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?"
you're doing it wrong.
Around here you aren't supposed to enter the intersection unless you will be able to make it through before it turns red.
Bah, forget the issues with the short yellow - what torques me is that here in Florida it's illegal for municipalities to legislate this kind of thing, but they do it anyway, and no one says boo.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Here in Seattle they use a two-photograph system. It must be unambiguous--you were not in the intersection when the light was red, and one in the intersection.
I still believe they cause more dangerous situations than they cure. Just from my observations.
> If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it If they can't get you on running a red light, then they will get you on blocking an intersection. Either way, they'll get you in your end.
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
they hit for right on red even when it is ok but then some times you need to go to court to fight it even when you are right.
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
by the weasel, for the weasel, of the weasel.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
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
Didn't we discuss this before? Weren't there several outcomes?
1. You cannot face your accuser if it's a sentience-less robot.
2. car driving through red light ! = person paying fine
3. Governments hate their people.
...if they are for "public safety" instead of revenue. I know of several cities here in Missouri that have turned them off because people stopped running the red lights. Instead of going to the press and talking about their success. No the departments were complaining because NO ONE WAS RUNNING THE LIGHTS and therefore not making any money and forcing them to "turn them off". They didn't put those cameras there to increase public safety. They did it to increase revenue.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Came here to say that.
FTS:
In my state (NJ), you have committed a moving violation if you are in the intersection when the light is red (unless you are turning right). I think it's a matter of selective enforcement that most officers won't ticket someone if the light was yellow when they entered it.
I think this is a good law. Assholes who speed up through yellow lights should get punished if the light turns red while they are in it. 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. Which is why the guy from TFA's wife got off -- the yellow was short.
I have never in my life been in a situation where I've needed to run a red light, except when I wasn't paying attention and I didn't see the light turn yellow right away. I'm glad I didn't get tickets the times I've done that, but I would have deserved them.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The rule here is that your car must cross the line before the light goes red. This is particularly true for turns, since we do trailing turn lights.
In my city, we now have cross walk signals that display a count down in large illuminated digits until the signal is going to change.
I know this is primarily for the benefit of pedestrians, but I like them as a driver as well. I now know with a greater degree of accuracy how long the green light is going to last, and if I need to be aware of an upcoming change to yellow and perhaps slow down, rather than speeding up to "make it".
This is particularly useful at an intersection I drive through every day on my way to and from work, which has a red-light camera.
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."
I got busted by a red light camera a few weeks ago.
I received a letter in the mail showing two photos of my car. The first showed my car approaching the red light. The second showed my care turning right at the red light. Of course, I assumed that I had come to a complete stop at the red prior to turning right. I was all ready to fight the ticket on grounds that the two photos did not prove the city's case.
However, reading the entire contents of the letter led me to an http link where I could see the 'complete evidence' available to the city. Sure enough, I go to the provided website, enter a string of letters/digits and I am presented with a video showing my car rolling through the light without stopping.
I had no idea that they were capturing motion video as well as still pictures. Nevertheless, I was bummed.
But, even then, my wife, who is an attorney here in St. Louis, advised me against paying the ticket. It turns out that the ticket is issued by a 3rd party that operates the cameras, and not by the city police. There will be no impact on my driving record. The worst that can happen is it will be turned over to collections and placed on my credit report. At that time, I will simply hand it over to my wife and she will challenge the reporting agencies to provide proof that it was me driving the car, and that the debt is mine. Being unable to do that, they will be forced to drop it from my credit report.
Sometimes it is helpful to have a wife that specializes in US Bankruptcy law.
Where in the world is it illegal to enter an intersection with a yellow light? What if you're going the speed limit (40mph) and just before you enter the intersection the light turns yellow? It would be impossible to stop and if you slammed on your breaks the guy behind you would probably run right into you.
Sorry, you just flunked civics. Different states have different laws. Welcome to Florida.
i doubt it is illegal to enter it when it's yellow, since there is something like a brake distance. the rule i know goes as follows: when it's green you drive. when it's yellow and you can still stop before entering the intersection, you stop, else you drive. when it's red you stop.
San Diego had this problem. The city either deliberately chose lights that already had short yellows or it set the yellows short after the cameras were installed. That was just one aspect of the fiasco that was the red light camera program. Some attorneys found that many tickets, which were originated by the red light camera company but supposedly "reviewed" by an officer, had in fact been issued without the review. The cop had gone on vacation and presigned a bunch of the "reviews" so people were in effect being ticketed by Lockheed. People who went to court and attempted to subpoena the red light camera design, software, and installation documents (so that they could assess whether the cameras were operating correctly when the alleged offense occurred) were threatened by Lockheed with a lawsuit for attempting to access trade secrets. There were many other questionable things that went on in the program that I've now forgotten about, but suffice it to say that the whole thing smelled so bad that the city terminated the program. It's since come back, but with major changes.
This is not a local incident. Cities have been caught illegally shortening red lights in a ton of different cases over the last few years.
http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit and many more at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yellow+light+short+red+light+camera
"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."
Just ask AAA: The number one way to make intersections safer is double the lengths of the yellows. You take an arbitrary intersection that has accident problems and if you lengthen the yellow, that tends to do more to solve the problem than anything else. Of course as you note, long yellows are counter to profit from red light cameras.
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.
So when you're traveling the speed limit and the light turns yellow when you're 6 inches from the intersection, your vehicle is still able to stop before crossing the line?
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
In some places, it's illegal to enter an intersection if the light is already yellow. That always made sense to me - yellow was the 'head's up' for cars behind the line to slow and stop.
That must be in places where people have superhuman reaction times and massless cars. I know that I'd have a hard time bringing my car to a stop if the light turned yellow a tenth of a second before I get to the intersection.
You should get your brakes checked.
Good advice in general, but not an answer to the AC's correct statement. Keep thinking.
Hint: There's a reason traffic engineers have to consider the speed limit of the road and typical stopping distances when designing how long a yellow light lasts.
Hint^2: "stopping distance".
The enemies of Democracy are
I've been to some places in Europe where the green light is a set of numbers, so you know exactly how much time you have. Here, with the blinking "don't walk sign", it's too bloody ambiguous, especially in winter when yellows should be 10 seconds... I really wish we had the countdown system, and it's not like it would cost a fortune to implement.
As it is now, I just detour the lights. I'd rather waste fuel than give that crooked system one red cent.
In my city, the company that set up the lights gets 50%, and the municipality gets the other 50%. Sounds like something that is systemically flawed to me. Law enforcement shouldn't be a for-profit thing. They're installed on a few intersections that are always backed up due to design flaw - there really should be overpasses installed at these locations, not cameras. When people have to wait 5 cycles to make it through the intersection, there's a reason that they're blowing yellow/red lights, and it's that something is dreadfully wrong with the whole setup.
Sent from my PDP-11
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.
In Maryland, where I live, the law is the same as Florida's. I've seen the light turn red on me just as I pass under and the red light camera never took a picture. I think there's a law requiring some sort of review before they send you a ticket, so if there was a good reason, you don't get ticketed.
At least in Oregon's system, it takes two photos. One just before you enter the intersection (it assumes you're going to run it based on measured speed,) and one when you are already in the intersection. The photos have the date/time stamp, as well as a "light red for x seconds" note.
In addition, each monitored intersection also has a video camera that records 10 seconds before, and 10 seconds after the still cameras trip. This way, there is indisputable video evidence of your run, as well. (Yes, I've gotten one. I tried to fight it under the grounds that what I did wasn't technically "failure to obey a traffic control device", but rather "improper right turn on red"; only to find out that under Oregon law, they carry the exact same penalty...)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Similar in Arizona. Red light camera's will trigger once you enter the intersection AFTER the light is red. If you are in the middle waiting to take a left hand turn there is no issue.
In arizona, most red light camera intersections have a painted red line several yards ahead of the crosswalk lines. It's a visual indicator for drivers. Your back wheel better be ahead of this line or you are gonna see a bright white flash ahead of you.
I have never in my life been in a situation where I've needed to run a red light
I have been in that situation many times. Specifically, I'm turning left, and there's no left-turn arrow, so when green comes up, I just drive ahead somewhat past the stop line (as they teach you to do), and wait for a gap in traffic to turn into.
Now, normally, in such a situation, if the oncoming traffic is heavy enough that there is no chance to turn on green, you end up turning on yellow. The problem is that all too often, people driving straight just blast through on yellow, one by one, not giving you a chance to turn - and so you end up still being stuck on the middle of the road when red comes up.
Then again, my city (Richmond, BC) has some really long yellow traffic light times - at least in comparison to many other places I've seen - for which I am really glad. It might make traffic move a little bit slower, but it also makes things safer somewhat, since people don't rush as much.
I have never in my life been in a situation where I've needed to run a red light
I take it that every left turn you make is a protected turn?
Making a left onto my street doesn't have a protected arrow, and the oncoming traffic is often busy enough that the only way you'll get through the intersection during much of the day is if you pull into the intersection and sit there until the oncoming traffic stops when their light is turning red.
Well, that is how the bureaucrats think.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
A car going 30 mph travels 44 feet per second. (5,280 / 120 = 44). The stopping distance of a vehicle is a function of friction, speed, and mass. One of the calculators is here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/crstp.html. Just google 'vehicle stopping distance' and you have a choice of several calculators and you can look at the full formula, which is impossible to write correctly here. Assuming you have good tires, and all other things being equal, the stopping distance from 30 mph is 37 feet. Most studies on this issue assume it is fair to give a driver one second to determine whether to stop. First, you must recognize the yellow light, then assess the situation. Are you going downhill? Are the streets wet? Do you have a bowl of goldfish on the seat beside you? This is not trivial. Stopping on wet pavement requires twice the distance. Here's an article that says more or less the same thing: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/stopping-distances.htm.
The basic issue here is that it will take you at least two seconds to stop from 30 mph on dry pavement, four seconds if it is wet. It takes one second to react and one second to stop (though deceleration throws a curve on time here). But in terms of distance this means you absolutely must be MORE than 81 feet away from the stop light to stop at all. My car is 16 feet long. If mine is average, that means five car lengths are required to stop. If that yellow light is less than two seconds long and you are within 81 feet of the light, you will go through on red. You have no choice; the laws of physics dictate it.
The last time I was stopped by the State Patrol for this I said, "Look. It was pretty close. I was doing 40 mph on a hill and the streets were wet. Plus, I thought about it. If I had just slammed on the brakes, I might have been able to stop, but the extra half second cost me." He let me go.
The idea expressed here that you just 'stop on yellow' is ridiculous. If your vehicle is within that window close to the light, you cannot stop, ever. Adjust for wind speed. If you are ever given a ticket for this, vidceotape the intersection to prove tghe length of the yellow light, compute the calculations, and take it to the judge.
In our area, they can ticket you, but it does not appear as a moving violation on your driver's record so your insurance will not go up. There is also some sentiment that putting in these cameras results in more rear-end accidents because drivers become hypersensitive. It's definitely a money-making issue.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
A lot of people around here (Knoxville, TN) raised hell about this topic. Everyone ticketed was validly ticketed because they did not STOP. TN law states that you may make a right turn on red, but only after coming to a complete stop prior to making the turn. Most states I've driven in it is the same way - if the light is red, you may approach, stop, then proceed with a right turn when safe to do so.
However, most people just look and cruise on through. Then when a ticket shows up they get their panties in a wad and actually learn the law, then they bitch about how no one stops for a right on red. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it legal.
I've personally been nearly rear-ended around here a couple of times due to people assuming I wasn't going to stop - even before the cameras were installed, I nearly always stopped before turning. Oh and I suppose it works, because I've also never been ticketed for it, even at red light camera intersections.
I hate sigs...
What's the point of yellow if it's just as restrictive as red, then?
Everywhere I've driven in my life, yellow is there so that you can brake if you can do so safely, but since obviously there may be some people who cannot do that - as they're already too close to the intersection - they can proceed, knowing that it is safe, as the other direction is still red.
Around Sydney, Australia they have begun installing red light / speed camera 2 in 1 systems, be careful not to speed up to make a light....
and most models should also state the duration of the preceeding yellow light.
The first picture is triggered when crossing the line (or a few cm behind), the 2nd is triggerd with a timer. So you can see if the car actually drove into the intersection (huge fine), or stopped, but simply missed the line. (smaller fine)
BTW: You also can get fined while crossing during yellow. (really small fine, and hardly ever prosecuted as the city would have to find proof first, that you would have been able to brake and stop instead of accelerating)
bickerdyke
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.
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
Not in my state. And if that's running a red light in some states, please tell me which ones so I can avoid driving in them.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
It is this way in California due to a recent change in traffic law. It didn't used to be. Until recently you could enter the intersection if it was still yellow and you were good.
Now if you don't exit before it turns red, you technically ran the light.
The assumption is if you were paying attention you either should have been able to stop, or clear the intersection, one of the two. Pretty good assumption if you ask me.
The idiots who try and plow through at the last second and end up still in the intersection when my light turns green SHOULD get a ticket.
If you are in the intersection when the light is red the you have run the light. It's really very simple!
There's two rules, and they vary depending on where you live. There's Permissive Yellow, where you're legal if you entered the intersection before the light changed to red, and then there's Restrictive Yellow where you're considered to have run the red light if it changes to red while you're still in the intersection. In the US most, but not all, states are Permissive Yellow.
The speed limit on Collier Boulevard, where she was cited, is 45 mph. According to county guidelines, the yellow light should be 4.5 seconds.
And that
Mogil said he tested it 15 times with an average of only 3.8 seconds
Thus the difference was reported as .7 seconds. While that does translate to a meaningful distance at 45mph, it still isn't much time. And if you're dependent on a person to see the yellow, click the stopwatch, then see the red and do the same, I'm not sure that you can count on a good set of measurements.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You must have not driven in any city or metropolitan area then. There are a lot of times where there is just no way to get past an unprotected left turn unless you get in the intersection, sit until the light turns red (and I mean red... people will continue to keep charging through on yellows), then get through.
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.
Exactly. And if it's yellow and you can stop but don't do it, it's good for a fine of about 15Eur. (and thus hardly ever prosecuted)
bickerdyke
Ya, and that is the tricky part that makes me think the cameras are illegal.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm
The California DMV handbook as well states that
Solid Yellow– A yellow signal light means “CAUTION.” The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you can not stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.
Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
If I do get a ticket in the mail, I would contest it on those grounds I think.
As to the OP, absolutely this is all about revenue, and they are being as greedy as possible because they know that 99.9% of people will not contest it. Ever dropped a few quarters into a parking machine and looked at the time you get?
Last time I dropped in 4 quarters in SF @ 5 minutes per quarter... Yet only got 17 minutes of time.
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.
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)
If you know you are going though an intersection where there is a camera, and you're not sure whether you'll make the light or not, simply cover your face (or duck down) before you enter the intersection. Legally, they must be able to identify the driver by their face in order to be able to issue a ticket. If they can't make out your face, they can't identify you as the driver. Even if they have your license plate number, they still can't issue a ticket without that photographic identify confirmation.
Red light cameras are obviously not for every municipality. Small towns or cities (or even bigger ones) may only see the dollar signs, but in many places (like East Tennessee where I live), it is an everyday occurrence to see people running red lights, even after the cameras went up. Some people don't even care - I'll be ahead of someone in a different lane, come to a nice and easy stop as the light is turning, then see them fly past me after the light is well within its red cycle.
In Knoxville, the intersections with cameras still have an incredible number of infractions, even after all of the awareness that they're there. Either people don't care and would rather pay the fine than wait a moment, or there are an incredible number of people not paying any attention whatsoever. Being that it's east tennessee and from gauging the reports in the news, I'd say there's a valid mixture of both.
The cameras have been installed for about 4 years now and I lived around the block from one for 2 years that I drove through every day. I've yet to get a ticket.
I hate sigs...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Naw, it's like that in Washington, too. But, the traffic cameras (speaking from experience here) are pretty sophisticated. They take one picture of the vehicle behind the line, one with it in the middle of the intersection and one very high resolution picture of the license plate. If the light was red before you entered the intersection, no contest. And, there are timestamps on the pictures so it's pretty clear that they were taken fractions of a second apart.
You should get your brakes checked.
From 50 km/h to 0 if you're five meters from the intersection when it changes? Not possible. Never mind brakes, you couldn't react to the light change fast enough to do it. And even if you and your brakes are paragons of halting, then it's a safe bet the guy and car behind you aren't.
Um, nope. If you are in the intersection when the light turns red, you have run a red light. You're not supposed to enter the intersection if you can see you won't clear it before the light does turn red
You have just flunked deductive logic 101, by failing to account for possible other reasons you might be in an intersection when light turns red other than you entering it when you see you won't clear it.
When did he ever say anything about seeing you won't be able to clear before the light turns red?
There are lots of circumstances where a vehicle enters in a section and they cannot see that they will be unable to clear it before the light turns red.
There are a lot of variables involved in here, such as:
So your brakes can stop your vehicle in 0 seconds from 25 MPH or higher? That's what GP is talking about when s/he said it'd be impossible to comply with.
Yeah, but how long is this intersection if you still get photographed at it when the light has turned red?
Given speed: 40mph = 58.666666etc. feet per second or 17.8816 meter per second
Given yellow light duration (from the artile): "the yellow light should be 4.5 seconds. Mogil said he tested it 15 times with an average of only 3.8 seconds."
3.8s * 58.666666 feet/second ~= 223 feet.
or
3.8s * 17.8816 meter per second = 68 meter.
That's one heck of an intersection; especially given that the cameras tend to take the photo of the area just after the stop line.. and not clear on the other side of the intersection.
( This doesn't in any way detract from the fact that these yellow lights are too short - or the notion that the munis/states are using them to rake in money. )
Not sure about every single state/whatever law - but typically it should be something along the lines of "stop if you can stop safely". Hint: the middle of the intersection is not a safe place to stop. So yes, please do keep driving.
Because the guy behind you was paying attention to neither the light -nor- the distance between his vehicle and yours. Doesn't make your situation any more fortunate if you do get rear-ended, but let's not blame short yellows for others' craptacular driving attitude.
Let's face it.. the vast majority of these cases are going to be from people who see the yellow, could stop perfectly fine, but -assume- that it is the proper time of 4.5s and say to themselves "hah! I can still make that!" and then *click* they get caught.
( Again - not that these tickets shouldn't be thrown out if the yellow was indeed too short; but I don't think that even 3s would give drivers a valid excuse under normal circumstances. Now if the intersection is blocked.. or you were getting out of the way of an ambulance.. or there was this murderous semi truck driver after you and you wanted to avoid being careened into.. that's a different story. )
In TN, you are considered to have run the light if you are within the "box" - stop bar to stop bar all directions - when the light turns red. For simplicity sake, they consider you to only have run the light using red light cameras if you pass the stop bar after the light has turned red.
Therefore, an officer can ticket you for being in the box, but a camera can only ticket if you enter the box on red. They also changed the laws around and made a camera ticket a non-moving violation (to comply with another law requiring moving violations to accrue points on the driver's license), but an officer can still give you a moving violation ticket.
The reasoning for that is a non-moving violation can be assessed against the owner of the vehicle and they have no way of confirming who was driving at the time the infraction occurred.
I hate sigs...
Not every one. But I don't pull into the intersection until I know I can make my turn. Gridlock sucks, and I refuse to contribute to it.
That's the nice thing about living where I do... if an intersection is busy enough, the left turn is protected (either by dedicated signal, or by delayed green for oncoming traffic, or by jughandles).
People from outside NJ bitch about the jughandles, but I frickin' love 'em. I wish other states used them more.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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
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.
In Florida, the requirement is that you drive as slowly as possible with your left turn signal on at all times.
Nope. I drive through urban areas all the time.
(1) Three lefts make a right
(2) I live in NJ. One thing I gotta say about NJ, the state looks out for people who turn left. Protected turns, jug handles, etc.
[1] Drivers, I mean. People who turn left politically only get looked out for about half the time.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Very few people run red lights on purpose. The majority do it by mistake. If you're doing 35mph and the light turns red when you're 10 feet from the intersection, the SAFE thing to do is blow the red light... not lock up your breaks and go careening into the next lane to avoid breaking a silly ordinance. The time delay between when your light turns red and the intersecting traffic light turning green is supposed to compensate for mistakes like these. The best ting they could do to make intersections safer is rip out the lights and install round-abouts which, while they have a slightly higher accident rate have almost 0% injurious or fatal accidents.
The yellow is almost always too short when red light cameras are installed. The company that administers the system typically keeps 50 percent of the ticket revenue. They always recommend shortening the yellow light when they do a site survey. Research shows that making the yellow longer has more safety benefits than installing a camera does. Doing both might be even safer, but so few people run red lights when the yellow is sufficiently long that the red light companies refuse to install and operate a camera there.
So, install a camera and make a bundle of money, or lengthen the yellow light and save more lives but make no money. Guess which path most governments are choosing?
Cities should not try to make up for tax short-falls with citations: they need to cut spending instead.
I'm not sure how it works in your city, however here in Edmonton, the system is decidedly simple.
There are two pressure pads embedded in the road before the stop line painted on the road. Your front and rear tires must pass over both pressure sensors AFTER the light has already changed to red in order to trigger a picture.
The only way you can trigger a ticket is if you passed the stopline AFTER the light was red.
Sounds pretty fair to me..
Many of the red light camera intersections also have a countdown timer on the "walk/do not cross" light giving you plenty of time to figure out when the light will change to yellow before you approach the intersection.
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.)
Guess what officer Hardass,
You may be the one who flunked Driver's Ed. You might wanna do a Google search to confirm your assertation. Granted this kind of thing could vary by municipality, but the info I found seemed to be generally in opposition to your statement.
Not only that, but by having a less intuitive law, these types of policies could result in larger numbers of traffic injuries and deaths.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Do you know how high are the fines for red lights in California? Blocking traffic is nothing compared to this.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
That's Florida though, it has its own Fark tag for a reason.
And the story of TFA takes place in Florida, so what is your point?
That's because people in Richmond can't drive. Even with extended yellows, I still see a lot of people running the light, turn left even when the light changed to yellow or red while they're still behind the line.
No, the yellow is supposed to compensate for those mistakes. Why wait until the light turns red to begin braking?
I'm curious about that assertion... I've heard it before... but all the traffic circles near where I live have either been eliminated or are in the process of being eliminated due to congestion and bad accidents. Maybe there's a sweet spot where they make sense for a certain amount of traffic volume.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
30 MPH in those conditions may be perfectly safe. For one thing, there are unlikely to be many pedestrians out in the rain. For another, most towns have crosswalks in places well outside of shopping districts where you typically find lots of pedestrians. There are crosswalks in my home town back in TN that have lots of people at noon and 1 (around lunch hour) but are otherwise unused for most of the rest of the day. And so on.
That said, this argument should be moot because you would cross that 50 foot distance in a second or so, and then you should be able to get out of the intersection before the light turns red. If you are unable to do so, the yellow was too short, plain and simple.
If you want a better argument, argue about the case where someone has to slow down for a vehicle in front of them that turns right, then enters the intersection on green traveling at 5-10 MPH. If the light turns yellow as you enter such an intersection, even in a fast sports car, it is almost always impossible to exit the intersection before the light turns red no matter how hard you mash the gas pedal.
The timing for a yellow light must be no shorter than the sum of the time it takes to cross an intersection from one side to the other at a speed of at least 10 MPH under the speed limit plus the time it takes to ascertain that you are going too fast to stop plus the time it takes the average person to notice that the light has changed plus the amount of time it takes for the vehicle to reach the edge of the intersection after the driver determines that he/she is going too fast to stop. Unfortunately, nearly every traffic light I have ever timed has a yellow that is several seconds too short, and in many cases, 5+ seconds shorter than is safe. Either way, in all cases, the law must make exceptions for any vehicle that entered the light on green at a low rate of speed and continued without stopping through the intersection, regardless of the speed involved.
The ones that really bug me are the left turn arrows that are too short. If I start into an intersection from a dead stop on a green arrow and it is red for two seconds before I can get out of the intersection while accelerating at a reasonable speed, the yellow is too short. Oh, and did I forget to mention that if you accelerate just a little slower than most people, someone could legitimately enter the intersection on a green light and potentially T-bone the turning traffic? Sunnyvale, CA, I'm looking at you. Pretty much every side street off of Sunnyvale Rd. has this problem....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
If it cost them money they would not do it.
Um, nope. You just flunked too, depending upon which state you're in.
Example 1 that took me 2 minutes to find.
I think all government imposed fines need to follow the same rules for reasonable behavior that we already impose on private companies. The utility company is not allowed to charge more than standard interest rate on late payments. Even credit card companies can't exceed something like 26% APY, and yet the city government parking fines jump up 100-300% if you are late, and similar punishments from the IRS etc significantly exceed market rates. Where is the financial equivalent of "cruel and unreasonable" punishment?
Furthermore there is a persistent problem with the government directing money from fines into public services and other projects. This creates an implicit motivation to fine people as a substitute for taxation. And if there are private contractors involved (as in the traffic camera companies) then they are motivated to hide the dirty deed. And since we don't vote on the fines, they can fund various services without public review. Fines also don't have any notion of social equity in terms of who pays them, its just a very bad way to fund anything.
We need two things: 1) independent (non-vested interest) review of all fines for reasonable formulation as well as a fair application with a provable justification that the fine has the deterrent effect in accordance with its stated purpose, 2) All money collected from government fines should go into a fund with extremely rigid rules about what it can be used for to eliminate conflicts of interest. For example it could go to fund public-financing of elections (the recipients are many individuals with turnover so there is little reason to try to manipulate the system). Or it could go into an emergency reserve fund or some other non-liquid asset.
Not every one. But I don't pull into the intersection until I know I can make my turn. Gridlock sucks, and I refuse to contribute to it.
There are plenty of intersections here, where if you don't enter on green and peel out on yellow/red, you'll be waiting hours. I'd say that would be contributing to gridlock.
Sent from my PDP-11
Anyone who has read a drivers' license study book knows that they refer to the speed limit as the maximum speed during optimum driving conditions. You are expected to slow down during bad conditions for safety, not to mention being able to properly control your vehicle to obey the law.
I got a speeding-ticket some time ago. Here in Arizona, we a bunch of those damned things and everyone hates them. They're operated by a company called RedFlex. I had been busted by them twice before and I dutifully paid the fine after seeing the threatening messages in the ticket. As it turns out, less that 30% of those that get the tickets pay them. The tickets aren't enforceable because they haven't been SERVED by an actual person from the city (i.e., a policeman or a server).
The third time I got the ticket, I was going 65 on the freeway. I don't go down that freeway much so I was unaware that it abruptly changes to 55. There is a slope that goes under an overpass and the bastards placed a camera RIGHT under the overpass and at the bottom of the slope. The cameras are triggered to go off if you go 11 or over. I was doing 65, thinking I was in a 65. So I was doing around 67-68 at the bottom of the slope. BAM!
I got the ticket in the mail in a few days later. I said a loud FUCK YOU for my benefit and shredded the damn thing. What happened to me? Nothing. I think a process server may have tried to serve me; I just didn't answer the door (for about 3 months) but I'm single and so I'm not home that much anyway. The ticket was dismissed and nothing showed up on my record.
So if you're in Arizona and you get a red-light ticket. Say fuck it. I know that as an Anonymous Coward my "advice" is suspect, but seriously, it works! Even if a process server does serve you, you can still fight it, and all you have to pay is about $25 extra to cover the charge of them serving you (if the judge says you have to pay the fine).
But you actually may be contributing to it if you do what you're describing.
There's a good reason they teach you to pull into the intersection for unprotected left hand turns. It's more efficient. If you pull partially into the intersection, you are guaranteed that you can get at least one car out safely when the light turns red. There's no possibility that doing so can increase gridlock (unless the road you're turning onto is backed up, of course) because it takes a moment for the cars in the cross direction to get moving anyway, during which time you should have cleared the intersection.
By staying out of the intersection until you know you can get all the way through it on a left turn, you significantly increase the chances of getting zero cars out per light cycle instead of one. Somewhere behind you, there is now a car that is farther back by one car length than before. This may well result in gridlock even by the most pedantic definitions. Even if it doesn't, it contributes to traffic backups (which some people describe rather loosely as gridlock).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Please see http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ for details (it's a site about how to beat these tickets).
Short version: these cameras decrease safety. Someone was kind enough to rear-end my vehicle for stopping at the end of yellow. In another case, a police vehicle nearly smashed into me. If there was no such camera, I would have behaved differently.
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
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.
It's pretty much the same in most states (based on the 8-10 that I lived in or near and know the law), but it usually only enforced inside cities (e.g., "don't block the box"). And, every time it is enforced, it's by a human who saw the driver blatently ignored the part of the law about "if you can safely stop before entering the intersection" because the traffic wasn't actually flowing freely.
Red light cameras with short yellows lead to far too many bad driving decisions (stopping early, rushing to beat the light, etc.).
Here in Italy we had the same problem. There were a lot of cases of fined people complaining that the yellow was too short, then many criminal investigations started around the country and they found out that in a lot of places traffic lights were purposely set with too short yellow, to fine as many people as possible, because at that time companies that installed red-light cameras earned a percentage of the fines. Of course, investigations also found out corruption cases linked to the cameras business. After these scandals, a couple of years ago they changed the law: no more percentages of fines for companies that install cameras.
and there's a simple formula to calculate the light time. Take the safe stopping distance of a LARGE vehicle to stop safely, multiply by feet per second at what traffic is measured to move (note, this about SAFETY not the arbitrary speed limit) and you get a nice stopping line about 50-75 feet back. The time at the speed limit to get from that line through the light is the safe yellow light timing. Most lights are several seconds short to begin with this is something you can walk out and measure with a stopwatch!
That is a gridlock law, and subject to the officer's interpretation.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Thanks for that post! I hadn't heard of "mechanical jurisprudence" before, so I found that very informative. I'd mod you up, but I've never had mod points... so you have to settle for this post instead.
Queuing across an intersection = annoyed motorists. Fine is appropriate to deter annoying behaviour with the understanding that is also sometimes hard to avoid.
Running a red light = potential major collision. Fine is appropriate to deter this incredibly dangerous behaviour that is almost always avoidable.
Setting the yellow/orange/amber light to a time that is too short to stop safely = dangerous behaviour to increase revenue/profit. To deter this, the penalty should include repayment with interest to all those fined by the camera since its installation, plus jail time for those involved in defrauding the public.
Simple solution, but I'm pretty sure the people going down (if anyone) will be low level scape goats that had no decision making power anyway.
Australia. I've been issued a ticket for "Not stop at amber light". These infringements are generally issued by cops who are having a bad day and want to harass a motorist.
Alas, it was easier to just pay the fine than bother contesting the ticket in court.
Responding to the original poster: (also in Australia), red light cameras do take two photos: one where the light turns red, and another when a car crosses the line. They're triggered by an induction loop placed just after the "stop" line.
I saw a Richmond driver pull a U-turn right in front of an oncoming double-trailer fuel truck. The truck stopped in time, but there was smoke pouring off of all thirty tires. I don't think the car driver had any idea how close they came to being flattened.
...because people keep blowing through red lights like there's no tomorrow.
And for some of those people, there indeed will be no tomorrow.
But the handbook is not the law. The courts go by the law. Now -- theoretically, you COULD sue the state for providing misleading information that led to your getting a ticket.
On a side note -- about revenue. I agree. I recall my friend got a parking ticket. He was parked facing opposite of traffic on a residential street. The ticket was for parking "more than 18 inches away from the curb". He was 3 inches away from the curb and he started to go ballistic. I laughed my arse off and pointed "Not away from THAT curb!" pointing across the street.
Sure enough -- that's what it was. It's all about the revenue.
That's how it works here in Wisconsin.
And for both of you who demand the statue instead of the explanation, here it is. (pdf, 400k)
Camera or not, if there is no yellow, then the guard interval between the light turning red and the perpendicular light turning green had better be a few seconds long, or people are going to get killed or injured.
I'd posit that someone who can't stop their vehicle in time to avoid a red light also can't stop their vehicle in time to avoid a pedestrian. Pedestrians don't always behave predictably.
Speed limit in my town, through the busy section, with limited visibility due to a hill, is 35 mph. It's barely safe at that speed. In the rain, pulling a trailer? Forget 35. Should be going 25, tops, IMO. I think people take too many liberties with speed when they're towing, or driving a behemoth in the rain... but that's my personal opinion, YMMV.
Agreed.
Story of my evening commute. Every day, the last light before I get home... gun it through on the green left turn signal, or get squashed by someone anticipating the green coming the other way. The yellow is plenty long enough... but if there's only one car in the left-turn lane, the green light literally lasts for less than one second. Heaven forbid you're not waiting to pop the clutch as soon as it turns green.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I got a ticket for a right turn on red maneuver, which came down to the fact that the light turned red a fraction of a second before I made my turn.
I asked for a hearing and requested information which would verify the accuracy of the timing of the light, including technical specifications, testing data, etc. The city attorney sent me a response claiming to have the information available at his office, but when I went downtown to peruse it, all they had was some details on the contract between the red light camera company and the city and a few tests of the light's vehicle speed reading against a radar gun. Nothing at all about the actual timing of the light.
When I went to attend the hearing, the 'testifying officer' (some guy who had watched the recorded video) could not cite for me how long the light was supposed to be yellow (although he did bring up some non-legal recommendation) which was something I couldn't find even after reading all the apparently applicable state and local traffic laws. He also was only able to roughly count out the length of light being yellow rather than providing a specific measurement.
Despite their not being able to show that the equipment was working properly (to within the relevant margin of error) or in compliance with legal specifications, nor providing me with the information I had requested which may have allowed me to firmly ascertain my own innocence, I was declared "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" of having committed this trespass of a fraction of a second. I could have requested to bring it before a judge but I was told the court fees would be more than paying the fine, and without legal aid it simply did not seem worth the effort.
It also irked me that it took them ~4 months after the fact to send me the notice of the violation. By that time I didn't even remember being at the intersection in question, so I was effectively deprived of my own witness (were there mitigating circumstances? had I loaned my car to someone else that day? I have no idea).
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
But I'm also kind of an old fart... I avoid driving in areas/situations where traffic would force the issue like that. I'd rather run all my errands on Friday nights than during Saturday shopping hours.
Not so much where I live... a couple lights on my commute are like this... and traffic coming the other direction is in the intersection before it turns green either direction. A red-light camera would probably help there...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
This is probably offtopic, but I've never noticed or heard of red-light cameras here in Grand Rapids MI. I have, however, noticed that speed limits in some areas have gone up dramatically. And being the cynical chap that I am, I'm convinced that they're trying to make up, in gas tax revenue, the lost cigarette tax revenue when the new nanny-state smoking ban goes into effect next month.
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
Actually, it's just 2 photos. The computer detects where the license plate is in the photo and they print out a zoomed-in version of it for the record. I'm sure the original photo is significantly higher resolution than that of the printer used to send you the notice.
Note: I haven't been a victim of the red-light cameras, but I was caught by their speeding camera once. Placed on the exit ramp/street from 295 right after the speed limit dropped, but well before the end of the highway and a light/intersection.
Placing of those speed cameras can be just as shady as yellow-light timings . . .
I once was nearly in an accident in the same situation. I had been waiting for an opening to turn left but my view was blocked by cars turning left from oncoming traffic. Once the light turned yellow a car in the right lane slowed to a stop, so I turned left. However, just as I was turning left I could see a car in the left lane that floored it to make the light (the car had been blocked from my view until I turned). Fortunately I was able to speed up enough to not get hit, but it was very close.
A cop witnessed this and pulled me over, giving me a warning. According to him I should have waited until I could see that all cars had stopped in the oncoming traffic, even if cars were running red lights. He said it was perfectly legal to remain in the intersection after the light turned red until it is finally safe to turn.
No, the yellow is supposed to compensate for those mistakes. Why wait until the light turns red to begin braking?
/quote> No. The Yellow Light is the warning that the light is going to turn red; thus if it is safe to stop, then you stop - and you must take into account the vehicles around you (especially those behind you). if it not safe, then you are to proceed through the intersection regardless of whether the light remains yellow or turns red.
Stop lights that do not have a red in all directions between red/green combination states are simply asking for a higher accident rate. Allowing 2-3 seconds in an all-red state (for all directions) solves the issue in >90% of cases. (The remaining 10% being weather related - namely snow and ice.)
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Where I'm from the law is that you must do that. If you are turning across traffic as lights you claim the intersection by stopping part way across and go when it is safe. If there's lots of traffic you will end up turning on the red which is fine. There will be a red both ways for a short time and you are half way across the intersection so even though you are turning you have enough of a head start on the traffic.
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+pt.6-div.1-rule.61+0+N
It's not a fair system at all.
I live in the city of St Louis, and here it is legal to make a right turn on red. Always has been, unless a sign specifically prohibits it.
Enter the red light cameras. In the bill that legalizes the cameras is also a clever change to the law: you must stop before making a right turn on red. So this crooked backwater river town criminalized formerly legal behavior (silently, of course, unless motorists seek out changes to traffic laws) solely to make profit. Well though out, sure, but in the sense that it's a nasty little trick to generate revenue for this crappy hellhole of a city. Of course, there is no representation for the extra revenue being generated, unless you consider crumbling infrastructure a public service.
That's not fair. The law is essentially out of the reach of average citizens, and even if they could find it to read it many might not understand the legalese. So the only to learn the law is via a $100 dollar fine, which was the whole point of the law anyhow. It's unfair, and when someone in power decides it's unconstitutional I'll be first in line for the class action lawsuit.
blah blah blah
That's not called 'running the red', that's called 'loading the intersection'. The safe thing to do is wait for the traffic to stop before you turn right. If the light is red as you turn, you're still safe, because the perpendicular traffic can see you right in front of them.
And it is a moving violation to accelerate into a stationery object whatever the colour of the light (or anywhere for that matter).
One of the most dangerous things you can do is to try to break the flow of oncoming traffic while the light is yellow. Those cars are already at a critical decision making point whether or not to stop or keep going. Why make it harder. It is not an offence to turn once the light has turned red, because technically, your light is now the green light on the perpendicular. (This all assumes you didn't have a red/green arrow controlling your movement.)
Some cities around the world that have tram lines running down the middle of the road let you execute something called a 'hook turn'. This is where you turn left from the right-most lane by entering the intersection and sitting directly in front of the stopped traffic. When the perpendicular light turns green, you complete the turn and drive off in front of all the traffic that was waiting at the perpendicular red light. That may sound strange, but it works safely.
Very good point. I'm curious, though, if in high-traffic areas, the increased congestion would be responsible for more accidents. And to be completely cynical, if the cost in time, emissions, gas, vehicle wear-and-tear, etc of that congestion would be worth the accidents saved. But that's the corporate executive side of me coming through...
blockquote>No. The Yellow Light is the warning that the light is going to turn red; thus if it is safe to stop, then you stop - and you must take into account the vehicles around you (especially those behind you). if it not safe, then you are to proceed through the intersection regardless of whether the light remains yellow or turns red.
True. But the length of the yellow should be long enough that a judgment call on not stopping due to a tailgater, etc, should still give you plenty of time to clear the intersection before it turns red.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The rule is "stop if you can", not "stop if you want to". Otherwise, you'll get a a ticket for running the yellow.
It sounds like somebody has never made a lefthand turn on a busy street before.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Depends on whether the yellow is too short. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I wonder if the municipalities who do this could be held liable in civil court. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some lawyer somewhere hard up for cash and eager to make a name for himself who wasn't building a case on this situation.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Midtown Manhattan?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And IN. (And I'd bet most everywhere else, too -- especially if you entered while it was green, and were still there when it turns red, no sane law could hold you to be wrong, and no sane judge or jury could uphold a law that did.)
And if TFA is right and the yellows ARE too short the lines aren't going to make one whit of difference. I've known lights where the lines are completely irrelevant because they are either too far back for traffic flow (ie, I could make the yellow clear, and be out the other side by the time it went red, from the line, at the speed limit), or too far forward (even if I was doing the limit, I'd never hit my brakes in time before it went red). I tend to ignore them, except when approaching unknown lights.
Short yellows are used in several jurisdictions to generate revenue.
Do you think the authorities running these rackets estimate the revenue per death?
It seems this is common. I've been caught (a ticket, not an accident) by one in Ohio. The cop who ticketed me said it was the most dangerous intersection in the county.
He knew.
A couple of these exploits are mentioned here:
http://www.freedomworks.org/news/denver-colorado-caught-exploiting-short-yellow-lig
This link has it at a little under one added accident per million vehicle entries into an intersection. The ticket rate must be much higher than 1 in a million, so they get nice revenue for each citizen they kill, perhaps $5 million if 1% fatality rate in accidents and $50 tickets to 0.1% of drivers. At least the government doesn't think our lives are cheap. Injuries and repairs are other costs we pay, so this is a very expensive way to fund our government. Drive more carefully in a recession when governments get hungry.
Verbum caro factum est
Obviously in St. Louis you have different laws than we do here in NJ.
But in NJ the law has always been that you can make a right turn on red provided you have come to a complete stop. This makes sense for a variety of reasons... if that truly wasn't the law before the current program went into place, I'd think it a net positive that it went into effect. Surely the need to stop when turning into oncoming traffic with potentially limited visibility (due to cars stopped for the red light) is a good thing, right?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
That's the law in Colorado as well. It is ENTERING the intersection on a red light that is illegal. It is not illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Or how nimble the pedestrian is :O
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I would like more links to how this is handled state by state, because I look into it every time I drive in a new area, and I have yet to drive in a jurisdiction where it's illegal to be in an intersection before the light turns red as long as there's room on the other side to exit. Stopping in an intersection because of no exit I've seen handled as parking infringements (cops slap parking tickets right on the window and walk away), not as a red light violation In Victoria, Australia, verbatim from VicRoads' web site: Q. If a driver enters an intersection once a light has turned amber and the light turns red before the driver passes through the intersection, is that considered running a red light? A. No. It was identically true in all of California. There is a huge common conception about you can't be in the intersection when the light is red, and I've yet to meet an Aussie who doesn't believe this. The text of a drivers handbook reflects a lot of misinformation!
Not every one. But I don't pull into the intersection until I know I can make my turn. Gridlock sucks, and I refuse to contribute to it.
This is not what causes gridlock. Gridlock happens when non-turning straight-through traffic queues across the intersection.
If you're turning left and you drive all the way into the far side of the intersection and wait, then you will automatically move off when the perpendicular light turns green. If your new direction is not able to move, then you only block traffic that would also have not been able to move anyway (ie. no grid lock).
There should always be at least one car able to turn left at every cycle of the lights. It is extremely annoying when the guy at the front of the left turn queue doesn't move into the intersection and you end up waiting half a dozen cycles longer than you would otherwise have needed to.
Of course, if there is a controlling red arrow, then you don't move off until it has turned green and the intersection is clear.
FYI: The cameras have an additional sensor so that they only take the picture if something enters the intersection.
"...I just drive ahead somewhat past the stop line (as they teach you to do), and wait for a gap in traffic to turn into."
And if an oncoming driver does the same thing? Now you've got two cars blocking each other with no safe way to move.
I don't know about your state, but that dangerous stupidity can get you a ticket here.
You stay behind the line and wait for a SAFE gap. Parking in the middle of the intersection is almost never a good idea.
It's also illegal to to make a left turn into the center turn lane to enter the roadway but idiots do that all the time as well.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Central Joisey. I have to commute near a mall. "Kids" with tinted windows and ground effects. I put quotes around "Kids" because some of them are in their thirties.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
They don't have left turns in Jersey?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Oh, and did I forget to mention that if you accelerate just a little slower than most people, someone could legitimately enter the intersection on a green light and potentially T-bone the turning traffic? Sunnyvale, CA, I'm looking at you. Pretty much every side street off of Sunnyvale Rd. has this problem....
Actually, if they T-bone you, they're at fault if you entered the intersection on a green or yellow. CA Vehicle Code, section 21451: "A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk." 21452 and 3 cover yellow and red. In California red ultimately means no entry, and defines turn on red rules.
While you may be facing a red on your previous direction of travel, you were still lawfully in the intersection when you entered. Just because the light changed doesn't make it illegal, as long as you're on your way out of it.
Small consolation if you _do_ get t-boned, however.
The ones in SoCal have 2 systems a video system as well as a Camera to show you are in the intersection on a red. If you fight it, they will bring the video to show you did in fact enter on red and not yellow.
also here is a link of what happened in Costa Mesa CA with to short of a yellow... lets just say everyone got refunded... http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsCostaMesaMain.html
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
"Then when a ticket shows up they get their panties in a wad and actually learn the law,"
dude, seriously? In St Louis, they made it mandatory to stop at red lights before turning right. When did this change happen? Along with the ordinance to add red light cameras. Awfully suspicious, it sounds a lot like collusion between the corrupt city officials and the red light camera contractors. They criminalized perfectly legitimate behavior in order to generate profit. Oh sure, you expect that from corporations, but from your local government? Then again, this is St Louis, so I guess it makes sense in the crooked little backwater town.
It's not like they mail out changes to the traffic laws to the general public. Oh, sure you could do a search online for the laws, but in many cities it's not exactly easy to find. And once you find them, can you understand the wording of the law? Maybe we can, but I'd bet that average americans would neither be able to find the laws nor understand them. And then, you'd have to know there was a change to the law to seek out in the first place. If the law is out of reach of the common man, such draconian enforcement is unwarranted. And yet they do it.
blah blah blah
Just go past the intersection and turn where it's safe to do so instead of trying to get yourself and others killed.
There are several ways around that situation in almost every case that don't involve risking a traffic accident and ticket.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
According to the Oregon Driver's Manual of 2010-2011, "Round Yellow – Do not enter the intersection if you can stop safely. Pedestrians facing a yellow light must not start across the street unless a pedestrian signal directs otherwise."
In your instance, then it's considered valid since to stop would be unsafe. In most instances (i.e. when jackasses plow through instances to beat the red), a traffic violation has been committed when the motorist is entering the intersection on the yellow.
Don't know where you saw that. Check the vehicle code, sections 21451-21453. Only red has been changed since 1987, and that in 2002. Whoever wrote subsection (c) needs to be beaten by an English teacher.
Either people don't care and would rather pay the fine than wait a moment, or there are an incredible number of people not paying any attention whatsoever.
Here in Virginia Beach, VA, City employees in City vehicles get a free pass because the ticket goes to the owner, not the driver. No point in collecting money from yourself.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I work in traffic light servicing, Perth Western Australia, for 15 years. Yes it is possible to determine that you ran a red light with one photo and the speed you were travelling at. Furthermore the red light camera can also determine when in the amber period you cross the stop line. In Australia, the sensors work on a stop line loop cut in the road. The traffic controller possesses enough intelligence to count the vehicles and vehicle density. The traffic signal output from the red and amber lamps is monitored by the red light camera. The traffic signal controller is never adjusted for red or amber timings; they are set in a ROM timing and cannot be overridden. Depending on the settings for the particular intersection, the red and amber lamp monitoring can be adjusted by the red light camera installer. In Australia; the red light is usually set for two seconds and amber for four seconds. The first two seconds of amber is a safety entry point into the intersection. ie in the event that the vehicle cannot stop. The next two seconds is the exclusion point before the red change. The red light camera can be programmed to detect a vehicle after the two second amber safety entry point and the red signal. The red light camera will detect the amber entry time and the red time. With one photo and a calibration line marked on the road surface, the authorities can tell how fast a vehicle was travelling when it crossed the stop line.
Never indicated the part about doing so safely, but you are correct.
Here in Ontario, you can be fined $180 for running an amber when you could have stopped safely. The point of that particular rule is very simply to prevent speeding through the intersection.
If you entered when it was green, and were still there when it was red, then you were there for the entire yellow cycle, which is far too long to be in the intersection. One assumes that you did not have a clear path through the intersection, in which case it would be illegal to enter the intersection even if the light was green.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
As I live in TN, I can't speak to your state. However in TN, stopping before turning right on red was always mandatory, just never followed in practice. The only people that really bitched about it were the ones that occasionally got pulled over and got a ticket (although most of the time the cops would probably let it slide).
Also in TN, we have our driver handbook available online. Not exactly the law, but good enough and easy enough to access and read through periodically. It's available here: http://state.tn.us/safety/dlhandbook/menu.htm . If you click on the study guide and go to page 16, it states:
"RED: Stop behind crosswalk or stop line. Unless otherwise posted, you may turn right on red after coming to a complete stop and when no pedestrians or cross traffic are present."
Pretty clear to me.
I hate sigs...
I live IN Florida, but I'm north of Fort Myers, and there are several lights around here that turn red while I'm passing under them. It's not unusual to have it happen several times a month, and most of the lights that it occurs at have the cameras. I've never gotten any citations in the mail.
Learn something new.
As Jeff Bridges said in the movie Starman.
[Starman is driving the car, and speeds across a recently turned red light, causing crashes for the other motorists]
Starman: Okay?
Jenny Hayden: Okay? Are you crazy? You almost got us killed! You said you watched me, you said you knew the rules!
Starman: I do know the rules.
Jenny Hayden: Oh, for your information pal, that was a *yellow* light back there!
Starman: I watched you very carefully. Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
I read somewhere once about a scheme to make intersections safer by marking a "point of no return" line prior to an intersection. The idea is that if the light turns yellow (or is yellow) prior to the point of no return, you have room to stop (assuming you're going the speed limit). If you've passed the marking, then it would be more dangerous to stop (and end up in the middle of the intersection) rather than continue through the intersection.
Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
Red light cameras are triggered by you _entering_ the intersection, not by being in it. If you get your picture taken, it's because you entered the intersection after it went red.
As to the OP, absolutely this is all about revenue, [...]
This certainly appears to be true in the US, where intersections with cameras have noticably shorter orange periods. In sane countries, the minimum length of the orange is defined by road safety standards, and intersections that don't follow that standard (by having a longer orange period) typically only do so with very good reason (eg: higher than normal speed limit).
Around here, the city vehicles (police vehicles are the ones that make the news) that get ticketed go to the driver. For the police vehicle example, the video and call log are reviewed, and if the officer was not responding to a call they have to pay the fine out of pocket.
I hate sigs...
Even if that were true it's perfectly legal in a lot of states, even states where they're starting to ticket people like this. I know of an intersection near where I live that I avoid like the plague because even if you're the first car at the turn you can't make it through the light before it turns red.
Nobody would ever be able to make a left turn in Chicago if they had to be out of the intersection when the light turns red.
In Oklahoma, you can even be ticketed for failure to yield if you enter the intersection and strike another vehicle which has illegally run a red light. My friend was ticketed for this when he turned left on a green arrow and another car from the other direction ran into him after running a red light.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This is actually old news. The companies that install and manage the red light cameras have always encouraged the municipalities to shorten the yellow lights. In fact, I can remember seeing studies that showed that the cameras did not even pay for themselves unless the yellow lights were shortened.
The oldest article I could find from a quick search was this 2 year old article about a few cities caught in the act of shortening the lights to improve revenues.
That's how we were able to stop red light cameras from being implemented here in Virginia. These "shorter yellow light" studies, along with studies that showed that the implementation of cameras usually increased accidents at intersections, cowed the local legislators to abandon their plans, even after lobbying the state legislators to allow them to install them.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That's because people in Richmond can't drive.
I've seen and heard this phrase, with insignificant variations, about practically every city there is on the world map. More often than not it is also spoken by a local. Especially this:
I still see a lot of people running the light, turn left even when the light changed to yellow or red while they're still behind the line.
I've seen practically everywhere in BC.
That said, it may be true - I've noticed that White locals are generally rather skeptical about the average driving abilities of the local Chinese majority, if that topic is ever mentioned.
Regardless, it seems to me that adapting the laws to the actual driving abilities of the local population - whatever they may be in any given case - is a good idea in general.
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.
That would just lead to a feedback cycle as people learn to press their luck with the longer yellow and in order to avoid accidents they have to increase the length of the yellow.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Or if the pedestrian is pushing a shopping cart. I love it when I get to push a shopping cart across a crosswalk; the cars stop as if they meant it.
I once was nearly in an accident in the same situation. I had been waiting for an opening to turn left but my view was blocked by cars turning left from oncoming traffic. Once the light turned yellow a car in the right lane slowed to a stop, so I turned left. However, just as I was turning left I could see a car in the left lane that floored it to make the light (the car had been blocked from my view until I turned). Fortunately I was able to speed up enough to not get hit, but it was very close.
A cop witnessed this and pulled me over, giving me a warning. According to him I should have waited until I could see that all cars had stopped in the oncoming traffic, even if cars were running red lights. He said it was perfectly legal to remain in the intersection after the light turned red until it is finally safe to turn.
I was in a similar situation as well, and learned from that. The cop is absolutely correct, and the law should recognize the fact. It's better to make a safe turn, even if it means that cars waiting for green on the other road will have to wait for a little bit longer.
Also, hereabouts, they seem to be designing traffic lights with that in mind - when one direction switches to red, there is a brief but noticeable period of time where the other one is red as well - green doesn't come up immediately. So even if you're turning on red, you know that the other direction is still blocked (of course, they should see you and hold regardless of what their traffic light shows, but it still helps with some absent-minded people).
In RI and MA if you're across the white line when the light turns red you are obligated to proceed through the intersection. It's not always practical though, due to how massholes drive.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You must have not driven in any city or metropolitan area then. There are a lot of times where there is just no way to get past an unprotected left turn unless you get in the intersection, sit until the light turns red (and I mean red... people will continue to keep charging through on yellows), then get through.
This is not considered running a red in any place I've ever drive (Australia, USA, most of Europe).
"Running a red" means *entering* the intersection on a red light. If you're already in it when the light turns red, it's perfectly legal (and, indeed, required) for you to clear the intersection.
And Virginia... they have already removed one red light cam where I lived because of accident issues apparently. I even know of someone who had to goto court to fight his ticket despite the picture clearly showing his having been rear-ended and SHOVED through the intersection by the other car.
My favorite quote in this article is for others to come forward who think they were shorted! Hello! Why does this seem like guilt is assumed unless innocence is proven? Why can't they simply check the lights and rescind the tickets? Oh yeah - traffic court aka kangaroo court. Never have I seen a court in which a police officer can be caught in a bold faced lie and the driver still convicted but it happens in traffic court!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
In my state, they DO need two pictures to prove that you ran the light. All of the red light cameras around here overtly take two pictures (with flash, even during daylight hours!) and you're "supposed" to receive the pictures along with your ticket in the mail. And, yes, nearly all of the camera equipped traffic lights here have noticeably and demonstrably short yellow lights, where the state mandate (and possibly federal DOT, 'do it this way if you want your highway grants') is three seconds, some of the camera-lights in town are as short as one second!
The process is highly automated and it's fairly obvious that there is no human oversight. The enticement not to contest the ticket or call the state out on anything is the (frankly, highly illegal) practice of my state demanding court costs up front if you take the ticket to court, to be refunded if you win. I'm fairly sure that violates the innocent-before-proven-guilty clause in both state and federal constitutions.
Story #1: I stood behind a gentleman in line at the DOT one day who was (this is important for the story) a fairly dapper black man who owned a very nice Harley, which I admired out in the parking lot. I saw him ride it up. He brought with him his mailed-in ticket, showing both pictures of someone on a bike running a red light. A skinny white man, with no helmet, wearing a wife beater. On a street bike (think crotch rocket, not a Harley). After pointing out his bike and skin color to the clerk (and I vouched for him; I saw him ride the bike up) the ticket was quietly erased. Obviously, no one had looked at the photos and even the computer system had gotten the license plate number wrong.
Story #2: I got "nailed" by a traffic light camera that I KNEW had a short yellow light, from watching other people get caught by it. Instead of going through the yellow, I stopped at the line and let the light turn red. A full three seconds or so after the light went red, the camera flashed me twice. I anticipated the stupidity well in advance, and was not surprised when a ticket turned up in the mail nearly a month later. It contained ONE photo. I contested and took it to court, to discover the "court costs up-front" policy mentioned above... I demanded to see the second photo, as the camera clearly and obviously took two. The state clerks were very cagey about this, first claiming it was "not necessary" and then claiming it "didn't exist," there was only one photo. To his credit, the judge pointed out that it was the law to present both photos, and he would decide what was bloody well "necessary" for the proceedings. The second photo was produced... Showing my car in exactly the same position, stopped well behind the white line, as it was in the first photo. Oops! In this case, clearly there was some human oversight which decided to lie about the evidence.
No one from the state was punished. I got out of the ticket (obviously) but it took them nearly four months to return my court costs.
Story #3: A friend of mine, who is somewhat cheeky, reported getting out of his automated camera-ticket by demanding to confront his accuser. As there was no paper trail as to who (if anyone) reviewed the ticket or entered the complaint to the court, the case was dropped. (This is why when a cop writes you a ticket it has a lot of flowey language to the effect of "I, [name of officer] do duly swear under oath of perjury that I observed, etc., etc." The cop is acting as your accuser, and entering the charge as TESTIMONY to the court, which is important. A camera can not testify, only a person can testify about what the camera captured.) I imagine this loophole will be legislated around as soon as someone tries it in every state.
And if an oncoming driver does the same thing? Now you've got two cars blocking each other with no safe way to move.
Well, you don't drive into the middle of the road, obviously. Basically just so that the body of the car is just past the stop line. And it's wide enough for two cars on opposing sides to do that without blocking each other, with plenty of space left in between. I routinely turn that way while another driver does the same on the other side, and I never had any problem doing so - nor ever saw anyone having problems.
I don't know about your state, but that dangerous stupidity can get you a ticket here.
I'm not in U.S., and you might want to hold back your "dangerous stupidity" claim. Not only it's the law here, and also how everyone is actually taught to drive; but also, judging by replies to my post above, it's the same in quite a few places all over the world - including, it seems, some U.S. states as well.
You must completely clear an intersection before the light turns red. You can not enter an intersection unless you have time to clear it. This means that when you see yellow you stop. It also means that if there are cars in the intersection or you are driving slowly you must not enter the intersection. In urban traffic this is next to impossible. As a matter of fact if people did not use the yellow lights to make some turns we would have total grid lock.
The worst part of this crap is that people who are required to drive tens of thousands of miles every year are the most vulnerable. And if you think it is hard to obey the law in the family car try it in a large truck! If people actually read the hand book and obey it we would all be out of luck. For example heavy trucks in my state are supposed to stop 200 feet behind the next vehicle. Considering 60 foot long trucks plus 200 ft. gaps while stopped three or four trucks could tie up some towns completely.
Fewer than in other states.
Out in the burbs, and even in some of the more urban areas, we have jug handles. And where we do have left turns, we tend to have either dedicated left-turn signals with red lights for oncoming traffic, or we have delayed green lights for oncoming traffic.
We've had bad traffic in Jersey for a long time... and so roads have been built/altered to accommodate those making left-hand turns.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If you're doing 35mph and the light turns red when you're 10 feet from the intersection, the SAFE thing to do is blow the red light... not lock up your breaks and go careening into the next lane to avoid breaking a silly ordinance.
No, the "SAFE" thing to do is to put down the phone/book/computer/whatever and pay attention to what you're doing.
If you only realised you needed to stop when the light went red 10 feet before you entered the intersection, then your actual driving error happened about 200 feet back up the road.
My solution to red light cameras is to drive 10-20 mph below the speed limit in any town that used red light cameras.
If those cities were really interested in safety, they could more easily do so, and at all light controlled intersections, by merely increasing the yellow light a second or two.
By the way, when New York City issued their RFP for red light cameras, the first city in the U.S. to do so, I was head of R&D for a radar company and wrote most of our proposal in response to their RFP. We were also working very hard back then to get the Washington DC contract. At the time, I thought that red light cameras would work well, but the actual results have convinced me otherwise.
While I was head of R&D at that company, we were also approached about developing a similar system for railroad crossings. Nothing ever came out of that, though.
That's only in the retirement areas. Some places are speedways. I joke about "The Florida Speedway", which is a long loop. I-75 South starting at I-10, continuing the length of the state. It then turns East across the southern part of the state, switches to I-595 just as you exit the Everglades, and then turns North onto I-95. When you reach I-295 in Jacksonville, head West, and catch I-10 West.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I'm not sure what state-wide regulation there is
Florida's traffic laws are defined in Chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes. Specifically, F.S. 316.007 says that the state is the *sole* authority regarding traffic matters that are covered under Chapter 316, except as explicity delegated otherwise (and those explicit delegations are contained in F.S. 316.008).
I live in Orlando, and I suspect the city is trying to justify their program via 316.008(1) which allows localities the power of "regulating or prohibiting stopping, standing, or parking", even though in context the Legislature clearly meant the city can post "No Stopping" signs on curbs and whatnot. I don't know for sure because I can't get the city to respond to any requests for information. Having said that, it seems clear to me that the state fully intended to regulate interactions with traffic lights completely and totally via F.S. 316.075, and thus the relevant section of the Orlando City Code that authorizes the red-light camera program (Orlando City Code, Title II, Article III)) would seem to me to be clearly outside the city's authority under state law.
Like you, I understand there's a problem with people running lights and causing accidents as a result. However, I'd much rather see the city/county do it the *right* way, and have one or two officers stationed at the problem intersections to write tickets instead of doing a sleazy end run around the law and depriving the accused of their right to a fair trial.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
perhaps, but changing the law to generate profit is shady. The law is to protect the public, not to fleece them.
blah blah blah
Gridlock happens when *any* traffic queues across the intersection and is prevented from moving by congestion ahead.
In theory, left-turning traffic should not have congestion ahead if the lights are times properly. But gridlock has a way of spreading to intersections upstream, and left-turning traffic is as much as a problem as straight-through traffic at that point.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I don't normally reply to Anonymous Cowards, but as someone who has lived in Michigan for the past seven years, I'd have to agree. I am totally convinced this is because of the ridiculous "no fault" insurance laws.
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.
thing is, it's a local (city) ordinance. Those traffic books are for state laws. Cities deciding to get "clever" to generate profit is distasteful and strikes me as an abuse of the law. Just found out there is a class action lawsuit pending right now regarding St Louis's red light cameras. I sure hope they break backs of the red light camera companies.
blah blah blah
I've seen and heard this phrase, with insignificant variations, about practically every city there is on the world map.
Yes, you have, but the one time it is definitively true is Washington, D.C. FYI, if you've never been there: prepare for traffic that reflects the old saying that Washington is the city that combines Southern efficiency with Northern charm.
He said it was perfectly legal to remain in the intersection after the light turned red until it is finally safe to turn.
You should have asked him to put that in writing for you, with his name and precinct #, just to have in the glove compartment.
This is bullshit. There is always a couple of seconds where your light is red, but the other lights in the intersection are not yet green. Care to guess why it was designed that way?
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?"
The purpose of the photograph isn't to prove you ran a red light. The motion sensors, and in some cases underground magnetometers, can detect if your car enters the intersection on a red. The only purpose of the photograph is to record your license plate so they know who to send the ticket to. The photograph is one, but not the only, piece of evidence.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
The rule is "stop if you can", not "stop if you want to".
Indeed, and the whole point of yellow light timing is to make it so those who can't stop have time to make it through, while those who can stop but just "want" to go through end up running a red.
Since "impossible" relates to "can" not "want", I'm glad we agree that the AC was correct and "get your brakes checked" was a silly response.
Otherwise, you'll get a a ticket for running the yellow.
Where do you live that this actually happens?
The enemies of Democracy are
Actually that's usually for traffic organization. They don't want cars changing lanes where they know cars will be stacking up quickly. If there's lots of traffic expected at a given light, they will be longer. Some areas they will be shorter. From my observations (well over a million miles of driving), that's the way it's been.
An intersection that's expected to end up with 50 cars stopped at the light will have longer lines than an intersection that may have two.
A "safe" stop depends on the vehicle. My car can make a safe stop very quickly. I drove a friends truck with a trailer, and had to leave significantly more time for a "safe" stop. That's a wide range, from a performance car with excellent braking, to a heavily laden vehicle consumer vehicle. I've seen what happens when a car with poorer braking is blocked by a car with better braking. Two cars slid off the road in front of me a few days ago because of that. I was behind them at a safe distance, and was able to make a safe stop before I got near any of them.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I've seen a judge Dismiss charges where the motorist pointed out the section of the Missouri drivers handbook (from the current year) that specifically said what she did was correct.
Not shure what the exact charge was or perhaps the book showed a different interpretation than the one the ticked was founded on. As I didn't hear the whole conversation, but I did hear him tell her that if that was what the state said was correct that's how he'd find.
Just anectedotal, but thought I'd share
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
What's a local ordinance? Here all of that is state law. The only thing the cities get involved in is whether or not to have the cameras. Right now, actually, the state has decided the halt any more installations pending a statewide review - and they barred cities from adding more or any cities that don't have them from adding them.
I totally agree that if there's collusion between the local city, police departments and red light camera companies, nail them. In TN for the most part though, there's been a pretty good separation of responsibilities.
City traffic engineering is responsible for the signal and timing, the red light camera company merely gets a signal for "Red", and any violations go through the police departments.
So far I don't know of any, if there are any, violations that have been overturned in Knoxville.
I hate sigs...
You have to stop at a red light even when you are going to turn right. I lived there for a number of years starting in 2000, and this was the rule when I had to write my driver's test to get my MO driver's license. It is also the rule in just about every jurisdiction where I have cared to look. No place allows a rolling stop for stop lights or stop signs, just because you are making a right turn. Get over it.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Because pressing your luck on yellow is the only rational choice?
Assuming that everyone will always try to game the yellow lights is at least as false an assumption as the one you're replying to.
Even for aggressive drivers, a longer yellow is a longer warning. A longer warning to speed up and rocket through an intersection should help reduce accidents for the same reason a longer warning to stop will: more warning allows more time to decide and react before it's too late.
People breaking the law and potentially causing accidents is a far worse offense than my attitude.
They're not breaking the law. Entering the intersection to await a chance to turn left is not illegal in many jurisdictions. NJ with its jughandles and prohibited left turns off arterials is unusual - and, you're right, better for it. But it is unusual, and the rest of us do not have that option. It is perfectly safe to enter an intersection in order to await the chance to turn, so long as you wait until all oncoming traffic stops before proceeding.
2-3 seconds isn't going to cause congestion problems. Keep the yellow normal, make it legal to enter the intersection on yellow, and have a 3-second all-red. Traffic clears nicely.
But the handbook is not the law. The courts go by the law.
Well, the Florida link clearly states the law. And since you asked, here is the California laws:
Yello light definition: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm Red light definition: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm So that is two states guaranteed, being in the road on a red is not a violation.
I recall my friend got a parking ticket. He was parked facing opposite of traffic on a residential street. The ticket was for parking "more than 18 inches away from the curb". He was 3 inches away from the curb and he started to go ballistic. I laughed my arse off and pointed "Not away from THAT curb!" pointing across the street.
Sure enough -- that's what it was. It's all about the revenue.
Yup. They count on you not contesting.
The right turn on red rules vary a bit in this state. In Clayton it was no right on red period for some time (found out the hard way, but since I don't live there the cop just gave me a warning ticket) durring the 90's, and may still be that way, as a local ordinance. :
For Missouri in general try http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutesearch/ for the laws.
Unfortunately I don't know where each township and county keep their respective laws online if at all.
It appears that the stop before right on red is state level
I suspect the stop before turning right rule predates the cameras by a decade or more, it's the same rule as for a stop sign. It's just the enforcement that has changed.
That said it's a money grab alright.
When you get one of those camera based tickets in the mail that's 'timestamped' over a week before a ding clearly visible in the photo existed you know it's BS.
Unfortunately it was a minor, non-traffic related ding (no police report or such) and the other minor oddities of the image where all unprovable without expensive experts.
IANAL and all that.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
D.C. had a fun one. They had a light which normally showed a flashing yellow. Sometimes it would turn to a solid yellow, then a red. It had a camera by it, which naturally made a fortune.
...at some intersections in Texas. Yet if you are making a non-protected left turn and get stuck in the intersection with oncoming traffic going straight and protected left turn, if you have positioned yourself appropriately, it doesn't seem to impede oncoming traffic in either direction. Then when the oncoming straight traffic is finally stopped before crossing traffic starts, or before allowing your following protected left turning traffic to restart, you have a chance to complete your turn. I do this all the time.
Note I am not commenting on whether it is technically legal. But I do it unabashedly in front of police in Houston and Dallas and other cities I infrequently travel to in Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico, and have never gotten a ticket.
Then your not running a red since you are already in the intersection when it turns red.
EVERY city with a red light camera has done this. Its the only way the cameras are profitable. And since the cameras are always administered by a politically connected private company, they will ONLY be installed if profitable.
Please (re)read the post I was replying to. I quote the important part:
In my state (NJ), you have committed a moving violation if you are in the intersection when the light is red (unless you are turning right)
You've obviously never driven in a big city. You would NEVER get to make a left turn at a non-left-arrow intersection if you waited behind the line until there was no oncoming car in sight. And you've also never made a left out onto a busy four lane road if you've never waited in the middle to pull into traffic.
Virginia. It's illegal in DC, as well
Yellow light or arrow: A yellow light or arrow are cautions warning that the light is about to change. If you have not entered the intersection, stop. If you are already in the intersection, go through it. Do not speed up to beat the light.
The programming of red light cameras and traffic lights needs to reflect local laws and customs.
Whoops, well run them reds...
What fun would Slashdot be without all the know it all self-righteous pricks like Red Flayer?
If where you live the roadways are designed with that in mind that's one thing. And I've been in states (or portions of them, at least) with large intersections and good visibility where if everyone is paying attention it could work.
But I've seen so many cases around here where it causes traffic issues and a few accidents. People in the far oncoming lane may not be able to see you(all it takes is a u-hall sized or larger truck,even a small van if they're in a compact), and if you pull forward into their traffic path as they get a green light....
At least in this state you are not supposed to enter an intersection you can't safely clear without stopping.
One of the reasons for lights and stop lines an such is to help put traffic in predictable positions so you can be safer. When you start setting up conditions where you can't tell what the other guy is likely to do someone gets hurt, possibly killed. Such as forcing someone to go AFTER the lights change against their desired motion or block cross traffic.
Nor have I ever seen it necessary to park in the intersection to make a left. I've seen a FEW cases where the time of day made it a bit of wait (under 5 min though almost always) for a safe gap, but all you get out of pulling forward a few feet around here is to cause issues and risk an accident. (and a ticket).
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
"It is extremely annoying when the guy at the front of the left turn queue doesn't move into the intersection and you end up waiting half a dozen cycles longer than you would otherwise have needed to."
I find getting hit by oncoming traffic and ticketed more annoying. So I avoid both.
Of course I also pay attention and avoid bad left turn spots when I can in the first place.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
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.
Here's a timing algorithm used in virginia source
yellow change interval = t + V/(2a +/- 64.4g)
where:
- yellow change interval = the length of the yellow phase and is expressed in seconds. -
- t = the perception reaction time expressed in seconds. This is 1 second unless the engineer responsible
determines that the situation warrants increasing it to 1.5 seconds.
- V = the posted speed expressed in feet/second.
- a = the deceleration rate expressed in feet/second2. This should be 10 ft/sec2 under typical conditions. Engineers
may decrease this to 8 or 9 feet/second2 if conditions warrant such as heavy truck traffic or increase to 11 or 12
feet/second2 if warranted.
- g= the grade of approach (percent/100); use + for a positive grade and – for a negative grade
- minimum yellow time should be 3 seconds and the maximum should be 6 seconds.
all red interval = (w+l)/V
where:
- all red interval = the length of the all red phase expressed in seconds, and follows the yellow change interval.
- w = width of intersection, curb to curb expressed in feet.
- l = vehicle length, taken as 20 feet.
- V = posted speed in feet/second. - minimum all red interval should be 1 second and the maximum should be 3 seconds. Longer all reds can be used at the engineer’s discretion where extreme conditions warrant.
This is the case in Michigan. You may not enter an intersection unless you can also exit the intersection in a reasonable amount of time. Entering in the case of vehicles blocking your exit is considered blocking the intersection. It's not running a red, but cameras can't be the basis for tickets here either.
FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
It's a matter of there being no such law. While NJ is a "restrictive yellow" state (meaning you must stop on yellow if safely able to do so), there is no law making it illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red, if you entered on yellow or green.
Uhhhh - are you asking as a rational, thinking person, or are you asking as the normal distracted and in a hurry klutz who can't leave the house a few minutes early?
Rational people are driving a lot slower when the road is covered in ice, and the basic concept will remain the same: if you've not crossed that solid white line before the light turns yellow, you SHOULD be able to stop.
Of course, you can't see white lines on the road to well when they are covered with ice, can you? And, that STILL fails to address the issue of short yellows. Fort Worth and Dallas have been taken to task over short yellows. They are indeed set up to generate REVENUE, with no regard for safety.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
sure, MINE can, but for that reason I always keep the trunk empty. I don't want the poor sap who'll end up in there to crush anything valuable.
We had quite a campaign in College Station and against every, EVERY, tactic and tool of the city council we put them to a vote and won by a very narrow percentage. All nine cameras are gone.
Red Light Cameras Draw Voters to Polls - http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/65934627.html
Suit Filed Over Red Light Camera Vote - http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/69728592.html
CS's Red Light Cameras to Stay On; Restraining Order Issued - http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/69006022.html
Why would you get hit by oncoming traffic?
The idea is to wait until the oncoming traffic has stopped at their red light, and then complete your left hand turn.
Just as bad as the people that don't drive into the intersection, are the people that nearly miss the oncoming traffic as they burn around the corner while the light is still yellow. If it's yellow, and there is a big enough gap, then go ahead, otherwise just wait until the traffic has stopped. This isn't rocket science people.
When turning across traffic, your wheels should remain pointed forward until you are ready to turn. And in the intersection with loads of oncoming traffic, you don't turn across anyone until they have stopped - which is usually _after_ the light has turned red.
Also, this is not an offence anywhere in the USA that I've driven, and in fact it is both legal and expected behaviour. These are not 'bad' left turn spots we're talking about, just busy ones.
A bad 'left' turn spot is one across multiple lanes with lots of pedestrian traffic and without traffic lights. ie. where you might have to wait 10 minutes before you get a large enough gap in the pedestrian and vehicular traffic before you can safely turn.
While off topic, this particular AC is keenly aware of the history and nuance of slashdot's past. It's actually very accurate, and since I've been here since not long after the beginning, I would know.
Politics can still be interesting. And compared to a plethora of drivel I've seen and learned to ignore on Slashdot over the last few years, a nerdy dude timing yellow light durations to beat traffic tickets is pretty damned good.
As far as yellow light durations go, I have it made in Minnesota. Big intersections have signs 150 yards or so before the intersection warning you that the light will be turning yellow soon, so that in the ice we drive in, you'll have the adequate half mile you need to slow down from 70 to zero without T-boning someone. That's not to say we don't have our own traffic subtleties. My favorite is the ninja-30mph-zone-on-a-highway.
There are numerous places where highways suddenly become city streets with 30mph limits. You remember them quick or suffer the fines.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
the mandatory stop before making a right on red is a local law here in St Louis. Have not recently checked MODOT's latest traffic rules book, but right turns on red used to be allowed unless there was a sign prohibiting it.
blah blah blah
Red means stop
Green means go
Yellow means go faster
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook. If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket. Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.
Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.
Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.
True.
Although in most cases, if you have the ability to drive most of the way into the intersection and don't turn your wheels, then even if the lights change and no one moves, you won't be blocking anyone that wasn't already blocked. That way, when the traffic does eventually start moving, you can turn your wheels and complete the left turn into the cross street. Additionally, you will have cleared your right turn bay of at least one more vehicle per cycle.
Just sitting there waiting only contributes further to gridlock behind you.
But, you are absolutely right that there are some situations where it is clearly pointless to drive into a gridlocked intersection if you don't see yourself being able to turn out before the cycle repeats.
and ask for the source code so you can see if it has bugs that would cause it to malfunction. Red light cameras need to be thrown away.
If you entered the intersection to make a left hand turn with someone coming at you then you deserve to get a ticket. I don't understand why people seem to have trouble with the concept but YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ENTER THE INTERSECTION UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR IT
Not in Canada. You can enter the intersection to turn left if you reasonably believe you can make the turn before the light turns red. So with traffic coming, you can generally enter the intersection legally as long as you don't block oncoming traffic.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Roundabouts (aka "Traffic Circles") are the one true solution to the problem of running red lights because it replaces an inefficient, mechanically stupid solution with an efficient, self-regulating solution. Traffic lights at their core are an impediment to traffic flow. Every x minutes traffic flow is halted so that (mostly) perpendicular traffic can begin moving again. So all these cars moving at 20 - 50 MPH are brought to a complete stand still. Sometimes (often in some areas) where there's no cross traffic waiting. Regardless, the dumb timer has no choice but to stop traffic.
Enter the Roundabout. Traffic for the most part constantly flows. Yes, there drivers have to slow down a bit to enter and leave, and sometimes even slows to a stop, but stopping as timed requirement all but comes to an end. (There are some massive roundabouts that do have red lights attached to them).
One of the biggest benefits is that t-bone collisions are all but eliminated. If the roundabout is designed correctly that is.
One major objection frequently thrown up against roundabouts is "American's will never learn to use them". Wrong. Here in Houston the City has built several. From what I know we've had more collisions with the light-rail trains than with other automobiles in the roundabouts.
If cities want to get serious about improving safety they should look at proven solutions. And as a bonus we'll all get home more quickly and find we never stand at 2am red light on a deserted road again.
College Station, TX has a long and storied history with these things, and we recently voted them out of our city on referendum.
First, our Chief of Police was let go for one "bad review" after 20 distinguished years on the force when he, as a citizen of College Station, not even in official capacity, opposed red light cameras. The reason he did so was that other city officials were proposing shortening yellow light times to raise revenues.
I got a ticket at a light one night. The speed limit as marked was 40mph, but just before the intersection (about a block) it changes to 30 mph. As I slowed, the light turns yellow, but judging from my initial speed, I believe I can make it just fine. It changes red just before my front bumper passes the line marking the intersection. The yellow light time was based on the 30mph posted speed limit at the intersection, but not the 40mph speed limit where the decision zone is located. This is legal, apparently. Also, the light is set for the shortest legal yellow duration, despite recommendations of at least a half second longer by many safety organizations, including one recommendation based on a study from Texas A&M University, located just blocks away.
So we got a petition to get the ordinance that allows red light cams on a referendum vote. There was a large counter-push by some organization calling themselves "College Station Residents for Red Light Safety" or some such that was funded by the company that installed and maintained the cameras, which as you might guess, isn't local at all.
Even after a decisive vote, the group tried to sue to have the vote overturned on a technicality, but the suit was thrown out. Those things die hard.
Anyway, a couple of notes:
1. Sometimes the people who are retrieving the evidence (i.e. pictures) from the cameras aren't government officers. This can be improper handling of evidence, and can get your ticket thrown out.
2. What about rental cars, or friends driving your vehicle? This tickets the car, not the driver. My mom got a red light camera ticket in a rental car once. The rental car company got the ticket, paid it, and charged her credit card. Nothing she could do about it. How is that due process?
They should have cited him for driving on the wrong side of the road, which is a higher fine, which he must have done unless he had his car carried there.
If where you live the roadways are designed with that in mind that's one thing.
Dedicated left turn lanes are the norm here rather than exception, so I guess that would mean "yes". That said, the turn is done exactly the same on roads with no dedicated turn lanes, and it also works out fine - why wouldn't it?
But I've seen so many cases around here where it causes traffic issues and a few accidents. People in the far oncoming lane may not be able to see you(all it takes is a u-hall sized or larger truck,even a small van if they're in a compact), and if you pull forward into their traffic path as they get a green light....
I'm not sure you understand me correctly...
You do not pull into the path of the oncoming vehicles. You just drive forward a little. The vehicles that drive onto you still drive past on your left.
Oh, and you do it while your light is green, so you do not pull into the way of traffic that's on the road crossing yours - they've got red, they aren't supposed to be driving. You may end up being there eventually when they get green, but they're starting to move from a complete stop, and should see you and react accordingly. I don't understand how even a truck driver couldn't see a compact car if it's positioned directly in front of him.
Furthermore, the other road doesn't get green immediately when you get red - there is a short moment there when both roads have red, precisely so that everyone can finish turning (and for safety's sake in general).
One of the reasons for lights and stop lines an such is to help put traffic in predictable positions so you can be safer. When you start setting up conditions where you can't tell what the other guy is likely to do someone gets hurt, possibly killed. Such as forcing someone to go AFTER the lights change against their desired motion or block cross traffic.
Well, the lights are intentionally set up so that no-one else is moving at that point. And it's perfectly predictable, since that's what you're required to do here, so you can assume that anyone turning left would just do that.
Nor have I ever seen it necessary to park in the intersection to make a left.
The point is to ensure that at least one car will definitely be able to turn left in one traffic light cycle. Otherwise - if you just stay at the stop line - you can (on some roads, guaranteed to) get into the situation I've originally described, when you can't turn on green because of the steady flow of traffic, nor on yellow because people are chasing it. Driving forward means that you have to finish the turn. It also makes everyone on the intersecting road see you, so they are forced to notice you, and to wait until you complete the turn even if you have to do it on their green.
I've seen a FEW cases where the time of day made it a bit of wait (under 5 min though almost always) for a safe gap
It's not a problem when a single car has to wait for 5 mins. It's a problem when you get 3-4 cars lined up that way, and they're coming in faster than they're turning at that rate - that will end up in gridlock. The rule as described at least guarantees a certain minimal throughput (1 car per cycle).
At least in NY, the legal way to perform a left turn at an intersection (light or not) where you have opposing traffic, is to enter halfway into the intersection, and then when there is a large enough gap in the intersection, turn.
If you are at a busy intersection, you may not get a gap until the opposing light turns red - even if you entered when it was green. Not all traffic lights have a separate signal for left turns.
I used to live in Kirkland, WA and there most if not all controlled intersections have left turn lights.
There are plenty of those around here, too, but they seem to only turn on when there is heavy oncoming traffic, and/or when there is more than one car lined up to turn left (i.e. when they won't all be able to turn without waiting for several rounds).
I guess that makes sense, too - left turn light blocks the way for those going straight for longer than it would have been otherwise, so if it's just a single car that needs to turn, surely it can wait (until yellow/red, if needed)...
At the same time, I'm not sure what the algorithm is, precisely - it does seem to enable left turn lights for lone cars occasionally, or on the empty road - but it's definitely not just an "always on" kind of thing, and can vary even when you drive through the same intersection twice within a few minutes. Well, maybe it's just buggy.
"This manual condenses and paraphrases selected language in the Oregon Revised Statues. It also provides safety advise not included in the law. This manual is not a proper legal authority to cite and should not be replied upon in a court of law. Traffic regulations in cities, towns, counties, and federal territories may go beyond state laws, as long as they do not conflict with state law."
So yeah, I don't quote anything from that book (except to my teenagers that will have to pass the crazy sh!t they ask on the permit and driver's license written tests).
YMMV
Or, failing that, drive with your hibeams on at all times, whilest making unexpected and unsignaled lane changes.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Something tells me that these lines are for specific vehicles and conditions. I 2008 Honda Civic might certainly make it, but my 2002 monster that weighs twice as much certainly WONT.
That, and how do you explain that I've seen these solid lines 1,500 feet before an intersection with a limit of 45mph?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
First off this is a dupe of an old article about the same problem elsewhere in the USA ... but whatever.
Here, its illegal to enter an intersection without having a clear exit path already guaranteed. However, its common practice and accepted that you will enter an intersection when in the left turn lane so as to leave the intersection easier, possibly at the red light.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Yeah! You tell 'im!
I know *I* wouldn't enjoy slashdot at all if self-righteous pricks like that good-for-nothing asshole Red Flayer didn't post here.
FWIW, for every prick like me there's a pussy like that AC. Made for eachother!
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
this depends what state you live in, but I live in Texas and in Texas, anyone who does data analysis in required to have a private investigator's license. Technically, you doing a malware scan on your system and selecting to clean the results of the scan is illegal. By the law, removal of malware is data analysis and requires a private investigators license. Now here is how this can be applied to a ticket due to a red light cam. The picture is taken by a digital camera and the picture is received. Someone analyzes/views the photo and determines it to be a red light run. If that person does not have a private investigator's license, that evidence is invalid and cannot legally be used in court So if you receive a ticket due to a red light cam, check your state and local laws to see if there are any such requirements and you could manage to get out of that ticket
It's not gridlock. At most major streets, a constant stream of oncoming cars prevents people from making left turns until they all pass. When do they finally all pass? When the light turns red, stopping them. Only if you're in the intersection at that point, will you get your chance to make a left turn.
They really should have left-turn lanes and protected left turn lights like they do in California.
I don't typically post on articles, but as I live in the Fort Myers area. Therefore I think it's necessary I make this small correction. It's spelled Fort Myers, not Fort Meyers. Also, if you read the article the man is from Naples, which is in Collier county. Which would not be relevant if it wasn't for the fact that the program, as far as I know, does not yet exist in Lee County where Fort Myers is located.
False. Obstructing Traffic and Delaying Traffic are still on the books.
Though, technically they are not moving violations, so I was wrong. But 'Unsafe Operation' IS a moving violation, and it has been given to people in an intersection on a red light.
The truth is that you're not likely to be given a ticket for being in the intersection if you entered when the light was yellow or green. But depending on the circumstances (such as cross traffic not being able to come through), you *are* guilty of a violation. Whether or not it's enforced is a different matter.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Two simple scenarios.
In the first oncoming traffic HAS a signaled left turn that you don't (say they're turning onto a road that t's into yours and you want to turn into a shopping center, pretty common around here) and it's a following signal so they get a left signal with out oncomming traffic on their side getting a red but your side gets a red. If you didn't pull to far forward or the intersections big enough they can go around, but about half the idiots I see in that situation pull as far into the turn as they can completely blocking the opposite turn lane.
Or what if someone misses their timing on the red just as your trying to jackrabbit through an all red 1/2 second. Those distances create a safety gap for just such situations which you are now short circuiting. Had you been where you were supposed to be you'd have had time to see the guy blowing the red light and or he'd have blown through it before you got into the line of fire instead of the bad t-bone wreck you just enabled (to be fair the idiot blowing the red light is far more at fault imho).
Wrecks in an intersection create far more gridlock than someone staying behind the line drawn for that purpose (to stay behind till it's safe to procede).
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Legal in CA, MI, NY, and CO, too.
In California, the rule is actually that you cannot enter an intersection unless you can clear it before the light turns red. It doesn't matter if the light is yellow or green before you enter. So any photo of a car in an intersection, after the light is red, is nominally enough to show a violation.
I'm sure there are laws on how long a yellow has to be, given the speed limit. Just as there are laws on stop sign visibility. If you could show that the yellow doesn't follow those guidelines (as per TFA) it makes sense you'd get off.
Of course, California's also the state where you can be ticketed at the same time for impeding traffic and speeding. Yes, going too slowly and going too quickly. At the same time.
"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.
The judge takes the evidence that is presented and passes judgment. All those cameras also have video recorders, which can be requested by the defendant as evidence (it says so right on the ticket in Arizona .. you have 30 days before it is deleted). The cameras may issue tickets, but it is up to the DAs office to decide whether or not to prosecute. Police arrest, DAs prosecute and call police as witnesses or anyone else they deem to be an 'expert' on the evidence to be presented, and judges adjudicate. Cameras gather evidence, they don't press charges. They are not much different from a security camera catching someone breaking into a building at the same time a robbery took place, except a computer does the initial analysis instead of a person.
.. if the DA decides to prosecute, it is up to the defendant to go to court and prove they are not guilty because the DA is going to try and prove they are guilty. If the defendant doesn't do that, then all the judge has to look at is evidence that says they are guilty, because that's all the DA will offer up.
So yes
ANYONE can request charges be filed against anyone for speeding or running a red light or reckless driving IF they can prove it, there doesn't even have to be a police officer witnessing it. You just have to convince the DAs office there is enough evidence or witnesses to support the claim. So all those idiots out there saying 'you can't take a camera to court' are just full of bullshit. Anyone can file charges, and anyone can present evidence.
It's the way it has worked for a couple of hundred years around here. The type of evidence has changed, but the proceedings really haven't changed all that much.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Done both, given that you consider St. Louis, Missouri a big city.
Made a living for several years doing it.
Using the center TURN lane (the one with yellow stripes on both sides) to enter the road from a parking lot is never needed or legal in Missouri and is dangerously stupid, I've nearly been hit by idiots doing just that, usually when trying to use it for it's intended purpose and with my signal on.
Of course I learned pretty quick to avoid left turns that are 'idiot traps' you got past those to a better turn and turn around or plan a better route to begin with if you know the area already.
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
And in Ohio. In my city, there's no way you can make a left turn otherwise.
Fnord.
Legal in PA and OR
First, let's get this straight. I am where I am supposed to be. What I'm describing is how you drive here if you want to drive properly. If you gridlock an intersection by sitting at the stop line in left turn lane waiting for a gap over several traffic light cycles, I think you may actually be ticketed. This is also true of all 4 countries I've driven in my life (this includes one U.S. state, by the way).
In the first oncoming traffic HAS a signaled left turn that you don't (say they're turning onto a road that t's into yours and you want to turn into a shopping center, pretty common around here) and it's a following signal so they get a left signal with out oncomming traffic on their side getting a red but your side gets a red.
When the oncoming traffic has a signalled red turn but you don't, this (here) can only happen if both you and that traffic had had red immediately before that (and the crossing road had had their green). There's no way a car doing a left turn can be there at that point, except if it came from that crossing road - in which case it normally gets yellow/all-red to turn, and more than that as needed (everyone else is supposed to wait until intersection clears, if it comes to such extreme cases).
Or what if someone misses their timing on the red just as your trying to jackrabbit through an all red 1/2 second.
You mean, if they floor the gas pedal while it's still red? Well, then I dare say that this is precisely the case of someone who doesn't belong on the road. IIRC, hereabouts, if you cross the stop line on red twice, you'll have your license suspended.
In any case, presumably, even if they do that, they're still looking in front of them (i.e. in the direction where they're driving), and so they see your car and slam the brakes.
Or do you mean someone oncoming blasting through on red? Well, it's rather unlikely because yellow is very long, so you pretty much have to be racing red if you can't either stop or drive through at normal speed (or even slightly slower) on yellow. But it doesn't really matter in this case, because the prescribed course of action for the driver who is turning is not to "jackrabbit through an all red". It's to wait until you can ensure that it is safe to turn (i.e. no oncoming traffic), and then turn. If you see an oncoming car driving on its red, then you just wait, letting it pass - however long it takes - and then turn. And the traffic on the crossing road waits for you to complete your turn - they are legally not allowed to start moving, green or not, until the intersection is clear.
Of course, at that point, everyone on that intersection is generally thinking of all the pleasant things they could to to the guy who just blasted through. :)
Of course, this doesn't quite help if the other guy is also speeding like hell, so you turn thinking you're safe, and he slams into you - but then he can just as well t-bone someone who's merrily driving on their way straight through the intersection on green that way.
> The best ting they could do to make intersections safer is rip out the lights and install round-abouts
I'd love to see a roundabout that could possibly handle the traffic from a "Florida-sized" intersection like Pines Boulevard at Flamingo Road in Pembroke Pines, Florida ( http://tinyurl.com/y7cc3ft ) without completely collapsing into hopeless gridlock -- 8 lanes east/west, 6 lanes north/south, two left-turn lanes in every direction.
Putting it in perspective, more cars heading east and west pass through this intersection every day than used to pass through Broward County on Interstate 95 back when it was first built ~40 years ago.
Ironically, this exact road DOES have a roundabout about 7 miles east of here (in Hollywood -- http://tinyurl.com/y3znyej ), but appearances are deceiving. If you actually watch the traffic flow, you quickly realize it's almost impossible to do anything besides follow the dominant traffic flow east and west unless it's 2am or you're feeling suicidal. It's more like a freeway median with a glorified U-turn lane at both ends.
Here in Israel - red light cameras work just as the OP suggested - they take two pictures - the first showing you entering the intersection while the light is red, and the second - showing you already in the intersection.
I once had to make an emergency stop at a traffic light, and ended up stopping with my front wheels in the intersection. at this point the light turned red, and I was obstructing traffic - so i reversed about a meter to get out of the intersection which triggered the red-light camera. Thanks to the two picture system, I never got a ticket.
Springfield, Missouri had red-light cameras. They were also caught shortening yellow-light times at the intersections (original articles now gone, but here is a copy- http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit. The lights had been up and running for a few years, with no successful challengers. However, a former State Trooper took the argument that the way the tickets are prosecuted was unconstitutional. The City used an "administrative process" for the tickets, which resulted in no reporting to the driver's insurance company or the State. However, this also eliminated any chance for appeal outside of the City. The former Trooper argued that the process is criminal, not civil, and beat the city in the State supreme court. http://www.news-leader.com/article/20100303/NEWS01/3030498/Missouri-Supreme-Court-puts-brakes-on-Springfield-s-red-light-cameras
make some of the time in which your light is yellow, into time in which it's red, and the opposing flow of traffic *still* isn't moving.
I think that should work. Making yellows longer works. I think the mechanism is this: people are likely to run a yellow if they see the change from green (not so much if they don't); they also assess the situation and take social clues ("is they guy in front running?"). Having more all-red time should make people take fewer risks.
(It might also slow traffic? Does that need to happen anyways? ...)
but this law is fundamentally based on the laws of physics. :P
And psychology! Think of visual perceptive delay, attention, reaction time, decision making, motor planning ("slam the brakes") and execution. It's not robots driving the cars :-)
Just like "Your rights at sea" is for when you are at sea, discussing what rights you have on land, yeah? ;-)
Maybe YRO (rather than YOR) is used for the ambiguity, because that makes kdawson sound smart and like a journalist and such.
And for some innocent bystanders, there my be no tomorrow.
In Oregon, you just can't enter the intersection while red. I believe it's the same in Washington. If it turns red while you're passing through, you're ok. That's the only sensible way to handle it... your state makes you guess?
Hmm, you seem to misunderstand (or I misstated) the timing.
In the second scenario what if oncoming traffic gets a green left arrow (that your light doesn't) while oncoming traffic STILL has a green light.
Perhaps where you are that timing is not allowed, but it happens here. Suppose the the vehicle in the oncoming turn lane is larger(semi's often need the whole space, or at least to much for both turn lanes to go at once, thus one side leads the opposite follows in some intersections) and needs to make a wide turn it can't without running you over, if the oncoming lights then go all red for cross traffic at the same time then he now has to wait a full cycle again and hope the next guy doesn't do the same thing.
Not only that but you're now pulling in front of a light just turning red and someone cutting it fine who can't see you (big vehicle stuck in the left turn lane blocking his view remember) just t-boned a car (yours) that had it been back behind the marked lane likely wouldn't have been there (admittedly he shouldn't have run the red, but you're dead so you don't care) that couldn't see him because of said big vehicle.
I've seen the aftermath of just such an accident a few seconds after it happened (heard it, but was joining the street a couple blocks away from a side street) thankfully no one died, and the guy t-boned only had minor injuries because it was a lower speed road.
I was going nowhere in a hurry so I stayed to see what was happening, there seemed some doubt as to whether the light was red or still yellow when one car entered the intersection, there wasn't any over where the turning car was and while I didn't see any arrests or tickets issued myself there was no doubt who the police saw as the culprit.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I don't get it. Who gives a flying toss what the letter of the law in each state says for such basic principles?
No one should ever enter an intersection without reasonable expectation of a clear destination lane, period. This is basic driving skills, folks.
Here's another one for free: You never have right of way until the other person gives it to you.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Others have done the same thing 6 years back.
Here in SoCal, in Costa Mesa: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamscamerasCostaMesaPt1.html
There is a conflict of interest when the camera company is given 50% of of the fine. It would be like paying a bonus to cops based on the number of tickets that they write.
unless it's lie.
For those who can't figure out how to search the Vehicle Code, here it is.
21451. (a) A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed
straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign
prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield
the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within
the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.
(b) A driver facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in
combination with another indication, shall enter the intersection
only to make the movement indicated by that green arrow or any other
movement that is permitted by other indications shown at the same
time. A driver facing a left green arrow may also make a U-turn
unless prohibited by a sign. A driver shall yield the right-of-way to
other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or
an adjacent crosswalk.
(c) A pedestrian facing a circular green signal, unless prohibited
by sign or otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in Section 21456, may proceed across the roadway within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to
vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is
first shown.
(d) A pedestrian facing a green arrow turn signal, unless
otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in
Section 21456, shall not enter the roadway.
21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow
signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is
ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately
thereafter.
(b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow
signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is
insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the
roadway.
21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver,
after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady
circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way
street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield
the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk
and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver
can proceed with reasonable safety.
(c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the
intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless
entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another
signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none,
before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection,
or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain
stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.
(d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady circular red
or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway.
That's only in the retirement areas.
Of which Fort Myers is one, gods help me.
Especially between September and May ("Season").
This is bullshit. There is always a couple of seconds where your light is red, but the other lights in the intersection are not yet green. Care to guess why it was designed that way?
Because someone was asleep at the switch.
It used to be that the light turned green immediately after the light the other way turned red. Everybody knew this, and gave the yellow light a lot more respect than they do today.
Then some numb-nut thought it would be a good idea to separate the end of the yellow from the beginning of the (opposing) green. And as soon as they did, people adapted and yellow lights lost a measure of the respect they had before.
And now, there's no going back. It would be unsafe to get rid of the buffer because it's expected now.
Killed how? Please do explain. It's perfectly legal in most places and even encouraged by traffic handbooks. You're not more of an obstacle to traffic than all those cars who were stopped at a red light.
And some will just walk out of the accident having hit somebody else head on. The person in the other car who got hit on the driver's side might not be so lucky ...
It is gridlock, because it's not just the left turners doing it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Geez, this isn't rocket science.
In the UK there a what are called "box junctions", marked with a diagonal grid. You may not stop in the junction, with one exception: if you are intending to turn right[1] and are prevented from doing so only by straight traffic passing through (i.e. your exit must be clear).
[1] mirror image, remember.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If there's a semi waiting to turn left than you shouldn't enter the intersection since you will be blocking traffic. If the semi arrives after you're already in the intersection than it can bloody wait. Of course this doesn't happen very often and if it does than the road should be redesigned due to the large amount of trucks on it. Sacrificing efficiency 99 times out of a hundred to gain it that 1 time out of a 100 is called stupidity.
If you do not have a clear line of sight behind the semi then you should not move forward. Legally you need to verify there is no oncoming traffic like any other unprotected left turn. However since cross traffic has to wait for the intersection to clear you can wait the extra 0.5 seconds till they have a green light which guarantees you are in the clear and then go.
Hmm, you seem to misunderstand (or I misstated) the timing. In the second scenario what if oncoming traffic gets a green left arrow (that your light doesn't) while oncoming traffic STILL has a green light.
The normal sequence would be that if the oncoming traffic has a green lights for straight through and left turn traffic, your side of the intersection will be red. You won't get a green until the oncoming left turn signal turns red. At which point, if you don't see anyone running the red, you pull out for your left turn and wait for a break in traffic, or for the oncoming straight-through traffic's signal to turn red, giving you the break.
Who says the law was changed? I know other states that have (or did when I drove there) the same law GP described, so it's not impossible that Mo was always like that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Optimal revenue can be acheived when combining red-light cameras with speed cameras and setting the amber time so that exeeding the speed limit is required in order to not run a red light.
On paper, at least. IHAW,TTSP.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And in Ohio. In my city, there's no way you can make a left turn otherwise.
No need for left turn lanes and associated traffic light phasing slowing traffic flow and blocking junctions, esp. in the US where most cities are grids, just go to the next set of lights and turn right, then right again, then right again and drive straight over the junction you wanted to turn left at.
Simples!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
red light cameras merely result in more rear-end collisions as people slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket.
Citation needed.
While I'm perfectly aware that reality does not fit with legal theory, stating that one is unable to stop when they should because of a fear of rear-end collisions is nonsense, and smacks of driver irresponsibility.
Defensive driving is the responsibility of every driver. If you're afraid that you would be unable to perform an emergency stop without being rear-ended, then you need to slow down, until you're going a speed safe enough that you can stop for both you, and the person behind you.
It's awesome that car safety has gotten to the point that we care more about who is at fault for an accident than actually being in one, but defensive driving cannot simply be left to languish.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Thats the story all the rest is fluff.
I can imagine the conversation.....
Wife: blah blah blah but honey the yellow light was too short.
Hubby : Really so how long do you think the yellow light was again?. I will just go over to the intersection now with my stopwatch and measure it.
What a man.
I have been in that situation many times. Specifically, I'm turning left, and there's no left-turn arrow, so when green comes up, I just drive ahead somewhat past the stop line (as they teach you to do), and wait for a gap in traffic to turn into.
In New Mexico State Law, this is expressly permitted. One is allowed to enter an intersection without left-turn signal with intent to make a left-hand turn, and actually perform the turn even if the light turns red before completing it. But only one car is allowed to perform this maneuver per cycle.
This is different than "running a red light", as you are given explicit license to make that turn.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Your source does prefer "bald-faced", but it explicitly says: "The phrase can either be used as bold-faced lie..."
"... ANYONE can request charges be filed against anyone for speeding or running a red light or reckless driving ... ... It's the way it has worked for a couple of hundred years around here ..."
\n
\n Wow, you had red lights and veichles that could break the speed limit 200 years ago!
America, Home of the Brave.
You can not block an intersection when the light turns green the other way. You can not stop in the middle of a rotary. You can not stop in the middle of a 4-way stop. If you can not proceed through the intersection when the light is yellow or green, then you are not supposed to travel through the intersection. Most states have another paragraph regarding this. So the above comments need to be qualified.
Just a note, I live in Arizona and have seen quite a few red light violation mailings. The camera actually flashes a lot more than there are tickets mailed out. Yes, the camera will flash if your back tires cross the red line after the red, but every mailing I have seen has two pictures: One with a red light and the car completely out of the intersection, and then the one with the car entering the intersection (light still red). Note that this differs from the summary, which states that the first picture would be at a yellow not a red. So while I believe Arizona law may be more strict than this (i.e. a cop in person could still give you a ticket), I don't think they send out tickets unless you enter the intersection after the light turns red. At least that has been the case in the 20+ tickets I have seen (None of them were mine, don't worry!).
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
"She did online traffic school because it wasn't worth our time or money to fight the fine"
Thanks for passing the buck onto the next guy who gets improperly cited... If everybody stood up to the minor injustices of corporations and governments, they wouldn't happen nearly as much. It'd be too expensive. But no worries... someone else will do it for you... or will they?
In the summer of 2006, the Fort Wayne Police Department set up at busy intersections and pulled over the last car through every yellow light. The newspaper recently reported that they wrote approximately 40,000 red-light tickets that year -- 30,000 more than the average. Everyone who contested it in court had their fine reduced to $1. But of course many did not. The FWPD has never apologized, disciplined its officers, or returned the money.
All this talk about traffic is confusing me. Can someone PLEASE give me a car analogy to make it more clear??? (sorry, I couldn't resist)
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
You just succinctly described ACTA.
Dallas (Texas) ended up removing their Red Light Cameras all together - they were too effective; people simply stopped running the red lights, and weren't bringing in the revenue that was promised. In short - they were cash flow negative, so they axed the program entirely. They finally pulled the camera post by my house out of the ground last month.
moox. for a new generation.
See that "shall stop before entering?" If you're already in the intersection and the light turns red, that's impossible to do. The law doesn't require you to do impossible things, so proceed through the intersection with caution, legally.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I'm not surprised at all by this article. I did research in Southern New Jersey on this and I've found the same thing, though to a larger extent. From my data&analysis(if you want it, I can give it to you), at least 50% of the lights were short, and there was a strong trend(95% of the variability in the data can be explained by this trend) that as the speed of the road went up, the lights became more and more short and more and more lights got short. It got so bad that at 50mph, 100% of the lights were over a half a second short. What I've started doing is going through lights at 5mph slower than the posted speed limit.
In the state that I'm in, the law goes farther than that. Stopping within an intersection is a traffic violation. If you want to go straight, you wait behind the stop line for a spot on the other side of the intersection to open up. If you want to go left, you wait behind the stop line for a path to open up. If the light turns red, you stay there until the next light cycle.
Simple, sensible, and ignored by everyone.
Chattanooga TN (which has been busted before for deliberate short yellows with our traffic cameras) has video. It takes constant video of the intersection when the system detects any cars are nearing. The flash is for the specific stills it takes. So, with this vendor at least, you get both. If you go to challenge the ticket, you can request to see the video.
They installed some red light cameras in our town. I notice that they replace the pressure plates in the intersection, with a dual plate system. They read when a car passes over them and that they are the triggers, not the cameras. So, it is the tires of your car that tells on you. Plus, with a dual plate system, they can calculate your speed. When you speed up to get through the changing light, and you exceed the speed limit, they got you twice, once for the red light, and speeding.
Better still, some Australian states also have speed cameras in addition to the red light cameras on some intersections. Just in case they don't quite get you for running a *very* amber light - they still get a crack at you for speeding! Queensland road rules say if you entered on the green and get stuck halfway due to congestion, you can legally exit the intersection asap after the light turns red. I don't rate people who run red lights. So often it ends in awful injuries or worse for the t-bonee.
While you're right about right-turn-on-red laws usually requiring you to come to a complete stop and then proceed when it's safe, I do have to ask....
Are you one of those people who feels the need to come to a complete stop *every* time you turn, even if there's no traffic light or stop sign, or even a yield sign for the direction change you're doing? If so, then you might want to reexamine your habits... if there's a stop sign, or a traffic light, or a yield sign then yes, you're supposed to stop, or at least be prepared to stop, before completing your turn. If there's no signage like that, and no pedestrian traffic you need to yield to, then stopping before you make your turn actually makes you a hazard, and can get you cited for impeding traffic if somebody from behind hits you.
There's such a thing as being overly cautious, and it's one of the most annoying hazards on the road... if you're not confident enough to be able to do things with the flow of traffic, then you shouldn't be in that traffic to begin with. People stopping in order to turn right with no signage are a large part of that, but they're right up there with the people driving 15-20 below the limit and the people who signal their intention to turn fully a mile before they actually make the turn. Any of those behaviours can actually earn you a traffic citation. And another annoyance are the people who don't understand or know the laws of the area they're in... for example, while it's not a hazard as such, did you know that in many jurisdictions it's actually legal to make a left turn on red in some circumstances? Specifically, if you're turning from a one-way street onto a one-way street?
This is bullshit. There is always a couple of seconds where your light is red, but the other lights in the intersection are not yet green. Care to guess why it was designed that way?
To save lives because it is known that there are idiots on the road that don't pay attention and will blow through a red.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I'm surprised he didn't get a ticket for driving the wrong way on the street which is more correct and more serious.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Alberta is a province with laws similar to California. If you get into the intersection on yellow, you can proceed.
1. Left turns. Lots of times two cars will proceed part way into the intersection on green. When the light goes yellow, they wait another 2 seconds for the last car to clear, then they proceed. Usually both are still in the intersection on red.
2. Winter driving. Lots of times you can be 50 meters from an intersection, moving at 40 km/hr, have the light go yellow, and you cannot stop before the intersection or before the light goes red. Most people don't try very hard. The converse is true for the cross traffic. They spin and slide trying to get started.
The combination of the two effects is such that most lights now don't go green for several seconds after the otehr way has gone red. This allows time to clear the intersection.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
The only red light ticket I ever got had two pictures: one showing the car before the intersection and one partway through the intersection showing I went straight through, both showing the red light. Can't argue with that.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Exactly. If someone is tailgating me, I'll slow down and leave enough space in front of me for BOTH of us. Usually pisses them off, but that's not my problem. The other advantage of slowing down in this situation (on multi-lane roads, anyway) is that it provides extra incentive for the tailgating idiot to go around instead of sit on your ass.
People who were ticketed need to go back to court and put up a fight. It will cost the court millions to resolve this. That should teach them!
I've always driven like this, but assumed it was illegal - but I think you're right. The law speaks of "entering" an intersection on red, not passing through it.
Although, with that logic, you could probably be cited for blocking an intersection.
Learn about Photography Basics.
not getting out there causes gridlock also. If I am at a green light, but there is not room to clear the intersection, so I stop before the crosswalk, some asshole will take a right from the cross street, preventing me from ever crossing the intersection as the spot I need to be open is always full. If I dont get into the intersection to stop the right-turners, then I will sit all day. Gridlock.
Every time I read the word "jurisprudence" I think of this Onion photo.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
Story #3 has already been used to great affect in the state of MN. Red Light cameras were declared illegal by the MN Supreme Court under that premise. I have a citation here for your reference.
I realize implementations vary by location, but I don't think anyone is using cameras to enfore their "regular" law for running a red light. In the St. Louis area, for example, they implemented red light cameras to enforce a new type of "non-moving violation" which, as near as I can tell, should be called "getting your picture taken by one of our red light cameras".
(No, I'm not on crack when I tell you it's a non-moving violation. Perhaps our state lawmakers are, but they classified the violation as nonmoving so that they can ticket the vehicle instead of the driver. I can only assume that this law measures motion from the driver's frame of reference, such the street is what's moving.)
Also note that many systems do take more than one picture; ours even have some sort of video (though I've not personally seen the video quality).
Anyway, my point is that all the debate about the definition of running a red is moot. They're enforcing a new and different law. That said, I can also tell you that here in MO, I've been told by more than one cop that if you're in an intersection and the light is red, you've run a red light. Again this would vary by state, but you might want to check your assumptions about what is or isn't legal behavior at an intersection.
Hmmm. They've done a poor job of getting the word out, if that's what those lines are for. Maybe it's just the locale where you live that does that. The Virginia Driver's Manual says nothing about it.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Only in Chicago have I ever seen signs at intersections admonishing "OBEY YOUR SIGNAL ONLY" I suppose Chicago drivers might just go with the signal that most appeals to them.
(Yes, before someone pipes up, I understand the sign is a warning not to get confused choosing a light in Chicago's wonderful 8-way intersections, but I cracked up the first time I saw that, and I knew I'd arrived in a different place.)
Thanks for the laugh. I haven't lived there in a dozen years.
People drive like jerks everywhere. If the insurance laws are ridiculous, it probably reflects efforts by the insurance companies to cut their losses.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
I think you're right re the photos, I've seen them here in VA, outside DC.
I got tagged by a speeding camera, and I have to credit them with using pavement markings and a time stamp to calculate speed, rather than an unreliable radar gun. The thing is, by the time you get the ticket it is unlikely you'll remember much about the incident let alone preserved any evidence -- so in effect there is no defense. They (MD) took pains not to make in a criminal defense affecting my insurance, and the fine was just $40 so I wasn't going to drive out there to contest it. I barely remembered why I was on that road at all.
With this yellow-light thing, what is needed is class action to get the government's attention. With piecemeal defense by people like the guy in the article, they have great financial incentive not to fix the problem.
You know the GGP was talking about Richmond, BRITISH COLUMBIA, not Virginia, right?
With regard to Virginia drivers, I've seen the incidence of red light running climb steadily in the 30-odd years I've been driving here. I've also seen the number of cell phone zombies increase, and have to dodge them or stomp on the brakes as they swerve into my lane, totally oblivious to the world around them.
Thank heavens this law is going into effect soon. I wish it were stronger and covered all cell phone use.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Interesting story. The ruling seems to turn partly on an odd (?) FL rule that a ticket must be issued by an officer who witnesses the infraction. Now, arguably the pictures are a form of "witnessing" if they were reviewed by an officer? Do you think it would be OK to isue a ticket for infractions observed over closed-circuit TV? Does it matter if it is recorded and reviewed later? Are still pictures fundamenetally different? Etc.
In looking up the story I noticed the FL legislature is considering banning red light cameras completely.
Which, and I actually don't want sound to be too cold, sits a lot better with me than the other people they take with them. Usually the other guy, the green light guy, gets the worst of it when the "runner" spears them. Often the other guy is on a bicycle or on foot. Running red lights is a leading cuse of lethal accidents here because, I suppose, of the angle and speed involved, and the frequency of the offense. It really sucks.
Sadly, the ones who blow through the lights like there's no tommorow usually survive, while the poor sap going through the green gets t-boned and has no tomorrow.
Free Martian Whores!
The tickets do have multiple images. Usually at least two showing the vehicle was before the line after the light turned red, and another showing the vehicle in the intersection afterward. Sometimes there are three. Also, they will have a closeup of the license plate, and sometimes a closeup of the driver's face (depending on how the system was setup for that intersection).
Here is a sample from Texas: http://www.ci.irving.tx.us/public-works/images/red-light-five.jpg
Europe has similar problems - it's just that the laws vary by country.
Remember, most of our states are as large, if not larger, than European countries.
The laws are fairly consistent, however. Especially traffic laws - for instance, we all drive on the same side of the road - we don't need a special intersection at the end of the tunnel to move cars into the correct side of the road. Most of the differences are posted on signs as you cross the state borders.
Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
Minnesota Supreme CourtThe Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."
"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp
Don't try to make California sound like the golden example of traffic control. :) There are plenty of places to make left turns that you may sit for 10 minutes (or more) waiting for a gap in traffic.
Try going into downtown on the 110 South, and then hitting the 4th street exit. There's nothing like having 4 lanes of the 101 that have to merge left into 3 lanes of the 110, and one of the 110 lanes has to merge right.
It's not the worst intersection I've ever navigated, it's just one I can name off the top of my head. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I'm not too far from you. The old people are starting to thin out here, but now the roads are being tied up with spring breakers. Wheee. I'm not sure what's worse, old people who can't see where they're driving, or kids who don't know where they're going and will change lanes with no warning because they realize they missed their turn. Well, that or just walking out into the road. My friend almost hit a lady yesterday. We were driving along, mostly side by side. That was coincidental, we were each leaving the same place at the same time, and we each needed a different lane for the way we were going. She walked out from the right side, and I was in the right lane. I hit my brakes. She continued across and my friend had to brake even harder. I swear, some people have a death wish. Who walks across a poorly lit road at night in the middle of the block (there were crosswalks a hundred feet or so either way) without looking, and ignores the fact that there's cars driving directly at them?
People complain about Florida, but really it's the fault of everyone everywhere else for sending their stupid people down here to vacation. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Everybody lies in court. That's the game. The lawyers don't blatantly lie, but they will say what they need to in such a way that it comes out in their favor.
I was in court once for a careless driving ticket (it was dropped because the cop didn't show). While I was there, a lady was there fighting a ticket where she made a left on a red light. She was driving a full size van with 6 kids in it. The cop testified that he was in a position to see the traffic light clearly. The lady got up, swore that she had a green light. Then she had each of the kids testify to it. "yes, I saw the light was green when she went." The judge asked where each was seated, and even the one in the back of the van swore that it was green. He even went as far as saying "Really? From the back of the van?", without actually accusing them of perjury. For those who haven't had vans, there's no way to see a traffic light that you're stopped at from the back of the van. I was familiar with the intersection, and if you were stopped at the line, even the driver had to look up through the very top of the windshield.
Everyone knew the kids were lying, and that the driver put them up to it. They got off the ticket, because there wasn't further evidence, and there were 7 "witnesses" vs 1 cop.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
And, according to studies, the red light cameras in Washington DC increase collisions.
From 1998-2004, total collisions in DC increased 61%. Intersections with red light cameras installed increased by 115%.
"Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame.
.
.
.
The results were similar or worse than figures at intersections that have traffic signals but no cameras. The number of overall crashes at those 1,520 locations increased 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent."
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook.
No I don't think you do. Besides, I already posted the handbook link... you responded to it.
If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.
Uh, ya. I'm the one that mentioned the handbook, and I replied to your comment by giving you the links to the actual California laws. Are you smoking something? Read what you replied to.
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Not true at all. You get ticketed if you enter the intersection when there is not sufficient room on the other side. It has nothing to do with the light color.
Simply put, in California, you CAN enter the intersection on yellow -- but if you are not OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, you've earned yourself a ticket.
Still wrong.
Usually they are for speeding up to enter the intersection, blocking traffic, failure to yield, failure to clear the intersection, etc etc etc.
Always they are for these.
Sadly, I don't have the exact code to cite for you, but feel free to call any local police department in CA.
I do. I already posted the yellow and red light vehicle code. Here they are again though, along with the law concerning blocking:
Yellow light
Red light
Entering an Intersection
Oh... my friend did contest. He lost. The reasoning was as I stated.
No, it wasn't. He lost because the actual vehicle code states that the RIGHT side tires must be less than 18" from the curb. Because your friend parked facing the wrong direction, unless his car was less than 15" wide (you said he was 3" from the curb), he is violating that law. Care for the link? How to park legally
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).
This is not true in many jurisdictions. For example, in the State of Oregon (US), if you cross the intersections while the light is yellow, you have run a red light unless it you were "unable to safely stop." If you run the yellow light and it is judged that you could have reasonably stopped, you face exactly the same penalties as if it were red. You will also have a "running a red light" item on your driving history and insurance history.
then they bitch about how no one stops for a right on red
I do, and have been repeatedly honked at for it. As if they somehow know that the cross-traffic left-turners aren't about to get a green arrow.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the problem of slippery road conditions. Slamming on the brakes when you see a yellow light might work on dry pavement, but for those of us who have ice and snow on the roads a significant part of the year, its a very bad idea. The consequences of the resulting skid are likely going to be worse than those of proceeding through the intersection. Not only are sufficiently long yellow lights wise, but around here some intersections have "stop light coming up" signs a good distance ahead of the intersection to warn drivers to slow down and be prepared to stop.
Here's a real situation where you really do have to run a red light.
There was some road construction going on in the city I live in a few years ago. At an intersection, there was a dedicated left turn lane with its own signal. The turn lane signal was driven by a sensor in the turn lane to detect the presence of a car. If there were no cars present, it wouldn't change the light from red to green. Well, I ended up in this turn lane not knowing that. The light never changed from red. What do you do?
In the State of Oregon a yellow light is considered a red light unless you were "unable to safely stop". If you do enter the intersection on a yellow light and are judged to have been able to stop, you are looking at being charged with running a red light (misdemeanor or felony).
Replying to my own post because I can't type. The construction had damaged the sensor so it wasn't detecting cars, hence I got stuck at the red indefinitely and had to run it.
You’re only going to hit that last 3 feet of somebody’s car as they scoot through the intersection if you peel out the instant the light turns green. And probably not even then.
By the way, peeling out is also illegal in many places...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
In my humble experience, roundabouts (rotaries as we Massholes call 'em) are good for light to medium volume traffic, and work better than lights for complicated intersections*. They really suck if one or more particular road carries heavy traffic, because that traffic flow will dominate the intersection and make it difficult for others to the right around the rotary to enter.
*For example, several meandering streets coming together in roughly the same spot, because New England roads were built by following the wanderings of cows and horses instead of nice rational city planning.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
2) Motorcycles are too small to set off magnetic sensors where lights are not timed, so motorcyclists must pull into the intersection and then clear as the light shifts to red.
If this is true, then the sensors are not properly calibrated.
BICYCLES will set these sensors off reliably when they're properly calibrated. Even bicycles with carbon fiber frames.
Here in Austin, when you find an intersection that you can't trigger with your bicycle, you call 311, and they'll send somebody out within a few days and get it fixed.
4.5 seconds for a yellow light?!
Especially after they installed a camera and a short yellow gets them more revenue...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is true, but that's a heck of a claim to make without backup. Have any sources you can cite? If not, how certain are you of your claim?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
When an officer testifies that "the wheels were spinning so wildly the back of the car was swinging side to side" and the car is FWD it's a bit obvious there's a story being told. I agree that people lie but an officer is supposed to be above that. They say one bad apple spoils a barrel, in this case one bad cop with an axe to grind pretty well spoiled any chance I'll ever have of respecting them. Funny thing is the next TWO cops who tried that kind of crap when I got older got a rude awakening. I'll take a ticket if I've done wrong and not say boo but try to pull a fast one and I'm in court fighting. Sitting in traffic court is a pretty eye opening experience, some of the crap pulled by both sides is amazing...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
I was actually screwed by two cops being a witness to a physical impossibility when I was a kid. That is unless it's really possible to do "Dukes of Hazzard" moves with a car with a v6 engine and no ramps. It took a year to keep me from getting jail time. I was happy that a few years later they were busted for falsifying reports .
I did get pulled over once for spinning my tires. The cop was cool about it though. I had made a stop on a 30mph road, and was turning onto a 55mph road. When I hit the gas to pull out, the tires spun in loose gravel that was there. Apparently he did the same thing pulling out to follow me. :) I stopped because I saw he was following me, and he just said "be more careful." That was lucky though, there were standing orders to pull me over if I was seen in that area. I hated living there. I would be pulled over at least once a week with no reason. That'd be hundreds of times I was stopped, and only ticketed twice (and beat both of them).
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Or the yellow cycle was much too short.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Something is dreadfully wrong with the whole setup.
People, who hear that millions of people are literally starving to death, still want to fuck. That leads to having 7 billion people stuffed into the ecosystem. That leads to long lines of cars filled with idiots who should never have been born.
Something IS dreadfully wrong with the whole setup.
Well, it would have cost the city far too much to pay an officer to wait in an unmarked car until your friend started his car and drove it away.
But if they had, they could have also got him for driving the wrong way in a lane of traffic, which would have been a moving violation rather than a non-moving one. And well-deserved, since he did in fact drive the wrong way in a lane of traffic both in order to park there and in order to leave his parking spot. They just couldn’t ticket him for it because they have to actually see the offense and be able to certify that it was him driving the vehicle when the offense occurred.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The laws in Missouri are, and always have been, that you must stop before making a right hand turn on red. They were not changed.
The cameras are there just to generate profit, I wholeheartedly agree, but the “rolling” right turn on red has always been illegal.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Much the same has happened with yield signs. We tried to get a yield sign put in at an intersection in our neighborhood and our city traffic engineers (San Diego) said they won't put in yields anymore. The reasoning is apparently because people just blow through yields and now too many basically treat stop signs like a yield.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
Though many people pull out to turn left in a busy intersection, Iowa law stipulates that you do not come to a stop in an intersection. It also says you should not enter an intersection until the path is clear (such as when turning left or even going straight if traffic backed up). Iowa "allows" you to enter an intersection on yellow (even if the light turns red while driving through) as long as at the time of entry you're certain the path is clear without having to stop again, although the drivers handbook still recommends to stop as soon as the light turns yellow if it is reasonably possible.
Personally, I have often sat through a round of two of changing lights to turn left in a busy intersection without a turn light. There is even a benefit to waiting behind the line to turn left: if you see a gap ahead you can start moving into the intersection and (without stopping) have some momentum to get through the gap safely without having to floor the pedal. Also, if there is a vehicle on the other side turning left, both you and the other driver have better visibility for oncoming traffic. So yeah... don't be one those noobs who sits in an intersection to turn left.
But it's still your intersection "for as long as it takes you to get clear of it" whether you are blocking traffic or not.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I temped for I believe it was Lockheed in 2002 in Washington DC. There was human oversight of the red light ticketing. In those days the cameras were film cameras and you'd go get a spool of film and load it into a device that would display two photos on a computer screen. The camera was triggered by motion and would go off if you were moving at the intersection as the light was yellow. So the first photo would be of a yellow light. This would clearly catch the license plate. The second photo would be of the car going through the intersection on a red, or of it stopping just in time. If the driver ran the red, you'd click on the first photo to read the license plate #. You also had to discern what state was on the plate, which could be quite difficult. The atmosphere of the company was very parochial, the managers were aloof, condescending jerks who thought they were nice, and once I got within two weeks start date of my real job and I had finals looming, I basically told them off and got fired on purpose. There was a cop that worked there that was supposed to be certifying the tickets but I don't remember ever seeing him. We processed thousands of tickets a day and I don't know how anyone could check all that work. I remember the cameras catching one accident in the month or two I worked there, don't remember much else interesting there other than that some of the people that I worked with went to the club a lot.
Because of the Uniform Vehicle Code 98-100% of states have very similar laws and when it comes to traffic lights, if the laws were radically different you might have a basis for challenging the law on the grounds of deception.
If your bumper is over the first line of the crosswalk you are considered to be in the intersection. In fact you can be cited for blocking the intersection if you ARE in the crosswalk. Additionally it is a violation to back out of an intersection once you have entered it. I got a ticket for that.
If your front bumper is over the first line of the crosswalk you are OBLIGATED to clear the intersection and since you can't back up you must either go forward through the intersection or refrain from entering it if you cannot reasonably be sure you could go all the way through safely.
Some traffic signals are delayed for the express purpose of allowing vehicles to clear the intersection before cross traffic is given the green light.
The length of the yellow light is of no effect on whether you ran a light and for legal purposes it is the same as a green light. There is no crime of entering on a yellow light. There are only the crimes of entering on a red light or blocking the intersection.
IANAL
Edwin
Though many people pull out to turn left in a busy intersection, Iowa law stipulates that you do not come to a stop in an intersection.
So yeah... don't be one those noobs who sits in an intersection to turn left.
I solved that problem by not living in Iowa - local laws where I am allow to stop at the intersection while turning left (in fact, it is rather an expectation to do so).
As well, judging by replies to my original post, there are more countries outside U.S., as well as states in U.S., where laws are closer to what I'm used to.
A full stop before making a right turn on red has ALWAYS been mandatory in the entire state of Missouri. I don’t know what you east-coasters from St. Louis have always done, but in Kansas City, you STOP on red. Then you make your right-hand turn, if it’s safe to do so (and there isn’t any sign prohibiting it).
See the MO drive guide here.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Not where I live. There was an intersection on my way to work a couple years back where if I didn't count to three AFTER I saw a green, moving at a regular speed through the intersection, some idiot trying to turn would have plowed into me.
You are reading right, a full two to three seconds after they had a red people were STILL going through. What does this tell you about what they would do on a yellow?
That's why I liked the new law. Even if they said "well it was still yellow when I passed the line" the cop could still nail them.
http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/04/red-light-camera-monkey-business-may-be-a-national-trend.ars
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975737976619187.html
Which still has absolutely nothing to do with what color the light is when you leave the intersection.
On another note, it also doesn't matter what the law says about being allowed to enter the intersection on a yellow light if the yellow light is too short, which is what the whole fuss is about.
If they really wanted us to be safe, they'd put up large easily-readable count-down timers so we'd know exactly how much time we have until it's red. Then even large trucks could be reliably stopped every time because the drivers would know to start slowing down even if the light was still green. Obviously safety isn't really their concern at this point.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Which still has absolutely nothing to do with what color the light is when you leave the intersection.
Very true.
On another note, it also doesn't matter what the law says about being allowed to enter the intersection on a yellow light if the yellow light is too short, which is what the whole fuss is about.
I will disagree with you here. Many States have the assumption that you should ALWAYS stop prior to entering an intersection if a light is yellow OR red. If it extremely dangerous to stop you MAY enter the intersection on a yellow. The time limit for a yellow is not relevant in this case.
The law works as thus:
1) Unless the light is green when you cross the threshold you are running a red light.
2) If you were unable to safely stop you may be forgiven from 1.
3) If the light was red when you crossed the threshold, step 2 is always false.
In this system (at least 10 States use a variant) the duration that the light was yellow is never examined and is not an issue. A driver who enters an intersection when the light is not green has run a red light, it is that simple.
The OP stated:
No, it's not that simple. Florida law [state.fl.us] 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.
Which is, I am sure, true for Florida, but not all States. My point was that every State has it's own rules. What you were taught where you got your license may not apply elsewhere. As always when these debates happen, everyone says "well this is the law" but fails to say "where I live." Jurisdiction matters.
If they really wanted us to be safe, they'd put up large easily-readable count-down timers so we'd know exactly how much time we have until it's red.
Or you could do the safe considerate thing and always stop at a yellow light. The reason several States have this system of law is to prosecute those who gun it through the intersection when the light turns yellow. An action that produces a significantly high number of accidents. When you see a light turn, STOP. There is no safer solution.
I will disagree with you here. Many States have the assumption that you should ALWAYS stop prior to entering an intersection if a light is yellow OR red. If it extremely dangerous to stop you MAY enter the intersection on a yellow. The time limit for a yellow is not relevant in this case.
It doesn't matter if you disagree or not. It doesn't matter what the law says. If the yellow light is simply too short, there's nothing the driver can do about it. Which, again, is what the fuss is about. If you'd have to start slowing down while the light is still green (assuming safe driving speed of course) in order to stop before the light turns red, the yellow light is too short. Period. No matter what the law says.
Or you could do the safe considerate thing and always stop at a yellow light. The reason several States have this system of law is to prosecute those who gun it through the intersection when the light turns yellow. An action that produces a significantly high number of accidents. When you see a light turn, STOP. There is no safer solution.
I don't think you've been following the discussion. The problem isn't about people deciding whether or not to stop on yellow. The problem is essentially about having to decide whether or not to stop while the light is still green because the yellow light is too short. Except of course, no one should have to make such a decision, hence the fuss about the yellow lights being too short. If the light is still green when you get past the point of being able to safely stop, you shouldn't have to worry about the light turning yellow and then red before you can safely make it through the intersection. That is the issue at hand.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
To each their own. I understand why someone would want to pull out and wait to turn left - it signals to other drivers you're GOING to turn whether you have a red light or not, but I prefer Iowa's less aggressive approach for safety reasons - even if it slows me down.
It doesn't matter if you disagree or not. It doesn't matter what the law says.
Actually, the law DOES matter. The article points out that the lights did not meet statutory requirements. In other words, under that State's law, the light needed to be longer.
If the law didn't matter, then the ticket would have been upheld and we would have no news article. I am sorry you fail to understand this simple fact.
If you'd have to start slowing down while the light is still green...
That is a complete misunderstanding. If you are going at or around the speed limit and the light turns yellow, you attempt to stop. In all but the most extreme situations and unless you are past a threshold, you should have no problem stopping. If you are wondering what that threshold is, I would suggest consulting your State's drivers handbook. Most include the formula that the distance is calculated in.
I don't think you've been following the discussion. The problem isn't about people deciding whether or not to stop on yellow.
No, PART of the discussion is about timing. Other parts have been about what the law is regarding intersections, traffic hazards, blocking traffic. Other parts of the discussion have gone off into many tangents.
If you would like to narrow down what you are talking about that is fine, but please go and read the several hundred comments before claiming what a "discussion is about". I think you will notice that a fair amount deal with other issues.
If the light is still green when you get past the point of being able to safely stop, you shouldn't have to worry about the light turning yellow and then red before you can safely make it through the intersection.
This I absolutely agree with and at no point disputed. However, I have never seen a person prosecuted for this. Every time, without fail, the person tried to "make the light" after the light changed to yellow.
Delaying traffic is 39:4-56
"No person shall drive or conduct a vehicle in such condition, so constructed or so loaded, as to be likely to cause delay in traffic or accident to man, beast or property."
I can find no statute entitled "Obstructing Traffic", nor "Unsafe Operation". But just because someone has been given a ticket doesn't mean the law actually covers the action they've been ticketed for.
Actually, the law DOES matter. The article points out that the lights did not meet statutory requirements. In other words, under that State's law, the light needed to be longer.
If the law didn't matter, then the ticket would have been upheld and we would have no news article. I am sorry you fail to understand this simple fact.
It's called context. You probably shouldn't ignore it.
That is a complete misunderstanding. If you are going at or around the speed limit and the light turns yellow, you attempt to stop. In all but the most extreme situations and unless you are past a threshold, you should have no problem stopping. If you are wondering what that threshold is, I would suggest consulting your State's drivers handbook. Most include the formula that the distance is calculated in.
Except for when the yellow light is too short. Which, again, is what the entire discussion is about.
No, PART of the discussion is about timing. Other parts have been about what the law is regarding intersections, traffic hazards, blocking traffic. Other parts of the discussion have gone off into many tangents.
If you would like to narrow down what you are talking about that is fine, but please go and read the several hundred comments before claiming what a "discussion is about". I think you will notice that a fair amount deal with other issues.
No, the ENTIRE discussion is about timing. Some people misunderstood this (apparently yourself included) and went off on irrelevant, off-topic rabbit trails.
This I absolutely agree with and at no point disputed. However, I have never seen a person prosecuted for this. Every time, without fail, the person tried to "make the light" after the light changed to yellow.
Whether or not someone got prosecuted for running a yellow light they could have easily stopped for is still entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Seriously, did you even read the summary? This whole discussion is about yellow lights being too short and people being ticketed unfairly because they were caught on traffic cameras due to the previously-mentioned too-short yellow lights. Anything else is irrelevant and off-topic. Really.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with discussing off-topic things in the comments, but don't pretend that they have some bearing on the actual topic.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Ah yes, police love to drop entries into their databases for folks to watch. They expire after something like 30 days but obviously word gets around and they can reenter if they wish I would guess. what's interesting aorund here is that they ALL use Nextel phones for the push to talk feature. Why? Well it seems they got into trouble for chatting back and forth on their computers. Seems that stuff is logged and much of what they were saying wasn't PC, work related, and in some cases considered profiling... So they don't use the official comms nearly so much now. I can't say that I completely blame them but there guys are pretty good at the do as I say not as I do if I ever saw it. The proliferation of "thin blue line" stickers here is also pretty amazing. If you're "in" as a part of the community you seldom get ticketed - cute...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
I’d be willing to bet that better enforcement would have worked even better than a new law. But it would have cost more, and CA is broke.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Sadly, I don't think you know how to read or know exactly WHAT the handbook is -- or perhaps I'm just not very good at communicating simple concepts. Click on the link I provided above (it's a PDF of the handbook available at any DMV (the english version)) and please tell me what page your other links appear in (and it's not page 22 -- that's just plain english, not VC). Just because the VCs appear on the DMV web page does not mean they appear in the handbook. It's really not that complicated of a concept.
With regards to the rest of your post, I would suggest you call a local CA police department. They'll be happy to tell you. Again, I said TECHNICALLY, it is legal to enter the intersection on a yellow light -- but if you aren't OUT of the intersection by the time it turns red, be ready for a ticket. The typical argument in court goes something like "(S)He was driving recklessly by speeding up to make the light. It was evident in that they entered the intersection on the yellow, but failed to be completely out of the intersection upon the light turning red. Had (s)he been traveling the speed limit, either (s)he would have cleared the intersection before the signal turned red or (s)he would have safely been able to stop before entering the intersection".
If you've got the time, spend the day in traffic court. Listen to the arguments on both sides. See if I'm wrong.
And if its not that, it will be a gridlock violation, or some such. I'm not saying it's fair and I'm not saying it's the exact letter of the law. But I *AM* speaking reality.
I used to live near a light like that (had to go through there to get to town) -- I timed it, and it was green on average 6 to 7 seconds. Just enough for one car to get going, never enough for two -- might as well have been a four-way stop. Fortunately not a high-traffic intersection, but still mighty annoying.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The "get your brakes checked" crowd also fails to remember that the heavier the vehicle, the greater the distance required to stop it, no matter how perfect your brakes and reactions and road conditions are. (Since I drive a truck, frequently with a heavy load, I'm aware of this on an everyday basis.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Sadly, I don't think you know how to read
Thats funny, I was about to say the same thing to you.
or know exactly WHAT the handbook is
It is the book the DMV gives you to practice for your test. See, if you click on the very first link I provided, you'll see it is an online version of the handbook. You can read the title of the page right? You can read the bread crumbs right? You can read the url right?
-- or perhaps I'm just not very good at communicating simple concepts.
That you seem to be doing ok with. Its the reading and comprehending that troubles you.
Click on the link I provided above (it's a PDF of the handbook available at any DMV (the english version))
Ya, I know. You can also find it by clicking on my link, clicking on the right most bread crumb (hint: it says "California Driver Handbook Table of Contents"), then clicking on the pdf version link at the top of the menu.
and please tell me what page your other links appear in (and it's not page 22 -- that's just plain english, not VC).
Why do you keep going here? I never even remotely suggested the VC is repeated inside the handbook. Lets rehash the conversation shall we?
And again I'll reiterate my original point: The very fact that you're in the intersection when the light turns red does not mean you broke any law. You will never get a ticket that reads "Driver was in the intersection when the light turned red."
Being in the intersection is not the violation (Unless you're stopped or in some other way impeded cross traffic). It is merely a sign that you probably committed some other violation.
Ok... spoon feeding is over. You are stupid. What you are linking to is *NOT* the law. The law is the vehicle code. That is not in the handbook you dumb lump. What you are linking to is *NOT* law -- but a simple verbal summary which attemps to state in simple language what the vc states using specific parsed language.
VC:
21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter.
(b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the roadway.
Handbook (from your very first post):
Solid Yellow- A yellow signal light means "CAUTION." The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you can not stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.
Notice how they are *NOT* the same? They may *SOUND* similar, but one is backed by the legislation and courts of California (with the associated court ruling precedents and the other is simple laymans language. What a stupid, dense, obtuse, witless fuck! You may THINK "A = a" because, well... they SOUND alike, but they ARE different.
Go back and read *MY* first post, nimrod. Tell me how I'm wrong. Show me where the *LAW* appears in the handbook. It doesnt. Either walk away and pretend you are right in your own head and maintain some sense of weird pride or man up and admit "Oh... you are right".
The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance can be cured. You seem to have the incurable form. But I could be wrong.
They didn’t see it happen... and his car just might have been carried there. Or towed there, or built there, or... I’m sure a good lawyer could think of dozens of ways to dispute that. They can’t ticket it unless they saw it happen.
Besides which they’d also have to prove who was driving, because it would be a moving violation. You can’t hand out a moving violation without reasonable proof that the person you’re ticketing was the driver of the car. A parked car, on the other hand, is the responsibility of the owner, unless the owner can reasonably prove that someone else parked it there.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
What you are linking to is *NOT* the law.
Moron. I gave you 4 links. The first link was to the online dmv handbook. The next 3 links were to the actual vehicle code. Its that simple. It really is. Read the fucking posts.
The law is the vehicle code.
Duh. That is why I provided both.
That is not in the handbook you dumb lump.
3rd and last time. I know. You're the only one that even suggested such.
What you are linking to is *NOT* law
Wrong. Again. The first link I provided:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm
Is to the DMV Handbook (which, again, is not the law).
After you said "but the courts go by the law", I provided the next three links:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22526.htm
And You can confirm all of this by just reading the entire thread, which I already summarized and linked for you in my last response.
Notice how they are *NOT* the same?
My god you're dumb. Your mom help you figure that one out?
They may *SOUND* similar, but one is backed by the legislation and courts of California (with the associated court ruling precedents and the other is simple laymans language.
Think so? Huh, oh ya, I said the same thing in my 2nd post.
What a stupid, dense, obtuse, witless fuck! You may THINK "A = a" because, well... they SOUND alike, but they ARE different.
I'll just ignore your morning mirror pep talk. You must have accidentally posted it.
Go back and read *MY* first post, nimrod. Tell me how I'm wrong. Show me where the *LAW* appears in the handbook.
I never said your first post was wrong. Never. I simply corroborated my original statement that the AC is wrong and that CA law is the same as Florida's as posted by NormalVisual. I did so by providing links to the actual CA vehicle code, which was summarized in my original link to the DMV handbook.
It doesnt.
Round the mulberry bush we go.
But I could be wrong.
You are. Again. Read the entire fucking vehicle code if you like. Please quote the section that says "If you are in an intersection when it turns red, you have violated the law."
You won't find it, it's not there.
Putz.
Read my entire "fucking" posts if you like. Please quote the section where I say this isn't TECHNICALLY correct?
For that matter, read to me where it says in ANY of CAs penal code that it is illegal to steal gummie bears from 7-11s on Tuesday. You wont find it, it's not there. BUT there are other laws which cover this. The same is true for your "red light while in the intersection" scenario.
If you deny this, you are reality challenged. I spent an entire summer in traffic and SC court as an intern. I've heard the arguments. I'm telling you, *IF* you are in the intersection when it turns red, you CAN and WILL get a ticket. Most likely for vc 23103. You either had enough time to SAFELY stop before entering the intersection and failed to (reckless driving) or you sped up to "beat" the red light with a "disregard for safety" I believe the argument went. Don't believe me? Call up any local CA PD. I called up mine and got quoted vc 23103 and a few others. And it WONT be a violation of yellow or red light laws. I've also heard, though less frequently, anti gridlock laws used -- in that when ENTERING the intersection on a yellow, the intersection was not clear. Doesn't matter that traffic was moving at the speedlimit -- and it doesn't matter that you CLEARED the intersection before it turned red -- if there was a car ahead of you, the intersection was not clear and you violated gridlock laws.
So, quote bits and pieces of the VC if you like. Ignore the rest. Ignore the courts. "But VC 1234 says I can do this!" Not really.
Mucho gracias.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Please quote the section where I say this isn't TECHNICALLY correct?
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Emphasis is mine. Note that you said "will", not "might", not "maybe", not "in most circumstances". That statement, 100% of the time you will get a ticket, is not accurate.
For that matter, read to me where it says in ANY of CAs penal code that it is illegal to steal gummie bears from 7-11s on Tuesday. You wont find it, it's not there. BUT there are other laws which cover this. The same is true for your "red light while in the intersection" scenario.
That is exactly what I've been saying idiot. Being in the intersection on red is not a violation. There are scenarios where this may come up and you will not be ticketed.
*IF* you are in the intersection when it turns red, you CAN
Never disputed
and WILL get a ticket.
Still not true.
Most likely for vc 23103.
Probably.
Call up any local CA PD.
PD are not lawyers.
I called up mine and got quoted vc 23103 and a few others.
Good for you. I encourage you to continue to use the local PD for all your law related questions. They're very knowledgeable, that's why they make the big bucks.
So, quote bits and pieces of the VC if you like. Ignore the rest. Ignore the courts.
I'm not ignoring anything. You are ignoring the possibility of a scenario that would put somebody, legally, in an intersection when the light turns red.
Take an example: You pull out of a corner gas station at a large intersection. The light turns yellow as you're leaving the crosswalk. Can't stop, you're required to proceed. Since you're just starting out, and you're driving a '72 pinto, you're only 3/4 across when the light turns red.
Ticket? Only if some cop wants to be a prick and claim you accelerated before the intersection to "beat the light". Or, maybe I'm wrong and you can cite the vehicle code that was violated in that scenario.
Not once did I argue you would not get a ticket. My only argument was that it is not illegal, in itself, to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Any ticket you receive in such a situation is for something LEADING UP TO BEING IN THE INTERSECTION: reckless driving, red light violation, whatever.
Which goes back to my original post: If it is not illegal to just be in the intersection, and the camera only takes 1 picture of you in the middle, then the picture is not sufficient evidence that you violated a law.
Like a picture of you holding a gun is not evidence of a crime BY ITSELF. You have to show something else: the gun is not registered, you're a convicted felon, you shot someone, etc.