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?"
Unless the light turns red before it's supposed to, which is the basis of the story.
Not if the light turns red before it's supposed to, which is what the whole story is about. If you won't RTFA, at least RTFS.
Anyone paying attention and driving an appropriate speed for traffic conditions will be able to stop before the intersection for a red light -- assuming, of course, that the yellow light is of proper duration
Back in the real world, various cities have been shown to have reduced yellow light duration in order to increase fine revenues. It's hardly rocket science for a city that's low on cash. There were several newspaper articles about this in one city (DC, I think) a few years back.
And, back in the real world, the only method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce collision at stop lights is to increase the duration of the yellow; red light cameras merely result in more rear-end collisions as people slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket. While you can argue that's better than being hit from the side as someone runs the light, if you actually want to reduce accidents rather than rake in the fines, it would be much better if cities just increased the duration of the yellow.
I wonder for how long though? By this, I mean I heard they found a large benefit from adding the middle brake light (not sure of the name for it, but the one in the rear windshield) in taxi cabs in NYC. Something like 20% fewer rear end collisions (I'm guessing on the percentage as it was years ago that I heard this) so the government made it mandatory. Only it seems the improvement only lasted for a little while. Once it became standard and people became used to it, the improvement basically disappeared. So it only helped while it was novel, is that the case with longer yellow lights? Do people compensate for it after a little while when they start to learn it is a "long yellow"?
Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.
Indeed. Which is why when red light cameras came to Austin, they first studied all the 'bad' intersections and decided which should have their yellow light lengthened, and which should get a camera. I looked at a map they published showing which got which treatment, and it seemed like about half of the problem intersections were given longer yellows.
One of the intersections that got a camera I have a lot of personal experience with, and it's yellow was just fine before and unchanged after. The problem was people just flagrantly running the red. Seriously it was ridiculous.
Anyway, while I'm sure there's a contractor making a lot of money off the cameras, it seems to have been implemented fairly intelligently here.
Also, while contracts may stipulate maximum yellows, state laws often dictate minimums. I've heard (on /.) of various municipalities getting in trouble with the state governments for breaking these laws to increase red light camera revenue. Which is disgusting. Okay yeah law is sometimes arbitrary, but this law is fundamentally based on the laws of physics. :P
The enemies of Democracy are
But in this case you are just using the legal system in the worst possible way: To screw someone out of a legitimate outcome. If you were fighting an illegal ticket, or something the company legitimately did wrong it would make more sense.
I'm pretty sure that articles labeled Your Rights Online are for discussing people's rights in an online format. If the articles were about rights on the internet, then the category would probably/hopefully be called Your Online Rights.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
What are you doing pulling a trailer at 30 mph in the rain in a town with crosswalks? Why aren't you driving at a safe stopping speed in those conditions?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If you cannot stop safely, do not speed up but drive cautiously through the intersection.
But that doesn't say that it's illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red. It just tells you what you should do on a yellow light. Going by the excerpt you quoted, if the light turns yellow too late for you to safely stop, it doesn't matter what color the light is as you leave the intersection.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
The city is using the camera not for safety, but for profit. The third party law enforcement doesn't give a rats ass about safety, just the profit. Fuck 'em. If you can weasel out of it, more power to you!
Search 2010 Gen Con events
But in this case you are just using the legal system in the worst possible way: To screw someone out of a legitimate outcome.
New to the legal system, are we?
But yeah, he should pay the ticket. It's not like he got snared by a rigged light, as happens to a lot of people. He made an illegal right turn. End of story.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
...because people keep blowing through red lights like there's no tomorrow.
And for some of those people, there indeed will be no tomorrow.
Why not just pay it, considering you actually broke the law?
Because a private company is not law enforcement. There is no reason you should pay a corporation or private party for a perceived criminal, civil or traffic law infraction without it going through a government entity. To do otherwise is to invite fascism.
Airbags were only a problem in the USA, where they had to be powerfull enough to stop an unrestrained adult.
For the rest of the seatbelt wearing world, airbags reduce head trauma and thus save lives.
I would appreciate such a line, but I expect there would be too many problems with it. People going too slow would go through stale yellows when they shouldn't, others would speed up figuring they were close enough to still make it. Plus, the line would be hard to adjust for weather and road conditions. The concept is good for teaching people to judge what to do with a yellow light, but implementing it probably won't solve any problems, just change them. Longer yellows and longer all-red times would probably do more good.
My webcomic
"Why does this seem like guilt is assumed unless innocence is proven? Why can't they simply check the lights and rescind the tickets?"
A better question is why are we letting our letting our local government's treat it's citizens this way?
A private, for profit company should never issue traffic fines, officer reviewed or not. There is far too much room for abuse. The government should not look upon criminal penalties as a revenue system lest it turn all it's citizens into criminals.
Governments who treat the people as enemies of the state may find themselves the enemies of the people.
You guys need roundabouts. They keep the traffic flowing.