice ones that allegedly had a "high collision rate". It is starting to make economic/freedom to drive sense to slam on the brakes if you are the lead car in a milisecond-yellow situation. If the other person hits you, so long as you are not mortally wounded- the insurance will cover the damage, but more importantly you will be able to drive another day. I should add now that running a red light combined with a rear-end on your driving record is all the points you need to get the license revoked. God help the person who rear-ended you, though because if he can think tacticly, he'll end up doing the same thing. Perhaps the auto-repair business is getting kick-backs from this as well.
Hi everyone! I've been reading all comments and thought it would be interesting to know how many seconds you think the yellow light should last. Click below to vote: http://www.memedex.com/view.php?vpid=484571&seoid=5
Randomly accusing someone of bs with no evidence makes you a troll.
You're OK in every state and provincial jurisdiction in North America where I've bothered to look up the laws (most of Canada, chunks of the US). People who say they are getting pulled over for "running a yellow" are either a) actually running a red and are either stupid or lying, or b) gunning it when they clearly have time to stop.
Properly installed red light cameras will account for this. They should only trigger on a car that has entered the intersection AFTER the light has turned red. If you're stuck turning left on a red, so long as you entered on the yellow, you're legally in the clear.
That doesn't account for improperly installed cameras, of course. How you prove that a week later when you see the ticket in the mail is beyond me. This plays out in experience, too - I'm a habitual yellow light runner who's lived in two cities infested with red light cameras, and I've never once gotten a ticket for running a red.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
None of the 5 cities listed were San Francisco.
The problem is that camera manufacturers charge a recurrent fee per month per camera ($6,000!!!) to cities. Cities need to do revenue from that. There are other methods less invasive and less expensive. I saw this one called the mole and is a cool concept. I know that some cities are using it to help reduce red light running and reduce recidivism. Their site has even links to other cites were explain why cameras don't work well and can be easily deceit. www.auspextechnologies.com
And why should anyone think this is new. State and local governments drool when they can secure yet another revenue stream. There was a time when traffic laws weren't put into place for revenue generation. Look at current DUI laws for example. Once upon a time a DUI ticket was a mere $30-40, now it's multi thousands in fines (revenue). Forced installations of inaccurate ignition interlocks, false evidence, loss of your license, forced convictions regardless if you CAN prove your innocence, etc, etc, etc.
I have lost ALL trust in not only the police, but our whole conviction at all costs legal system.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Beat it at what? Being right? Sure. Changing it? I've seen precious little in these parts to suggest our lawmakers are even remotely swayed by things like "facts" or "common fucking sense".
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
I hear you... and agree completly. You'll get out of that one ticket, but countless other fools will pay it and move along. It's an easy trap to set, and one that all too often nets more than the fair share of fish.
Don't tell anyone, but that is why I have my rear plate angled down. Good luck trying to take a picture of that! I am working on a cable set up that will allow me to pull it back up when I get pulled over.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
There is no reason in the world why a hardware provider should get any percentage of the revenue from traffic cameras. Traffic fines should never go to private companies, and they should never benefit any organization related to handing out traffic tickets, otherwise there is just too much potential for abuse.
As far as I'm concerned lowering the yellow time in order to increase revenue should be grounds for criminal proceedings against those that made those decisions. It boils down to knowingly increasing public risk for money. It should be delt with as any other activity that negligently puts the public at risk is. It's time to hold the watchers accountable like the watched.
More than a decade ago some major intersections in southern New York were marked with yellow signs with black dots. The signs informed drivers that the intersection they were about to drive through was more dangerous than other intersections. I don't know if signs represented an increase in the number of accidents or the severity of the accidents.
After a while the signs were taken down at the behest of local politicians who thought the signs gave the neighborhood a bad reputation.
I don't remember the details; the signs might have had black x's instead of dots, and worries over a bad reputation probably weren't the only issues,
but the bottom line is that public safety isn't always a top priority of our public officials.
For the most part, public safety should trump financial interests, but the reality is that it rarely does -- especially when profit is a priority of the semi-irrational people who influence public policy.
I never got this "lights timed for 35 mph are also timed for 70 mph" thing. Let's go thru it in ascii art...
If a thief comes into your house for stealing your property that's what you are supposed to do. So that sounds the locical thing to do to protect your income from people determined to put your security at stake to deprive you of your money.
In the summer of 2006, the police department of Fort Wayne, IN, ran a yellow-light racket at several major intersections. They set up an "observer" to make radio calls and had cars lined up ready to pull people over. Basically, as soon as a car was ready, they pulled over and ticketed the last vehicle through the intersection... regardless of whether or not the driver had actually run a red light. Most of the time, the driver who was pulled over had entered the light on yellow, often passing completely through the intersection on yellow. (Unlike some municipalities, there is no law in Fort Wayne requiring motorists to stop at a yellow light if they are able to stop safely. If you enter the intersection on yellow, you have not committed a moving violation.)
I was a front-seat passenger of a driver who was ticketed. We entered the intersection just as the light turned yellow; stopping would have been unsafe, if not impossible. The driver took it to court, and the ticketing officer blatantly lied about the circumstances of the citation. The courtroom nearly erupted in a riot that day. The judge still refused to throw out the tickets and have the officers charged with racketeering and perjury; instead, all the fines were reduced to $1, but the drivers still got points on their licenses. The city doubtless made hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of dollars from the drivers who didn't protest the racket in court. The FWPD ran this racket continuously, five days a week, eight hours a day, from approximately May through August of 2006.
First assume a society has some distribution of "good" people and "bad" people. Next assume that in that society good people want police protection from bad people and need to finance this protection. You could solve this by...
1) assessing everyone to pay for police protection (e.g., proportional to how much money they have or made or some per capita flat rate or some mix).
2) assessing people on how "bad" they are.
3) a mix of the above.
4) forgetting about any police protection against "bad" people.
Apparently, most societies have chosen option #3. Although it seems that people here are arguing more for option #1, I'll make the proposition that is the worst option as it give no incentive to keep the police force as small as possible and you may end up with a police organization at the whim of the politicians and the lobbist/special interests. Option #2 has the problem that often the "bad" people have no money on which to assess. With option #3, then enough people will have to be declared "bad" so that it isn't "pure" option #1, but not so many that people advocate option #4.
It isn't a pretty choice, but if a certain number of people need to be declared "bad" to fund the police, perhaps we just need to live with that.
"you may only brake if it is safe to do so". That statement, at least legally, is flat out wrong in most jurisdictions in the US (I can't speak for the rest of the world).
If a child steps out in the road in front of you, and you slam on the brakes, and get rear-ended, that is somehow *your* fault? B.S. Since one never can predict when something unexpected will happen (by definition), it stands to reason you must *always* leave enough distance between yourself and the next car in front of you so that if he must slam on his brakes, you have sufficient reaction time to also brake and stop.
People don't like being told that they are at fault for hitting someone else's rear end, but the person in front has no way of controlling *you hitting them*. You are the only one that can prevent that.
The only exception I'd make to this is if some idiot just decides to slam on his brakes for no reason at all and causes an accident, but the basic principle is that, there are many reasons to *need* to brake, so you should always leave enough distance.
On to another of your statements "Furthermore, you're a bad driver if you pay constant attention to the car in front of you;". This I actually agree with, completely. Which is why it's so important to leave sufficient distance between you and the car in front of you - it gives a 'time cushion'. If you are 6 inches from the car in front of you, you basically *must* pay constant attention to the car in front of you. Whereas if there's 10 feet or so, you have more ability to pay attention to other things.
The only problem with the concept of assured distance is that, too often, other drivers take that distance as an invitation to cut in front of you, so in practice it's sometimes difficult to maintain assured distance. But, I think that would also be a valid defense in case of a collision with the person who just cut in front of you - that the person in front made an improper lane change, cutting off your assured distance, so that you were unable to stop in time.
At many of the intersections here in Calgary (at least in the Northwest of the city), most roads with speed limits of 70km/hr or better will have the flashers about 50-100m in front of the lights, giving pretty ample warning. Funny that one that DOESN'T have the flashers (Crowchild Tr. & 24th ave) DOES have a red light camera...
I'm with you on that. "Hearsay" is not admissible as evidence in court proceedings, I believe (IANAL). Hearsay is when someone tries to testify to something they are not a direct witness of. . . "Well, Officer John told me that he clocked the defendant going X mph" would be hearsay, because he's simply relaying something he was told by someone else, as opposed to personal direct observation.
But, again, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't get how MA can get away with sending a different cop in place of the one who clocked you.
So that you have an incentive to run the red light. I'm talking 5 minutes as a lower value with some red lights lasting 8 minutes or more. Drivers run the red light, sometimes by as much as 10-15 seconds because you really never know when you'll get a green light again. And that's not counting left turn lights which typically are 2x worse, or half as long or both.
In my city, traffic lights have been so successful in stopping red light runners that the city is going to have to take them down due to losses in revenue from tickets...
I am not sure whether this was due to cameras handing out tickets or a psychological factor...
Let me just highlight three things here. I'll preface this by saying I've only ever driven in the UK and New Zealand, which have very similar road laws and approaches to teaching driving. If they teach driving differently in the US, then a couple of things I'm going to say here might not apply.
First, all of the drivers travelling at the speed limit with the correct stopping distance (IOW, the filmmakers) were making unimpeded progress and would have arrived at their destination at the fastest possible time (distance/speed).
Second, you are - or should be - taught that allowing yourself to be boxed in - like the filmmakers - on a motorway/freeway is a VERY BAD IDEA. A good driver makes space for themselves to allow them to react to trouble.
Third, excluding exit, entry and shoulder lanes, all lanes apart from the first are for PASSING. They are not for normal driving at the speed limit. If you are going as fast as the car in front of you, then you can damn well drive behind them in the same lane.
It wasn't the speed limit causing problems for other drivers, it was their poor driving.
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
These "guidelines" are the problem. They refuse to adequately allow for the reaction time of a typical driver and an appropriate decel rate to keep all from harm. That is why the judgment call of a driver forces them to "run" the light.
Ex. 30 mph = 44 fps
studies of various drivers revealed a safe controlled decel rate is between 8-12 fps => 44 / 12 = 3.67 sec ! without allowing for a typical 0.5 to 1.0 reaction time.
I'm still waiting on my flying car.... That way traffic lights will be a moot point..
No words of wisedom here.
Why not go to the top? Pay it to the UN. The dictators there need the money to gild their toilets anyway, and if the point of the ticket is punishment, there's no need to send the money back to any particular local venue as incentive for more entrapment.
Seattle is slowly replacing regular crosswalk signs with the ones that show the countdown when the red hand starts blinking. I love these, because 9 times out of ten, when the signs for the crosswalk parallel to the direction of car travel turns solid red (after the countdown), the light turns yellow. I can effectively use them as a "pre-yellow".
Unfortunately, I think that while the counters make the safe drivers safer, I think it makes the dangerous drivers more dangerous. A driver a long ways away can see the sign counting down to single digits, so they will gun it all the way down the block to try to make it through the light.
The cameras are ALWAYS used as a revenue generator and not a safety enhancement tool. This is why I say they MUST be removed.
Here in Providence they put them in places where it just didn't make sense. And I noted that now they want speed cameras. When cities get financially desperate watch out because you're going to pay through the nose.
This "revenue raising" riff is getting mighty tired. If you don't want a ticket DON'T BREAK THE LAW! Don't try and be the fifth person to squeeze through the orange light and you won't get done for running the red one. Don't speed and the speeding cameras won't catch you speeding. Some of us actually try to follow the law and don't want to be killed my some moron who thinks the world revolves around them or that speed limits don't apply to them because their car is all new and high tech.
Ok. Take a road trip to Montreal.
If you survive the highways, and make it into the old-city (and most of the rest of the city)....you'll notice...there is NO delay between opposing lights going red, and the other set going green.
Given that your average quebecer guns the gas as soon as it is green...man...you better not be running a red light!...
And no one does!...because they know they'll get Tboned or Tbone someone.
It forces people to stop on the yellow lights!
It is called a "dilemma zone". As it has been pointed out before, it is possible for the yellow light to be too short for you to safely stop before you reach the intersection. This is not a good Traffic Engineering Practice, and endangers the public.
I forget the exact equation, but timing a yellow light goes something like this: 0.5 seconds + the time it takes the design vehicle to cover the distance it takes to stop. If the yellow light is shorter than this, then it would be nearly physically impossible for you to stop before you reached the intersection.
If you get one of these tickets, I think getting it dismissed would be a simple matter of getting the light timing for the signal (the jurisdiction controlling the light should have this on file), and then have a registered traffic engineer do the yellow light length calculations, and hopefully the judge would have enough brains to throw the ticket out, and put the city on notice that the practice is dangerous.
Yeah the do the shorting of the yellow lights in Longview Texas as well.. On the corner of W.Marshall /Gilmer Rd and on loop281 with an added NO right on RED. I have actually taken a power inverter with a strobe light on one of these and shorted a Green light to Red by passing yellow(used colored filters on the strobe like an Ambulance).
The thing is yes these are all legally dismissed when challenged, but you would be surprised how many people pay when they are sent a ticket in the email , to merely avoid challenging the fraud. I would say this would be approx 40% of the population which means more pork to "Fix" the fraud and have the revenue tied up in more local city government scams.
Embody Yourself In A Concept It Will Become Reality... Byron Smart
For example, in Palo Alto, CA, the City Council decided against the wishes of the Police Department (but with the wishes of residents)to lower the speed on one major 4-lane street (Embarcadero)to 25 MPH. This made it a "speed trap" by California court standards, and therefore prevents the police from using RADAR to issue speeding tickets.
The solution the city used was to shorten the yellow light to the POSTED speed, which is very much below the ACTUAL (critical) speed of traffic, allowing the police to issue tickets for running red lights, instead of speeding.
To avoid serious accidents, they also increased he red delay. However, local know this, and run the red lights all the time.
So now, that street is like wild West, with drivers adhering to different sets of rules.
Bottom line is that traffic standards are there for a reason, and people will adjust their behavior to whatever is put in front of them. If it were up to me, any red delay at all would be illegal.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
When you condition a human whom has ridden in cars or driven for decades, you are subconsciously used to a response that hasn't changed over decades. Red Yellow Green Light, they even have a term in traffic school called a stale green light upon distance you are able to see the current light at. Now if you are in kindergarten or the 1st grade to where teachers sing a song saying "Green means go, yellow means wait, red means stop". Then they wheel in the boys in blue, and have the cops indoctrinate kids into filth by telling them about drugs, telling on what mommy and daddy do is COOL because if they break the law then they don't love you. All this BS when you are at a young age of learning, instead of really being upset when you are older to find out the real reasoning behind the motif. I mean the 5% dumbfucks whom slam on the brakes when the light turns yellow from hearing their kindergarten teachers wisdom, probably cause about 30% more accidents then people whom know how to drive. So in the age of technology to where doctors, professors, lawyers are still so damn computer illiterate and manage to make more than 30k a year. To which have a circle jerk of collective peers whom cant seem to understand computers yet put law, life/death, and theory into the our fate. Furthermore have a 1up dumb ass ante with judges that do nothing but study the law, review cases, and still are spooked by "type able tv's and are so dumbfuckingly bewildered by "Cybercrime" that legally they hire these spooks to prevent Chaos. So if a Green light goes to yellow in 10 secs then Red that is normal. And if a Green Light hooked with a camera has a yellow light that takes 5 secs, then damnit it must be "them computers" to which the average dipshit will pay the fine, and will buy Norton... But will not research and learn..
Embody Yourself In A Concept It Will Become Reality... Byron Smart
Traffic laws in the United States are largely uniform. There are oddities of course, but you make it sound as if a green light means go in one state and stop in another. An upside down red trimmed triangle always means yield, a red octagon with white outlining always means stop, a green light always means go, you always yield to the person on the right if two people arrive at a stop sign at the same time, everyone drives on the right, a yellow light means it's about to change to red, etc... So in reality for 99.999% of the time the roads work the same in the United States. There are oddities like some states allow a right turn on red, others don't, but last I checked you watch for oncoming traffic when making a right on red, the worst that would probably happen is getting a ticket.
There is no reason why individual cities should be able to set the length of the amber light AT ALL. I live in a state which is larger than the United Kingdom. I don't think you realize just how vast our country is. We take up 40% of a continent for crying out loud. Yet you think some Congress critter should create a law to determine the length of a yellow light which applies to every intersection in the country? Keep in mind that this law would, according to you, be for the safety of every person using the roadways in the country. Since that's the case you *must* take care of every possible edge case in this law. You have to deal with all factors to determine the yellow light time such as but not limited to amount of traffic (dependent upon time of day and season), amount of pedestrian traffic (also dependent upon time of day and season), size of intersection (number of lanes and width of lanes), how level the road is, the speed limit, what type of traffic (mostly 18-wheelers, commuters from a suburb, what?), weather conditions (is it icy a lot? how about fog? rain?), etc... And heaven forbid if a study comes out saying that in such and such edge case it'd be better to have such and such time for a yellow light. I personally think it's easier to have the city adjust the light timings as they see fit to reduce the number of accidents (not generate revenue through red light cameras). I don't know what you have against cities doing this, it's not as if it'd make yellow light times at all predictable since it would necessarily depend on so many variables. That is unless you were implying we should just abandon state, county, and city governments and just let Uncle Sam take care of us with Feel Good Laws(TM).
The real problem with traveling to other states (and even within your own state) is you're not always familiar with the roads. Trying to get somewhere in unknown territory is a lot more dangerous than a traffic law oddity like "keep right except to pass".
Seriously, stop modding this up.
Home - Fighting Red Light Camera Tickets
and
Armey's Automotive Freedom & Privacy
It seems inevitable that there will be a fatality caused by a panic stop due to the presence of a red light camera and a shortened yellow light.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
DOT Creates New Lane For Reckless Drivers
While some have raised concerns that law-abiding citizens will be tempted to try the new lanes and get into life-threatening situations, DOT officials claim they will be self- enforcing, self-regulating, and, with proper drainage and fluid grooves, self-cleaning. Nevertheless, steps are being taken to prevent their use by non-reckless drivers.
If the car ahead of you goes thru the intersection, you can go, too.
So basically, the traffic only stops when someone doesn't know this rule. :-)
I go through one intersection in my town 4-5 times a day, and have so for the past 15 years. About a year after the red light cameras were installed, the city traffic engineer said the lights had been "adjusted" to better sync them with other lights, which of course is total BS. Now, everything bottlenecks because the timing of this North/South major street isn't sync'd with the other lights. Also, I can tell you for a fact the yellow is BARELY available. It goes from green to red REAL quick. What's really funny is that they said they needed "X" number of cars running the light to break even. Now, they are so effective that less than one runs the light per month, in other words, they are LOSING money. So, they installed a few more, which of course will lose money...but...it's about "safety" isn't it?
"However if you don't pay the fines *nothing* happens."
This is also true in Cleveland, Ohio, since red-light camera violations are civil, not criminal violations (in the state of Ohio, anyway).
Until, of course, you want to renew your drivers license. Then you not only have to pay the fine but a substantial penalty as well. Unlike criminal vehicular violations, which have a statute of limitations, civil infractions/verdicts have no such limits. This is how the city gets away with nailing you at the bureau of motor vehicles; the same way they do with parking tickets.
I'm very curious if this is the same in your state, too. And if so, if you've tried to renew *your* license.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Hi
here in Amsterdam (NL), all crossings have pauses with everything red, that last some 5-10 seconds. All drivers know this, so there's always a couple of cars running the red light, since the drivers know the other side still has red.
There was some discussion in London a while back that the traffic lights at a number of junctions had their red phase increase and green phase decreased just before the introduction of congestion charging and then decreased once it was enforced.
I'm not sure the extent to which these accusations were justified (they were originated by the Evening Standard, which has a long, acrimonious relationship with the mayor. It's an interesting thought, though.
Goooooooooooo!
-- Wondering how long until the internet becomes fully corporatist, like television.
OK, so I live in London so I can't compare it to the US-centric view this story offers.
However, a lot of the red lights here have been 'tweaked' to make it unattractive to drive through the city centre, promote public transport and generally the song of an anti-car government.
With this in mind, the typical red light window where I live on a major road is 4x longer than the green light. As there are massive queues in the morning, there's no choice but to treat the yellow as if it's part of the light.
So they've put lots of speed cameras and red light cameras here to make even more money out of us. My favourite one is a 60mph road which suddenly turns in to a 30mph (after a corner) with a speed camera sitting right by. Saftey? No. Money? Hell yes.
In accident-prone areas wouldn't it be a good idea to add a counter somewhere on or around the amber light? Something like the counters on the pedestrian crossing lights.
I can see this being very useful.
I'm a pretty good driver but every gets distracted at one point. Sometimes I'll look up to see a yellow light and I don't know how long its been on. Do I break harshly or just sail through? I would know every time with a countdown!
Those are both perfectly reasonable ideas. However, both pre-suppose a city government that is more interested in justice and the well being of it's citizens than it is in ticket revenue.
If you did that you'd never get your turn. I don't know of any laws about that case, that's the way I was taught.
I do know you're not supposed to enter the intersection if there's no room to exit the intersection, maybe you're confusing the two cases? The difference is what effect the behavior would have if it were applied to more than 1 intersection. On the left turn situation, you don't cause gridlock. On the other hand entering the intersection when there is no way to clear it can cause gridlock.
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.