Slashdot Mirror
Italian Red Lights Rigged With Short Yellow Light
suraj.sun writes with an excerpt from Ars Technica which brings to mind the importance of auditable code for hardware used in law enforcement: "It's no secret that red light cameras are often used to generate more ticket revenue for the cities that implement them, but a scam has been uncovered in Italy that has led to one arrest and 108 investigations over traffic systems being rigged to stop sooner for the sole purpose of ticketing more motorists."
This just in: Water is wet!
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Now go give your dna because it will help stop criminals, and you will be more patriotic.
I was under the impression that niggers were too dumb to operate computers; does Niggerbuntu help alleviate this problem?
the lights near me which were changed to camera enforced had their yellow reduced the minimum allowed by the law.
The formula for this is pretty swift, http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/sgn_int/App02.htm
It is very common to see people lock down when it goes yellow so approaching either of the two I go through does require extra caution. The fortunate application is that they did concentrate on those crossings with the most amount of accidents from people running red lights. They have not applied them to intersections for leaving or entering an interstate where the rule seems to be five cars on red.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Even worse, your first link is tagged as "this article is incomplete"...
Hacking Italian traffic lights for financial gain has been thought of before. The Italian Job
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
That's exactly what I thought when I saw it and wondered about the information regarding the Italian govenment's ties to its equivalent of Hollywood[disclaimer: link is not necessarily trying to make my point, I couldn't find a better one] and its placement of entertainment-related personnel into their government(Hmm, sound familiar?).
Local Authorities in the US have been doing this for years; just no one's been caught rigging.
I used to think this but I visited Italy 2 years ago (after a 10 year previous visit) and saw a disturbing trend... women were getting fatter and not taking care of themselves. During the same trip I spent considerable time in Germany. I must say the German women were in better shape and took care of their appearance better.
I am a native born Italian, BTW.
The headline case may (or may not) be true, but the FA continues on to whine randomly about traffic lights and speed cameras in general.
I know many people consider a yellow light to mean "floor it", and think running a red light is not a big deal, but please, don't expect a whole lot of sympathy when you get caught doing it.
Traffic laws by and large exist for good reasons: You're driving around an extremely dangerous machine at high speeds, and rules are necessary to reduce the carnage.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
At least we know that it doesn't happen in America. Except in about 6 cities or so.
I'll bet the Italian women are happier and more fun to ... to socialize with.
Did anyone else expect this article to be about prostitution in Italy? You disappoint me, slashdot.
Those Mafia is getting outrageous!!!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
reducing the yellow will probably make the intersection more dangerous.
From a theoretical point of view, it shouldn't make the intersection more dangerous, it should just increase the ticket revenue.
According to traffic laws across lots of countries, a yellow light doesn't "push the accelerator and try to make it through as fast as possible".
A yellow light means, "try stopping if you can, because the light will turn red soon - if you can't stop, only then you should cross" - with a yellow light you're supposed to stop anyway (just like with a red one) if you still have enough braking distance to stop.
If a driver sees a yellow light from far away, no matter how short the duration of this light, still has enough time and braking distance to come to a stop before crossing.
If a driver sees a yellow light really near, right before crossing, that means that the drivers hasn't the necessary braking distance to stop before crossing. Therefore the driver should be allowed to cross.
A normal traffic light stays yellow long enough to let the driver reach the other side of the crossing.
A yellow light shortened way too much means that the driver can't escape the ticket : the light turned yellow too late, at a moment when the car can't be stoped before crossing and is forced to continue. But as the light turns red too fast, the car still hasn't reached the other side of the crossing and can be ticketed by the camera.
The other traffic light won't turn green simultaneously (there's always some safety margin). Thus no car will come crash sideways against the tricked driver.
So in theory, there's no additional risk of collision, only the risk that the driver won't be able to make through the crossing before the red light in case the driver couldn't brake in time.
But, yes, in practice, lots of drivers will probably slam their accelerator even harder, and this increase in speed will probably bring more accidents.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Since when has ANY European cities' drivers paid attention to traffic laws? LOL!!! (no diff in LA or NYC!)
The last time I was there, it was all "Hurray for me, and fsck YOU!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Popular mechanics ran an article some time ago about this happening in some U.S. cities as well. The shorter yellows have led to more accidents, since people attempt to stop short to avoid a ticket. Nothing is being done about it because the body shops are making a killing. Standard yellow light delay == 4 sec. New yellow delay == 2.3 sec.
I'm going to say something controversial here.
Traffic signals should be designed for safety first. Safety cameras and ticketing should be SAFETY MEASURES, not revenue measures. If a safety camera improves SAFETY at the intersection and reduces crashes, by all means go for it.
Now that I've said that, keep in mind that when you're out in public, there's no reasonable expectation of personal privacy. Traffic crashes kill over 40,000 people annually in the USA alone, and extremely little is done for actual safety.
If building fires killed as many people, building inspectors would become anal retentive and would shut down buildings for minor violations.
If terrorism killed as many people (at least one 9-11 per month), we'd probably have compulsory military service by now.
Anyone who thinks planners give a rat's ass about safety needs only to look at typical American streets:
- Roads built for much higher speeds than the speed limit--we've all seen 25 mph streets that look more like 50 mph highways.
- Intersections with extremely wide turn radii to encourage drivers to turn without looking or slowing down.
- A driver's license test that does not test actual ability to drive. In fact, the driver's license office here told me they don't administer real driving tests because the roads are too dangerous. I drove one time around a building in 1997 when I was 16, and my current license is based on having passed that test.
- Where I live, traffic signals are timed to encourage speeding and red light running. If lights turn yellow and red one block after another, drivers will "chase" the lights. And if you get continuous green lights at 15 mph over the speed limit, what do you think driver will do?
- Law enforcement indifference. They not only don't enforce traffic violations, but they're some of the most dangerous drivers. Here, a deputy ran a red light and crashed into a school bus. An at-fault driver who hit my car was not given a citation for it. A friend of mine was hit by an unlicensed and uninsured driver who was let go without a citation.
- Intersection cameras here don't record, so when you kill that pedestrian, you can say you had the green light, and you'll be driving away from that accident in no time. Even if you ran a red light, you won't get cited.
- My state is no-fault medical, so if you do cause an accident, you're off the hook for your victim's medical expenses. For that matter, if you have no insurance at all, the driver you hit better have insurance, since you're not going to be held responsible.
What do you expect from stuff like this? It's time to do something other than design intersections "so we can write lots of tickets".
Law enforcement agencies tweak the rules for profit.
Yawn, wake when you have something new.
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
The use of camera-aided traffic ticketing is just evil, definitely grounds for dumping of the incumbent party in the next local election. This kind of thing indicates that city government is working to keep its bloated payroll intact, not to serve its residents.
I think that's something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on.
1. Shorter yellow light. 2. ??? 3. PROFIT!
Anyone know or have a figure on how much a city makes in red lights and how much these camera systems cost? Even without factoring in the fines that result or the increased traffic accidents this causes, is it profitable, or is this an example of bureacracy at it's finest?
In other words, is this actually a way of getting more money, or is this that the performance bonuses of department A are based entirely off of how much revenue they bring in from tickets without subtracting how much they spent. It just kind of sounds like someone was told their job was to fine as many people they could for running red lights, don't care how you do it, and they realized this was easier than actually making enforcement more efficient.
you know that red lights, like all traffic laws, are treated merely as suggestions and "taken under advisement" :P
In Italy, it is a criminal act for cities to rig traffic lights with cameras to quick change. In the United States of Avarice, it is business as usual, and no one says boo about it.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
I live in Kansas City which was playing around with the idea of red light cameras. Of course, when the citizens started an uproar, they said "it's just a study." I know that one of the intersections I went through every day had it's light sequence shorted, to the point that the slightest hesitation or slow reaction required you to get on the brakes pretty hard.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
a whole lot of the camera companies install them free for revenue share.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=1000&fsdt=9016&q=revenue+sharing+red+light+camera&aq=f&oq=
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
THAT will solve the problems of traffic lights of whatever color and duration, not just the shortened yellow ones, plus the cameras, plus the nighttime street lights... ...and pigeons... and neighborhood cats that suck at stealth... et al
...yes, this was during the pre-paintball gun era of the 1980's) /sarcasm... we live in a totally different world/society today and such BB-Gun toting youths would now be hunted down as terrorists. (But they WOULD draw *a lot* of attention to the traffic cameras and make the newspaper... thus solving the problem...)
The whole "You'll shoot your eye out" thing is really another metaphor for the *stiff learning curve* pre-teen boys (and girls?) endured proper concerning BB-Gun operations and backstop physics in my neighborhood growing up.
Every child would learn a lot about accountability and responsibility and marksmanship owning a BB-Gun as a youth. (Especially when they get caught shooting something they are not supposed to.... you learn VERY fast how to shoot and scoot. It was only in High School we thought to wear lab safety glasses and actually have live-fire neighborhood BB-Gun 'wars'
-While these stories are true, you have to realize this is also
I think the crooks running the city of San Diego originated this. They had the redlight cameras shut down in 2001 for doing it. They put them at intersections where there was a high percentage of people that would pay the tickets and not at "Dangerous" intersections. Then they tweaked the timing on the lights and started raking in the dough. Read about it here.
traffic lights. Whether that means to have a big single-digit countdown clock (for last 10 seconds, usuable for any color light) or simply start blinking at a faster and faster rate last 10 seconds right before it changes (again, any color light).
It would also help with conserving gas, so from farther away you can adjust your speed by being given info on what that light will be 300ft down the road.
Of course, just because something isn't legal doesn't always stop money grabbing politicians right away...
On the other hand, a little civil disobedience can pay off, if only due to public employee incompetence (surprise!)
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
One trick which I feel is a crime is to turn off traffic lights for a intersection completely with no traffic cops in sight.
Commuters think they've got a free day and race through only to find a whole army of cops just before the next intersection fining everyone for over speeding.
They're risking lives to collect traffic fines.
Pavlov would say that actions that are rewarded are more like to be repeated. If you make money at something aren't you more likely to do it in the future? There is a line between punishing law breakers and making money. If shorting yellow lights makes the intersection more dangerous then I guess we are seeing a increase in the "making money" mentality. Though when the government does it the cynical might see it more like armed robbery. To bad we have no way of directly raising the legal minimum time for yellow lights.
I can help you. I am 13 inches long and 10 inches around. However, because of this small stature, my penis is extremely small. However, I am willing and able to assist you with your extreme midget fetish.
So long as individuals & companies that design the camera systems get a percentage of the fines there will always be an incentive for them to rig the system by fair means or foul.
Ah well, nothing new in the world of business & politics then.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
then they're not much of a problem to begin with. Sorry, this red-light traffic camera thing, in all countries, is a scam waiting to be abused by corrupt officials. QED Flash 'em the bird.
"Arrighetti is a genius whom the whole world envies,"
What an exquisite and eloquent defense.
Proud to be Italian.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
While cruising Gallup (Route 66 part of town) looking for food and accommodations I had noticed the timing of the amber was definitely under 3 seconds at camera enforced intersections where the speed limit was 40 MPH. Local residences actually toot their horn to warn us as we approached a "tampered" intersection just as the lamp turned amber.
In Winslow Arizona we had stopped to get out picture at the "corner". Then we attempted to leave this town only to get caught in the shortest yellow lamped intersection I have ever seen in my life! There were 2 Winslow Arizona enforcement cars at the intersection at the time. I attempted to make a left turn onto the I-40 on ramp and was caught "looking up at red". Happened like this... see green... approach intersection... signal left turn via turn signal... lamp still green... start turning left... glance up and lamp is RED. I looked the the rear view mirror and saw an enforcement car turning onto on-ramp behind me with lights on. I pulled over and explained exactly what happened. I will say that the officer was a gentleman while taking my license, reg, and insurance back to his car to "run them". When he came back I was informed that I was getting a "warning" (Thank God), and to drive safe. I wanted to vent but knew better. What a scam!
Yes, this crap does go on in America.. .
"Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
The problem with government, any government, is this: If you make a mistake, they charge you and fine you and you have to pay penalties, interest, and interest on the interest and you have to bow to them and worship them. But if they make a mistake, then it's as if, oh well, it happens. The solution is to enact laws that force the government to behave, or else it gets penalties much bigger than the ones it dishes out for others without a care in the world.
I hope the people responsible for this stoplight thing get in BIG HUGE trouble. The yellow light serves a purpose. It lets the driver make the choice between stopping at the limit line or proceeding across the intersection. If, when the light turns yellow, the driver is close enough to the intersection that a normal stop (not slamming on the brakes but stopping normally) is impossible, the driver should proceed across the intersection. If the driver is far enough away to make such a stop, he should stop. This is determined by the driver.
There are huge problems with shortening the yellow. A common one is that you're not close enough to simply proceed across the intersection, but you're also not far enough to make a normal stop. You have to choose between slamming on your brakes to stop, risking a rear-end collision, or slamming on your gas to make it across in time. This is not ticket revenue we're talking about. This endangers people and is an outrage.
To solve this problem, there need to be two laws.
Law #1
The length of the yellow is determined by a formula. The formula takes into account:
. The speed limit at that location
. The measured stopping distance of a heavy vehicle moving at that speed, when applying the brakes as in normal driving circumstances.
. The distance across the intersection.
The formula would state that the length of the yellow should be the time it takes for a vehicle traveling at or below the speed limit to either (a) come to a complete stop before entering the intersection when applying the brakes as in normal driving circumstances, or, (b) if he be too close to the limit line for a normal stop, enough time to travel to the limit line and then safely across the intersection without the need to speed up.
Law #2
If someone gets a red-light violation ticket of any kind (police officer, traffic camera, etc) and can demonstrate that the yellow light is too short according to this formula, then the municipality responsible has to pay the driver ten times the price of the ticket, plus the driver's legal expenses, and is required to forgive all other outstanding tickets at that intersection and return the payment on all paid tickets at that intersection going back five years, plus the municipality is barred from issuing tickets at that intersection for a period of five years. That should keep these son-of-a-bitch cheating lying municipalities honest.
I had an idea a little while ago that involved adding an LED timer right next to the stoplight that counts down to red when the light turns yellow, to tell people exactly how much time they have before it turns red.
Why hasn't something like this been added yet?
Call that big? THIS is BIG
In order to make up for revenue shortfalls, localities are having their traffic engineers shorten the cycle times of their lights by a couple of seconds in the hopes of catching more light runners. Also, where a year ago cops would disregard someone doing 'only' 5 or so miles over the speed limit, now they are zealously pulling those people over because they need that ticket revenue.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
This was fucking hillarious. Yes, offtopic. But funny.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
I find it upsetting that we allow a computerized monitoring system to babysit our behavior anyway. As for the fact that it is surely being rigged in multiple places - that is just a sign that authorities have been given too much power over us in the first place. I believe in traffic safety, but I also believe in the freedom of not being monitored constantly.
I think that we should still be asking the question of whether these cameras should be allowed in the first place. By commenting whether the state, local or federal government should be allowed to get away with yellow light shortening tactics like this we're answering a loaded question that reinforces our acceptance that these cameras should be there at all.
These people could use your money and support: http://www.motorists.org/
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
there is nothing wrong with the backwoods, you insensitive clod.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Oh I'm the cop, in the itty bitty town, and I don't get much pay..
causing to slam on their breaks, leading to more rear end collisions.
In that case, the fault lies on the one tailgating. In case of collision, the tailgater is considered guilty, his/her insurance will have to pay everything and he/she will get monetary malus.
The tailgater won't necessary get ticketed, but the tailgater will obviously lose money in the procedure.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Here in the Chicago suburbs, a red-light camera made the news recently. It is at the entrance to a large and very busy mall. In its first month of operation, over 7000 tickets were mailed out. Many of the tickets were people legally turning right on red. These people shouldn't worry, though. Here in the USA we have the right to face our accuser...oh, never mind.
In my town, they claim that the camera tickets do not count against the point system on our licenses; I don't know if that is statewide, a local ordinance, or just false. The village officials were saying anything to try and quiet the public outcry when the cameras started appearing about 6 months ago. Funny how the ticket sticks as far as paying a fine, but the rest of the official law doesn't apply. It really is all about the revenue.
As a person who detests the abuse of the laws like this, it really bothers me. As a driver, it doesn't matter as much to me - I am not one of the yellow-light hotshots. Driving fast on open roads is more my thing.
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
Cameras on traffic lights? Say, buddy, you don't happen to be talking about soviet Georgia do you?
I am not at all sure if this is official or not for Ireland but this appears on many websites
http://www.iol.ie/~discover/driving.htm
"Avoid accidents at traffic signals by not braking suddenly when the lights turn to amber. This note particularly applies to drivers from GB who frequently create accident situations for themselves by not adopting to the driving style of the country they are driving in."
I think it's supposed to be stop if its safe to do so, and pretty much it is not safe to do so if there are cars behind you. Whats really annoying is when people enter a junction when they cannot clear the junction and block it for the drivers who have a green but can't proceed because of the idiot straddling the junction. Obviously volume of traffic is going to cause jams, but blocking junctions makes it worse. Too many drivers drive with complete self interest when really enlightened self interest is better. John Forbes Nash got this right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Equilibrium
For example near my home is a road ,with cars parked either side, which generally only has room for one lane of traffic at a time . It's best negotiated by traffic taking turns, one direction will wait till the other direction has cleared before going the other way. Locals know this but other drivers sometimes ignore this common sense and then you get two cars or more meeting in the middle with the only answer being for someone to reverse. Sometimes people try to take advantage of the otherside waiting, and think they can go anyway even when really its time to give way since there's a queue waiting in the other direction. The problem with this is that it becomes impossible to proceed if too many cars are waiting to go the other way.
So essentially it pays to wait a little while if the flow is against you and it pays to wait a little if the other direction is already backed up. I just wish more drivers were aware that their self interest was increasing their (and everybody elses) journey times.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
But it does serve a purpose. It serves to remind us not to dive into the gene pool in the shallow end.
> So long as individuals & companies that design the camera systems get a percentage of the fines there will always be an incentive for them to rig the system by fair means or foul.
This is why we need more privatization in the justice system! Private prisons, private collection of fines, private everything!
The profit motive will keep service excellent and prices low!
~
the info is true :(
i'm italian (for the manner in which are going things in italy since some year, i'm quite sorry of being italian)
all the red light system was made so only for generate money
that's italian style
we should delegate our country government to a smarter country (every country in a range of 2000Km from here is good)
i'm happy to see that news like that seems strange to "normal" people, cause for italian that's the normality
pls help us
Too true. Or everyone could drive like the crazies do here in Miami. Ignore any color light and just drive. Seriously, this city has the worst problem with running red lights, and moving here from VA I've noticed it's mainly because of the light cycles, and timing. Not even 1s between light changes in the intersection, and the amber light is drastically reduced compared to what I've seen anywhere in VA, including the DC area. There aren't even any red light cameras and cops don't give a shit. So who knows why the DOT is so inept here?
The timing ought to be one of math: simple physics based on velocity and force of friction. If they want to get fancy, then weather conditions can be taken into account, but personally I'd be against that since it violates K.I.S.S.
To find out the right length of the yellow light, calculate the time it takes to stop and the distance travelled during that time, assuming moving at the legal speed limit, plus a small buffer for old people, people driving with kids, or DWY.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The real problem here, I believe, is not the auditability of code and hardware. The problem is revenue share on fines between the public administration and the private contractor making the devices. The problem is the principle that it's acceptable to hope and possibly induce felonies and infractions because they make money. Imagine a privately managed jail giving away guns and knives with the support of the city council, because for every convict doing a life sentence in that jail, they both get a lot of money from the central government. Far-fetched, but the principle is the same: violation of the law seen as a source of revenue.
What's all this talk of yellow lights?
They are amber!
One of the "gimmes" when trying to get these past the state legislature was to not apply points to a person's license when they got fined.
The fine is $90 for of the two I go through, yeah it nailed me but I had the same problem you did, a truck obscured my view. In the end I was following too closely.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
and that's MINIMUM is 2 seconds. That would apply when the sudden obstruction was previously going 30mph. If the object was always stationary and therefore has no need to brake, this would be less than the minimum.
So if you are 2.1 seconds away from the light when it changes, you have 0.1 seconds UNDER PERFECT CONDITIONS leeway to make the decision to brake or to notice that the object NOT on the road has changed colour.
Yeah.
I think if you're going to put a camera at a stop light, you should be required to change the walk/don't walk signs to the kind that count down. I never have to worry about a light when they're telling me that in 3 seconds the light will turn yellow. Seriously.
Tonight? The mods have been on crack for a few months now.
On top of it all, red light and speed cameras have been known to be wildly inaccurate at times, which is why some teenagers have taken to pranking their enemies by masking their cars with fake license plates and speeding through lights so that they get caught on camera.
I know in Canada a car can't be charged with running a red light. The driver must be charged. How does issuing the tickets work if people can be falsely charged?
Here in Amsterdam, the red lights are on day and night in some districts...
The length of time an amber light is on should be fixed in legislation (or design standards, or whatever your preferred method is) and tied solely to the speed limit of the approaching roads. Similarly, the delay between a red in one direction and a green in another, should be based on the speed limits, intersection size and traffic density. Both of these should be fixed in *National*-level road design standards.
There is zero justification for allowing variances in these things and it is trivial to demonstrate how doing so results in a basic and fundamental reduction in road safety.
While I wouldn't be at all surprised by this sort of thing in the US, I must admit I'm somewhat amazed that a regulation-heavy nanny-state like the EU doesn't already have these sorts of standards well-defined.
all the whole shebang is NOT under [state] police control, but by [local, city-paid-for traffic] police control so there's no corruption. it's the city council that met a private company that were peddling those cameras and ok'd their proposal. the system were set up, rigged and operated by private companies, who got a share of the revenues.
This is a 6-month old news. This fact is happened last year and only now it becomes popular? :)
I have a scorecard made of reflective red tape keeping score on how many time I have been rear-ended at yellow lights. The count is seven with two of the cars being totaled in eight years.
The only damage that I have to the Jeep is a bent rear bumper. Viva la old Detroit Iron. BTW, the scorecard has a second benefit, since it is on a bent part of the bumper and reflective, a driver following me sees it, gets a clue, and backs off.
If there are more accidents through tailgating when the yellow phase is short, then the yellow phase should be made longer.
NO. You should find a way to reduce tailgating in general.
Because a yellow light is far from being the only reason a driver might slam the brakes.
In an urban area, if you see a ball rolling on the street you immediately hit the brakes because the next thing that will come is a small children running after the ball.
If the car behind was tailgating, a collision will happen no matter how long the yellow lights are in that region.
Same with wild animals or livestock outside urban areas. Etc. There are thousands of reasons while a driver might suddenly slam the brakes. That's we traffic law requires the back car to always keep a braking distance with the car in front.
Making the yellow light longer to please the tailgaters won't magically solve all the other situations where tailgating will lead to a collision.
(and also, because, by traffic law, the driver IS SUPPOSED to brake when the light is yellow and there's still enough distance to stop. Stopping is the norm. Making longer yellow light to let the people cross anyway is contradicting the traffic laws).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Are red light cameras helping society?
Take the cost to insurance companies for accidents before installation (T-bones) and compare to afterwards (rear-ending).
Externalities could include the cost of the system, cost of police attention to that intersection and public agony over more fines.
Without a discussion of these data points, any article on the subject will be moot.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
People follow traffic regulations at all in Italy? I thought the only rule of Italian driving was "What's behind me, it does not matter".
Actually, what I would be interested in is whether there's an easy source of information on the required duration of lights before changing.
Back in my hometown, we had a *very* short yellow that also happened to be on a downward slope known for icing. When it changed you could stop during good weather, but often in icy weather it was safer to run it and hope to miss the red.
Hereabouts the yellows seem fairly normal, but I do notice that the left-turn lights are abysmally fast (they often change before the first car has passed halfway through the intersection).
Does anyone know if a resource exists citing the laws for countries/states/provinces and the minimum required duration for the lights? I'm Canadian so for personal interest I'd want to find something that applies here, but an overall reference would be best.
Around here it's pretty common for idiots to switch lanes just before a light (AFAIK only illegal to change lanes in the actual intersection). Sometimes they do this and the light changes, in which cause you have a 50-50 chance of them burning on through or slamming to a stop.
Safe following distance only is only immediately controllable by the rear vehicle when it's not being cut off.
Grow up. Get a life.
Yes, I'm old. "Get off my lawn" cracks are unnecessary.
When I learned to drive, it was standard practice for lights to be timed with safety in mind; yellows were long enough. What really tended to make some intersections safer, though, was that at every light change, all traffic got a red light for 2 seconds. According to my driver's ed teacher, showing red in all directions had previously been the law but the law had recently been changed. Thus, such light timings were fast-disappearing, even back then (1970s, Texas). My recollection is that the intersections that still had the old timings felt much safer for a nervous new driver. Boring, yes, but safer.
By contrast, the worst light timings I've ever seen were at a small town in Mississippi that had only one red light. Here's the way that light was timed:
North-South shows red; East-West shows green
N-S shows red; E-W shows green AND yellow
N-S shows red; E-W shows green AND yellow AND red
N-S shows red; E-W shows yellow AND red
N-S shows red; E-W shows red
N-S shows red AND yellow; E-W shows red
N-S shows red AND yellow AND green; E-W shows red
N-S shows yellow AND green; E-W shows red
N-S shows green; E-W shows red
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I swear, a full light change at that intersection took 30 seconds and I never really knew when to proceed. I mostly just detoured around it.
And, oh, yeah, Get Off My Lawn!
Other than everyone obeying the law, there are no good solutions. Even that's not good enough.
Example? I used to make classic "jackrabbit" starts when I was at the front of the line at a red light. Yes, I'd glance left and right but I never paid enough attention.
On three separate occasions in the past, I've taken off when a light turned green only to have a cross-traffic car run their red light *behind* me, *after* I cleared the middle of the intersection. One guy was sliding through the intersection sideways, brakes locked up, in a cloud of blue tire smoke.
It eventually dawned on me that my legal right to enter the intersection when the light turned green didn't mean much if I was gonna get creamed by some lawless crosstraffic. Thus, I now hold the opinion that even driving legally just isn't enough. I have to assume everyone out there is trying to kill me.
I don't like having to maintain that attitude all the time. When I was a kid, I just thought that way when I was on my motorcycle. Now, as an oldster, I feel I need to think that way all the time no matter what I'm driving. It's a shame, really.
Here in Canada, I take huge excecption to photo violations, be it speed or red-light. The attitude towards them stinks, and people usually say "there's no points, just pay it", I feel this mentality is wrong for 2 reasons: 1- In Canada, you are given a ticket based on registration. You are guilty by association! So if I have a vehicle I lend to a friend or family member, and they go and get a ticket I am automatically held guilty. I've been to court over this essentially telling them "prove it was me" and the judge always lets it stand. Its not technically legal. 2- The reason in this article (greed) . These systems are huge revenue generators and are not entirely about safety. Tell me something, when you get a random photo-speed ticket, do you even remember the event and does it affect your driving? Personally having an officer "remind" me, and write a ticket usually lasts quite a while. the first reason is scary. once there is precident of someone being held guilty just by association, does that mean a gun that I have registered to me, that is lent or stolen and used in a crime automatically means I am guilty? Its a far jump.. but still a slippery slope. What I firmly believe in is the use of IR jammers or some kind of way of obscuring one's plate until the powers that be can *HONESTLY* apply these systems. Perhaps putting the revenues into a charity or something, having public accountability and a way to honestly dispute a ticket. We should fight it because it is unfair.
Unfortunately there are cars behind you, and if their drivers can see the [green] light (because they are farther and their view is not obstructed) they'd have no reason to think that you will be slowing down, and so they might slam right into you.
In the US, drivers are taught to keep a safe distance with the car in front of you, and that it's your responsibility to hang back the appropriate distance. Why? Because 99.999% of rear end collisions are the fault of the person at the rear, not front, and 99.999% of accidents involving rear end collisions place the blame squarely on the driver at the rear, by law. You as the rear driver are supposed to maintain safe driving distance to the car in front of you. The person in front is not responsible for "speeding up" and making sure you have enough braking distance. It doesn't matter if there's a little old lady in front of you doing 35 in a 45 zone, or if the person has got a problem with constantly speeding up and slowing down, as the driver in the rear, it's your responsibility to make sure you have safe driving distance. Both the law and common sense say "drive defensively, stay back, even if the person is a freak." The person may just be a freak, and may be rude, but the law is about safety, just stay back and wait or find a legal and safe way to get around them. Don't tailgate!!
There are some exceptions, most of which I don't know, but anyone who says "the car ahead of me was moving too slow, that's why I hit them" will get shot down by a US judge in a second.
The original poster in this thread couldn't see the light because they were too close to the truck in front of them. It's all about maintaining safe driving distance with the car in front of you. I've had problems were trucks would cut off my viewing angle and I learned that you hang back further so you can see around, especially at poorly designed intersections. He had 150 feet, that's plenty of time to hang back and look.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
From and old story about these things in California. If they did include the judges like they did in CA, then when it was found that illegal manipulation of the signal system existed, nobody would be fined or arrested. What happened in CA was that the lights were turned off for a couple of years and the contract handed over to a new organization who then profits from the system. The lights are slowly turned back on, one by one over a few years. I guess you don't turn them back on all at once because a larger public out cry is trouble and little ones here and there can be stuffed out and hidden from public view. So those in Italy goofed the implementation IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Unfortunately, I can easily shoot a huge hole in this with one US law. The driver to the rear must maintain a safe driving distance at all times. If you couldn't see the light, you were too close to the truck in front of you. It's your responsibility to pay attention and if you can't, slow down and look!
Someone mentioned that one might be worried about cars behind you. Unfortunately you can't. By law if you slam into someone from behind, it's your fault. That means if someone slams into you from behind, it's their fault. They should be watching you, and you should be watching what's in front of you.
You get a little sympathy from me because I've been in that situation, where a truck cut off my viewing angle of lights, and because while it was a mistake, in the total view of things it was a minor mistake. However, I learned to hang back. On this exit situation, it sounds like you chose a narrow gap between the car and the truck. Slow down, go behind the car next time, give yourself some room.
And just so you know, 150 FT is 50 yards. At 50 MPH you can cover 50 ft in 2 seconds, and you can easily brake in that time frame to see if the light in front of you is green or not. You were behind a truck not on a road with lights so there is a good chance you were going slower than that. 2 seconds is the legal requirement that you need to be behind the car in front of you. You were moving too fast under the law, sorry.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Only on Slashdot would an off-topic post claiming to be a girl wanting sex be modded -1, Redundant
But then, my car is still registered in a different state, which did not require (nor even offer) front license plates, so my car only has a rear plate. I routinely see the flash of the camera go off when I go through intersections, and I've never gotten a ticket. It appears that all the stop-light cameras here are rigged to shoot from the front of the car, not the rear.
The state I moved to requires front and back plates, so eventually I'll have to register the car here. When I do, I won't put the front plate up. Paying a ticket for a missing front plate is much cheaper than a ticket for running a red--a moving violation. When I lived in MO, which required 2 plates, I drove without the front plate for 6 years and only got 2 $30 tickets. At the time, I didn't want to punch holes in my front bumper.
Camping on quad since 1996.
The article focuses on Arrighetti, but it's not clear what his role is. He just programmed the system. It's not like he's collecting on the traffic tickets. Or is he? It sounds like the real criminals are the ones who hired him.
"Unfortunately there are cars behind you"
If we're talking the USA here, that's fine, because a rear-end collision is ALWAYS the person in the back's fault for not watching the road ahead and maintaining control of their vehicle.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Yes, there's a few places there are merge lights, but if you look you will notice they are always placed a good distance back from the actual merge point to allow drivers to obey the law on merge speed."
You've never been to LA - merge lanes are about 50 feet, if that. Nowhere near enough room to get up to 65 MPH.
"2. If you've *ever* driven in ANY city anywhere in the world, you know as well as I do that it's impossible to maintain sufficient distance behind someone so that if they suddenly mashed their brakes to the floor you wouldn't hit them"
You're so astonishingly full of shit in this comment it's insane. Of course you can, you slow the hell down and FORCE that safe distance, If the asshole behind you hits you, that's their fucking fault for following too closely, and you just got a new car + damages + compensation for lost time/wages/personal suffering.
So here's your -1, can't think of the obvious city moderation, and another -1, totally unaware of traffic law and insurance-designed scheme moderation.
Idiot.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Hi,
Wow, I just love this kind of stuff. This is the first time, I, visited this website and really like this one. Please keep updating me one this.
CSK
Toronto Shopping
If you're already in the assumption you can better have no license plate to be able to run red lights, I'd think you are better off without drivers license ;)
OK, there can be cases you are running a red light but if it gets a normality, things are really wrong or can get wrong on the road in the future!
Imagine yourself everyone doing the same on the road!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..