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."
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
yes, the problem being that the lights are being set so short, it cannot be managed reasonably.
if the light turns yellow when you've hit the "point of no return", the light will be red before you get out of the intersection, resulting in city_revenue++.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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.
There's a really simple way to eliminate this conflict of interest. All traffic tickets of all kind don't go to the city or county. They go to the state. The state then distributes the money back to the cities/counties based on how heavily trafficked their roads are. How much money came from each isn't even factored in.
Traffic safety laws should be about just that: traffic safety. They shouldn't be a backdoor tax. If we want optimal traffic safety solutions to be chosen, we have to eliminate the financial incentive for suboptimal ones.
But this Rottweiler not only is snarling and frothing at the mouth; it also went to Harvard.
The story did not establish that the lights were too short to reasonably come to a stop. The only people coming to that conclusion are the habitual "engine gunners" who are used to these really long yellow lights where 5-6 people can make it through the intersection.
The specifications are built in with a degree of margin. Every yellow light I have encountered is way more than adequate for you to decide if it is safe to come to a stop or not.
If it can be established that the lights are too short for adequate reaction time and breaking distance, then I'll side with everyone else here.
However, the only thing I see happening here are the municipalities simply capitalizing on people's expectations that the yellow lights will last long enough for them to squeeze through the intersection before it turns red by shortening the light and catching people running the light because they thought they could make it like before. If people did what they were supposed to do, this would be a non-issue.
According to the Cop that pulled me over a couple years ago, Yellow means stop if you are more than 2 car lengths from the stop line when it turns yellow.
Let's say two car lengths is about 40 feet (we're generously assuming really big cars). At 35, you *might* be able to come to a stop if you have ABS and lay on the brakes as hard as you can, but it's hardly an optimal condition. At 45 mph, there aren't too many cars that will do it, period. Above that, it's simply not reasonable.
The officer that pulled you over doesn't know what he's talking about, and is probably confusing the "two second" rule that applies when following because stopping distance naturally changes with speed. At 45 mph, that two seconds equates to more than 130 feet, or about seven car lengths, and that assumes that you're not dealing with a fixed limit (a gradually slowing car vs. a static stop line). I guess this all just goes to prove that traffic enforcement has always been and will likely always be a cash cow for municipalities, safety be damned.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
In the 2000s, it triumphed over common sense.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
What I am arguing against is the idea that yellow means "floor the gas". The people arguing on this thread are complaining about how taking off a couple of seconds means they no longer can make it through the intersection when their duty was to stop rather than try to push the envelope.
I think you're arguing with yourself on that point. Everybody else is saying this:
When the light turns yellow, at some speed under the speed limit, I have two legal choices: brake or don't brake. Let's assume that gunning it isn't even an option. At some distance from the light you will not be able to safely stop in time to avoid ending up in the intersection. In those situations, you should continue going under yellow. Problem is, if the light's too short, there may be a certain region where you can't make it through without accelerating OR brake in time without ending up in the intersection. That's what people are trying to point out - it's not that people are trying to 'push it', it's that the light can get short enough that there's no legal, safe choice. And that's bad.
The fact is, when jurisdictions start playing with the yellow interval like that, rear-end accidents go way up. So the people who jam on the brakes in an attempt to not get ticketed just get rear ended. That shouldn't occur, and I think those people in particular should have legal recourse against the city/county.
Yeah. Don't get behind me if you want to blow the red; I'm stopping for it--camera or no. And I'm not looking in my rear-view to see if I'm being tailgated. If you're following so close that I have to worry about it, tough, I'm not going to. I'm also going to brake to avoid skunks, large animals, children, vehicles pulling out of side streets and driveways, and other collision avoidance situations.
I won't "slam on the brakes" for a yellow light, but I may use more of my car's braking abilities for a yellow than I would if I was farther away. Heck, I still think "yellow" is mainly so people who've been waiting can finally make their left turns....
Anyone slamming on their brakes, with or without cameras around, isn't paying enough attention to traffic and the roadway, and is dangerous anyway.
It is a catch 22, with the way the streets and regulations are currently designed, it is impossible to follow all of the traffic laws, and still have a functional road.
Did you ever see the video where a group of vehicles decided to drive 55 MPH maximum (I think it was in the DC beltway). The result was some absurd traffic backup for miles.
If you combined a 55mph speed, with a following distance of every vehicle being able to stop if the car in front of them slammed on their brakes, the result would be that probably every highway on the Eastern seaboard would be gridlocked.
For most driving situations, you won't encounter a person slamming on their brakes for a situation that you cannot see in front of them. That is why these cameras are so dangerous, you create yet another situation where someone will slam on their brakes, for a condition that the car behind them can't predict (usually you can also see if a pedestrian walks out). It adds one more danger to the roads when it would actually be safer for the driveway to go through the intersection when it is yellow (which is what they are supposed to do if it is too late to stop when the yellow turns on)
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Or manslaughter charges to any city employee who knowingly manipulated a traffic light timing to unsafe values that resulted in a traffic death!
What if he had good tires, did drive slower in the rain and was aware of intersections and the Yellow light was so short that he didn't have adequate reaction time to safely stop before entering the intersection?
The problem with Redlight cameras and the changing of the light timing is that people are getting burnt when there isn't enough time between the yellow light and for a normal person to come to a complete and safe stop. The entire idea of having to slam on the breaks to stop from running the light should be enough indication that either the posted speed limit is too fast or the light timing is too short.
After calculating a fraction of a second to allow for the driver to notice a yellow light, there should be enough time to come to a reasonable stop in any vehicle traveling on the roadway before the yellow goes red. That is just common sense. I mean following too close behind another vehicle is dictated by the speed and stopping distance plus reaction time of the vehicles. If the traffic lights don't at least figure that into the equation, it is rigged to rob people of their hard earned money.
And cities should:
Not have ridiculously short yellow light durations
Put a short amount of time while changing where ALL lights are red
Be in it for the citizens, not for profit
Which do you see happening first?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Who authorized such a royalty in the first place? The money generated by laws (or the breaking of said laws) should go to the government, not companies.
It is fully about revenue generation. It HAS to be, since it is a private company running the show. A private company is not out for the public good, it is out to make money.
This will end up costing you (citizen of the city/state) even more in the long run with increased insurance rates.
Sure, they tell you to pay the fine, and nothing goes on your record...HOWEVER, the statistic of a moving violation goes on the record. If you take into account the shortening of yellow light times just to raise the number of 'red light' violations for revenue...you are generating more and more statistics that your city/state has a severe problem with moving violations.
Guess what? Insurance companies base their rates on statistics like accidents and violation rates of the city/state. Yes...they will see this and happily jack everyone's insurance rates up, and will be happy to do it. Yep...you just gave the insurance companies a free excuse to make more money off the citizenry.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
These red light cameras are why I don't have a front license plate on my car. It would take 10 no front license plate tickets to equal one red light ticket in my area.
Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out
That is NOT what "everyone else is saying". The initial poster CLEARLY stated "say I know the yellow is 6 seconds". The length of the yellow is irrelevant if the driver is deciding "can I stop safely before entering the intersection". The yellow could stay on for 1 microsecond or 10 years and it will have zero difference in whether slowing the car at a safe amount of deceleration will cause it to come to rest before or after the intersection.
The length of the yellow is only relevant if you want to know "can I exit the intersection before the yellow ends". Anybody who says any such thing about "knowing" the length of the yellow is therefore disobeying the law.
Now there *are* arguments to be made:
First of all, it is possible for the yellow to be so short that a car which is at the position at which point stopping before the intersection safely is not possible, and instead continues at it's current velocity, will not reach the exit point of the intersection before the yellow ends. This is the main accusation against cities, since that by definition means that somebody completely obeying the law will get a ticket. However whether this length is too short still has ZERO effect on what you should do when you see the yellow, it can, as I said, be 1 microsecond long, and that still makes no difference in whether the safe deceleration will stop you before you enter the intersection.
The other argument is the rear-ending one. This argument is basically "other drivers are going to assume I will disobey the law and by not doing what they expect I am endangering myself". That is a valid argument, but it does not apply if there are no cars behind you!
In any case I am sure the cities are rigging their lights to collect revenue, but I am pretty shocked at the attitude of some posters here at rationalizing their own bad driving practices.
Yes, you have a choice. You're supposed to stop on yellow, if you can manage it reasonably. Being used to gunning your engine through a yellow light isn't a valid defense. If you believe otherwise, we might as well ditch the yellow light altogether.
And if you can't reasonably stop, you're supposed to go through, because coming to a screeching halt in the middle of the intersection is worse.
If they shorten the yellow light to the point where you can neither stop, nor go through the light, then yeah you might as well ditch the yellow light because that defeats the entire purpose. Because then you don't have a choice to do something safe.
Do you know how they determine the length that the yellow light should be? Basically, the make some assumptions about a car's typical breaking power and the posted speed limit, and measure how close to the light a car can be before it can stop "reasonably". Then, they calculate how long it would take to get from that point through the intersection at the speed limit. Tack on some time for human reaction time and the time needed to make the break/go on judgment call, and you've got the minimum safe yellow light time.
And then they pass a law that says you can't have a yellow light time shorten than that for a given speed limit.
And then these money-grubbing municipalities shorten the yellow light below that time.
What part of this is defensible to you?
The enemies of Democracy are