Slashdot Mirror
Red-Light Camera Ticket Revenue and Short Yellows
NicknamesAreStupid writes "A Fort Meyers news station reports a nerdy husband getting his wife out of a red-light camera ticket by proving the light was set with too short of a yellow. Then he goes out and proves that nearly 90% of the lights are set an average of about 20% too short. Is this a local incident, or have local governments nationwide found a new revenue source? What puzzles me is how a single picture can tell if you ran a light. If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle). Wouldn't you need two pictures — one just before the light went red showing you are not in the intersection, and another after the light went red showing you in the intersection?"
Seriously, red-light cameras have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money making. Often the contracts with the company providing the cameras sets a specific maximum length for the yellow light. Making it longer would bring penalties to the City.
Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.
The study noted here actually found that accidents went up after installing the damned things. Then again it was Florida...
Three Squirrels
Some cities go a step further than just a picture. They will give you a picture before, a picture after and a 12-second video of you running the light. All that information can be found online via a URL given to you with your citation.
http://www.plano.gov/Departments/Police/RedLightCameras/Pages/default.aspx
From what I understand, the cameras are triggered by motion. If you cross a line while the light is red, you get photographed.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/red-light-camera1.htm
No, it's not that simple. Florida law says you may not *enter* the intersection when the light is red. It's perfectly legal to enter on a yellow, and to be in the intersection on the following red.
//not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Maine driver's ed taught me that when turning left on a solid green non-arrow (yield to oncoming traffic), you are supposed to enter the intersection while waiting for the chance to go. If the light turns red, all traffic is stopped, so you have the right of way to GTFO.
Of course it's been a while since I took driver's ed. and things may have changed. and what was taught may be a rule of thumb rather than law. but I will always fight a ticket if this is the case.
NOTE: I am NOT talkig about the case where you FAIL to predict the flow of traffic and end up blocking the intersection (can't proceed). By all means, write me up if I do that.
In Michigan straight from the what every driver must know handbook "A yellow light means the green signal has ended and the signal is about to turn red. You are required to stop on a yellow light. If you cannot stop safely, do not speed up but drive cautiously through the intersection."
Sorry, you just flunked civics. Different states have different laws. Welcome to Florida.
In California, if any part of your car enters the intersection while the light is still yellow, then it's "your intersection" for as long as it takes you to get clear of it. The traffic camera must show that the car was behind the limit line at the moment the light turned red.
The rule here is that your car must cross the line before the light goes red.
I was in court as a witness on a traffic ticket. A lady was ticketed for failure to yield right of way when she hit another car. She had a yield sign, the other car had a stop sign so the lady contested the ticket. The other car had already proceeded into the intersection when the lady moved past the yield sign and hit the other car. The prosecutor used the phrase "committed to the turn" to describe the other car, and the judge agreed so the ticket stood.
I would think going into the intersection before red, and continuing through the intersection after red falls into the same category. You are committed and it is legal to move ahead.
Being in the intersection when your light turns red is illegal in all (states).
You're mistaken about that.
Many states only require you cross the white line before the light turns red.
That's Florida though, it has its own Fark tag for a reason. In every state that I've lived in you have to be clear of the intersection when the red light comes on or God help you if a cop is there cuz you're about to get butthurt.
Legal in CA, MI, NY, and CO, too.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
(d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. A vehicle that is not turning shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. After stopping, standing until the intersection may be entered safely, and yielding right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection, the operator may...
You were across the "Stop" line when the light turned red, so you cannot be charged for running a red light, in most states, at least. However, you need to be able to clear the intersection before you're busted for "impeding traffic" -- but you can aslo be fined, just as easily, for "impeding traffic" if you do NOT take the chance to wrestle your way into the yellow/red light left-turn by creeping across the line during the green.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
In California, if any part of your car enters the intersection while the light is still yellow, then it's "your intersection" for as long as it takes you to get clear of it.
Technically incorrect. If you enter an intersection, even on green, and cannot clearly/reasonably exit the intersection before the red light (usually meaning traffic is piled up in front of you) then you can be cited. Presumably it's for blocking traffic vs running the red, but it might be up to the officer and/or judge.
Not the same situation, but it would apply on a yellow if you cross the line before red, but there were cars in front of you keeping you from exiting the intersection before it did turn red.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
Then when you crash into someone, try to explain why in the pictures you have your face covered and you aren't looking at the road.
I'm not sure what state-wide regulation there is (although there's talk about crafting some) but where I live in Florida the yellows get lengthened when cameras are put in, and if you get tagged a sheriff's deputy will review the picture and video, and if they deem that the infraction was, in fact, ticket-worthy, you get a link to not only the picture but the accompanying video snippet to see exactly what happened, and a chance to contest the ticket (or pay it.) While I would rather get more police on the street to enforce laws than put automated surveillance equipment in more places, it does seem like a pretty well thought-out and fair system to me. (And one of those options needs to happen, because people keep blowing through red lights like there's no tomorrow.)
but the fact remains that being in the intersection when the light turns red is technically illegal in every state in the nation.
Not in Washington State. We seem to have a sensible legislature & judiciary.
There is nothing in the laws that say the intersection has to be clear on a red light; you just can't enter the intersection on red. In fact, you are obligated to stop in the middle of the intersection to allow legal traffic to pass. It seems perfectly legal to enter the intersection on green or even yellow and finish your left turn on red. And (news to me) we can even make a left turn at a red light from a two-way street onto a one-way street going left; this is explicitly stated.
RCW 46.61.055
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
but the fact remains that being in the intersection when the light turns red is technically illegal in every state in the nation
Nuh uh.
From the Federal Highway Administration, as posted in another comment:
Just checked the law for my state (Arizona), and it only prohibits entering the intersection on a red light. There is nothing that prohibits being in the intersection when the light turns red.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
In Texas, if you are in the intersection when the light turns red, then you didn't run a red light. Furthermore, you have the legal right of way to clear the intersection before crossing traffic may enter.
For unprotected left turns, that's why I pull out into the intersection during the green or yellow light and wait for the oncoming to stop before completing my left hand turn.
What a Bunch Of FUD....
If you're going to throw crap out there, you might want to trying providing links that back up your claims.
It was the same with airbags. Aside from unbelted passengers, airbags didn't improve safety. But Ralph Nader, knowing this, got up in front of Congress and lied in order to get airbags passed that would kill infants, while also working to prevent warning labels on them initially so that people wouldn't be scared of them. So we've had presidential candidates who worked very hard to pass regulations that killed babies by ejecting their heads out of the back of car windows while their bodies were still strapped into their car seats. Safety doesn't matter nearly as much as the appearance of safety.
Study after Study after Study have shown quite the opposite. In fact, there have even been papers that conclude that the media have skewed their reporting on the subject to basically fall in line with what you were spouting about above.
The point of an airbag is to cushion and slow the upper torso and head from striking hard objects that cause rapid deceleration of the body and head in collisions (super high G forces) which leads to injury and death. While the initial airbags had their faults, and have caused deaths when used both properly and improperly, they have saved far more lives than they have claimed.
No.
This argument comes up again and again. It is wrong.
Originally, Slashdot was a tech site. It's getting better at being one, but originally it was about technology. You see, back then, the Internet was young and interesting, and people were enthusiastic to talk about things. The bar of entry to actually being "in the know" was kind of low, since it was the dot.bomb boom, and there was lots, and lots, of activity.
Since then things have changed. It was starting to go downhill a bit just before September 11th, but September 11th hit, and, well, it was the right thing to post THAT story, because it was all that people wanted to talk about... but before that people were yammering about Bush this, Bush that. It was hurting the site. You'd say, "hey, take that crap off of here," and people would yell at you for being a Republican, or whatever. Then you'd say, "no, this is a tech site," and you'd get a response like, "OMG! But BUSH IS IN OFFICE we must DROP EVERYTHING and ONLY THINK ABOUT BUSH." Around then, you couldn't have a decent tech site, because everyone wanted to talk about politics.
Some challengers came and went. Most notably K5 and Reddit. Reddit thinks it's about tech, but it's not. K5 was about tech, but became something else. There's an important, salient fact. These sites tried to be about tech. They just didn't succeed.
That said, I'm a low UID bastard. I think that CmdrTaco is the man, and I'm thankful for the role that Slashdot has played in my life. Yeah, there are too many MIT and CMU fanboys.. but that's the symptom of a good site, one that's about tech. Frankly, Slashdot has had some rough times, but I'm glad to say that it's made a comeback. It's been hard to run a tech site for the past decade, and CmrdTaco and the others have gotten a lot of flack for that. I'm glad that they've stuck with it.
But, I've got a few things to say to you.
One, everything on this website is online. As is the entire Internet. Very very very few websites need to append "online" to anything in order to explain to you that it's online. This argument is moronic.
Two, YRO used to be about discussing your rights on the Internet. There is a lot of interesting stuff out there. You're too much of a newb to remember (and that's okay, I don't mean to insult you), but we used to discuss things like network registration, hacks, the rights of hackers, crypto export (bet you didn't know that there were laws about that), key escrows, and all sorts of online rights stuff.
Three, when people use YRO to discuss things like elections, and their political agenda, and whatnot, they're going off-topic. This is fine to a degree, but it has to be controlled. Not because I want a big oppressive big-brother running things, but because if we make every site a political site, there will be no more tech sites.
Finally, this submission is a-okay. It's discussing a usage of technology. That's always been fair-game.
Thats not true of most states. In most states, if your car has completely entered the intersection when the light turns red you didn't run the light.
Now on the other hand, you're right that TFA is a good example of why Florida gets its own Fark tag. Red light cameras are illegal in Florida, see here: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3059.asp of course that doesn't stop cities from putting them up, despite the fact the state legislature declared them illegal. The towns and cities that have them are now trying to treat them as civil cases between the company that installed the cameras and the person issued the "ticket". Basically you can just rip up a Florida red light ticket, they are not even remotely legal.
Another fun Florida fact is that breathalyzers are no longer permissible as proof of intoxication for DUI stops. They do a good old fashioned "walk the line" sobriety test, which if you pass, even if you blow too high, you still walk. It got that way because the company that provided the breathalyzers would not provide the code for the software that drives them to opposing council, or even the court itself.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.