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
Seriously, red-light cameras have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money making. Often the contracts with the company providing the cameras sets a specific maximum length for the yellow light. Making it longer would bring penalties to the City.
Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.
The study noted here actually found that accidents went up after installing the damned things. Then again it was Florida...
Three Squirrels
Some cities go a step further than just a picture. They will give you a picture before, a picture after and a 12-second video of you running the light. All that information can be found online via a URL given to you with your citation.
http://www.plano.gov/Departments/Police/RedLightCameras/Pages/default.aspx
From what I understand, the cameras are triggered by motion. If you cross a line while the light is red, you get photographed.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/red-light-camera1.htm
No, it's not that simple. Florida law says you may not *enter* the intersection when the light is red. It's perfectly legal to enter on a yellow, and to be in the intersection on the following red.
//not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
...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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
In California, if any part of your car enters the intersection while the light is still yellow, then it's "your intersection" for as long as it takes you to get clear of it. The traffic camera must show that the car was behind the limit line at the moment the light turned red.
The rule here is that your car must cross the line before the light goes red.
I was in court as a witness on a traffic ticket. A lady was ticketed for failure to yield right of way when she hit another car. She had a yield sign, the other car had a stop sign so the lady contested the ticket. The other car had already proceeded into the intersection when the lady moved past the yield sign and hit the other car. The prosecutor used the phrase "committed to the turn" to describe the other car, and the judge agreed so the ticket stood.
I would think going into the intersection before red, and continuing through the intersection after red falls into the same category. You are committed and it is legal to move ahead.
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
I'm pretty sure that articles labeled Your Rights Online are for discussing people's rights in an online format. If the articles were about rights on the internet, then the category would probably/hopefully be called Your Online Rights.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
What are you doing pulling a trailer at 30 mph in the rain in a town with crosswalks? Why aren't you driving at a safe stopping speed in those conditions?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If you cannot stop safely, do not speed up but drive cautiously through the intersection.
But that doesn't say that it's illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red. It just tells you what you should do on a yellow light. Going by the excerpt you quoted, if the light turns yellow too late for you to safely stop, it doesn't matter what color the light is as you leave the intersection.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
You pull forward just a bit into the intersection, past the white/walk line. At worst, you complete your left turn when the light turns red, which clears the intersection.
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)
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.
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
Then when you crash into someone, try to explain why in the pictures you have your face covered and you aren't looking at the road.
That's precisely what I mean. But people above claim that, if I complete the turn when light turns red, I break the law!
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 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.)
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?
Please don't believe this person. You DO NOT have to identify the driver and there is NO LAW COMPELLING YOU TO DO SO. I encourage anyone interested in this subject to read this: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#NotMe
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.
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.).
But people above claim that, if I complete the turn when light turns red, I break the law!
Once you are at the intersection you must clear it in a safe manner, regardless of lights - especially if you are turning, then it's not clear which light would govern your actions. I used to see this situation every morning at one place: when the light turns green the intersection ahead is still packed with cars.
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.
...because people keep blowing through red lights like there's no tomorrow.
And for some of those people, there indeed will be no tomorrow.
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.
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 . . .
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
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
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 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.
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.
Once you are at the intersection you must clear it in a safe manner, regardless of lights - especially if you are turning
That's precisely what the law is where I live, and I just can't understand how it could possibly be any different. The problem is that people in this thread claimed that it is not so in at least some U.S. states, which sounds crazy to me - might as well just ban left turns on controlled intersections altogether.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The people above are wrong.
Running the red light means entering the intersection when the light is red.
If you are making a turn, you may still be in the intersection when the light turns red. That is fine.
If you remain in the intersection after the light turns red, you may be violating your state's anti-gridlock law. It's legal if you GTFO of the intersection now that the traffic's stopped. It's illegal to remain stopped in the intersection.
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.
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.
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.
You should follow your own advice...I'd like to see some citations from this handbook you speak of, since your statements are in error.
Wrong in all 50 states. You may not enter after it turns red, but it is legal to exit after it turns red. Assuming you are not violating anti-gridlock laws (see below).
You appear to be conflating anti-gridlock laws with the laws regarding red lights. You may not enter the intersection if you can not exit the intersection. For example, if you are going straight and the traffic ahead of you is stopped at the far side of the intersection, you can't legally enter the intersection.
Wrong. To do so would require that you regularly violate the laws of physics. On a 35mph street if the light turns yellow when you are 30 feet from the intersection, you cannot stop before entering the intersection. It's pretty easy to see that this is wrong, in that there's no reason to have yellow lights if they mean the exact same thing as a red light. Yellow means "stop if you safely can, go through if you cannot safely stop" in all 50 states.
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?
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.
Or how about NOT entering the intersection until you can safely complete the turn in the same cycle.
Or, to put it more succinctly, never turn left. NEVAR.
(as apparently some states and other jurisdictions do).
[citation required]
You forgot to put IANATE* into your comment.
*I Am Not A Traffic Engineer
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
There would be no danger at all were vehicles to keep their proper couple seconds of spacing when headed down the roads.
Ah, the "two-second interval". What a charming fantasy. Do you know what the two-second interval is? It's about 5 carlengths in front of me, in the process of being promptly filled in by 4.5 clueless asshats who want into my lane. (The half-asshat is looking at the remaining fractional carlength speculatively. He'd go for it if his insurance wasn't already on the verge of cancellation.)
Ultimately you can't fix stupid, but you can give people the best chance possible of walking away from the accident alive and in one piece.
We try, but I think those two goals are mutually exclusive. Stupid should be fatal.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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
"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.
I can see where if the roadways, rules, and drivers expectations are setup properly, then yes it can work and the only increase in danger I can think of there is mostly 'out of town' drivers not aware of the situation and tiny reduction in space (and thus reaction times) in some situations
True, but then that applies every time you have a driver coming from a place with rules that are different (even in just one aspect, so long as it's important) from local ones. It's why one of the first things I do in a new country/state/province is to buy a local road code book - now knowing how different things can be from personal experience.
I don't know, maybe they should require a brief exam for the most important driving rules when issuing visas or something :)
But around here there are quite a few places where that pull out trick will leave you stuck in the middle of a bad situation. Especially where more than 2 roads intersect (not to many of those though) or at t intersection across from shopping/profession buildings.
From what you describe with how your left turn signals work, I can easily imagine that. Thanks for warning, actually - I wasn't aware that there is a difference with respect to this anywhere, much less the 'States (rather than some more exotic place with vastly different rules). I'll have to keep that in mind should I ever venture past the places I've already been there.
What is the state in question, by the way?
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.
By observing oncoming traffic and being aware of the capabilities or your vehicle and patient enough to wait for an appropriate opening, if you can't do those get off the road you are not fit to drive.
Actuall you're the one likely unfit to drive. Plenty of places have poor visibility. If turning left is a problem, they should disallow left turns at said intersections. You also might have days to get where you're going, those of us with jobs do not. Oh, and by NOT going you're making traffic back up behind you, which can cause other big problems.
Like I said, you've never driven in a city.
Because you are parking in an intersection!
No, no one is putting their car into park and turning off the engine.
Since you're all about safety though, why is it ok for cars which now have a green light to enter the intersection while there is still a car trying to clear it? If you were being consistent, you'd argue this, but then it removes your claim that there's some danger involved. There is, but only if a dumbass floors it into the intersection without making sure its clear to go anyway.
And when oncoming has a left turn signal at the end of the green cycle for them? And there are more complicated intersections and light cycles than that.
It blocks people who know have a left turn arrow, just like people that would be going straight. In other words, there's no difference... people with green should wait for the intersection to clear as well, shouldn't they?
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 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.
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.