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."
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
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.
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.
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.