Tennessee Town Releases Red Light Camera Stats

SonicSpike links to what he calls "a transparent look at some statistics released by a small town's red-light camera program," writing "Specifically, in the last fiscal quarter, 7,213 incidents were recorded, 2,673 incidents were rejected by the reviewing officer, and 662 incidents were not processed due to technical issues or lack of information. All in all 3,878 citations were issued between April 1 — June 30 in a town of 17,000 residents. Interestingly enough there are two nearby cities claiming that individuals 'have no presumption of innocence' when accused by the red light cameras." Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.

Comments

no-harm no-foul

[topham]

No problem.

No-harm, no foul. However, you fuck up, spend life in prison. seems reasonable to me.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

Re:no-harm no-foul

[0123456]

I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.

But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[schon]

The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.

A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer: 20 seconds before the light turns yellow show a countdown to the yellow light.

They've been installed in my city at a few intersections - they were originally intended for pedestrian signals, but they work *really* well for drivers - it tells you exactly how much time you have to make the light, and you can start slowing down earlier.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Captain Splendid]

Yaah, they're called roundabouts. Problem is, they're too confusing for yanks apparently. No skin off my nose, but you did ask.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[jimmyfrank]

"Hey look kids, there's Big Ben, and there's Parliament. "

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about roundabouts, ignorant cocksucker.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[causality]

I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.

But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.

I know a good way to stop people from running the red light. Increase the duration of the amber light. Put a countdown timer (like an LED display) telling the driver exactly how long until the yellow light turns red. Then have a hydraulic system that very quickly raises a heavy steel plate in front of the place where a car is expected to stop for the red light. The steel plate lowers back into the ground when the light turns green so that cars can safely roll over it.

Problem solved! Of course this would adversely impact ticket revenues...


Incidentally -- watch someone take this post seriously. I should have omitted this line to see how many would.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

"Hey look kids, there's Big Ben, and there's Parliament. "

Re:no-harm no-foul

[kryliss]

Actually ticket revenue could remain the same but ticket the idiot who hit the barricade $500 or more dollars because they "damaged" government property by scratching the paint.... New paint job $10, have unskilled monkey... er uhm.. state worker repaint said barricade, $10. $480 profit.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

I live in the UK, we have lots of roundabouts, we have lots of traffic lights, we even have traffic lights on the busier roundabouts, but none of those stop people running red lights, or if on a roundabout without traffic lights, stop people from entering the roundabout when it is not safe for them to do so.

So, IMO, I don't believe that roundabouts alone would solve the problem.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[commodore64_love]

My state has installed a few roundabouts to replace redlights, and I think they are extremely dangerous.

The drivers zip around the circle as if they think they're on the Daytona 500 speedway, and I'm often afraid I'll get rear-ended or side-swiped when I enter the circle. I wish I could see the accident statistics - I bet they went up.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[kryliss]

Yes, this is a humorous response to a humorous parent. :)

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Yaah, they're called roundabouts.

I love roundabouts. However they do take up a lot of real estate.

Problem is, they're too confusing for yanks apparently.

As a southerner, I can't comment on the yanks ability to use one. ;)

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I agree with your solution with one additional step - after the light has turned red and the steel plate is raised up, but before the light for the other direction can turn green, the center of the intersection should open up like a trap door and dump in to a pit all the cars who entered an already full intersection so they wouldn't have to stop for the red light and wait for their turn. I'm not sure what should be in the pit -- hungry tigers, or maybe a pool filled with ill-tempered sea bass - either of those would be fine.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[cynyr]

or working out the tranist network to limit the number of lights you need to go though, by planing major to minor routes. This require forethought, and spending more now to spend a lot less later. Another thing us Yanks are confused by, generally.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Haffner]

Even easier method:

Green light: foot on gas. Green AND yellow light: foot off gas. Yellow light: foot on brake. Yellow AND red light: time to stop. Red light: foot all the way down. Put 5 seconds on each intermediary, and make it ILLEGAL to increase speed during a yellow or yellow/red light. People who saw the green/yellow know yellow is coming, so if you need to speed up, you'd better do it.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Attila Dimedici]

Yaah, they're called roundabouts. Problem is, they're too confusing for yanks apparently. No skin off my nose, but you did ask.

Got any studies to show that roundabouts are better? Also, if roundabouts are so wonderful, why does the UK have so many traffic lights?

Re:no-harm no-foul

[CohibaVancouver]

I'm pro-roundabout, but it's important to remember that while roundabouts are fine for new intersections, it's difficult to retro-fit them to existing intersections because they require a lot more land.

They're also not friendly to scenarios where pedestrians also cross the intersection, i.e. scenarios where the lights stop both cars so people can cross in front of them.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Posting=!Working]

The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.

Interesting theory, but not one that agrees with the studies I've read. Citation definitely needed.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Roundabouts work really well in nations that don't experience winter.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Scoth]

I've seen a few intersections like this nearly cause accidents because people see the countdown almost to zero and stop at the green light. More than anything, I think that any traffic flow design will be fouled up by some percentage of the people.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[metlin]

Have you ever been to Boston?

Re:no-harm no-foul

[commodore64_love]

>>>have a hydraulic system that very quickly raises a heavy steel plate in front of the place where a car is expected to stop for the red light.

That's great until you have an ambulance or firetruck that needs to get to an emergency in a hurry, and the metal places are blocking them. They have a similar idea (physical barriers) for railroad crossings but it often doesn't work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOnpYCQLCuY

Re:no-harm no-foul

[jemtallon]

Actually, roundabouts have become very popular in my hometown (Fargo, ND) because they are much safer when roads are icy. At a 4-way stop or a traffic light, if your car slides it goes into traffic. Our roundabouts have a small hill in the middle so if the car slides it hits a curb and eventually some dirt to stop it. It's much safer. And most are designed to be beautiful as well as functional.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Misch]

Georgia required that intersections that use red light cameras to have yellow signal timings one full second more than the federal minimum. When that law went into effect, red light cameras caught 80% fewer people running the red lights.

Source.

The cameras became unprofitable and in many cases were removed. (Oh yeah... they were there for "safety")

Re:no-harm no-foul

[George Beech]

I've had friends cited for reckless driving/and or speeding when a cop catches them "racing the yellow" ... so it may not be on the books per say but they'll still get you for something

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

Agreed about the signs. I love having those. I'd love it even more if there were a timer right in the center beside the stoplight with big numbers.

That said, I think you're wrong about drivers adjusting to the longer yellows. Humans don't estimate time very well beyond a few seconds unless they are actively counting. Thus, unless drivers got into the habit of ignoring the yellows entirely and slowing down on red, drivers adjusting isn't likely beyond about seven or eight seconds. And there have been studies that bear that theory out, IIRC, though I'm too lazy to search for them right now.

The other thing that significantly improves safety as far as light timing goes is having a second or two of "all ways red" before giving the green light to the other direction. The first thing I noticed about traffic lights when I came to California from Tennessee was that in California, there was often no delay at all before the cross direction turned green. No surprise that California had to implement the stupid red light cameras to cut down on the T-bone crashes, which in turn, increased the rate of rear end collisions. It's all completely predictable by anyone with the slightest bit of common sense, really.

There's one other really simple thing that cities can do: mark outer limit lines on the asphalt. After all, assuming cars are traveling at the speed limit, you can trivially calculate how far they can travel in the yellow time. Subtract the length of a typical vehicle, subtract the width of the intersection, measure that distance away from the intersection, and mark an obvious line (maybe we should standardize on a particular color so that it has meaning) that goes all the way across the street.

By doing this, drivers know that if they haven't reached that line when the light turns yellow, they need to stop, and only if they have passed that line do they need to judge stopping based on their speed. Admittedly, if you're traveling under or over the speed limit, an outer limit line is less useful, but it at least gives you a general ballpark. And it costs a lot less than electronic countdown timers.... Combine them with longer yellow lights and even a second of "all ways red", and things will improve significantly.

Such outer limit lines also have the convenient effect of being an affirmative defense if cities later decide to shorten yellow light timing to try to raise red light camera revenue (not to mention making it almost certain that they will get caught if they attempt to do so without first repaving the road). But I digress.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Windows Breaker G4]

OTOH roundabouts seem to eat up more space, we do have them, the do work but they don't seem to work well at major intersections (ala the roundabouts in DC)

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Jaime2]

It's been shown many times that increasing the yellow duration really does prevent people from running red lights. Most people don't have the mental bandwidth to remember the relative durations of all the yellow lights they might encounter.

A countdown is very similar to an earlier yellow, but it only works at low speed intersections. I drive on a lot of 55 mph roads with signals. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to read a standard pedestrian countdown timer at these lights early enough to matter.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

It is not the roundabouts that are dangerous, it is the morons that are abusing them that are dangerous.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[ThatMegathronDude]

for the whooshed mod that modded this redundant, its funny because Americans are not accustomed to roundabouts and get stuck in them, hence you pass by the landmarks several times while trying to maneuver out.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

True. The countdown timers generally only run the whole time in cities where the roads don't have functioning walk buttons (e.g. San Francisco) or when you are driving on the secondary street in cities where they do. It's important to be aware of where you are. A real countdown timer intended specifically for drivers would, of course, not have those problems, presumably.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[kefler]

Yeah I agree running the red light is bad. But I think it is worse that the red light camera companies (i.e. RedFlex) require that the intersection yellow light duration be lowered to the minimum allowable by law when they are installed. How does that promote public safety? Not to mention the places where they violate the law and lower it even further just to get more money.

And, the cameras don't even help what I see as the main issue in the intersections, which is people failing to yield on left turns. That has nothing to do with the red light cameras.
http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

we have those for pedestrians in downtown minneapolis and i'd agree they def help with red light running. gives you an idea how long you have and in turn can plan/expect the light changes better.

but there are always going to be those types that will run it anyways.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

To be fair, I think the GP was suggesting adding larger countdown timers specifically for drivers. If the numbers were three feet high instead of eight or ten inches, you'd be able to easily read them far enough back even on a 55 MPH road.

Alternatively, you could put a second light farther back that begins blinking ahead of the light changing, directing people farther back to start slowing down because they can't possibly make it. Or you could put a second countdown timer farther back. Either way.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Faluzeer]

snip...

Got any studies to show that roundabouts are better? Also, if roundabouts are so wonderful, why does the UK have so many traffic lights?

Hmmm

It is not practical to have a roundabout at every junction, therefore traffic lights are used.

The cynical side of me, believes that the sheer over-abundance of traffic lights (and the sequencing of them) is as much to do with increasing the Governments revenue from fuel duty as it is with road safety.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[grahamsz]

My town in the US does have a few roundabouts and they are actually working quite well. I started a personal campaign to signal properly when using them and maybe 15% of drivers now do that too.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

Ah, but the moderation is a meta-joke in and of itself.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[grahamsz]

I always thought the point of a roundabout was that you didn't have to slow down significantly if there wasn't other traffic. Though in the US they are generally designed quite tight and it makes it hard to do that safely.

Although i've never seen a roundabout with a limit above 35mph. I used to know of a 60mph, 5 lane wide one in the UK, but it had been dropped to 50 last time i was there.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[grahamsz]

I've never seen one with more than 2 lanes going round it in the US. That seems to freak out enough drivers that i'm not sure the 4 and 5 spiraling lane ones would work well.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Roundabouts? Oh, you mean skidpads

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Windows Breaker G4]

I am now trying to remember if DCs are 2 or 3 lane, I want to say a few are 3 lane

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Attila Dimedici]

It is not practical to have a roundabout at every junction, therefore traffic lights are used.

Ahh, I see. How about those studies?

Re:no-harm no-foul

[David Greene]

Those aren't roundabouts in DC. Those are traffic circles. The former don't have signals at the entrance points. In general, entrants to a traffic circle have right-of-way where on a roundabout it's the opposite.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[David Greene]

Thank you! My number one issue with roundabouts is that people in the circle don't signal their exits. it is difficult for those entering to know when it is safe.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[grahamsz]

Yeah, it's especially tough since there's no straight ahead signal. It's very hard to tell if someone knows what they are doing and is leaving via the opposite exit, or if they don't know what they are doing and are turning left.

Colorado has a lot of californian drivers too. As best I can tell, california removes the bulbs from all their cars' signals - must be some fuel efficiency standard.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Windows Breaker G4]

Ah sorry i've heard traffic circle and roundabout used interchangeably, so I didn't realize there was a difference.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[drsmithy]

A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer: 20 seconds before the light turns yellow show a countdown to the yellow light.

I can't imagine those countdowns are particularly readable in a useful fashion.

A better and cheaper method - define a standard minimum duration for an amber light and make sure all drivers are aware of that (or have no excuse for not being aware). This is, as far as I know, the solution implemented throughout most of the world.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Mr. Freeman]

Technical problems: They're usually too small to safely take at speed so they slow everything down even with perfect drivers.

People problems: There's a lot of dipshit drivers that don't obey the line dividing the lanes within them so you end up having to brake/swerve to avoid some moron that's cutting into your lane. Also, some morons think that there's an implied stop sign before a roundabout and will stop even if there's no traffic present. This strikes me as odd considering the number of people that roll through real stop signs.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[drsmithy]

The drivers zip around the circle as if they think they're on the Daytona 500 speedway, and I'm often afraid I'll get rear-ended or side-swiped when I enter the circle. I wish I could see the accident statistics - I bet they went up.

I can't speak for any specific implementations, but generally speaking roundabouts reduce accidents of all kinds.

Compared to the insanity of the 4-way and 3-way stop signs that are so prevalent in the US, they're a godsend.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Mr. Freeman]

If you're counting on people using their signals then you're an idiot. Sure, someone might signal an exist, but it doesn't mean they're actually going to take it. Most of the time the signals are not used or they're used incorrectly.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Yaah, they're called roundabouts. Problem is, they're too confusing for yanks apparently. No skin off my nose, but you did ask.

Don't you dare extol the virtues of roundabouts, i hate them and I've been using them my whole life. Every week day i have to navigate a roundabout whereby the entrance to my right is about 5 times busier than mine and heading where i need to go so i have to wait for someone from THEIR right to stop them before i can get on it. Takes forever and you end up taking stupid risks just to get to work on time as can be sat there for 5 minutes waiting for a gap.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the thousands of innocent victims who get hit by these driver every year, including me. I was hit by a some idiot doing this while I was in a cross walk 8 years ago. The guy had a 50% increase to his insurance. I spent 6 months not walking, more than a year in physical therapy and 19 months out of work all to the grand tune of more than $20,000 cost to me (that is I would have made $20,000 more in income if I could have worked than the grand total of the settlement, not to mention all the lost time where I had to do painful and long work instead of having fun).

Traffic rules are no there to cause you inconvenience. They are there because by and large the 2 second delay a thousand times a year in your commute will prevent someone from loosing months or years from their life.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[AK Marc]

The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.

The problem with common sense is that it's often wrong. The problem you describe doesn't happen.

A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer: 20 seconds before the light turns yellow show a countdown to the yellow light.

I like those, and I think them better than longer yellows, but don't let your enthusiasm for one pet idea exclude other ideas that are also effective.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[AK Marc]

They'll have the IR sensors at the intersections that will lower them for emergency vehicles like they do now with making them green.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Randomize the duration of the yellows within a safe range and people might start to interpret them more seriously....

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Kreigaffe]

Yes, because European urban planning is a shining beacon to us all.

Oh wait, it's still bogged down with streets laid down during the fucking Dark Ages.

Oh, wait, all the problems and issues with modern urban planning only came to light after America started building modern cities. Shucks. Boy, problems sure are obvious when you're looking at them several decades after the fact, huh?

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Kreigaffe]

Yes, saving 5 seconds of your time 99% of the time is sure great. It's that 1% of the time you cause an accident which causes *everyone* to lose many minutes of their travel, and potentially causes you and/or others to lose their *LIFE*.. that's what really throws things off.

Stop at the fucking stop sign. You want to save 5 seconds, run to and from your car instead of walking. I find it amusing yet depressing that people are concerned about shaving a few seconds off their travel when driving their car -- potential risks be damned! -- but when it actually would require physical effort on their part to move faster -- moving faster than a slow crawl when walking -- those same people won't step up to the plate.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Kreigaffe]

If Californians had half an idea how many traits they share with Tennesseans... .. well, I'm not really sure what would happen, but I'm sure I would be very amused by the results.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[CosmeticLobotamy]

install a countdown timer: 20 seconds before the light turns yellow show a countdown to the yellow light.

I'm certain the reason they don't do this is because there will be a huge number of people saying, "Oh, crap, I've only got 5 seconds to make the light and I'm 1.4 miles away. Floor it." I say do it anyway, personally, but I think running red lights would be best addressed by not letting people with learning disabilities program the red lights anymore. If I have to stop for 40 seconds at one of every 10 lights, I'm not going to care enough to try to make the light. If I have to stop for 3 minutes at every intersection, damn right I'm going to floor it to try to make the yellow. Or the first second of red.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[bl968]

That's a BS argument and has been refuted in the real world and has resulted in accidents at the intersection in question being reduced significantly.

"The data show that the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase." - The Influence of the Time Duration Of Yellow Traffic Signals On Driver Response, Stimpson/ Zador/ Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1980

"Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the yellow." - Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985

"Olson and Rothery reported in 1972 that their research showed that drivers were "virtually" certain to stop if their required deceleration rate was less than 8 feet per second squared and virtually certain to continue if the deceleration rate required was in excess of 12 feet per second squared" - Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985

"The average implied deceleration rate of the group with the highest crash rate was slightly over 13 feet per second squared, and the deceleration rate for the group with the lowest crash rate was 8.5 feet per second squared" - "Effect of Clearance Interval Timing on Traffic Flow and Crashes at Signalized Intersections", Zador/ Stein/ Shapiro/ Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1985

Increasing Yellow signal times is proven to work, but I don't object to them also requiring a prepare to stop timer as well.

Try reading the studies these cameras increase not decrease accidents, the accidents cost more to repair, are more likely to injure people involved, and perversely are more likely to result in a fatality.

Start here...

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/05/15/traffic-enforcement-cameras-lead-to-increased-accidents-injuries-and-deaths/

the move on to

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/

and a oldie but goodie...

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/

I started out leaning towards being pro-camera figuring like most people they are a good thing, then I started doing research to prove the point I wanted to make. I had to change my views on the matter and oppose them.

It's all about the money honey! These cameras are nothing but a dangerous revenue generating scheme.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[bl968]

err the last link above should have been http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/finalreport.pdf

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Darinbob]

To be fair, they really are confusing :-)

There's a certain attitude of driving in a roundabout that you must have, and I don't have it. I drive carefully, I want tons of space before I merge into an adjacent lane. Roundabouts rarely give me that space. I also like a straight line before I merge, I do not like merging in a curve, because a straight line gives me a better view and a better judgement of whether there's someone there or not. Especially in a smaller car surrounded by giant SUVs where good views of neighboring lanes are rare. Finally, most roundabouts require you to move to the inner lane, and only be in the outer lane when entering or just before exiting; that is they require me to change lanes far more often than I normally do, and to use less space to change lanes than I normally do.

(I'm talking about the larger roundabouts with multiple lanes and a relatively high speed limit; I don't have problems with one lane ones and a slower 25mph limit)

This is probably fine for people who grew up driving with roundabouts, they're used to this. Just like people who grew up in the city are used to driving like assholes and those who grew up in rural areas like to be polite. At the very same time some Brits think that Yanks are too wimpy to deal with roundabouts, there are probably drivers in New Delhi who wonder why Brits are so stuffy that they obey lane markers.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Darinbob]

This is true. I can't think of any intersection with traffic lights at the moment that does not allow pedestrian crossing. The UK uses roundabouts on high traffic routes in situations where the US would usually have an overpass instead.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[cynyr]

never said Europe was perfect, but simply that perhaps we could/should have learned something from them. And every time I see a major highway project not account for additional traffic i cringe, knowing i'll be paying for it to be fixed later.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[CmdrPorno]

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light.

A spike strip which deploys from the road after the light turns red is also likely to reduce the number of people running red lights. After paying a tow bill and buying a new set of tires once or twice, I bet you'd end up with a much more conscientious driver.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[David Greene]

Right. Roundabouts were created to address some of the problems with traffic circles, also called rotaries.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[HermMunster]

I was watching (a rare event for me) a Sunday morning news segment (that was quite long) about red light cameras. I picked up some interesting information.

For instance:

1) The cameras are not owned by the Cities that use them. The cameras are rented and a portion of the fines collected are pocketed by the companies that own the cameras.

2) Most Cities proudly reduce the yellow light duration to 3 seconds. Those companies that own the cameras require that the Cities reduce the yellow to 3 seconds, otherwise they'll pull the cameras out. The fines must also be within a certain threshold or those companies owning the cameras will pull them out.

Before pleading guilty remember to check the City ordinances on how long those yellow lights are supposed to be.

3) The cameras must yield a certain number of tickets or the cameras don't make money. So, they reduce the yellow duration, or they put more cameras up.

4) There's at least initially, a substantive increase in rear end accidents.

5) The red light cameras make a significant amount of money for the Cities with little to no discernible increase in traffic safety. Most cities refuse to produce the factual statistics showing the results.

6) Most people that dispute the tickets should dispute them and ask that the Judges reduce the fine.

7) Residents should ask to have the proposals for red light cameras put on the ballot before the City does so; and they should set the maximum fine to equal the lowest ticket fine possible. In most communities that's $20.00 whereas if that's not made part of the ballot then fines are around $150.

8) Most red light camera tickets/fines don't go on your driving record nor on your insurance record.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[HermMunster]

California stops are also considered running a red light, which in most cases are not significant enough to be a traffic safety hazard.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[CmdrPorno]

The studies I have seen indicate that countdown timers increase the incidence of aggressive driving as people try to race to the intersection before the time runs out.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[quacking duck]

The other thing that significantly improves safety as far as light timing goes is having a second or two of "all ways red" before giving the green light to the other direction. The first thing I noticed about traffic lights when I came to California from Tennessee was that in California, there was often no delay at all before the cross direction turned green. No surprise that California had to implement the stupid red light cameras to cut down on the T-bone crashes, which in turn, increased the rate of rear end collisions. It's all completely predictable by anyone with the slightest bit of common sense, really.

Interestingly this doesn't happen in Quebec, where there is no "all ways red" (at least in the cities of Montreal and Gatineau), but there is in the province of Ontario. Drivers in Ontario routinely blow through red lights, because they know there's a safety buffer of a second or two. Meanwhile in Montreal, home to some of the most aggressive drivers in North America, almost no one blows a red because they know there's no buffer.

There's one other really simple thing that cities can do: mark outer limit lines on the asphalt. After all, assuming cars are traveling at the speed limit, you can trivially calculate how far they can travel in the yellow time. Subtract the length of a typical vehicle, subtract the width of the intersection, measure that distance away from the intersection, and mark an obvious line (maybe we should standardize on a particular color so that it has meaning) that goes all the way across the street.

Absolutely, and in most multi-lane roads this is exactly what they do here. Supposedly it's to indicate the point after where no lane changes should be made before entering an intersection (the white dashed lane separators turn solid), but I've timed these and they are indeed fairly good guides as to whether you'll make it into the intersection before it goes red, if you're going the speed limit.

Pedestrian countdown timers are also being installed in many intersections, also very effective. And about time too; timers were in many cities I visited in China almost 15 years ago.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[HermMunster]

What he says about the count down timer was part of the news segment that I watched this past Sunday. They made note that the timers helped reduce the hazards.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there ARE dangerous roundabouts. A few in my town are so small that they're essentially 4-way yields. You can guess how well that works out. And, these are especially hazardous to pedestrians, who are safer crossing in the middle of the street (were you only have to watch for 2 directions of traffic).

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not see any value in coming to a complete stop before a right-on-red,
then clearly you are not a motor/bi-cyclist, in which case you know exactly why this is necessary.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[quacking duck]

I noticed the ridiculously long intersection wait times along major roads when visiting Orlando, and thought that was ridiculous.

On the other hand, the amount of gas used to start a modern car engine is roughly 20 seconds of idling, so people could wise up and actually turn off their cars during those 3 minutes instead of uselessly polluting the air.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[garyebickford]

You remind me of an incident that I watched some years ago at an intersection between two major six-lane boulevards. A guy driving a very new Porsche noted the light change and quickly stopped. The guy in the 20 box truck behind him ... didn't. There was no way the truck was going to stop that fast. He pushed the Porsche all the way into the middle of the intersection. The guy in the Porsche jumped out of his car, and - the only time I've ever seen this - was jumping up and down and screaming in the middle of the intersection, literally "hopping mad". I doubt there was a printable word from his mouth in several minutes. I was amused. :) I'm bad. :(

Re:no-harm no-foul

[schon]

That's a BS argument and has been refuted in the real world and has resulted in accidents at the intersection in question being reduced significantly.

Sorry, but your own quotes say that I am right.

I shall quote my own post:

A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer:

You say...

Increasing Yellow signal times is proven to work

When your citations say:

"the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase."

And

Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the yellow.

So - if drivers don't adapt, how exactly is that "proven to work"?

I think your quotes show that it's your argument on this topic that could be classified as "BS", not mine.

Try reading the studies these cameras increase not decrease accidents, the accidents cost more to repair, are more likely to injure people involved, and perversely are more likely to result in a fatality.

As you're so good at providing citations, perhaps you could show me where exactly I (or the post I was replying to) said anything about red light cameras one way or the other. I didn't remember writing anything about it, and I just checked and couldn't spot it.

It's all about the money honey! These cameras are nothing but a dangerous revenue generating scheme.

Agreed. However, as my post wasn't about the cameras, perhaps we can play mutual masturbation another time?

Re:no-harm no-foul

[hhedeshian]

New mod option: +1 redundant

Re:no-harm no-foul

[garyebickford]

IMHO 90% of red light runners do it on purpose. Just today I stretched a yellow light way too long - I think the light turned red as I went under it. Another car 100 feet back of me came through after me, at least two seconds after the light turned red. I could probably have stopped, and there's no question that the other guy could have. I had another similar incident a few weeks ago where four more cars came through after the light was certainly red. I live in Massachusetts these days and I'm convinced that this is a very popular habit here, much more than anywhere else I've lived.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Faluzeer]

Ahh, I see. How about those studies?

Hmmm

You have replied to the wrong person, I believe it is Captain Splendid that you need to chase for them...

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Yaah, they're called roundabouts. Problem is, they're too confusing for yanks apparently. No skin off my nose, but you did ask.

There's nothing hard about them, but they do take up a lot more room than a simple intersection.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Slashdot Suxxors]

Totally off-topic, but I'm going to be living in Fargo in less than a month! I'm about 3 1/2 hours away, currently living in northern Minnesota. I'm entering NDSU as a freshman pursuing a double major in CS and Criminal Justice. Good to know that there are /.'ers in Fargo.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[jschen]

Actually, roundabouts have become very popular in my hometown (Fargo, ND) because they are much safer when roads are icy. At a 4-way stop or a traffic light, if your car slides it goes into traffic. Our roundabouts have a small hill in the middle so if the car slides it hits a curb and eventually some dirt to stop it. It's much safer. And most are designed to be beautiful as well as functional.

Sure, that's great if you happen to slide into the roundabout when no one's going by. But what if you slide whine on the roundabout into someone waiting to get into the roundabout? Or if you slide into the roundabout as someone's going past? And with everyone now needing to do some turning (not just the people changing roads), there should be more risk of sliding. Seems to me like you've just traded one problem for another.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[LordKronos]

Actually, it's a quote from the movie National Lampoons: European Vacation where the family drives around the roundabout over and over, never able to get out, and each time, Clark (the dad) points out the monuments to his family...over and over again.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[ghjm]

You mean like Norway and Iceland?

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. An anti-American bash right here for no reason. Gosh you must be so proud of yourself. Your little pecker gone all erect there? Well, go off and rub one out. Off with you then.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Your regrading comprehension needs to be improved. "the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase." means that the amount of cars running the yellow didn't increase by increasing the length of the yellow. In other words people did not "become accustomed to longer yellows".

Drivers not adapting is the same as not becoming "become accustomed to longer yellows". If they're not adapting then it means they won't "still run the red".

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dissy]

A countdown is very similar to an earlier yellow, but it only works at low speed intersections. I drive on a lot of 55 mph roads with signals. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to read a standard pedestrian countdown timer at these lights early enough to matter.

Most of the ones I have seen in practice don't have "countdown" timers in the sense of a number that counts backwards, but instead a bar graph style line made from LEDs that ticks down. The bar is usually the same height as the yellow section itself, which at night for a first time might be problematic, but otherwise you can see the entire bar section to know what 'full' is, and of course the amount illuminated is how much time is left.
Even at night it is very useful because the bar gets 'shorter' and less bright over all, so you can still get a fairly accurate 'feel' for how much time is left.

I agree with you that a number display (Which I have seen as well!) is a poor idea in some pretty common situations.

This isn't exactly the same, as this timer is on the red not yellow, and is wrapped around the light instead of next to it (even better imo) but is pretty close:

http://www.coated.com/traffic-light-with-countdown-to-go-green-1130090007/

Just convert that for yellow (or hell, all three colors!) and the plan is golden.
Sadly, I can't see many places getting funding approved for such a retrofit :/

Re:no-harm no-foul

[fuscus2010]

In a seaside town in Australia they used to have analog clock - style traffic controls for pedestrian crossings (and maybe a few intersections, my memory is a bit fuzzy), they had a loop of about sixty-seconds with a section green, a section amber and ,of course, a section red. They were not that effective, too many drivers would speed up to 'beat" to light. However, if we combined them with red light cameras and effective sanctions maybe they might work. Oh and down here a stop sign is also a giveway (yield) sign, in fact a rolling car always has right of way over a stationary one

Re:no-harm no-foul

[winwar]

"Technical problems: They're usually too small to safely take at speed so they slow everything down even with perfect drivers."

Technical solution: Fix the tires and suspension on your vehicle. :)

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Zakabog]

Yes, at that light people will likely not run the red, but when they come to the next light that doesn't have as long a yellow they might run the red thinking "Oh it'll stay yellow for another x seconds." It took a while adjusting from NYC to upstate NY, then back from upstate NY to NYC. Even traffics lights upstate, some would stay yellow for a long time, then some maybe a mile down the road would be quick, it seemed so random and I would end up stopping at yellows and driving through reds a lot.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[gasgesgos]

Also quite off topic, but there are a good number of us over here in the Fargo.

As for NDSU, it can be good times, lots of interesting people around and groups to hang out with. Classes can be fun too if you're actually interested in programming and projects.

Protip: join the ACM chapter. They can be an odd bunch at times (and the office has a scary couch) but it's a great group/place for studying, hanging out, projects, advice, and pulling all-nighters during dead week.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Vash21]

We have roundabouts here in America, just not many. I can tell you the reason Americans are unlikely to see more of them is because we have probably as many traffic lights as we do cars (I tried to find a number, came up empty), and because we have so many cars we get more congested traffic than (most) other countries do, making roundabouts more of a problem than a solution in many situations. Also the fact that in order to put in a roundabout and take out a traffic light takes completely demolishing and rebuilding the intersection, i really doubt that my government is going to jump on the idea to start spending billions on converting intersections to roundabouts any time soon, even if they save lives.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

"Roundabouts" work well for moderate traffic; they work less well than traffic lights for dense traffic.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Calinous]

Roundabouts require space (that might not be available). Also, roundabouts slows general traffic on high traffic roads (in this respect, green wave semaphores work better).
      However, roundabouts allow drivers on "yield" roads much easier left turns on high traffic roads (I know, I used to drive one before and after a roundabout was constructed).
      Also, traffic lights are friendlier for pedestrians on high traffic roads.

      As for studies/reports/..., I don't have any

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Richard_at_work]

And both of your 'problems' with roundabouts do not seem to impede my ability to drive a route that includes several busy ones per day in both directions, during rush hour. As other posters have noted - roundabouts are in daily use in the UK (and other places to note, but I am in the UK) and your 'problems' are not in evidence.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing could be said about stop lights.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Demonantis]

Stupid != Aggressive. The problem is a lot of Ontario drivers are stupid. I don't know what its like every where else in the province, but in Waterloo I know that I can't count the number of times I have watched people blow through lights when I am able to stop in the lane beside them. Just to meet them again at the next light because they couldn't blow through that one. Driving through lights might benefit you in the short term, but most of the time in city driving will take the same amount of time no matter what you do.

I like the line of no return idea too. Any driver could easily figure it out himself while approaching the intersection, but it might not be the best use of his attention. The more information the driver is given without having to calculate it the better off the decision is going to be.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for changing your opinion based on facts. Getting kind of rare these days (sorry no citation). :)

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Capt James McCarthy]

I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.

But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.

There is a second option, put the onus on the driver. You run the red light, you get a fine. You cause an accident, you are at fault. Oh wait, that's already the way it is. There are problems with districts shortening the yellow because the cost of renting the camera costs more then it raises. Same goes for speed cameras. Once folks know it's there, the camera starts to lose money. Thus the reason for the mobile cameras that have started to show up the last few years. There is no way to prevent folks from running a red light or speeding. And I'm as guilty as anyone for both. Though I rarely run red lights. But I do speed. Not excessively, but I will keep up with traffic movement which can be at 75 or 80mph in a 65 or 55 zone. Am I breaking the law. Yep. Can I be singled out and pulled over. Without argument (stating that "They are speeding too" is not a valid argument). But I run those speeds to not get run over and keep the flow of traffic moving.

The cameras are all about revenue. Period. Personally, I like the fact that there are no points. Yes, there is no due process which is very concerning. But the last time I got a ticket was 10 years ago. I think folks just need to be more aware when they drive. Eyes on the road will save your life.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[bigngamer92]

Except when a Traffic trailer needs to take one. I don't think anyone could navigate a round-a-bout in a tractor trailer.

Although, I would love to see most of the intersections in DC tore up and replaced with Round-a-Bouts. I hate the fact that you can get intersections which are practically 20 feet from each other.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[McGruber]

Yaah, they're called roundabouts. Problem is, they're too confusing for yanks apparently.

Roundabouts may be too confusing for the Confederates, but the Yanks certainly understand them - check out the New York State Roundabouts website: https://www.nysdot.gov/main/roundabouts

Re:no-harm no-foul

[TheoMurpse]

While in undergrad, my (now-doctor) wife rode in ambulances often. She said the ambulances she rode with had some sort of clicker device that turned cross traffic lights red and their light green upon approach.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[mcgrew]

I find it amusing yet depressing that people are concerned about shaving a few seconds off their travel when driving their car

I find it even more amusing and more depresing when it's obvious that speed isn't going to result in any time savings at all -- like racing to the red light. The damned light's RED, what's their hurry to get to it? In a city, the posted speed limit is meaningless; the actual time of your arrival is physically limited by the timing of the traffic lights. Speeding in a city doesn't save any time at all, all it does is wastes fuel, causes more pollution, and endangers lives.

It's annoying, though, when the traffic lights are timed at a speed higher than the posted limit. That's the only time speeding in a city will get you there faster.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them."

I couldn't agree more. My small town is notorious for its horrible stop light timing and no right on red at most stops. They recently put up those pedestrian timers you mentioned and it helps so much. Its a lot easier to determine how much time you have when the timer is visible!

Re:no-harm no-foul

[gfreeman]

Except when a Traffic trailer needs to take one. I don't think anyone could navigate a round-a-bout in a tractor trailer.

Why not? It happens all the time in the UK.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

"Big Ben... Parliament.... "

Re:no-harm no-foul

[tehcyder]

You remind me of an incident that I watched some years ago at an intersection between two major six-lane boulevards. A guy driving a very new Porsche noted the light change and quickly stopped. The guy in the 20 box truck behind him ... didn't. There was no way the truck was going to stop that fast. He pushed the Porsche all the way into the middle of the intersection. The guy in the Porsche jumped out of his car, and - the only time I've ever seen this - was jumping up and down and screaming in the middle of the intersection, literally "hopping mad". I doubt there was a printable word from his mouth in several minutes. I was amused. :) I'm bad. :(

I hope the guy driving the truck got the fucking book thrown at him.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[tehcyder]

* whoosh *

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has a lot of round-abouts. They are extremely large and mostly only on interstate highway intersections.

Here is an example ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Interchange

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=springfield+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.14027,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Springfield,+Fairfax,+Virginia&ll=38.790118,-77.173977&spn=0.022311,0.045447&t=h&z=15

Re:no-harm no-foul

[tehcyder]

Technical problems: They're usually too small to safely take at speed so they slow everything down even with perfect drivers.

Er, that's kind of the whole point of a roundabout - even when you have collisions they tend to be at lower speeds and therefore result in fewer serious injuries/deaths

Re:no-harm no-foul

[mcgrew]

Here in Springfield, IL they changed to the all-red, and it simply resulted in people more blatatly running the lights.

There's a local joke, to "get" the joke you have to understand that Springfield is the Capital of Illinois, and that politicians here are corrupt. It's funnier if you've actually been here and seen how the cartoonish people here drive. Picture the cab in Who framed Roger Rabbit and you'll get an idea of it.

A man flies to Chicago and hails a cab at the airport. He's terrified when the driver runs a red light. "HEY! You just ran that light!"

"It's OK", the cabbie says, "I'm from Springfield."

He runs another red light. "You ran another one!" the passenger exclaims.

"It's OK, I told you, I'm from Springfield." He then slams on the brakes at a green light. The confused passenger says "Why did you do that?

The cabbie replies "My brother's in town. He's from Springfield, too."

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I don't think I would count access ramps on interstates as a round-about.

I consider a proper round-about being a circular intersection that allows a driver to chose between maintaining course or exiting to another road, while drivers from the other roads can do the same (ie. A round-about should take the place of a traditional stop light).

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to break this to you, but:

1. It's roundabout, not round-about
2. That is NOT a roundabout.
3. You probably call them a rotary over there

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Cro Magnon]

On the other hand, the amount of gas used to start a modern car engine is roughly 20 seconds of idling, so people could wise up and actually turn off their cars during those 3 minutes instead of uselessly polluting the air.

It would not be fun to be behind a driver at a 3-minute light when they get bored and by the time they quit texting, restart the car and cross the street, the light has turned and now I have to wait 3 more minutes.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Painted]

Well, in that scenario, at least the accident is a side-to-side clipping as opposed to a T-Bone head-on-to-side accident, so injuries and damage is mitigated. I've been directly behind a guy in that situation (if he hadn't been there I would have been the person she plowed into), and it was fender bender all around. The same cars in a T-bone situation would both have had to been towed and get extensive repairs.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Bill_the_Engineer]

1. Crap he caused me to hyphenate too... 2. They are called Cloverleaf interchanges.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[quanticle]

Oh wait, it's still bogged down with streets laid down during the fucking Dark Ages.

The really old sections of most cities in Europe are actually quite small. Why? Back then, people had to walk everywhere. If you were really rich (e.g. top .5%) you got a horse. Back then, even 1 mile was considered quite a commute. Most of any given city in Europe was built during the Industrial Revolution. The older American cities (e.g. New York, Philadelphia, Boston) were built up during the Industrial Revolution as well.

But New York, Boston, and Philadelphia aren't the sort of cities in which most American's live. Most Americans live in cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, and Kansas City. These cities weren't built until after World War 2, when gas was cheap and cars were the future. These cities explicitly rejected the urban planning process that European cities and older American cities used and instead opted to build lots of highways and allow residents to build outward at will. Now that the conditions that fostered their growth are going away, all of these cities are starting to hurt.

So yeah, European urban planning is a shining beacon. We used it to build cities like New York and Washington DC. We consciously turned away from that beacon in the '50s. And now we're paying for it in the form of vast quantities of obsolete infrastructure, maintenance nightmares, and hastened resource constraints.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[mcgrew]

They've been installed in my city at a few intersections

They've been installed in mine in quite a few, and they are indeed good. However, it results in people speeding through intersections, since when they see the countdown begin they speed up, and if they're behind you they get dangerously close. It does help, but no matter what you do to try to reduce danger, idiots will misuse ot and still create danger.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[mcgrew]

they're too confusing for yanks apparently

Oh, really?

The problem with roundabouts is they take more room than simple intersections.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a two lane roundabout right around the corner from my work and whenever I walk by I'm guaranteed to hear at least one honk. Most sections of road would have their ease of use measured in honks/hour but this intersection is measured in honks/minute.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[quacking duck]

That's what your car's horn is for.

Unless the car's a clunker, restarting the car and putting it into drive should take no more than 5 seconds.

Boredom and texting is irrelevant, they can just as easily do that if their car is idling the entire time.

If, after 3 minutes of red, that light isn't green for at least 30 seconds, that's a problem with traffic management, not with turning off the car to save gas and emissions. Mind you, a 3 minute wait is already a problem IMHO.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[JimFive]

Got a better design,

Yes, put the traffic lights on posts on the near side of the intersection instead of on a wire across the middle of the intersection, or, worse, on the far side of the intersection. -- JimFive

Re:no-harm no-foul

[InsaneProcessor]

When I was taught to drive (about 36 years ago), a yellow light meant to slow down and try to stop now because you are going to have to shortly and people in the other turn lane need to clear the intersections so, give them a chance.

Now, the yellow light seems to mean that you need to hurry up and get through so you don't get stuck at the red light that is coming. I have been rear ended twice in the last 6 years because the idiot behind me has no common sense and no business behind the wheel.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Quirkz]

Hm. My town has a couple of roundabouts, and I find them exceptionally dangerous in winter. Instead of being able to drive straight through the intersection, you're forced to drive in a big, looping arc where it's easier to skid out of control. And if someone's in the roundabout and you need to yield, you still risk sliding into traffic if you can't slow down or stop properly.

Plus neither drivers nor pedestrians seem to be able to use them properly, which dramatically increases the risk of collisions.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[CAIMLAS]

Here here! I love those countdown timers. They help a LOT when navigating an unfamiliar city, with light timing you're not familiar with (as it seems to vary from intersection to intersection at times). You can avoid paying as much attention to the lights and instead pay closer attention to what's important: the traffic and people who may jump out into the street at any time.

For instance, if I see a countdown of 5 and I'm almost to the light, I know I can go through and will miss the red. If it's 1 or 2, I'll be able to anticipate it a bit better. If it's 8+ I can just ignore the light all together and pay attention to the traffic, knowing it's not going to suddenly switch to yellow on me.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[grahamsz]

I've seen them run at 50 and 60 mph just fine, of course it just takes one dumbass doing something stupid to screw up the whole traffic flow (though isn't that true of nearly all traffic flows).

For high traffic levels i'm not sure they are any better than traffic lights, but they are great when traffic is low because they don't slow down your journey by making you wait at reds when no-one is coming the other way.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[CAIMLAS]

There is a road in my town that is about 3 miles long with 8 stoplights on it. It's the same regardless of which direction you're coming from. You will hit every single light at "red" unless:

* You speed at least 8mph over the limit
* There is no traffic/you weave in and out of slower traffic
* You get to the first light just as it's turning green or right before it turns red/as it's changing.

This turns a 5 minute drive into a 20 minute drive, regardless of traffic. It's infuriating. However, you can "short circuit" it if you run the first red light.

These systems are designed to bring in ticket revenue. It's sadly the way it is.

Additionally, it's a bit more than "saving 5 seconds". It's about saving gas, reducing wear/tear on your vehicle, and improving your life. Think it's silly to save 5 seconds? Then don't hesitate to do things like not upgrade your computer, ever (it's only 5 seconds here and there), maintain your vehicle (sure it accelerates slower over time if not maintained, but it's only 5 seconds), let your steak sear for 5 seconds more than you thought it should, and so on. That's time you could be using, and it aggregates quickly. Five seconds per stop sign, 30 seconds per day, half an hour a year. By the time you're 50, you've spent hours of your life stopping at stop signs when there's no reasonable cause for it. Wonderful!

Re:no-harm no-foul

[commodore64_love]

>>>It is not the roundabouts that are dangerous, it is the morons that are abusing them that are dangerous.

So then why bother to replace the redlights, if the new idea can also be abused, and therefore no more effective?

Re:no-harm no-foul

[commodore64_love]

I still think redlights are safer than roundabouts.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[stewbacca]

I keep seeing this argument that red light offenses are those of us who are in the intersection when it turns red. That sucks if it's true. However, the article says they are using video, not stills, so when reviewing the tapes, it should be clear who is running red lights versus who was in the intersection when it turned red. The latter should never be ticketed.

In any case, I've been driving for 22 years and can count on one hand the number of times I've misjudged a yellow light and was in the intersection when it turned red, and I can count on ZERO fingers the number of times I've ran through a light that was red before I got to the intersection. Those people are dangerous assholes who need a hefty fine.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[commodore64_love]

There are just some things that work in Europe, but not the US. Like 1, 2, or 5 dollar coins. Coins may be sturdier than paper, but Americans hate them jangling around in their pockets and have always chosen paper over coins. Likewise I think roundabouts may be one of those European ideas (like government monopoly care) that simply won't work in the US.

Your study says roundabouts reduce the number of accidents from people who drive through redlights but does not say it reduces all accidents. Roundabouts simply introduce a NEW kind of accident - sideswiping, bumper grinding, and so on. They also increase bicycling accidents: "The findings were not as favorable for cyclists though. Of the injury accidents reported for roundabouts, 36 percent involved two-wheeled vehicles, as compared to only 23 percent at signalized intersections."

Also I wonder if the decreased rate (5 per 100 cars versus 7 per 100 cars) is because the drivers, like me, are extra cautious. As drivers become more familiar with the new system, they'll probably grow more wreckless, drive faster speeds, and the accident rate will climb again to match the old redlight signal.

And finally:

A lot of the redlight problems disappear with better traffic control, like lower limits (35) and left-turn signals that prevent cross-traffic collisions. To me forcing people to stop is safer than introducing a circle where people zip-around like the Indy 500.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[stewbacca]

I'm American and lived in England for a few years. Roundabouts work well in England but would require some serious retraining here. When we do have them, all four entries have a yield sign, as the only indication of how to navigate one. In England, you have to stick your nose in, and the other drivers let you in. That doesn't work in America, because we are assholes who drive giant trucks and we are more important than the next guy.

Roundabouts do save a lot of time on a commute though. When there's no traffic, you never sit at a red light. When there's moderate traffic, it's no worse than slowing down to rubberneck something on the side of the road. When there's heavy traffic, they work better than giant intersections with several light/turn cycles.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[mhajicek]

Most people don't use turn signals at all. I'm surprised police don't ticket for that more often.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[stewbacca]

That's true in normal intersections as well.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Dashiva Dan]

The warning blinking light we have in australia in a few places (Aroun dSydney, at least) although it is more often used for blind crests and the like. This was actually what I thought would be a more economical practical idea when i read the GGP's idea.
Should be cheaper and simpler: if you see the blinking light, slow down and prepare to stop.
The problem is that whatever method is used, there are people who will push the limits. Seeing a countdown or a flashing light or any early warning will just tell them 'speed up' and potentially result in far worse accidents.
Any such 'early warning' system would need to be coupled with speed cameras to punish such behavour.
(Personally, I'd probably fall into the 'step on it' category, myself)

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Dashiva Dan]

Bloody lazy folks: Roundabout Studies

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Aaron.SD]

"... and you can start slowing down earlier." or speeding up (seems more likely.)

Re:no-harm no-foul

[mdielmann]

I find it amusing yet depressing that people are concerned about shaving a few seconds off their travel when driving their car -- potential risks be damned! -- but when it actually would require physical effort on their part to move faster -- moving faster than a slow crawl when walking -- those same people won't step up to the plate.

I'm pretty sure stepping up to the plate is something these people have no problem with. So long as it's a dinner plate.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Cederic]

Learn to drive.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Cederic]

I've taken roundabouts in the UK without braking at all, when driving down roads with a national speed limit. On my normal commute there are roundabouts that I get grumpy about slowing down to 50 on.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you drive through all 423,970 km2 of California, or are you basing your categorization of 'California' based upon a few tens of km2? When I lived there, most of the intersections that I regularly drove through in LA County had a half second delay where directions were red.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll never know. It was a long time ago. I wouldn't have been quick to judge. I really didn't see ahead of time so he might have been following too close, but I think that even if the Porsche had not been there the truck could not have stopped before going over the line, so he was figuring on going through.

IIRC it was a Porsche 911, which (again IIRC) can stop at close to 1G - well beyond what most cars, much less loaded trucks can do. No doubt the trucker was officially to blame (in Oregon at least, if you rear-end someone you are almost automatically guilty of following too close) but I think the Porsche guy would have been wise (self-preservation) to consider what's behind him as well as what's in front of him. He really could have gone through the light - it was still red for me.

So he was doing the 'right thing' to stop, but it didn't work out well. Nevertheless the trucker was at fault - either too close, or too fast.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[icebike]

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light.

[Citation Needed]

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Goat of Death]

Show me some statistics that prove the "obvious" safety of a full and complete stop vs a 1-3mph (a walk basically) rolling stop. Telling me it's just obvious to you people should full stop doesn't cut it. Especially when the majority of people's driving habits show otherwise. Last time I checked this is supposed to be a democracy. So if the majority of folks roll stops then quite simply it should be legal behavior.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Anonymous Coward]

round abouts work great until a certain threshold of traffic is met, after that, its great for the main arteries going in, not so much for the lesser ones..

Re:no-harm no-foul

[jemtallon]

Keep in mind the roundabout forces people to slow down well before the intersection, especially on ice. With a traditional stop light people tend to go the speed limit while it's green, assuming it'll stay that way. It can easily switch to red fast enough that it's impossible to stop on ice. This should translate to people driving slower so they can stop but that's often not the case.

With a roundabout it's a certainty that you'll need to slow down to 10ish miles per hour to make the tight turns without sliding onto the curb so people always slow down. Even in the worst case scenario you have a reckless driver who only slows down to 20mph and strikes a car from the side. That's much better than the stoplight's worst case.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Mr. Freeman]

NO! The point of a roundabout is to eliminate the need to have a light stop traffic in various directions. The roundabout is supposed to facilitate traffic flow. Making them small enough to the point that they slow down traffic defeats the purpose.

"Presumption of innocence"?

[Gordonjcp]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent? Bear in mind that red light cameras don't tend to trip below about 5mph, so "I just pulled into the junction to let the ambulance past" won't fly.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Peach Rings]

The point is that they have to prove you did it. Fundamental tenant of criminal justice, etc.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[clang_jangle]

Yes, and we all know how infallible those revenue-generating ticket machines are. Also your local government would *never* cheat...

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Qzukk]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

Do the cameras actually show the light in the picture? Are the cameras positioned so you can actually tell if the vehicle is over the line or not?

If the camera doesn't show that the light is red, how do you know that the light isn't malfunctioning and taking the picture while yellow or green?
If you can't see whether you're over the line or not, how do you know that you actually ran it?

I drive through several of these things every evening on my way home. I've never seen one flash while the light is green or yellow, but I get flashed by them all the time while I'm coming to stop at a red light (I've seen them go off in the middle of a red light when nobody's even moving). I guess someone must review the picture to make sure the car photographed is actually in the intersection because I've never gotten a ticket.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Yakasha]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent? Bear in mind that red light cameras don't tend to trip below about 5mph, so "I just pulled into the junction to let the ambulance past" won't fly.

Just a few:

• The city improperly shortened the timing on the yellow light.
• The date on the camera is wrong.
• The camera violates anti-wiretapping laws
• My brakes were broken
• That isn't my car

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[lisany]

The photograph IS the proof.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

Many ways. It could have been wild kids putting printouts of my plate on theirs, and then blowing threw the lights so that I could be mailed the ticket, it could be a computer error (those never happen), it could be foul play, maybe a database problem. The prevailing assumption from this line of rationale is that even though technology progresses, nothing is absolute. And if you are willing to risk your criminal history, driving record, insurance cost, etc against an electronic system sold to people who haven't been known to be the most honest with matters of money and law, well good sir, keep pissing it away.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Venotar]

Bear in mind that red light cameras don't tend to trip below about 5mph, so "I just pulled into the junction to let the ambulance past" won't fly.

You're completely incorrect. As the article specified, they DO catch "rolling stops", if a rolling stop didn't end up in a citation, it's simply because the officials managing the particular municipality's red light enforcement chose not to issue a citation (whether because they felt it was too close to call, or they felt no traffic hazard existed, or because of an internal policy, or a technical problem, or just human oversight). In fact, the article specifically mentioned "pulling into the junction to let the ambulance past" as one of the reasons a citation wasn't issued to some of the recorded incidents.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

And what happens if I own the exact same model of car, same color, same look and feel, and somebody drives through that light with a well done forgery of the innocent persons plates, landing them a ticket, with the picture as 'proof' and all.

Oh but the picture shows them guilty. They must have done it. Don't be so willing to throw away the "Innocent until proven guilty" clause to the heralding of new technology. Because that just means you will see ten-fold increase in convictions by 'no presumption of innocence', as you have happily given away your right to fight by not voting the county-city-state 'tards out who made it all possible.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Gordonjcp]

As the article specified, they DO catch "rolling stops"

If you're rolling, you haven't stopped. If the light is red, you must stop. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The photograph proves only that there is a photograph. It's not like it's a video, nor is the camera positioned to see the light. It could be set to just snap a pic every three minutes for all we know. They do malfunction, also they lose calibration. Some states are considering banning red light cameras altogether, so there is clearly plenty of cause for concern about the issue.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Hylandr]

In the college town I live in the red light cameras trigger enough times for a car coming to a stop that the flash actually strobes.

I have watched multiple false positives and Zero positives.

That is to say I haven't seen the red light camera flash on a single car running the red light.

- Dan.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the photograph is taken from an angle that shows the red-light state of the light, then that could be acceptable proof. But most of the photographs just prove that the car went through the intersection, not that the light was red at the time.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

not when you have a right to cross-examine the witness, it's not, notably since cameras are not people. In case you're wondering, jackass, thousands of tickets have been thrown out in multiple states for this.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worse than that -- there is generally no presumption of innocence for infractions to begin with.

For example, in my state, infractions have been handled completely under civil rules since 1981. (AFAICT, before that they were handled with criminal rules at trial (e.g. informing of your right to a jury trial; you still have the right in civil cases, but they no longer need to tell you), but still had civil standard for proof ("weight of the evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt").

So a cop saying you ran a red light, and you say you didn't, but can't bring any evidence? You lose, because a sworn officer's testimony carries more weight than yours. Contrast to a criminal trial -- a cop accuses you of robbery, rape, or murder, you say you didn't, and in the absence of other evidence you walk, because there's still reasonable doubt.

Frankly, I find the notion of being convicted upon evidence from an untampered automated camera much more palatable than being convicted on the testimony of a human -- my complaint is with the laws themselves (more with speed cameras than red-lights), and with the system which gives the city a motive to focus enforcement (and even other areas, e.g. shortening yellows) on profit from fines rather than on public safety.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The timing of the yellow light has nothing to do with whether or not you ran the red.
Why should the date on the camera make any difference? It's proof of what you did.
Wiretapping has nothing to do with taking pictures of public behavior.
Are broken brakes a defense against moving violations? I don't think they should be.
If that isn't your car, why does it have your license plate?

Is this the best you can do?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[mangu]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

If the man was alive and you killed him, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

What you are saying is that if someone is murdered and the security cameras point at you a trial is not needed.

In the case that you were trying to say that running a red light is not as bad as murdering someone, therefore the standards of fairness should be set lower, then the US Constitution has something to say about that. The Sixth Amendment says you have a right to trial by jury in any criminal case. If it's a civil case the Seventh Amendment says there's a right to trial by jury whenever the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.

Don't like that? Change the Constitution, there's a well-defined procedure for doing it.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't driving the car - someone else was

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[digitig]

The UK system for motoring offences caught on camera (most, I'm not sure whether it's true of all) is you are given the option of taking it to court or paying a reduced penalty.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

The photograph IS the proof.

Hi,

We're from The National Enquirer. We would like to make you an offer.

Sincerely, The National Enquirer

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[operagost]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

- Yellow is too short to allow a safe stop
- Stoplight malfunction (changed from green to red without a yellow; stoplight in 4-way flash)

Bear in mind that red light cameras don't tend to trip below about 5mph, so "I just pulled into the junction to let the ambulance past" won't fly.

Because equipment never malfunctions.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Surt]

The cameras in my area snap a picture of your car and the red light, from behind. Showing you, in the intersection, with the light red.

Are there really cameras out there that don't do this?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[operagost]

If one photograph is all we need to prove guilt for all crimes, then with one copy of Photoshop and a few minutes, I can rule the world.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

The photograph IS the proof.

If the driver is not positively identified then it is only proof of the vehicle's role in the infraction; not the identity of the perpetrator.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[MozeeToby]

There are legal requirements for the length of the yellow that are dependent upon the speed limit on the road. The city violating those requirements would significantly weaken their position that you could have avoided going through the red light. Taken to the logical extreme, imagine the city shortens the yellow light to 0 seconds and then fines everyone for going through on red.

Camera date is the weakest of his arguments, but it does point to general problems within the system and chain of evidence. If nothing else, if the camera says you were at intersection X at 1pm on Tuesday and you can prove that you and your car were somewhere else it weakens their case considerably.

Police departments have recently been using wiretap laws to argue that it is illegal to film them in public. This is simply turning that argument around on them, more in protest to their not wanting to be filmed than an argument to your innocence. Still a point worth mentioning since the argument has worked for others (the police) in the past.

Broken brakes would result in a fix-it ticket, generally little to no fine if you provide proof that the issue has been professionally repaired. Yes, this is absolutely a valid defense assuming that it is true.

Stolen plates, you let someone borrow the car, stolen car... all situations which would end up with you getting a ticket that for an action that you never performed. You might have to prove that one of these was the case, but it is a valid argument.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Surt]

They typically take three photos:
Photo one shows you, not yet in the intersection, and the light is red.
Photo two shows your back axle over the line and the light is still red.
Photo three shows the drivers face through the front windshield.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[IgnitusBoyone]

The that isn't my car thing isn't likely to happen, but I am more concerned with. It was stolen or I That is not me in that video driving.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[twoallbeefpatties]

The photograph IS the proof.

I've gotten hit twice in the past year on making legal right-hand turns on red lights. The first one I thought it so obvious that I was making a legal right turn that I requested a hearing without my presence, figuring that the judge would get it. They still charged me. For the second one, I'm waiting to get my hearing date. Either way, I think that sometimes the "proof" can be logically disputed.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[lisany]

I'm not sure where you've been for the past 150 years but photography is not new.

Who do you think has to prove innocence when the likeness of a man with no twins is caught on film shooting someone? I'd say a photograph is very compelling evidence and I'm pretty sure the courts agree, but, IANAL.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Nukenbar]

When you mail in your ticket, you almost always sign a line saying that you are pleading guilty to the crime/infraction. If you want to fight it you can go to court. No different than when a cop gives you a ticket.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[WrongSizeGlass]

If one photograph is all we need to prove guilt for all crimes, then with one copy of Photoshop and a few minutes, I can rule the world.

You'll rule the world until me and my copy of Photoshop show you stealing crack from a baby. How could you??

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Compholio]

The timing of the yellow light has nothing to do with whether or not you ran the red.

In some states it's illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Fortunately in many states, mine included, if you've entered while the light is yellow then you're good to go - provided that you don't stop while you're still in the intersection.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[RackinFrackin]

Some states are considering banning red light cameras altogether, so there is clearly plenty of cause for concern about the issue.

At least one state has already done it.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Tubal-Cain]

Yet grasp it they do not. Apparently it's a large problem at stop signs.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Culture20]

Photo three shows the drivers face through the front windshield.

Not where I'm from. They don't care about the driver. They care about the person the license plate is registered to. That's who gets the ticket.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[sqlrob]

No, it's not.

Was there a police officer waving people through?
Is the timing of the camera correct?
Is the aiming of the camera correct?

There have been tickets issued because of all of these factors.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[trentblase]

Happened to me today. I better not get a ticket. And the strobe light is a hazard in itself.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[trentblase]

I'm sure there are. Does the system in your area capture in color and also snap from the front to show your face?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[by (1706743)]

If the light is red, you must stop. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

I don't think you have to stop at a red; you merely can't pass through the intersection / across the magic "Stop Here" line.

Apparently it is a hard concept to grasp...

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Back when they still had photo radar here, they were fishing in a 50km/h zone, then went out to the highway. They forgot to change the speed up to 80km/h and everyone who went past the van got a ticket.

They refused to overturn the tickets until someone went to the local media pointing out that there was a Jersey Barrier in the background, showing that it was in fact on the highway. As far as I know, you still had to go to court to get the tickets overturned, one at a time.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[curmudgeous]

"Right turn on red after stop" is perfectly legal in TN unless otherwise posted. Problem is that "after stop" bit. A lot of drivers have gotten in the habit of slowing down, looking for oncoming traffic, then continuing on without coming to a complete stop. A traffic officer would normally decide whether to cite the driver based on overall factors (did the driver slow down enough {very subjective}; was the driver being reckless). It's a gray line that gets crossed often and one that traffic cameras are not equipped to handle.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[raving griff]

The cameras I have seen take photos of your license plate, not your vehicle. Therefore, they can uniquely identify your vehicle. Additionally, the higher-budget cameras have a second camera several yards past the intersection that attempts to photograph the driver.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Spectre]

[blockquote]If that isn't your car, why does it have your license plate?[/blockquote]

It's actually become a rather common pranking/harassment tactic in some areas, particularly with high schoolers who are irritated at one of their teachers.

The basketball coach kicked you off the team 'cause you were late to practice one too many times?

He drives a blue sedan with license plate Oklahoma plate SAM 123, so you get a piece of paper and some felt tip markers, dummy up a SAM 123 license plate, tape it over the real license plate of any blue sedan that is close at hand, then go run some red lights ...

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[trentblase]

The Sixth Amendment says you have a right to trial by jury in any criminal case

Not quite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#United_States

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it depends on exactly what the laws of your area are.

Here, it is only an infraction if you ENTER the intersection on a red light. So, in reality, they SHOULD require two photographs to convict...one showing you not in the intersection when the light is ALREADY red, and the second with you in the intersection with the light still red.

Sadly, what a fucking shock, the one with you in the intersection on red is all they need. And good luck protesting that you "entered on yellow" - its the presumption of guilt - prove you were in on yellow or pay your fine.

Fuckers

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[causality]

I'm not sure where you've been for the past 150 years but photography is not new.

Who do you think has to prove innocence when the likeness of a man with no twins is caught on film shooting someone? I'd say a photograph is very compelling evidence and I'm pretty sure the courts agree, but, IANAL.

I heard a story about a guy who got nailed by a red light camera when they were new. The camera captured a photo of his vehicle and license plate going through the intersection. A printout of this photo was mailed to his home address along with the traffic ticket. He wanted to protest the use of cameras. Let's assume the fine was $100. So he takes five $20 bills and lays them out on a table. He snaps a photo of the $100 and mails that to the courthouse with a note asking that they accept his payment.

Several days later, he receives another piece of mail from the police. It contains a photo of handcuffs. So he promptly stops by the courthouse and pays the ticket with actual currency.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cynyr]

depending on the state, the owner of the car is still liable, unless the car is reported stolen. In other states it is the driver of the car at the time. Your car, your responsibility to ensure it acts correctly.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

While this is true in some jurisdiction, statements like:

A motion responding to two $10 million lawsuits in Hamilton County chancery court says a camera infraction that carries a $50 civil penalty has a lower standard of constitutional protection than criminal offenses....

...The court filing obtained by the Chattanooga Times Free Press says offenders "are not entitled to a trial by jury, a presumption of innocence or a heightened burden of proof.

are not very reassuring for the future of the proliferation of these devices, and further spin-offs that use the same automate-print-fine process.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[goontz]

And these kids making printouts of others plates have the exact same year, make, model, and color car as you? Sorry, that's pretty far-fetched, even for the sake of argument. If that's honestly the case, you could fight the ticket. In addition, the video of every infraction is reviewed by an officer before they decide to send a ticket or not (at least in my case -- see comment of mine below --, and I would assume this is common practice). That should rule out any technology-based errors or even the system being erroneously triggered. If there really is a legitimate error, or if you really weren't the one driving your vehicle, you should have no problem getting it dismissed and not paying the fine.

Furthermore, they are non-moving violations (again, at least in my case - I don't know if this varies by state or location). This is the same as getting a parking ticket or something. Your "criminal history, driving record, insurance cost, etc" are not in any danger.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[jollespm]

I've gotten a ticket for running a red light in my town. It had 2 photos, one of me in front of the stop line with the stoplight visible, and a counter that says the red light has been red for x.xx seconds. The second photo was me in the middle of the intersection about a half a second later.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[InfiniteWisdom]

You are still liable

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[lgw]

Yes quite. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ...". We may have an abhorrant tradition of ignoring the Constitution when it's inconvenient, but that's still what the Sixth Amendment says, in simple unambiguous English.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Sarten-X]

If there's an officer directing traffic, than it's very likely that the incident will be "rejected by the reviewing officer". If the timing/aiming of the camera is wrong, then it's similar to the use of a speed gun. During the legal process, you have a right to a full and complete trial. You have the right to ask for the camera to be inspected, and maintenance logs reviewed (though the court may decide not to grant your request).

The photograph is proof that your car was in a certain position at a certain time. If you want to fight that, go for it. If you want to avoid legal fees, read a few dozen law books and represent yourself.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're rolling, you haven't stopped. If the light is red, you must stop. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

"But officer, I almost stopped!"
"Suppose I were to start beating you with this nightstick. Would you want me to stop beating you with this nightstick, or to almost stop beating you with this nightstick?" :)

(An old joke from back in the days when civilians had to earn a beating from the cops, rather than just getting one for the hell of it, so the joke could be given (and recieved) as a joke about what it means to "almost" stop, rather than a threat.)

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

I get that from a liability standpoint, if someone gets into an accident with your car:it's on you. But that seems like a different issue, this is about the driving record of the person at the wheel. Do they not issue points on your license from these tickets?
If a cop pulls me over running a red light in my wife's car, I would get the points. If I fled the scene before they could identify me, they might later track down my wife, but they would still have to prove it was her driving. A camera shouldn't get to skip this step.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[SoapBox17]

It always takes two pictures in rapid succession. That's how the person reviewing them can tell how fast you were going. If your car is in the same location in both pictures, you weren't going through the light. If your car is at the line in the first picture, and half way through in the second, then you're screwed.

How do people not know this? It's not that hard to figure out.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Misch]

And cities have been proven to have shortened yellow signals beyond the limits to increase violations.

And it's not just the municipalities. The standards themselves have been modified to allow shorter and shorter yellows.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Peach Rings]

How do you question a witness in a case of mail fraud, or wire fraud?

They just need an expert witness to testify that the proof is inconclusive. There's also probably some mechanism for not having to show the same thing a thousand times in court.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[mea37]

Many good points, but wrong (at least in MO) on this count: "or if you really weren't the one driving your vehicle"

When camera-enforcement is installed, the authorities are almost always interested in not having to prove who is the driver. Hence, camera-enforced tickets are typically categorized as non-moving violations. Yes, I know the obvious semantic problem with this; go ahead and argue that with the judge if you want to annoy him or her.

The thing about a non-moving violation is, it doesn't matter who was driving. It doesn't even matter whether anyone was driving; non-moving violations are typically things like parking tickets. The ticket is issued against the vehicle, and the owner pays. Your kid takes the car out, and lets his buddy drive, and his buddy runs a camera-enforced red light? You will receive and be liable for the ticket.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I receieved one of these tickets in the mail a few years ago. Pictures of my car, closeup of license plates front and rear, timers, red light status, close-up of my girlfriend driving.

I showed her the pictures.

Her reply, "I never did that!"

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Peach Rings]

And was there an emergency vehicle behind you honking over and over to make you run the light?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[sjames]

Only if you presume that the camera is infallible. Otherwise, did it actually get a picture of your car in motion across the stop line while the light was red? Who was driving the car? Perhaps it went off spontaneously while you were stopped for the red. Perhaps it went off just as you came to a safe stop at the line. Perhaps the light wasn't actually red. Someone else might have been driving your car. Is the timestamp on the photo accurate?

On to the light itself. Was the yellow sufficiently long that an adequately skilled driver could either stop safely or proceed through the intersection (including the time necessary to make that judgment call with a reasonable margin for error)? Was it so short that it is literally impossible to stop in time to avoid running the red? Perhaps it is only sometimes possible to avoid running the red or it will require an unsafe stop to avoid it.

According to the Constitution, it's up to the prosecution to prove all of these things beyond reasonable doubt. If the courts can't hold to that, they are LITERALLY un-American and are enemies of the people.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Attila Dimedici]

The photograph IS the proof.

At best the photograph is proof that my car went through the red light. As far as I know, no state legislature has passed into law a penalty for owning a car that someone else drove through a red light.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[GumphMaster]

In my city (in Australia) a red light camera will trigger if the stop line is crossed after the red signal, takes two photographs in succession, and both photographs show the traffic light assembly. To get through adjudication to the issue of an infringement the car must be moving, i.e. the two photos show it was still moving, the plate must be clearly readable (they are very picky about this), and the lights must be showing red.

Presumption of innocence is preserved. The infringement notice is issued to the registered owner who may then nominate the driver if it was not them. If the owner, or the actual driver, pays the fine that is the end of the matter. It costs nothing to allow the matter to go to court where a magistrate will decide based on whatever evidence is available (the photo, stolen vehicle report, any alibi you have etc). The traffic camera people may be asked if they can identify the driver's face although this is normally not possible. To temper abuse of this system a magistrate can issue a penalty worse than the speeding fine, or acquit you. You get to choose your poison.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens if I own the exact same model of car, same color, same look and feel, and somebody drives through that light with a well done forgery of the innocent persons plates, landing them a ticket, with the picture as 'proof' and all.

Then you can argue your point in court and convince the judge that you're right.

Yes, yes, I know, presumption of innocence means that you shouldn't have to convince the judge of anything or argue any point, right? Wrong.

Here's the thing: there is such a thing as "reasonable doubt". Just what is reasonable depends on the circumstances, but you cannot just come up with any arbitrarily outlandish theory and then tell the state to prove you wrong.

The question of where the line should be drawn is an interesting one, of course, and much ink has been spilled over it, but you're missing all these details. If the judge tells the state "prove that cosm really did it", and the state produces photographic evidence showing someone who looks exactly like cosm, in a car that looks exactly like cosm's, with cosm's license plates, doing exactly what cosm was accused of... then you can't just scream "presumption of innocence, I do not accept this as valid evidence". Rather, if you want this evidence thrown out, you'll have to argue why it really isn't valid evidence after all.

Sorry, but that's the way things worked - and how they've always worked.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

That's an amazingly loaded question, and by doing that you've made it utterly unconnected to reality. In real life, the question is: "If someone (possibly you) drove what is (almost certainly) your car through that intersection at some time when the light may have been red, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?"

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[bws111]

Are you sure those are cameras? Around here, there are strobe lights in front of some red lights just to further call your attention to the red light. There are no cameras.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean if you were a twin and they caught your brother on film killing someone but that night you were home alone and he has 5 buddies saying he was partying with them all night?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[sqlrob]

Exactly, which is different from the absolute claim that the photograph is the proof.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[goontz]

Interesting points. I knew they are non-moving, but didn't ever really stop and think of why that's the case.

In my recent case ( http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1735716&cid=33062102 ), I remember there being some fine print that included an explanation of what steps to take if you weren't the one driving, car had been sold, you were yielding to an emergency vehicle, etc. I wish I still had it handy to read in greater detail what it said. I suspect there would be an affidavit involved plus lots of supporting documentation. Proving you weren't the driver would surely be he hardest (if not impossible) to support. I'm sure it's not a fun or easy process, if you're ever realistically going to have it reversed, but that's the limited knowledge I was basing my reply on.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

If she lets her doppelganger drive your car, then you get to sleep with it. I think the law is pretty clear on that, but the Weird Stuff provisions vary by state.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[radish]

But that's not the point. It's not about "weakening their case" - that points to getting out of a punishment, not being innocent. I'd agree that an abnormally short yellow is a valid argument for "I couldn't avoid it", but broken brakes? If your car isn't properly maintained that's your fault, so it's your fault you ran the light, so you're guilty.

I got a parking ticket the other day, and I'm sure I could have tried a million ways to get out of it by challenging the time or the signage or something like that - but you know what? I was parked illegally, I knew I was taking a risk, and I got caught. Mea culpa.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's terrible! In both cases someone has had their soul taken from them! I don't understand how people continue this barbaric practice after all this time. Why do people kill people? Because someone took a picture of them as a kid, their soul was removed by that act, leaving a soulless demon in their place. It was probably at a birthday party, too. And now we have automatted ways of turning people into demons at these red-lights. Ever wonder why they're only at red-lights, huh?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Le Marteau]

> The photograph IS the proof.

No, the photograph is EVIDENCE.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

But just like if you let someone use your car and they get into a wreck its your responsibility.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the quotation marks.

Not a hard concept to grasp.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[drsmithy]

If the camera doesn't show that the light is red, how do you know that the light isn't malfunctioning and taking the picture while yellow or green?

I can't speak for the US cameras, but they *should* be built with a physical connection that prevents the camera from activating unless the light is red.

If you can't see whether you're over the line or not, how do you know that you actually ran it?

Because they don't activate until the light is red. If your picture is taken by one, it's because you ran the red (more accurately, because you crossed the line after the light was red and the camera was activated) - it's not possible for the camera to take a picture otherwise because it's not active.

Cameras take multiple pictures that are reviewed. Just stopping over the line probably won't net you a fine (thought it's usually illegal). You'll almost always need to be caught on multiple pictures actually driving through the intersection to get fined.

It shouldn't take anyone of even average intelligence more than a few minutes to come up with a system that's immune to nearly every type of false positive. The handful of scenarios that can't be accounted for should be easily identifiable and defendable in court.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[trentblase]

It says that, but the law is not based upon your personal interpretation. Implying that red-light violators will get a jury trial is spreading misinformation. And if you are really a strict constructionist, I hope you don't me lying on the stand during your red-light trial. After all, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Golddess]

The timing of the yellow light has nothing to do with whether or not you ran the red.

So are you saying the light could go straight from green to red, and anyone who runs the light broke the law? They didn't have any time to not run the light.

Why should the date on the camera make any difference? It's proof of what you did.

This happened to someone I know. Guy got pulled over by a cop for speeding on road X, gets a ticket, goes to court, and when the judge announces the charges of speeding on road Y, he replies "I wasn't anywhere near there" and gets off scott free. Turns out the officer was so used to patrolling road Y, he accidentally wrote the wrong road on the ticket (and admitted it in court) so the guy was innocent of the crime accused, and they couldn't charge him for speeding on road Y. I imagine the same could be true of red light cameras (I wasn't even in town on the date this supposedly happened, and here's proof!).

Wiretapping has nothing to do with taking pictures of public behavior.

While I agree with you here, it's not like there isn't precedent for thinking so.

Are broken brakes a defense against moving violations? I don't think they should be.

I think it would depend on how they broke as to whether or not you should be considered at fault.

If that isn't your car, why does it have your license plate?

Spectre already addressed this one, so I won't bother repeating them.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok, as the owner of a vehicle, you can be held responsible for the conduct of who you let drive it.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Hylandr]

In this case the post, camera and strobe were about 30-ish feet behind the stop line, pointing towards the stop light.

Thanks for the Epilepsy y'all...

- Dan.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Itninja]

According to Snopes.com, this is actually a truw story:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp
Warning for non-NoScript users: site has many pop-ups, pop-unders, and various other unpleasant scripts....

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cynyr]

In TFA they state that they do not add points to your license for the cam tickets.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

In TFA they state that they do not add points to your license for the cam tickets.

Neither article states this. The only mention of points is in the comments of the second link in which "poptones" suggests that they do add points with the $50 fine.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[garyebickford]

wasn't that a prank some kids in the UK did last year? IIRC they printed out copies of the school principal's license, pasted it over their own licenses and then blew through stop lights all over town. He had like 50 tickets for running lights and speeding. I think they wore disguises for obvious reasons.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sixth Amendment says you have a right to trial by jury in any criminal case.

True.

If it's a civil case the Seventh Amendment says there's a right to trial by jury whenever the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.

I'm not sure that's exactly right. It goes by state; it's not a federal right to trial for civil matters. For Hawaii, it's five thousand dollars. For Wisconsin, "The Wisconsin Supreme Court held on July 17 that a civil litigant has no right to a jury trial unless a statute expressly provides for it, or the cause of action can be found in common law at the adoption of the state constitution in 1848." (From here.) But I don't know. Am I confused?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Surt]

Yes to both.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[lgw]

What personal interpretation? It's clear, plain English. I did acknowledge our abominable history of ignoring the document - that does't change what it clearly says.

You should instead say "It does say that, but the law disregards the Constitution", for that's the simple truth of the matter.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Wolfraider]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Exactly. That's how red light cameras where found to be unconstitutional in Missouri and now all cameras have been deactivated. :)

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[miracle69]

It appears that government is stronger than the individual in this case.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Chriscypher]

As the article specified, they DO catch "rolling stops"

If you're rolling, you haven't stopped. If the light is red, you must stop. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Negative. They give tickets for any *full-stop* with a duration of less than three seconds.

You can be fully stopped, but if your car begins to move before 3 seconds have expired, it's a ticketable offense according to the cameras (and yes, I have been ticketed for this). This creative and counter-intuitive definition is a lucrative profit center for the city.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[OverlordQ]

If the driver is not positively identified then it is only proof of the vehicle's role in the infraction;

And the ticket goes to the registered owner. You're responsible for what is done with your vehicle.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Mitreya]

The first one I thought it so obvious that I was making a legal right turn that I requested a hearing without my presence, figuring that the judge would get it. They still charged me.

Sorry, what? A hearing without your presence? Are you not aware that any hearing/lawsuit is an automatic win for one party if the other party does not show up?? That's why the recommend going to contest your tickets even if you are fully guilty - if the accusing officer does not bother to show up, you automatically get the ticket tossed.
Also, you would lose because you are showing lots of contempt for the judge by not showing up and he would actively look for a way to screw you over.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm...so what's the number on the governor's plates again?

If he's chauffeured by the state on taxpayer money, what's the make and model of his wife's car and her plates?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[gerardrj]

So if I borrow your rolling pin from the kitchen then bludgeon you neighbor with it, you are the one that should be held responsible because its your rolling pin?
Unless of course you report the rolling pin stolen.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[gerardrj]

Actually red lights are a hard concept to grasp, and you haven't, really.
In the jurisdiction I've read the law in the traffic light laws say nothing about stopping.

A red light means "do not enter the intersection, you do not have right of way".
I do NOT need to stop at a red light unless I am in danger of entering the intersection, however "intersection" is defined in your locale.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at this gem (in nearby Knoxville):
I "take the red light" that lasts whopping 1 seconds, between end of main green light and turn on of the green arrow.

http://linuxhacker.ru/stuff/31773801.avi

Who did I harm?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Xveers]

Presumably you checked to see what actually constitutes a full stop in your jurisdiction, yes? Because some areas actually state quite deliberately what is considered a full stop.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like that, except I wasn't home alone. I was at my brother's house boning his wife, who thought I was him. So I still have no alibi but he has one too many.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Prof.Phreak]

That's why those camera-related tickets are treated as a non-moving violating (eg. equivalent to parking ticket). If your car gets a parking ticket, it doesn't matter who parked it... same with the camera.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[vlueboy]

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp
Warning for non-NoScript users: site has many pop-ups, pop-unders, and various other unpleasant scripts....

Thanks for the link. I had no adverse effects even lacking noScript. FF 3.6.7/Win32 running Adblock plus.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[geogob]

Is running a red light a criminal offense? I only know little about the American justice system, but my understanding was that the presumption of innocence only applies in criminal court of justice. And I'd be very very very surprised if running red lights or speeding stands as a criminal offense. Most likely a civil offense (or traffic violation), for which, in my understanding, the burden of proof does not lie on the plaintiff. Furthermore, my understanding was that the concept of reasonable doubt also only applies in criminal cases.

Please, enlighten me if I misunderstood.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Police departments have recently been using wiretap laws to argue that it is illegal to film them in public. This is simply turning that argument around on them,

What police "argue" is not relevant; none of those arguments have stuck in court.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Joce640k]

That's the real problem - people would rather spend time in courts contesting tickets than not running the red lights in the first place.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws here (not US) require full responsibility from the car owner. So, photograph is the proof.
People are still dumb or ill-intentioned. Once I had a red-light fine in which the photograph showed clearly another car going through the red light and my car some meter ahead stopped in the traffic. The other car was from another country, therefore the fine would be lost. So the fine went to my car and with the "proof" I was unable to remove the fine.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It shouldn't take anyone of even average intelligence more than a few minutes to come up with a system that's immune to nearly every type of false positive

Given that I've seen them go off when nobody's crossing the line, my guess is that either the people designing them are below average intelligence, or that they're smart enough to realize more false positives = more fines for the government (or more likely, the subcontractor who's running the camera on a revenue-share basis) coffers.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Admiral_Grinder]

Never saw this happen, they have always use the empty oncoming lanes to go into the intersection.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[hey!]

The problem with the statement "individuals 'have no presumption of innocence' when accused by the red light cameras" isn't that it is wrong. It is that it is horribly confused. It's like saying, "George Washington accomplished nothing as chief administrator of NASA." For many purposes you can treat that statement as true, but if you treat it as entirely true, including the assumptions it invites you to make, you end up going very, very wrong.

The presumption of innocence specifies what evidence has to accomplish. Evidence is not so much trumped by he presumption of innocence as judged to be relevant or irrelevant. For example, the following tidbit is not relevant evidence for guilt under the presumption of innocence: "John Doe was often late for work." You can't say, "Well, there you go; he was probably late for work that day, which explains why he ran that red light," because under the presumption of innocence using motivation as evidence of guilt is circular reasoning. You *can* say, "John Doe always left for work early, so he had no reason to be in a rush that morning," because you're allowed to assume that he is innocent when interpreting evidence.

The entire point of the process is to reach the point where a reasonable person must abandon the presumption of innocence in the face of evidence. So if I were in charge of fixing the thinking of people who say silly things like "individuals 'have no presumption of innocence' when accused by the red light cameras," I'd correct it to "The red light cameras are sufficient to show guilt in the face of the presumption of innocence." At that point the focus of the debate shifts to whether we can believe the evidence of the cameras in this case.

That shift of focus looks an awful lot like the accused has lost his presumption of innocence, but that is not the case. Suppose the defense presents evidence that the radar and cameras were routinely misaligned on these systems, and that the wrong car is photographed in those cases. Without the presumption, then they'd have to further prove that the camera was misaligned in *this* case. With the presumption, that is sufficient to shift the burden of proof back to the prosecutor, who must either show that the system was working properly in this case, or that the misalignment problem was so rare a reasonable person would discount it.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[tehcyder]

And what happens if I own the exact same model of car, same color, same look and feel, and somebody drives through that light with a well done forgery of the innocent persons plates, landing them a ticket, with the picture as 'proof' and all.

There are some awfully bored criminal masterminds around if they're prepared to go to all that trouble just to get themselves off a ticket and land you with it.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[stubob]

I've had it happen. Here in Colorado, our toll roads went to automated camera billing. You drive through and it takes a picture of your license plate and mails you the bill. I have not driven on the toll roads since they made that change. In December, I received a bill in the mail for accessing one of the many tollbooths, far from my house, on a Monday morning (when I was at work).

I called the company that runs the toll booths and they said they would drop the charge, no problem. Now, if I hadn't called and just paid it, hey, that would have been free revenue for them!

I remember when I was a dumb teenager, friends of mine would put tape on their license plate to change the numbers. That alone would probably be enough to confuse a red light camera.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, what? A hearing without your presence? Are you not aware that any hearing/lawsuit is an automatic win for one party if the other party does not show up??

Wrong.

In California you get two shots at traffic tickets. You can have a trial by declaration without ever going to the court -- you mail in your statement/argument/evidence. If you lose, you are entitled to a new trial per Section 40902(d) of the California Vehicle Code.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[lunatic1969]

I've got anther one. In my area, The traffic gets extremely heavy during certain times of the day. It's not uncommon for traffic to stop suddenly and with no warning and leave several people stranded in the middle of an intersection for half a light cycle or so, well into the red light.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[TheoMurpse]

"The camera violates anti-wiretapping laws"
Do you also hang out on the Loose Change forums? Have you ever even read an anti-wiretapping law?

"My brakes were broken"
In most places, running a red light is a strict liability offense (much like statutory rape). Doing the act is sufficient, even if you did not have the intent to do something bad (i.e., having sex with a 13-year old is illegal even if you thought she was 23). To use legal terminology, there is no "mens rea" requirement in strict liability offenses like traffic violations.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Itninja]

I wonder if Snopes has toned-down their ad scripts after some were found to be linked with nasty-ware. I just tried with NoScript disabled and only Ad-Blocker running. The only effect was an inability to highlight/copy any text (done via script).

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[TheoMurpse]

Just like the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but I don't hear you complaining about how my religion mandating the murder of innocents has been illegalized.
I mean, it's simple, unambiguous English.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Painted]

Where I live, they specifically changed the law to "Being the registered owner of a vehicle which (ran a red light)/(was speeding)", to enable just these shenanigans.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Attila Dimedici]

Wow, they aren't even hiding that traffic laws are about revenue generation where you live and the people put up with it. Where I live, every couple of years they will pass some law that pushes that line. Every time (so far) the public outcry has forced them to repeal it within less than a year. Even the roadway safety nazis get up in arms.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[MaufTarkie]

That's why the recommend going to contest your tickets even if you are fully guilty - if the accusing officer does not bother to show up, you automatically get the ticket tossed.

That's not always the case. I got issued a speeding ticket in Washington over a decade ago. I was given the same advice regarding the officer needing to be present, so I went to court to contest (since I felt I was simply matching the speed of everyone else on the freeway, but was singled out). When I got to court, I was informed by the judge that the ticket (and the writeup) was the only evidence needed; the accusing officer did not have to be present. He read the ticket out loud for the court, which included the other point I was going to bring up to try to weasel my way out of the ticket: if he calibrated his radar gun before and after his shift. He had.

Luckily, the judge gave me a break and waved the ticket due to a paperwork technicality he could have kept to himself if he really wanted to.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[lgw]

I don't think any such religion has been made illegal, nor could nor should it. There are certainly Satanist churches around here and there. Your strawman fails to even be a strawman, and that's just sad.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[TheoMurpse]

"I don't think any such religion has been made illegal"
Check every penal code. You'll find most of them illegalize murder. :)

Satanist churches do not sacrifice humans. Read. :)

"Your strawman . . ."
It's not a strawman. You suggested that the Constitution is to be read literally. I merely provided evidence that such a literal reading would result in an absurdity.

Similarly, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
Everyone is familiar with "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." And libel laws. And slander laws. And invasion of privacy laws.

And if "speech" is broadened to include "any act that is intended to communicate an idea," then many serial killings would be speech.

But if "speech" is read strictly as "oral communication," then sign language is not protected under the First Amendment.

All I'm saying is that a simplistic, literal reading of the Constitution is ridiculous on its face.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[TheoMurpse]

I also encourage you to read up on what the strawman fallacy is. You'll find it only occurs when you misrepresent your opponent's position. I did no such thing.

A strawman argument is not one that takes an extreme claim; it is only when it is a misrepresentation that it is this fallacy.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[AhabTheArab]

One of the guys I work with got a red light ticket in Chicago. There were two pictures of him ten seconds apart, the second one was while he was making a (legal) right hand turn through the red light. The city tried to argue that he did not come to a complete stop, even though he was at the intersection for at least ten seconds. Furthermore, the timestamps on the photo were wrong by a matter of hours. He was able to furnish proof that he was clocked in and at work at the "time" the camera photographed him.

Just goes to show, that the photograph alone is NOT proof.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Peach Rings]

One way streets brah.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Slime-dogg]

That isn't my car.

That isn't me driving.

I was in the intersection at speed when the light turned from yellow to red.

The date on the camera makes a huge difference. The data recorded at the time of the incident needs to be spot on. The presumption is one of innocence, not guilt, which needs to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's found that the data is circumspect in any way, including different dates of the incident, timing of the picture, etc, then there is cause for reasonable doubt.

Something that is of the people, by the people, and for the people should not be maliciously attacking its people to preserve an overblown budget.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Slime-dogg]

A stop sign is not a stop light.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Sarten-X]

The photograph is proof, period.

Having proof that an event happened does not mean you were or were not breaking the law. That determination can only be made in one of three ways:

• You sign the little form admitting you broke the law.
• You go through the whole court process, and the court determines whether you broke the law.
• The court decides that the incident doesn't matter enough to actually go through the process, and drops the charge.

For simplicity, let's assume that the camera can photograph the whole intersection, your face, and the light, in one photograph. The photograph is proof that you were in the intersection when the light was red. It also can serve as proof that there was an officer directing you through. It could also serve as proof that the light was malfunctioning.

The photograph cannot lie. The photograph also cannot interpret the law. Only a court can do that.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Agent0013]

It's all about the money. They don't want to get rid of the false positives. That would be less income for the city and the camera company.

In the Chicago suburbs there are red light camera going up every where. People will not make legal right turns on red any more because the cameras take your picture and you get the ticket. It is rediculous. It come from the fact that you can't see the traffic coming the other direction around the other cars stopped next to you on your direction. So you creep forward until you can see if it is safe to go. If you stop your car again past the white line the camera detects that as not stopping before the line and snaps the picture. Once you start going you have to keep going. That sounds much safer to me!!! (The previous statement was sarchastic, in case that was not apparent.)

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Agent0013]

I think they get around any problems like the trial by jury by calling it an administrative fine. That's why you don't get points on your record also. And if you want to contest it, you have to first pay it. In my opinion they are completely illegal to put up and I will not participate in letting the government fleece the people.

Yield signs

[kehren77]

Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.

I too am bugged by rolling stop fines. However the biggest problem I see with merging stop signs with yield signs is that some people tend to believe that a yield sign means they just need to try to merge with traffic, not stop and yield right of way.

Re:Yield signs

[rotide]

That's because the morons who make decisions to put yield signs at the end of _on_ ramps onto major interstates create a system where you learn to ignore them.

If you actually stop and yield to traffic on an interstate, one of two things will happen. Either you will be stopped forever, or you will be plowed into by the guy behind you.

Now, on normal roads, at least I yield to traffic when I see them. I know they have their place, but interstate on ramps, no.

Re:Yield signs

[Animaether]

Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me

okay... let's get back to that in a moment...

However the biggest problem I see with merging stop signs with yield signs is that some people tend to believe that a yield sign means they just need to try to merge with traffic, not stop and yield right of way.

So people believe that a sign that means one thing (stop and yield right of way) means something else (try to merge with traffic). Obviously that's a lack in their driving education (insofar as driving on backroads with daddy can be called a driving education).

But then again, can you really blame them, when you are absolutely guilty of the same thing? After all, a STOP sign means you need to STOP moving. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. Yet you interpret it as a "slow down to some variable speed that I, myself, decide is quite slow enough thank-you-very-much".. and then feel 'bugged' if you get a fine for it.

Re:Yield signs

[Alarindris]

Around here it's the opposite, people think yield signs are stop signs. I see people come to a full stop all the time even where there is CLEARLY no traffic.

Re:Yield signs

[radish]

But they _don't_ mean "stop and yield right of way" they mean "prepare to yield, stopping if necessary". If there's nothing to yield to, you don't have to stop (obviously) - likewise if there is traffic but you can yield without stopping (for example by just slowing down) that's OK too.

It depends on your definition of "merge" but if there's a steady stream of traffic with large enough gaps between the vehicles and I can merge without causing the car approaching to get too close to me or to have to slow down, I think I've satisfied the requirement of yielding.

Re:Yield signs

[steelfood]

What's even worse are the stop signs and red lights placed before an on ramp. That's when you know the guy who's designing your roads is actually working for the company contracted to put signs and lights up.

Re:Yield signs

[Anonymous Coward]

I too am bugged by rolling stop fines. However the biggest problem I see with merging stop signs with yield signs is that some people tend to believe that a yield sign means they just need to try to merge with traffic, not stop and yield right of way.

The biggest problem I see is that people in my state have no concept of right of way and will just end up even more confused than usual. Around here, it is common for a car to come to a complete stop where there is no stop sign while people at stop signs wait for the moron to go, then that same car will fly through the next stop sign without even slowing down. A 4-way stop turns into a 4-way game of chicken with each car slowly inching forward until someone makes a break for it. An ambiguous sign that requires the driver to have a clue will just be ignored and will result in an accident almost immediately. Forget about introducing crazy signs, they need to take away licenses from people who are incapable of driving safely.

Re:Yield signs

[randyleepublic]

You don't have to "stop" to yield. Sometimes, yes, but certainly not every time. Der.

Re:Yield signs

[TheoMurpse]

"If you actually stop and yield"
There's your fallacy. "Yield" does not require a stop.

Re:Yield signs

[Anonymous Coward]

im an american and have drove other places, about everywhere else follows the "give a little take a little" im 39 and dont give a fuck anymore about what people think. I power merge, and I give space for others doing the same. I let trucks over, I let assholes over. It doesn't bother me, 90% Americans get emotional about driving and letting someone else "get one over" on them. give a little, take a little....

Dear SonicSpike

[Anonymous Coward]

For the benefit of non-hillbillies, please post the name of the Tennessee town.

Thanks in advance.

Yours In Domododevo,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Dear SonicSpike

[clang_jangle]

Fist line of TFA:

Town of Farragut announces the following statistics for the 2010 second quarter enforcement period of April 1 through June 30 for its Traffic Enforcement Program (red light violations).

duh...

Re:Dear SonicSpike

[Anonymous Coward]

As the name of a city, isn't Duh supposed to be capitalized?

Re:Dear SonicSpike

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the city of duh, TN (pop 204) prefers to use all lower case letters in order to distinguish itself from the slightly larger nearby town of Duh (pop 208). I wonder which line of an article is considered the "fist" one though?

Re:Dear SonicSpike

[Anonymous Coward]

The one crammed up your ass. Duh.

Re:Dear SonicSpike

[Anonymous Coward]

D'oh!

Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[kbreak]

So, the big question is, "did the redlight cameras reduce accidents or increase them?" Here in Los Angeles, a TV station got ahold of the records, and in most cases, accidents *increase* at camera intersections.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Nadaka]

Probably because the yellow was shortened to increase ticket revenue.

So people end up having to brake more quickly at some red lights than at others.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[rtaylor]

The stats for some of my cities intersections clearly show a decrease in the T-Bones and an increase in rear-endings. Stats are not public.

If you believe T-Bones are the more fatal of the two, then the trade-off is likely appropriate. Note, light timing did not change and there are 100+ intersections with camera boxes but only a handful actually have a camera installed (randomly rotated).

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[mbone]

This is not about public safety, it's about raising money for the municipality. Period.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[MrBB]

There are quite a few black tire marks leading into the intersections that are camera enforced where I live... The winter here is ESPECIALLY dangerous where ice + snow + fear of a ticket = scary situations. I actually avoid areas that are camera enforced. I have heard of studies that show a decline in local economy because of these systems.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[kbreak]

link: http://blog.motorists.org/la-red-light-cameras-increase-accidents/

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[MozeeToby]

On the other hand if you just want to reduce all accidents you make the yellow light longer. Almost 0 cost, and actually effective. On the other hand it doesn't generate thousands of dollars in revenue for the police department so it's a no go.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Nukenbar]

But do fatalities do down? It is pretty hard to kill someone by rear ending him when he stops short, but not so hard when someone T-bones some dude at 55mph as he speeds up to try to catch the light.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people are following too close and the redlight camera should ticket people who aren't leaving enough distance between them and the car in front.

I hate it when I'm going down the highway and all I can see in the rear view mirror is the grill of some huge truck right behind me. Although sometimes if I glance over my shoulder, things look worse than I thought and I begin to wonder if I took my foot off the gas, if I'd even notice...

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Also, don't short-change people with the filters.

Near where I live there are several junctions with right turn filters (I live in the UK, we drive on the correct side of the road so a right-filter is precious). The entire cycle of the lights is around 3 minutes, the right filter is about 15 seconds tops (it may only be 10). As such, people jump the red because they want to get through the junction without having to wait another 3 minutes. Someone stalling can cost everyone the entire cycle, someone not being in gear with the handbrake off can easily cost 20% of the available time.
If people weren't being left with only a 12th or less of the total cycle in which to use the junction, they may be less inclined to jump the light.

Another one is where, at peak times, one road just gets dropped from the cycle. By the time the people in that road have seen where their light should have gone green staying red for the third time, they start to assume that the lights are broken and push into the junction anyway.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Surt]

Maybe the question should be: do redlight cameras reduce fatalities and injuries or increase them, as that may be an entirely different answer.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[cynyr]

lets see, cost of 1 tbone, 2 cars, driver of the tboned car's medical bills, any lost productivity due to injury or death.
Cost of a rear end, 2 cars repair bills(easily the cost of a car with modern cars), medical bills for the whiplash of the hit driver, lost productivity due to injury/death.

Hmm seems to have a similar cost, just that one might have a higher death rate. On a side note, are your yellow times long enough to account for all legal driving conditions? legal min tread tires, just legal brakes, .07 BAC(or .09 depending on your state), and 2" of freezing rain followed by 2 feet of fresh snow at the speed limit? if not, your yellows need to be longer or you need to install a "count down to yellow" counter, to warn drivers of when the light will be red/yellow.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I wish more red lights had a countdown to green.

It'd give everyone something to do other than fall asleep in front of me when we're waiting to go.

(Several intersections I sit through have added a countdown for the pedestrian crossing signal, so I know if it says "20" i can stretch, rub my eyes, take a sip, whatever)

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Jaime2]

It's likely a small decrease in t-bones. You don't really think that people who run red lights and hit cars are making a rational decision, do you? Most t-bones accidents are caused by inattention, adding the risk of a $100 fine to the already existing risk of dying doesn't really make enough difference to make them pay attention. Think about it, if "death" isn't a deterrent, then why would "death + $100" work?

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Misch]

Washington DC says no. 1998-2003 study shows that at red light camera intersections, collisions more than doubled, Injury and fatal collisions increased by 81%, and t-bones increased by 30%.

At intersections without red light cameras over the same time period, collisions up by 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent.

Source

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[SleazyRidr]

Then of course is the case where you get rear-ended which pushes you into the intersection, where you get t-boned.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[aaandre]

This implies a zero sum game with either T-bones or rear-endings.

What would be a solution that only *decreases* the accidents AND is profitable for the government (cause it may not get implemented otherwise)?

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[tftp]

or you need to install a "count down to yellow" counter, to warn drivers of when the light will be red/yellow.

And if you can't afford the countdown hardware, just turn the yellow light on during last two or three seconds of green. Two lights will be on at the same time. The approaching drivers will know that they have just a couple seconds of green left, and will make their decision rationally.

The "two lights on at the same time" system is used in Europe (red+yellow, at least) so there should be no technical problem, just a software change.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Ichijo]

So, the big question is, "did the redlight cameras reduce accidents or increase them?"

The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[cynyr]

That works too, as long as you do that with enough time. AFAIK the red+yellow it to let the drivers know the cars need to go back in gear(most cars in Europe were manual transmissions last i was there.)

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the best way to reduce accidents is to make the red/green lights longer. Fewer changes in a day means fewer accidents. Adding only 10 seconds to a light on a busy intersection can significantly decrease the accident rate. If you add enough, you create stop and go traffic, reducing accidents to fender benders and road rage victims.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[garyebickford]

IIRC accident numbers increase with every increased level of control. Not many cities have uncontrolled intersections, but Portland OR does. Then there's yield, stop, flashing stop, traffic lights, maybe some others (roundabout?). However, the reply below me points out that the type of accidents changes - I would think that rear-enders are less likely to be fatal than T-bones.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't really think that people who run red lights and hit cars are making a rational decision, do you?

Why not? It is possible, for instance, for me, as a motorcycle driver, to rationally decide that there is not enough time and space for me (or even worse, for the car behind me) to stop safely, for various reasons such as a yellow light that is too short for the posted speed limit, an oil/water slick, whatever. What are my options then? Lock the brakes, fall and skid into the intersection and across oncoming traffic and come to a stop in the middle? Let myself be rear-ended and then possibly t-boned? I'll make a right hand turn if I can get away with it, but if not I will gas it to clear the intersection ASAP. Bonus? Getting to break the law and be seen to behave like an absolute tosser in the process of trying to save my life.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[rwiggers]

Stats here show increase in rear-endings, gotta find some reference... We have countdown timers, reasonable yellow and cameras.
Accidents have gone down with the cameras, as well as risky situations. The increase of awareness of when the light would stop increased some rear-ending due to some people stopping too early, thus unexpectedly by who was coming behind. There's the bad habit here of driving very near, much less than the safety distance.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[rwiggers]

Sorry for the reference in portuguese:

http://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vidaecidadania/conteudo.phtml?tl=1&id=834409&tit=Com-aumento-de-acidentes-semaforos-sequenciais-sao-substituidos-em-Curitiba

Not exactly the yellow light...

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[TheoMurpse]

And there's the case where you get t-boned, which pushes you into the right-turn lane where Triple X parachutes down and throttles you with a coaxial cable.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Anonymous Coward]

We actually had one of these cameras in our town for 1 week. The Mayor got the 1st and last ticket, while driving with his mistress, and his wife opened the envelope containng the fine, and photo

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[PingPongBoy]

decrease in the T-Bones and an increase in rear-endings

advice: drive defensively, and never assume everyone else will ensure your safety. Always have a way out, before zipping through an intersection look both ways including entrances to private areas, and watch people on the other side. Many major accidents are caused by people crossing the center line. Accidents are rare but coming out of an accident without damage or injury is also rare.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in my city, SERIOUS accidents were reduced by 30%, FATAL accidents were reduced by 50%, and MINOR accidents (no damage) were increased 20%, which combined for a total 10% increase in all recorded accidents, for those intersections. Local papers ran with the "red light cameras increase accidents" line, rather than the "red light cameras save lives" story.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Jaime2]

That is exactly the case where longer yellows work. There is almost always a short delay between the red on one side and the green on the other, plus it takes a bit for the cars that just got the green to accellerate into the intersection. To t-bone a car, you would need to run the red by at least five seconds. No judgement call on a yellow is ever going to end up with you embedded in the passenger door of a minivan.

T-bones are caused by people running a red light when it has been red a very long time. These accidents are not prevented by cameras.

public safety should never be a revenue source

[Dan667]

and you have the right to face your accuser so you can get out of these tickets pretty easily. If everyone would start to fight them in court the amount of money to run them at a loss would get rid of them pretty quickly.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[dkleinsc]

If everyone would start to fight them in court the amount of money to run them at a loss would get rid of them pretty quickly.

That's an excellent solution if you're someone with a few hours to spend on a weekday in traffic court. However, most of "everyone" would have to give up badly needed wages to fight the ticket in traffic court. Thankfully, traffic courts expect pro se defendants, so there isn't a legal cost, but there is most definitely an opportunity cost.

Interestingly, at least in my city they put the traffic cameras near the projects and far from the suburbs. They're targetting people who are less able to fight back.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Local ID10T]

and you have the right to face your accuser so you can get out of these tickets pretty easily. If everyone would start to fight them in court the amount of money to run them at a loss would get rid of them pretty quickly.

See the second link in the summary...
The court filing obtained says offenders "are not entitled to a trial by jury, a presumption of innocence or a heightened burden of proof."

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[jfredric]

Maybe I have this wrong, but how is anyone losing the right to face their accuser? Isn't it the city/police that is accusing you? How is this technically any different then being caught on camera robbing a store? If the "ticket" you receive is an actual infraction you would have a right to your date in court. Otherwise you have no obligation to pay someone anything. Actually, now that I think about it, the camera's where the ticket is sent by a collection/operating company and not law enforcement sounds an awful lot like blackmail. "We got this awfully bad pictures of you running a red light. Pay us money, which we will give a kickback to the city for, or we report you."

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[maxume]

Are you really so sure they aren't just targeting intersections where they have more problems, rather than the people that live near those intersections?

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Grishnakh]

Because 1) it costs more to actually go to trial than to pay the ticket (you're required to pay $167 for the court costs), and 2) the court is a Kangaroo court. They see a picture, and it doesn't matter what your testimony is, you're automatically guilty. It doesn't matter if you were being tailgated and were justifiably worried that stopping for the too-short yellow light would have resulted in being rear-ended. (Of course, no one ever gets a ticket for tailgating.)

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Dan667]

they can want that, but it does not make it any less a violation of your Constitutional Rights.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Grishnakh]

and you have the right to face your accuser so you can get out of these tickets pretty easily.

I should also add that in the trials I've seen, it's been stated that you have no right to face your accuser. That's a criminal court thing. These tickets are civil matters, so there is no such right, only "preponderance of the evidence". And a simple photo is all the evidence they need.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Cytotoxic]

This is the case for many traffic violations, even without the robo-cop accuser. In Georgia the only "facing your accuser" you can do in a speeding case is to ask the cop if he was properly certified, if the equipment was calibrated and he was properly positioned. If he answers yes to all, you are guilty, by statute. "I have a witness that will testify on my behalf" is not evidence. "I have a video with GPS logs that will show that I never exceeded the speed limit" is not admissible as evidence. If the cop says you did it, you did it. By law.

Similar situations abound for many moving violations. Depending on the jurisdiction your only way out is the good will of the prosecutor/judge. I saw a ton of cases plead out to lesser (and unrelated) offenses to avoid losing a license or high insurance - even when they were convinced they had proof of innocence.

Vaguely related anecdote: Many years ago I got a bogus ticket for running a red light that I did not actually run by a cop who missed important bits of the event. After wasting a full day at traffic court the prosecutor haggled price with me and dropped the ticket if I would pay a "civil fee" of $110. He knew I had the juice to win my case, and I knew he had the ability to cost me another day or two of work. Stalemate. He got his $110 and I lost some of my idealism. The red light cameras are an extension of this view of justice - the revenue is more important than the justice. In some jurisdictions they have even gone so far as to endanger public safety in the interest of increasing revenues (by shortening the yellow). Creating incentives that are at cross purposes to the public good is a very dangerous thing. (see also: asset forfeiture laws)

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Igmuth]

But, if someone is tailgating you, and you stop for the red and rear ended, that's their fault, and their insurance can pay. I'd rather go that route than risk running the light. (In which case damages would be my fault)

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[lgw]

How can a state-issued ticket be a civil matter? Is it a tort? Breach of contract? You still have the right to rial by jusry for civil matters when the amount in question exceeds $20, IIRC.

A City can pass a law stating that it is immune to the constitution, but that doesn't make it so (it just makes it expensive to fight).

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[BJ_Covert_Action]

You might want to look into the right to trial by written declaration. I know it doesn't exist everywhere, but in some states at least, you are entitled the right to formulate a case by written testimony and gathered evidence which you simply mail to the court. Then the accuser (officer, camera reviewer, whatever) is required to file a testimony for their side of the story (also written). A judicial officer reviews the matter and makes a decision based on the two submissions. The added perk is that facing an officer in traffic court pays the officer over time usually, so they are often prone to show up for prosecution. However, trials by written declaration are nothing but paper work that they have to do during scheduled hours on the job. They don't get any personal benefit out of filling out all the required paper work, so they are more prone to say screw it and not bother. This is especially true if they hand out a lot of tickets regularly as they won't want to be bothered to remember your case in particular.

Anyways, it's something to look into in your state. Also, once a verdict is passed in a written declaration trial, if you don't like it, you can still request a court appearance and try to fight another battle. Drag it out long enough and the courts/officer may just say "Fuck it. I don't want to bother anymore."

Moral of the story, don't take this crap lying down. The only way to keep our governmental authorities honest is to make prosecuting civilians a difficult enough task that it is no longer a way to make a quick and easy buck. If they want your money, make them fucking earn it just like you did.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Grishnakh]

But, if someone is tailgating you, and you stop for the red and rear ended, that's their fault, and their insurance can pay.

Wrong. Very likely, they won't have insurance, and may not even be in the country legally (that's pretty common here in AZ). They're not going to pay. Instead, your insurance will pay, and will then jack up your rates, or just drop you. Plus, you'll be stuck with neck injuries requiring a lot of medical care, which will take time away from work and other activities. Your insurance won't pay for all of that.

I'd rather go that route than risk running the light.

You'd rather get possibly severely injured by rear-ending than just run a red light? You can see very quickly if there's anyone there and it's likely for there to be a collision. If it's a busy intersection, it's probably a better idea to risk the rear-ending because the alternative may be worse. If there's no one there (maybe it's late at night), it's smarter to just run the light. But if there's a red-light camera there, it doesn't care about the extenuating circumstances, nor does it recognize the difference between a busy intersection and an empty one.

Don't forget, when you run a red light in these scenarios, you're not running a red light that's been red for some time, it's only just turned red, and was yellow a fraction of a second earlier. The likelihood of someone driving out into the intersection in the 1/2 second after your light turned red is pretty much zero (remember, there's usually a 1-second or more delay between one light turning red, and the other side turning green).

You, the driver, and also other people on the scene, should be able to look at all the facts and judge whether running the light was warranted or not. A camera will not do this.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Grishnakh]

How can a state-issued ticket be a civil matter?

That's what they said in one speed-camera trial I saw here in Chandler, Arizona.

You still have the right to rial by jusry for civil matters when the amount in question exceeds $20, IIRC.

I don't think this applies to traffic violations.

This may also vary state-to-state.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[lgw]

The protections afforded by the US Constitution don't vary state to state. Chandler, AZ, may be comfortable with making up whatever unconstitutional BS they need to to generate revenue, but that doesn't make it right.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[drsmithy]

and you have the right to face your accuser so you can get out of these tickets pretty easily.

I have never, ever understood this line of reasoning. The accuser is the police department, and you most certainly have an opportunity to face them. The pictures are just evidence.

The reason people don't do so often (or do so and fail), is because whatever convoluted what-if story they might weave is, 9 times out of 10, utter bullshit.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Grishnakh]

I think most places in the US are happy to make up unconstitutional BS to generate revenue. The Constitution these days isn't really in effect any more. After all, the 4th Amendment is clearly null and void since the authorities are free to seize cash from you any time they want (try driving around with a suitcase of cash and see what happens when a cop finds out).

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Rich0]

The thing that drives me nuts is that you aren't entitled to a trial by jury unless you're facing at least six months in prison on a single count. However, in civil trials either party is entitled to a trial by jury if the amount in dispute is over $20. So, you can put somebody in prison for 10 years by charging them with 30 counts with a sentence of 4 months per count and they don't get a jury trial. However, if you break your friend's video game you can drag them in front of a jury to duke it out.

Does that seem just a little out of whack to anybody else? IMHO people should be entitled to a jury trial for any offence whatsoever. By all means have them pay a fee for the jury's time if they are found guilty (loser pays system), but maybe we'd have fewer silly 25mph speed zones if juries had to agree to the fines.

Likewise the state should have to reimburse the accused for lost time when they're found innocent of a crime. These days simply being accused of a crime and having the gall to defend yourself is about all it takes to face financial ruin.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[winwar]

"But if there's a red-light camera there, it doesn't care about the extenuating circumstances, nor does it recognize the difference between a busy intersection and an empty one."

And it's pretty irrelevant. I don't get this obsession about figuring out whether one should run a red light to potentially avoid a rear end collision or not. Because if you have the time to run that calculation, then you never have to run the light in the first place. If running a red light is ever more than an extremely rare event you are not a good driver. I routinely exceed the speed limit, drive in urban areas, am tailgated, experience short yellows, drive through photo enforced intersections and drive in poor weather conditions and never been rear ended because I had to stop for a red light. Of course, I anticipate that I may have to stop for a light which provides me the opportunity to stop or enter the intersection on the yellow if needed.

I have been rear ended three times, once by a police officer. They all happened while I was stopped waiting at a light in traffic.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[TheoMurpse]

"How can a state-issued ticket be a civil matter"
The trend in the US is to consider criminal matters only those that impose jail time, the death penalty, or substantial fines. As there is no guidance in the Constitution, and history is murky on the distinction between criminal and civil matters, you'd be hard pressed to be able to make an open-and-shut case either way. You're subject to the vicissitudes of scholarship here, methinks.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[AhabTheArab]

Likewise the state should have to reimburse the accused for lost time when they're found innocent of a crime. These days simply being accused of a crime and having the gall to defend yourself is about all it takes to face financial ruin.

Well put on everything, especially this. Being accused of a crime is enough. Hiring a lawyer can be very expensive for some people, especially if you want one who will actually DEFEND you and go to trial. Then there's the time involved, having to miss work, possible embarrassment - simply being accused of a crime is a big deal and those acquitted should receive some form of compensation. Something needs to be put in place to make prosecutors think twice before filing charges and pursuing a case.

roll stop fines should continue

[Anonymous Coward]

Until people quit rolling over pedestrians in a crosswalk!

Whiners

[asukasoryu]

Getting caught by a camera seems no different than getting caught by a cop. Does the cop presume you're innocent after he sees the crime being committed? Neither should the camera if sufficient evidence is recorded. Of course, everyone should get their chance in court to challenge in case there was a legitimate reason for the infraction. Sounds like that town needed those cameras.

Re:Whiners

[Anonymous Coward]

The cop gives you the ticket which includes a court date. You appear on that court date, and face your accuser.

If the cop doesnt show, the ticket is discarded. If the cop does show and is unable to prove your guilt against a well-ordered defense, the ticket gets discarded. If you show up and state "I was hoping to get out of a ticket" and the cop comes to court, you are going to have to pay.

With these machines, you arent given a court date at the time of the infraction (it may be mailed to you later, I havent gotten one so I am unsure). Given "photographic evidence", the burden of proof (that the accuser is required to provide) is automatic.

*Note: Claiming a blue-shift turned the red light into yellow or green will only result in larger fines.

Re:Whiners

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting caught by a camera seems no different than getting caught by a cop. Does the cop presume you're innocent after he sees the crime being committed?

No, the judge and possibly jury do. The prosecution has to convince them otherwise. Which a traffic camera, it's a civil offense and they just have to convince the judge it's more likely true. Personally, I don't think the difference matters much in traffic cases, but there's a real and significant difference between the two legal systems.

Re:Whiners

[Anonymous Coward]

With these machines, you arent given a court date at the time of the infraction (it may be mailed to you later, I havent gotten one so I am unsure).

I dunno about TN, but here in AZ they're mailed to you later, with a court date. Of course, you can then throw it in the trash, because you have to be properly served for them to require you to appear in court, and the U.S. Mail is not proper service. They tack on an extra fine if they have to send a process server after you though, but it's easy to avoid service: don't answer your front door. This happened to me when I got a ticket. We had a couple of shady people show up at the front door, refusing to identify themselves, saying things like they wanted some water. My wife went to the window next to the door and pointed her .357 Magnum at them and they took off.

Re:Whiners

[DryGrian]

*Note: Claiming a blue-shift turned the red light into yellow or green will only result in larger fines.

Ah, the Doppler defense.

Re:Whiners

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Aw, they should let people off with the blue-shift defence, and then smack them with the speeding fine for the necessary speed to turn red into green, which by my calculations is about 0.34c. That should be pretty expensive.

Re:Whiners

[sjames]

Go take civics again. It isn't up to the cop or the camera to presume innocence, it's up to the court to do that.

A little reality please

[$RANDOMLUSER]

A police officer has reviewed the tape, and has issued a ticket that says you ran a red light. If you think any traffic ticket carries a presumption of innocence, then you've never been to traffic court. The only reliable way to beat a traffic ticket is if the officer doesn't show up at court. Otherwise, it's your word against his - and guess what? - his word always wins.

Re:A little reality please

[Skjellifetti]

My sister ran into a motorcycle cop while making a left turn where the normal left lane was blocked off - that's where the cop was driving. She was ticketed. But she went to court armed with a state law book that showed that what the cop did (driving in the blocked off lane) meant that he had forfeited the right-of-way. Judge tossed the ticket. You can beat them, but it takes work.

Re:A little reality please

[Grishnakh]

Not quite true. Here in AZ, the people reviewing the data are employees of the private companies that operate the cameras. Doesn't matter though; if you bother to show up to contest the ticket, some corrupt cop will show up with a bunch of arguments given to him by the camera company and the court will always rule in his favor. It's a kangaroo court.

Re:A little reality please

[Surt]

Which is depressing, considering how well established it is that police officers widely engage in fraud, lying, etc. In much, much higher percentages than the rest of the population.

Re:A little reality please

[Eponymous Coward]

Is a traffic violation a crime? Isn't traffic court an entirely different thing than criminal or civil court? If it isn't a crime, then there was never a presumption of innocence in the first place.

Re:A little reality please

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:A little reality please

[Surt]

Here's two for you:

http://www.policecrimes.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/22/us/new-york-police-often-lie-under-oath-report-says.html?pagewanted=1?pagewanted=1

Re:A little reality please

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation please. I'm sick of hearing this crap about "how well established...blah, blah, blah". Show me statistics that prove that police officers are more fraudulent, deceitful, etc than the rest of the population.

Re:A little reality please

[Surt]

Here's two sources for you, though you could have seen them posted for the other AC with the same complaint.

Feel free to do a little googling next time you have doubts.

Here's two for you:

http://www.policecrimes.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/22/us/new-york-police-often-lie-under-oath-report-says.html?pagewanted=1?pagewanted=1

Re:A little reality please

[codepunk]

Yea and if you pay a camera ticket in AZ you are a complete idiot. A ticket mailed to you is not properly served, if you read the fine print on the ticket it says that by signing you wave this right.

Re:A little reality please

[Grishnakh]

Yep. However, I've heard that some cities are going ahead and suspending the licenses of people who don't show up for court, even though this is blatantly illegal.

Running red lights is no joke.

[Sheetrock]

Especially now that people text while driving, it's probably a good thing that we're bringing automation to bear on traffic problems.

They could do more to prevent problems than to catch people after the fact, I think. They're able to drop crossing guards on railroad tracks and tollbooths; why not set them up at every practical intersection as well? There's some good talk out there about adding a breath test to the steering columns of every vehicle, but how about in-car interference of the cellphone frequency?

I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg on what can be done here to ensure safety.

Re:Running red lights is no joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

What a delightful troll! Nicely done!

Re:Running red lights is no joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jamming cell signals won't work correctly. Either blocking passengers from use, or blocking things outside the vehicle.

My idea was simple. Use a sensor to detect hands on the wheel. If there are less than 2 hands on the wheel for more than some amount of time, say 5 seconds, then play an increasingly loud and annoying sound until 2 hands are on the wheel again. I think I read about taxis in Germany doing something like this when they exceeded the speed limit.

Re:Running red lights is no joke.

[theIsovist]

So many reasons, where to begin...
 

They're able to drop crossing guards on railroad tracks and tollbooths

They wouldn't do this on roads because it would slow traffic at stops down significantly. You don't think the few extra seconds would cause much of an issue, but it'd add up to days lost sitting at traffic stops waiting for the arm to raise. You could raise the arm while the other side has a yellow to avoid this, but then you'd have people jumping the gun going under the arm as soon as it's out of their way. The biggest issues remains - people think they are faster than red lights _and_ trains. The arms don't stop people from trying to beat trains, and as we all know, not everyone who tries wins.

 

here's some good talk out there about adding a breath test to the steering columns of every vehicle, but how about in-car interference of the cellphone frequency?

I have no issue against the breath test, aside from it being iffy (if you've ever used a private breathalyzer, you'll know). But should passengers in your car be stopped from talking on phones, texting, or using the internet on their phones? It's not an easy problem to solve. I'm not even sure how they can prove you were texting while driving without direct visual evidence. How can they prove that it wasn't your passenger using your phone?

Re:Running red lights is no joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you're not running the safety program:

1. Don't combine running red lights with cell phones conversations and texting. They are two different issues and should be addressed as such. I never hear that we should enforce road speeds because people may have distracting kids in the back seat.

2. If we do dropping crossing guards, what happens when they mechanically fail? What about someone who wants to turn right and legally has the right to do so but the guards are down. Do special laws have to be created just for those crossings?

3. If there is ever a car with a breath test in it, I won't buy it and a lot of others won't either. If it's on every car, I'd find a way to bypass it either through the ECU or with a mechanical device that would be out of the way.

4. I don't want to limit cellphone use for everyone in the car. Laws not to use it are fine if people know they are enforced. What happens if the car stays on after a crash and you can't make an emergency call?

In short, laws don't equal personal responsibility.

Re:Running red lights is no joke.

[HeckRuler]

No no no, let's see this idea through. It'd be killer to see a bunch of idiots leaning out of their car to talk on a cell phone.
(sad thing is, they'd do it)

Re:Running red lights is no joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that the things you're proposing -- things that would actually be a significant boost to traffic safety -- would be given much consideration.

DUI prosecution is, and is designed to be, an enormous revenue generation tool. It is not in the best interests of the legislators making budgets to eliminate drunk drivers entirely. It would put a feather in their caps for increasing safety, but they'd take two hits: one because they would have to cut funding for something else or increase taxes to offset the staggering amount of lost revenue from excessive DUI fines and two because they would be viewed by the libertarian/civl-liberties set as implementing draconian nanny-state policies. Forcing people teetotalers or conscientious drinkers to blow into their car every time they wanted to start it could only be viewed as an insulting presumption of guilt and a pain in the rear-end (not to mention that they would have to criminalize the inevitable removal of such things by motorists and thus create more criminals).

The same sort of logic would apply with various other proposals that would be a safety benefit. Lowering the speed limit to 25 MPH everywhere would virtually eliminate traffic deaths, but the consequences to the people proposing it would outweigh benefits. Putting crossing bars at lights would eliminate red-light revenue (and there'd be holy hell to pay when they malfunctioned in a busy intersection) and piss people off in general. Jamming cell phones in cars? I don't think that'd go over well.

In the end, the primary purpose of traffic laws is to generate revenue while appearing to promote public safety. Sometimes appearing to promote public safety coincides with actually promoting public safety, which would certainly be a nice two-fer for a principled legislator. But, sometimes it doesn't. In those cases, follow the money -- actual public safety takes a back seat to budgeting and revenue generation.

Re:Running red lights is no joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? Treating everyone as a criminal when they step in the car is absurd. Blocking cell phones? Why on earth would they do that? Even on the phone, I'm a better driver than most people without phones.

The problem with automation is that it can't ascertain a situation to determine how unsafe the driver was. A person running a yellow light at 2:30 am on an empty street should not be fined in my opinion. Leniency should be given if the streets are slick from ice or water. the same applies with people who make rolling stops with no traffic coming.

3,000 infractions in a town of 17,000. I'd say that with that many people violating the law, it's probably an unreasonable law. Strict automated enforcement of an unreasonable law is, well, also unreasonable.

Re:Running red lights is no joke.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

but how about in-car interference of the cellphone frequency?

Yeah! And then when you actually do get in a car accident in which you are pinned inside the car, you have no viable means of contacting 9-1-1. What a great idea! Why didn't anyone else think of that?

I really hope you were joking.

Re:Running red lights is no joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

The first reply to this was:

What a delightful troll! Nicely done!

And yet there are still half a dozen replies assuming it was serious, you at least get credit for questioning it at the beginning of your post, but still...

no-harm no-foul my a**

[cruff]

Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me

Perhaps you have never been side swiped by someone who failed to stop at a red light or stop sign? It can be much worse when you are a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorcyclist without a steel cage to protect you. You might think differently then.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[grasshoppa]

Then it's not a "no-harm" instance, is it?

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Myopic]

Hmmm. Does that fit under no-harm-no-foul? To me it seems like swiping a person would violate the "no harm" part of the phrase.

I guess I don't really think that strict enforcement of absolutely full stops at stop signs (or right turns at red lights) increases the safety of pedestrians. If it does, then it is probably "worth it"; but if it doesn't, then it certainly isn't. I'm not a traffic professional so I can't really say.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[kehren77]

Okay, I'm not advocating the complete running of stop signs or traffic lights. I'm saying that rolling stops for stops signs (ie you get to the stop sign, make sure nothing is coming and continue on before your vehicle has come to a complete stop) aren't a big deal.

Just down the road from me there was a 3 way intersection that was cut down to a straight through road. But they left the stops signs up as a way of slowing traffic through that area. That sort of crap shouldn't happen and people definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing a rolling stop in that location.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

It can be much worse when you are a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorcyclist without a steel cage to protect you.
Funny thing the vehicle most likely to blast past stop signs without slowing are bicycles. I always stop rather than rolling, and get really pissed at bicyclists who seem to think they don't have to pay attention to traffic signs.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Visaris]

"Perhaps you have never been side swiped by someone who failed to stop at a red light or stop sign?"

The cameras/law are unreasonable. I've been caught by the cameras driving through Knoxville, TN going 4-5 MPH rolling through a stop. I had time to slow to ~4 MPH, stay behind the white line while maintaining said speed for a good few seconds. This safe time behind the white stop line was more than ample to check every direction multiple times. I really don't think it makes sense to fine for that.

On the other hand, someone can come to a nearly screeching halt, stop for an unreasonably short time period right at the line, and then speed off past the light, accelerating so fast their tires are just under the screech threshold. This person is somehow considered "safer" than I am under the law, when in fact, my rolling stop is safer. I'm very sorry if you've been sideswiped, but it wasn't because of a rolling stop. It was because of a bad driver.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't driven a car in years -- and I'm even in favor of reducing the number of roads in major metropolitan cities, and possibly banning private cars from large areas of cities -- and I still see traffic cameras as nothing more than another disingenuous tax on motorists. If cities cared about safety, they wouldn't shorten the yellow lights, and they'd spent significant money figuring out how to prevent the increase in sudden-stop accidents that come from traffic cameras. Instead it's all about money and figuring out ways of justifying it; if they don't make money, they go away.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[interkin3tic]

Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me

Perhaps you have never been side swiped by someone who failed to stop at a red light or stop sign?

I wouldn't -assume- that outlaw or allowing rolling stops makes a difference one way or the other, in the absence of evidence.

For one thing, I think it's plausible that coming to a complete stop doesn't mean you are anymore aware of what is going on in the intersection than if you did a rolling stop. For another thing, I think a lot of sideswipes at stop signs are probably due to people not even doing a rolling stop, I think most are probably people not noticing there was a stop sign.

So lets see some studies on the actual safety on rolling stop vs complete stops (which Lauder may have) before we say "think of the pedestrians and bicyclists!"

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[jellomizer]

Do you know what a Rolling Stop means?

You slow down your car to perhaps 1 mph. You look Both Ways and enough time to determine if there is any traffic that would cause you an issue, Then you speed up if you deem it safe.

You are actually being a safe driver Just as Safe as if you did a full stop then started inching up to a point where you can see the traffic anyways.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've been caught by the cameras driving through Knoxville, TN going 4-5 MPH rolling through a stop."

If you rolled through a red traffic light, then you should be fined. Those are supposed to be full stops until the light turns green, not 'I'll slow down to see if I think it's safe' before rolling through the intersection. Are any of these red light cameras talking about flashing red stop lights? I don't think that's the case.

When people blow through intersections after the light turns red, (entering the intersection after the light has changed, sometimes several seconds after), those people should be arrested for reckless driving. Automatic cameras to catch that are a good idea, even if all they hand out are fines.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[vanyel]

Failure to yield is failure to yield, doesn't matter if it's a yellow triangle or a red octagon.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Beardo the Bearded]

I've been biking to work for 15 years. I assume every car is going to run every stop sign. I also assume that every intersection contains at least one car that is going to turn in front of me without signalling, slowing, or checking.

Guess how many times I've been hit?

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Beardo the Bearded]

Bikes do have to obey the same traffic laws as cars.

However, some cyclists take the risk and run a light because they feel that stopping completely robs their momentum. In some cases, such as a stop sign at the bottom of a hill, this may be true. At a 4-way stop downtown, it's a different story. (My experience with 4-way stops downtown is that everyone, including bikes, cars, pedestrians, etc, take a "do whatever the fuck you want" approach to proceeding through the intersection.)

I digress. With a rolling stop, the cyclist is taking a serious risk to their own health. If they mess up the rolling stop, they might well die. If a car messes up the rolling stop and hits a bike, then the cyclist might well die. So in both cases, the cyclist assumes all physical consquences of the accident. The driver can get another car that day, likely without personal injury.

I don't particularly support the practice, but I can understand why some people would want to engage in it.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

"No harm" can happen even when you heinously violate many safety precautions, because most safety precautions are there to prevent a "1 in X" event from happening. In theory, they're there to make certain that you won't endanger someone, including yourself, out of ignorance.

I believe what the GP is arguing against is "it's OK to ignore that one rule, nothing ever happens" people, who become sloppy and therefore dangerous. The submitter / editor was arguing for "if you know it's going to be safe, it's OK" exemptions from the law. Unfortunately, a cop that only meets you once or twice in your life is not going to know whether you broke the rule because you're sloppy, or if you saw that it was going to be OK and made a clean decision. The cop therefore has to choose between fining an innocent or possibly letting a dangerous driver go with no penalty.

The driver on the other hand, has to choose between putting the cop in that position and delaying his trip by what, 5 seconds? 10? Maybe a minute if the traffic is kinda bad?

Disclaimer: I do rolling stops sometimes, but only when I know the intersection pretty well. Doesn't help, but it is my reasoning.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So in both cases, the cyclist assumes all physical consquences of the accident.

Other than the trauma of killing someone, yeah.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[trentblase]

Yes, bicyclists are the biggest threat to me as an SF pedestrian. We need some kind of Critical Mass for peds. Cyclists get all mad at cars because they aren't treated equally on the roads, but they sure don't earn that equality either.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[aaandre]

There is no evidence that the drivers who roll-stop on an empty intersection are the same drivers who don't stop for pedestrians/bikers.

Threatening someone with imaginary punishment in order to change their mind is a weak argument.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[AK Marc]

That's not a physical consequence, that's a mental/emotional one.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[ceoyoyo]

So if nobody gets hurt (this time) it's okay?

The problem with rolling stops is that they turn into slow-down-a-bits, and it's much harder to look around for pedestrians or bicycles when you're still moving forward. Just stop and look.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who was actually hit while being a pedestrian and loosing more than a year of my life to recovery and over half a years pay (AFTER the settlement), I can say that I am well versed in the statistics of such situations.

The penalty for an actual event happening is low compared to the cost to the victim. In jurisdictions that enforce hard stops at lights, stop signs and cross walks you will find less than 1/3 the number of pedestrians hit. You will also see a drop in car collisions but not such an extreme drop.

When an actual event happens, as the person in the car, you are looking at a minor increase in your insurance (up to double in extreme cases). The victim however can be end up with severe injuries, possibly permanently hurt. If the victim is, he is looking at recovering on average, about 70% of what he would have made for the duration he is hurt. This amount includes punitive damages in any settlement. It also assumes the driver is 100% at fault and clearly so.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[khallow]

How about if the cyclist goes through the windshield? I imagine such a thing is rare because cyclists usually aren't dumb enough to put themselves in the path of a car going that fast (even if they have to rob their momentum to do so), but it probably happens every now and then.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[WillDraven]

I think somebody in the neighborhood should just go take them down. I doubt they would bother to replace them. And if you did notice the signs being replaced, call the local news media and get them to show a video of workers installing stop signs on a road with no intersection.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Anonymous Coward]

So in both cases, the cyclist assumes all physical consquences [sic] of the accident.

There are other motor vehicles on the road than cars you know. The physical consequences to a motorcyclist hitting a bicyclist are far from negligible. Sure, we usually wear a lot more protective gear, and the vehicle also gives some slight measure of protection, but it's far from safe.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[noidentity]

I'm saying that rolling stops for stops signs (ie you get to the stop sign, make sure nothing is coming and continue on before your vehicle has come to a complete stop) aren't a big deal.

In other words, you don't consider it a big deal to treat stop signs as yield signs.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem would be... what is the definition of "rolling stop". Is it 1 mph? 2 mph? A stop can't be put on the table for translation.... either you stop or you don't. A rolling stop has MANY states.

Perhaps you are looking more for roundabouts. ;)

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Anonymous Coward]

"Guess how many times I've been hit?"

4. Am I close?

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[TheoMurpse]

Yeah, but the problem is that eventually you'll perform a rolling stop, not see anyone coming, roll on through the intersection, and cause an accident. No one gets in accidents on purpose! They happen because they are accidents. As such, you need to punish all rolling stops in hopes of stopping all rolling stops.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Beardo the Bearded]

Close. I've only been hit once, and that was by another bike.

I take a fair bit of time tuning my bike and pay special attention to the brakes. I can stop from full speed (20-30km/h) in about a length - length and a half. Yep, that fast. The tires grip and the brakes have a hair trigger. (You want to talk contact patches?)

I stopped dead cold when a car wasn't decelerating fast enough (there's a bike trail that has a few side-streets crossing it; there are stop signs for car traffic, but I trust them as far as I can throw them, and given that they are bolted to signposts that are cemented into the ground, that is "not at all") and I was rear-ended by a 90-pound woman on a road bike. She tacoed her front wheel and broke the clip for one of my lights. She was drafting behind me and didn't call out to let me know.

I then accidentally ended up blinding her because when I turned to ask her if she was okay, I gave her 2W of Blaze right in the eyes. (I call that light "The Intimidator"; you don't want to know about "Dr. Throw")

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Anonymous Coward]

That sort of crap shouldn't happen and people definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing a rolling stop in that location.

What the fuck is a "rolling stop" anyway? If you are rolling, then you obviously haven't stopped. This seems to be a weird regional term specific to the US.

Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[teebob21]

I live in Phoenix, AZ where speed cameras were recently deactivated after two years of controversy. The same vendor, Redflex, was snapping pictures if you were driving 11+ mph over the limit.

However, Tempe and Scottsdale still have red-light cameras. I have no issue with red-light cameras, so long as common sense is used when reviewing tickets. TFA:

Although most were still violations of state law, they were considered very close calls or were due to such reasons as vehicles stopping a short distance over the stop bar that did not pose a traffic hazard, vehicles moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle, plates that were unidentifiable and weather related issues.

Speeders going 11-over when the rest of traffic drives 8-over aren't a public safety risk; red-light runners coming perpendicular to broadside traffic and kids in crosswalks are.

Sounds like a sudden outbreak of common sense. Ticket those red-light runners. I paid my ticket for getting there after the yellow; fair and square.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Speeders going 11-over when the rest of traffic drives 8-over aren't a public safety risk

But this one goes to 11.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[Aranykai]

I recently watched a 3 car pileup at a red light camera intersection. Why did it happen? Because everyone is so scared of rolling through that yellow light, a driver slammed on his brakes, locked up on the wet road and slid into the oncoming turn lane, hitting two other cars.

If there was no camera, he would have harmlessly slipped through on the very edge of the red light.

The simple fact is, adding a delay between the light turning red and the other lights turning green, so that nobody is entering the intersection for two seconds or so, is the best way to stop intersection collisions. Red light camera's are merely a "justified" revenue stream.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[dnaumov]

I live in Phoenix, AZ where speed cameras were recently deactivated after two years of controversy. The same vendor, Redflex, was snapping pictures if you were driving 11+ mph over the limit

I am not sure I understand why this suprises you? Where I live (Finland), cops don't care if you go 5kmh (thats 3,1mph) but if you go 10kmh (6,2mph) over the limit, you will be ticketed, end of story.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[Imagix]

For that example, that driver should be getting a ticket for "Driving without due care and attention" in addition to running the red light. Should have been driving slower to begin with.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[BerryMadness]

In the town where I live they put in a red light camera on an intersection with the downslope of a hill stopping about 7-10 car lengths back with no pedestrian crossings. The speed limit in this area is 40 mph. I live in IA so for a good portion of winter the roads are icy due to the highs are in the 25-34 F range and with the lows being in the 10-20 range.

"Driving without due care and attention"

If you are driving at a safe speed on a nice sunny day, lets say 30-40 mph, you will NOT have enough time to stop without endangering all the cars behind you on the hill, who may or may not have ABS, as they move from compacted snow to patchy ice or solid ice on a downgrade. I say run the fucking light 1-3 seconds after it turned red so you don't cause a 7 car pile-up.

If the cops are taking these types of things into account then I'm fine with it. Otherwise it's total bullshit.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[durdur]

> Sounds like a sudden outbreak of common sense. Ticket those red-light runners.

Nice to hear somebody has that opinion. You know, just not running the light *is* an option. I don't buy the whole "I was entrapped .. it was somebody else maybe - go prove it .. I knew it was safe so no big deal" set of attitudes that other posters seem to have. There's a reason none of that flies in traffic court. Most of the time - you were there, you had a chance to do something different, and you didn't. Heck, I've seen people stop, look, then drive through the red. So they had time to consider their options.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[codepunk]

You failed to mention that in Arizona the ticket is not enforceable since a proper ticket has to be hand delivered. Still idiots pay them but the public was catching and no one was paying the fines, so they just shut them down.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[drsmithy]

I am not sure I understand why this suprises you? Where I live (Finland), cops don't care if you go 5kmh (thats 3,1mph) but if you go 10kmh (6,2mph) over the limit, you will be ticketed, end of story.

Because speeding (along with most other traffic infringements - eg: drink-driving ) is neither policed nor punished very severely in the US at all.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[j_sp_r]

You should be able to brake any time anywhere at maximum braking force without the car behind you hitting you, otherwise he was tailgating.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[teebob21]

The City of Scottsdale employs aggressive, effective process servers. I dodged the ticket for 3 months, then got served at 8 pm on Martin Luther King Day. I never expected a server to be working after hours on a federal holiday.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[Aranykai]

Actually, he was driving the speed limit. My point is not that he wasn't at fault but that the whole thing is needlessly dangerous to everyone.

Sure, his insurance will repair the two other cars but everyone knows its never as good as it was before. What did those other drivers do wrong? Why should they have to go through all that hassle? I would have been pissed if he had done that to me.

Re:Red light Cameras != Speed Cameras

[Imagix]

Didn't say he was speeding. Said he was driving too fast. In this case, driving too fast for the prevailing conditions. I suppose an alternative explanation is that the driver wasn't paying enough attention to driving to begin with. Other drivers? Wrong place at the wrong time.

I wonder how many...

[RingDev]

were cops?

I'm not sure about Tennessee, but in my small town, the local cops treat most laws or the road with little regard. Rolling stops, speeding, high speed/reckless driving. Heck, I had to file a complaint one evening after a cop damn near ran into a group of young boys walking down the side walk. Apparently, pulling over to the curb and calling them to the car, or getting out and approaching them were the lesser options when compared to flooring it and jumping the curb to park on some company's apron to block the side walk. His excuse was that someone had reported their teen daughter missing and the officer thought the boys might know where she was.

Or heck, when I was working 3rd shift years ago, we used to have two squad cars that would run 1/8th mile laps around the block in front of my work place. They would turn on the lights, but no sirens, then scream up and down the divided business road.

Just last night on the drive home I saw a cop come to a complete stop and make a 7 point turn IN THE MIDDLE OF A BRIDGE, blocking traffic in both directions on a 55mph high way during rush hour. If he had driven 100 feet, he could have pulled into a country lane and done his turn faster and with out obstructing any traffic.

Then again, I guess if you can just brush away any pics of cops blowing lights due to 'technical issues', there won't be many of them getting tickets.

-Rick

Re "Presumption of innocence"

[Rene S. Hollan]

This only applies in criminal cases in U.S., and a number of other jurisdictions.

A lot of states have made traffic offenses civil offenses, where a preponderance of evidence is the standard.

Re:Re "Presumption of innocence"

[Myopic]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think "preponderance of evidence" is a lower standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt". Presumption of innocence is a different concept which would apply to both standards of evidence. Can a lawyer please say for sure?

Re:Re "Presumption of innocence"

[Rene S. Hollan]

There is no question of guilt or innocence in civil cases because the purported action is not criminal.

The reason many states are making traffic violations civil and not criminal offenses is precisely because the standard of evidence is lower.

Re:Re "Presumption of innocence"

[bk2204]

Even if the standard is a preponderance of the evidence, any other civil case requires an appearance in a courtroom with both sides present to argue it out in front of a judge or jury. Where red light cameras are installed, the tickets are often mailed to the alleged violator without any sort of appearance in a courtroom by the defendant.

I know in Houston the city is trying to get the county to deny vehicle registrations if the red-light tickets are unpaid. It seems that the city has forgotten about the adversarial nature of our judicial system.

Re:Re "Presumption of innocence"

[DRJlaw]

The three common standards of proof are "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing evidence," and "beyond a reasonable doubt." The first essentially boils down to it being more likely than not that the fact is true; the third is the classic televised standard in criminal cases (which is not as high as some on Slashdot believe); and the second is the subject of innumerous articles and court rulings because it's in the squishy middle. Burdens of proof establish permissible degrees of uncertainty concerning 'the absolute truth.' There are other standards of proof, but they tend to be lesser procedural hurdles intended to short circuit weak cases or undue intrusions on liberty.

A presumption is not a standard of proof. A presumption establishes who 'wins' in the event that no side satisfies the burden of proof. A presumption of innocence establishes that the defendant in a criminal case is innocent unless all of the elements of the criminal case have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A presumption of validity in a patent case establishes that the patent owner can collect damages from an infringer unless the patent is affirmatively shown to be invalid. Presumptions work against that ancient rhetorical trick, "prove that I'm wrong" (or "prove that you're not guilty," or what have you), where someone flips the burden of proof to the other side.

The court rulings referenced in the summary shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. There are civil offenses such as parking violations, property maintenance violations, zoning violations, etc. and there are criminal offenses where you at least nominally risk some form of deprivation of liberty (conventionally, detention in a jail or prison). Almost all civil actions use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, although statutes or courts occasionally require clear and convincing evidence. Essentially all criminal actions use "beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is not absolutely required -- it became a consensus in the U.S. well after the bill of rights was enacted. If you want to require your town to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that your neighbor let his grass grow taller than 12 inches, seek a change in the law, but you'll quickly find that it's unworkable.

The "presumption of innocence" angle is a canard. The "presumption of innocence" has a specific meaning which invokes the criminal law, right to jury, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof. An abstract presumption of innocence still applies in these cases -- nobody is being fined without photographs of the vehicle and the violation.

As a side note, under some of these laws, nobody has to prove that the person being fined was driving the car. The fine is to the owner of the car (don't want a fine, don't let people borrow the car) or maybe even to the car. I don't practice in this area, so I can't point to specific laws. Constitutional protections are very narrow, despite appearances to the contrary. Most protections are established by statute and are political. If you don't like them, get up and change them.

Re:Re "Presumption of innocence"

[Rene S. Hollan]

In WA, the arresting officer submits their statement to the court if the ticket is challenged. One can request this as part of discovery, and respond to it, as well as call witnesses. It is up to the jurisdictional area (city, typically) to decide whether to appear and/or call witnesses of their own.

In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the officer's written testimony is taken as true (it is filed under penalty of perjury, as are most pleadings).

In fact, many civil cases are decided on the pleadings alone, in the interest of expediency, and a motion for leave to present oral or non-written evidence usually has to be approved by the judge.

Re:Re "Presumption of innocence"

[Chowderbags]

So they can take your money, and the moment you resist (or ignore their letters), they can arrest you and throw you in jail (with the only evidence needed being that you didn't pay your fine)? Nevermind that the original offense wouldn't have passed muster in the first place? Crazy fucking world.

But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[CLorox]

The article doesn't state how many residents of the town were ticketed as opposed to out of town drivers passing through, but lets pretend it did. Nearly 50% of people in this town flagged, and a little under a quarter were ticketed.... in 3 short months? Not sure how many were drivers from outside the town, but that is a ridiculous sum. Change the law or scrap the camera, this is not working and is a burden to the citizens. I wonder how many traffic collisions will occur because people are slamming on the breaks trying to avoid getting ticketed.

How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court. Burden to the court, burden to the citizen and a significant expense of time and money. What a racket.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[Necreia]

The article doesn't state how many residents of the town were ticketed as opposed to out of town drivers passing through, but lets pretend it did. Nearly 50% of people in this town flagged, and a little under a quarter were ticketed.... in 3 short months? Not sure how many were drivers from outside the town, but that is a ridiculous sum. Change the law or scrap the camera, this is not working and is a burden to the citizens. I wonder how many traffic collisions will occur because people are slamming on the breaks trying to avoid getting ticketed.

How is it not working? People violating the law are being caught and fined as appropriate. The problem/complaints seem to stem from it working too well. Also according to the article, people who were not violating the law were not given tickets. To quote: "more than 41 percent of the total recorded incidents were rejected. Although most were still violations of state law, they were considered very close calls or were due to such reasons as vehicles stopping a short distance over the stop bar that did not pose a traffic hazard, vehicles moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle, plates that were unidentifiable and weather related issues."

...How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court...

In inclement weather, or other situations in which the speed limit is too high to drive safely, then it's the drivers responsibility to low down to safe speeds. If the driver couldn't react (for whatever reason) and stop for a red light, then they were going too fast under the circumstances. The Green->Yellow->Red timings are not arbitrary, and are based on good weather conditions and acceptable reaction time expectations. If you can't stop for a red light, you'll not stop for a pedestrian. In short, they are going too fast and deserve the ticket.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[blueg3]

If you have to slam on your brakes to stop in the amount of time it takes a traffic light to change from yellow to red, you're going too fast for the conditions.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[Culture20]

...How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court...

In inclement weather, or other situations in which the speed limit is too high to drive safely, then it's the drivers responsibility to low down to safe speeds. If the driver couldn't react (for whatever reason) and stop for a red light, then they were going too fast under the circumstances. The Green->Yellow->Red timings are not arbitrary, and are based on good weather conditions and acceptable reaction time expectations.

The point of a lot of these camera articles is that the timings are not (as you said) arbitrary, and are instead purposefully shortened to create revenue. Decades of driving experience have taught people that 20mph in a 30mph zone while it's raining is okay, but a shortened amber time is like having a pedestrian jump out in front of you from the side of the road, not safely using the crosswalk. The only way to protect against that is to drive 5mph everywhere at all times.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[Anonymous Coward]

The article doesn't state how many residents of the town were ticketed as opposed to out of town drivers passing through . . .

Likely these systems are designed and setup to target those from out of town. Nearly all the red light cameras I've seen were set up that way. Notice how many tickets were dropped. I'd be a disproportionate of tickets from locals were drops. If the camera upsets the locals they can vote people out and get it removed. You can "tax" those from out of town without any risks. Anyone who thinks safety is the goal here is very naive.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[ceoyoyo]

"How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket."

Around here driving in a manner unsafe for the conditions is a more serious ticket than going through a stop sign. I guess those drivers could probably get their minor ticket switched for the more serious one if they wanted.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[CLorox]

And if I rephrase that. How many of these drivers were traveling at a speed that was safe for conditions below the posted limit. Or is there no feasible way for this to happen because your speed is automatically unsafe if you have no ability to stop at a yellow light.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't stop for a red light, you'll not stop for a pedestrian

Pedestrians generally don't appear randomly out of nowhere on the street; red lights do. Furthermore, if you adopt a driving style that is based on being able to stop anywhere anytime within your reaction time, you're a dangerous driver. Good driving is based on analyzing the surroundings and driving accordingly.

That's why red lights need to have an ample yellow phase; having a light turn red just within your reaction time is unexpected and dangerous.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the argument against red-light cameras because of rear-ending a bit silly, to be honest. As a driver you're supposed to look ahead, as well as maintain a proper distance to the car in front of you. Either one of them should be enough to prevent a collision in this scenario, let alone both...

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[RockDoctor]

In inclement weather, or other situations in which the speed limit is too high to drive safely,

You seem to realise what the parent post doesn't clearly express (or seem to care about) : a speed limit is the maximum speed that it is considered safe for any vehicle to travel on that section of road under ideal conditions. Practically any deviation of conditions from ideal would therefore mean that the safe driving speed is lower, often substantially lower, than the speed limit.

People need to pass their driving tests more often.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[RockDoctor]

Enlighten me please : you and the submitter use the term "rolling stop", which obviously means something in the States, but is flat-out nonsensical here. In British English, to "stop" means to cease movement, whereas to "roll" is a form of movement. So a "rolling stop" is a complete contradiction in terms. If you've not brought the vehicle to a halt while de-clutching the engine, put your gearbox into neutral and are ready to swap foot brake for parking brake, then you've not "stopped" ; you are still moving.
Does the term have some meaning in the US equivalent of the Highway Code? Or, for that matter, in the European equivalents, as I'm likely to drive in Europe on many occasions in the future.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the yellow light has been set to too short a time.

Farragut, TN

[Anonymous Coward]

Farragut, TN is not a small town. It's called a suburb. The median income for a household in the town is $82,726 Not exactly a small town

Traffic Cameras are Free Money...

[Anonymous Coward]

The amazing thing is that the "fines" are $50, and do not get counted against your driving record, no matter how many you get, due to the state constitution... It doesn't allow blatant ripoffs.

You know none of the current politicians had a hand in crafting it, lol.

Our state constitution makes it illegal for them to charge more than $50 also.

The "Speed/Traffic" cameras in nearby Oak Ridge, (which used to be a nice place, but is now Crack Alley) have at least three digits; it's become a game to see who gets the highest number. :)

165 in a 25 zone? that's $50 please. :)

It costs $167 to contest one of these tickets. Due process, anyone? Remember the golden rule, "the guy with the gold gets to make the rules."

I don't spend money or time in places with these cameras; if enough people have that attitude, they will go away. Hopefully before the town does.

Farragut is the rich section of Knoxville; Snobs, Bimbos, and teenagers driving/wrecking their BMW's daily, lol.

You don't want to see the poor section of Knoxville; look up "Shannon Christian" on Knoxnews.com :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Re:Traffic Cameras are Free Money...

[Grishnakh]

Good grief, it sounds like that place has really gone downhill since I moved out in 1994 to go to college. (I was probably last there in 1998 or 1999, when my parents moved out.) I actually lived in Farragut, which was a decent place, though of course it was certainly filled with snobs and teenagers driving BMWs. Oak Ridge was also a nice place, where a lot of the snobs' parents worked.

Re:Traffic Cameras are Free Money...

[Cinder6]

$50 fine? That's amazing. In my town (of about 60,000), it's a $370 fine. That's higher than in other nearby towns (which are larger, to boot), but only by $30. And that's the minimum fine, mind. Good ol' California.

The worst part is that some signals don't show yellow for the same length of time as others, so it's really hard to judge, sometimes.

Re:Traffic Cameras are Free Money...

[CAIMLAS]

It costs $167 to contest one of these tickets. Due process, anyone? Remember the golden rule, "the guy with the gold gets to make the rules."

How, exactly, would having more money make it so you could "make the rules" in this case? Sure, you could contest it, but short of having enough money to buy city hall or the people in it outright, you're not going to be able to "make the rules".

Seems to me you're being disingenuous and applying your political views to an outside case. If you're just trying to say "the system is corrupt" then fine - but it seems to me that it's the people with power who get to make the rules, not those with money. (The money they have is often, if not usually, the result of having power, not the cause.)

Re:Traffic Cameras are Free Money...

[gabec]

Ah, another Knoxvillian...

After getting a small speeding ticket from Oak Ridge at one of these red light cameras I swore off going to Oak Ridge for any financial transaction. So far, I've counted about $3,500 worth of small contracts, Craigslist purchases and whatnot I've turned down or avoided simply because they were in Oak Ridge.

It's my small, passive-aggressive non-resident contribution to Oak Ridge.

Red lights

[LoudMusic]

I don't know about merging stop and yield signs, but red lights should be treated as stop signs. I would venture a guess that many people run red lights because they know if they stop they'll be sitting there an aggravatingly long time. But if they can stop at a red light, look left and right, then go, they'll probably be more willing to stop rather than punch it.

Re:Red lights

[BBTaeKwonDo]

Intersections often have red lights because there isn't sufficient visibility to see intersecting traffic coming in order to determine if it's safe to proceed.

Screw em

[lisany]

As someone who has almost been run over by morons failing to stop at a stop sign and red light I endorse red-light and stop sign cameras. I say put the cameras at every intersection and raise the penalty for not stopping at stop signs or red lights.

Re:Screw em

[Anonymous Coward]

Then get off the road you damn bare-foot hippy. Roads are for cars not people.

Are you fucking kidding me?

[grasshoppa]

Merge stop and yield? That's one of those ideas that sound awesome, until you consider that people will be involved.

We are just getting round abouts where I live, and people are constantly stopping at those things when no one is there, or trying to go even though they don't have the right away.

People are idiots, and couldn't handle such a suggestion.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[RockDoctor]

We are just getting round abouts where I live,

The norm in Britain, where they've always been popular, is to call them a "roundabout" (all one word). I recall an American friend taking a detour to "the only roundabout in New England" just so he could have a laugh about how difficult his countrymen found it to handle the idea. That was 1990 or 1991, so I gather that things haven't changed much.

people are constantly stopping at those things when no one is there, or trying to go even though they don't have the right away.

Confusion, fear, uncertainty, doubt ... leading I hope to reduced driving speeds. Sounds to me as if the roundabout is working as intended. It's their job to make drivers think harder and pay closer attention to the actions of other road users. That generally leads to lower speeds, which in turn leads to fewer accidents, less injury and damage in each accident, and (this is the bit that people find counter-intuitive) higher throughput of traffic.
Did someone lie to you when you were a trainee driver, and leave you with the impression that driving was meant to be easy or fun? Probably - it's in the nature of driving instructors to do that - I certainly do so when I'm trying to teach the wife to drive. But you know it's a lie really, don't you?

I remember when I was student at university, about 5 years before I started to learn to drive myself, meeting a car driving around a roundabout in the wrong direction. The meeting was head-on, and I climbed off my pedal bike, leaned in through the drivers window and told him just what a plonker I thought he was, before pedalling off into the distance. Even where we've had roundabouts for many decades, people still get them wrong and so you have to treat them with caution.

Try this little beauty for size : Swindon's "Magic Roundabout". Think that'd go down well in your neck of the woods?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[grasshoppa]

So it's intent is to be a traffic hazard and introduce risk in to the equation?

Somehow, I think you've got that wrong.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[RockDoctor]

So it's intent is to be a traffic hazard and introduce risk in to the equation?

No, it's intent is to SCARE drivers, because scared drivers, on average, drive more cautiously. (They also probably drive less often, which can be much much cheaper than building more roads.)

Whether there is any actual DIFFERENCE in risk at roundabouts, compared to the level of risk at any intersection, is a different question to whether people are more afraid of one design or the other. And probably the levels of risk are not much different between crossroads, light-controlled crossroads and roundabouts. I see broadly similar amounts of broken glass on both. The statisticians could probably have a field day arguing which is actually the riskiest, but the psychologists would quickly home in on "the unfamilar" as being the scariest.
Did you follow the link I posted to the "Magic Roundabout"? It's not a joke, and I well recall the terror with which I first encountered it, shell shocked from seeing the approach signs describing it's layout. It's an absolutely terrifying place, and it had me slow right down to navigate it. Far more than I'd expected to. Very effective. Of course, it's probably just annoying to the people who traverse it four times a day, so perhaps they should also randomly close some lanes.

I partially stand up

[egandalf]

There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't. You either break the law, or you don't. Not harming someone or their property doesn't make it any more legal to disobey rules of the road.

This whole concept reminds me of the George Carlin bit about staying seated until the plane comes to a "complete stop." There is no such thing as a partial stop. If you roll through a light, get caught and fined, at least own up to it. Any driver who does this knows they are taking the risk, knows it's against the rules, and, while I'm not saying they deserve to get caught, should at least take personal responsibility if they do.

I roll through stops sometimes, though I do try to make a conscious effort to not do so. I also speed - and have no shame in doing it. If/when I get caught, I accept the consequences unless I have what I feel is a justifiable reason for what I did.

Re:I partially stand up

[interkin3tic]

There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't

Yes, you've spotted an oxymoron, good job and all, but it's not actually "rolling on through" either. There is a significant difference between a car driving past a stop sign at 30 mph and a car that slows down to 5 mph at the stop sign: one of those gave the driver enough time to make sure they weren't going to t-bone a car or smash a person, satisfying the intended function of a stop.

It's a widely accepted term, the fact that literally it doesn't make much sense doesn't matter.

Re:I partially stand up

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether the term is widely accepted isn't the issue - a 5mph roll-through is equally illegal as a 30mph drive-through. Neither one is a stop, which is what the sign says to do.

Re:I partially stand up

[Dahamma]

Well, Timothy's comment makes no sense (as usual) anyway. A "rolling stop" at a 4 way stop sign with no other cars present? Really not that big a deal.

But these are not "stop sign cameras". These are red LIGHT cameras. How in hell do you "roll" through a red light?!

Re:I partially stand up

[burquedout]

But slowing down to 5mph is often slow enough to determine if you have right of way or not and continue through. The fact that it's equally illegal is the stupid thing, there is no reason to come to a complete stop other than the law. The law needs to be changed in my opinion.

Re:I partially stand up

[Stiletto]

You either break the law, or you don't.

This kind of idiotic black-and-white mentality is exactly what is wrong with our legal system today. It's how we get travesties like "Zero Tolerance" and why there are more nonviolent people in prison now than ever before.

If you really think that rolling through a stopsign at 5mph is equally as bad as (and should be treated the same as) blowing through it at 45mph, please shoot yourself now, or at least stop voting for my leaders.

Re:I partially stand up

[Qzukk]

a 5mph roll-through is equally illegal as a 30mph drive-through

My mother got a ticket because according to the cop that stopped her, a 1 second stop (complete with car settling on its springs, ie really really stopped you're a liar if you claimed otherwise) is equally illegal as a 30mph drive-through and she's supposed to sit there with no oncoming traffic for at least 5 seconds.

Funny how the "slippery slope" extends both ways from 0mph.

Re:I partially stand up

[SleazyRidr]

I guess that he was talking about turning right on a red light, but I have no idea if cameras watch for that or not.

Completely agree with your comment about rolling through stop signs. In most places they aren't needed, and a yield would do a far better job, but as so many cynics before me have pointed out, that wouldn't lead to near as much revenue.

Re:I partially stand up

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically you are supposed to fully stop at a red light when making a right hand turn, even if there is no other traffic present. Many people, as with stop signs, do not fully stop - and red-light cameras routinely ticket this behavior.

That said, red-light cameras capture video of the incident, so the officer reviewing can determine whether it is actually legitimate. I know in some cases they disregard the rolling-stops but it really depends on whether the intention of the camera is to make money or catch people blowing the light.

Re:I partially stand up

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole concept reminds me of the George Carlin bit about staying seated until the plane comes to a "complete stop." There is no such thing as a partial stop.

To be pedantic, there can be multiple stops on a plane after its landed. You're still on the tarmac, but you haven't yet gotten cleared for a terminal, so the plane stops (as an example). Here, "complete" refers to the final stop at the terminal; perhaps "final stop" would be more appropriate, but it's less of an oxymoron than "rolling stop".

Re:I partially stand up

[Prof.Phreak]

I think it's 2 seconds.

Re:I partially stand up

[winwar]

"If you really think that rolling through a stopsign at 5mph is equally as bad as (and should be treated the same as) blowing through it at 45mph, please shoot yourself now, or at least stop voting for my leaders."

This is a strawman. In the later case, the driver would likely suffer additional charges, at least if there were consequences from running the stop or if it were witnessed by a cop in person.

On the other hand, if there were no bad outcomes (no harm, no foul) one could argue that there should be no difference in how they were treated. If rolling through safely is okay, why not at speed?

Or one could make the case that a stop sign or red light indicates that one is to come to a complete stop. Failure to do so is a ticketable offense. Simple and easy.

I simply don't understand the outrage at being ticketed for failing to stop at a red light. They represent a significant monetary investment in traffic control indicating that society has assigned to them some importance. They aren't residential stop signs that grow like weeds. They aren't speed limits that bear no resemblance to reality.

Re:I partially stand up

[Anonymous Coward]

Only it's not an oxymoron, it's a clarification.

A "complete stop" is a cessation of movement.

A "stop" can be a destination on a journey. "We're stopping at airport A on the way to destination B", so people might interpret "stop" as "the general area of the airport". Yes, people are that dumb. A person isn't that dumb, but people are that dumb.

I was saddened when travelling on the trains in the US and they had to use the word "detrain" instead of "alight" or even "get the hell off". "Detrain" is an abomination of a word.

Re:I partially stand up

[Quirkz]

I'm tempted to agree, but I've also been on the other side of the transaction. If you have the right of way and someone coming up to the intersection tries to perform a rolling stop, even if they see you and do actually stop, it often looks to you like they're going to run into the intersection and you need to take defensive action.

Yes, many of the worst cases of this involve people who aren't going 5 mph but more like 15, and they're coming to a stop well beyond the stop sign -- often half a car length or a full length, putting them right at the edge of the intersection. You might be able to argue (and legislate) a middle ground where if you're going 5 mph and properly come to a stop *at* the stop sign you're doing it okay, and if you're going 15 and stop beyond the stop sign you're not, but I simply don't think enough drivers are good enough to make that distinction.

For one thing, stop signs are often placed where you can't really make a proper judgment call. A "legal" driver would stop at the sign, then inch forward, while verifying the way is clear. A "good" driver might roll past the stop sign at 5 mph, ready to brake at any sign of traffic, and properly stop or go as the situation dictates, without giving the impression they're definitely going into the intersection regardless. A "typical" driver rolls through much faster and gives the impression that they assume the intersection is clear and are about to barrel in -- the fact that most of them will actually slam on the brakes at the last second doesn't matter, because they've already scared the bejeezus out of cross traffic.

I wouldn't be opposed to legalizing a rolling stop, as long as it could still adequately protect pedestrians and prevent scaring the bejeezus out of cross traffic -- but I'd like to see the results of a lot of tests before assuming that's even possible.

What, no karma for me?

[SonicSpike]

I appreciate the shout-out, but don't I get karma points?

Re:What, no karma for me?

[nizo]

Yes, bad karma. Probably not what you wanted though.

Re:What, no karma for me?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Did you get an article on the front page? If so, congratulations.

Re:What, no karma for me?

[SonicSpike]

Yes I am the guy who submitted this story.

Re:What, no karma for me?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Well again, good job. It looks like this is number eight for you. I've submitted a handful of articles, but nothing's been accepted.

I'm partially posting because one of the mods apparently really hates you for it.

Re:What, no karma for me?

[SonicSpike]

Love your signature ha ha ha ha. I think you would get a kick out of this place: http://ronpaulforums.com/

You can view the incriminating *video*. Nice!

[Richard Steiner]

That's actually a nice touch. That way, you can see if you really failed to stop or not.

Huh...

I don't like red light cameras, but this is one of the better ways to implement them, I think.

Maybe just enhance Yield signs and use them more

[Myopic]

I have long thought that a majority (not all, not even most, but more than half) of stop signs should be replaced by yield signs which specifically list the speed to which you should slow down. For instance, we all do rolling stops because, honestly, it's almost always safe to do so. You rarely see people doing it at blind intersections with unclear views (I don't see that, anyway). Almost all intersections have very good visibility and slowing down to 5mph is perfectly safe. Some intersections, 10mph will be good enough; some, 2 or 3mph is good enough. On a small number of intersections require a full absolute STOP to make the intersection safe.

(Please note, I followed the link but could not watch the video. I was hoping for a text summary but there was none. If he said exactly what I said, then I'm silly and apologize.)

STOP

[Shivetya]

doesn't mean Slow To Observe Police.

Really, if something as simple as a STOP sign is distressing I cannot imagine other laws of inconvenience to you during the course of the rest of your drive. Cannot count the times people drifting through STOP signs have almost winged me on my motorcycle or my car. It isn't bad enough with lack of attention from cell phones too many people just don't obey the signs out of habit leaving motorcyclist like me to approach all such intersections as potential death traps.

so the lights are in your favour

[naeone]

so the lights are in your favour, cant help myself i STILL check both ways before proceeding, not just because the highway code says so. its simple self preservation

I was caught recently

[goontz]

I recently got one of these in the mail only to find out that I had been ticketed for turning right on red. They had a nifty online log in where I could even view the video of the "infraction" and it did turn out that I didn't stop completely. I suppose I admit my "guilt," but it was 7:30am on a Saturday in a small town and a completely empty intersection. Unfortunately, the town is about an hour and a half drive from my home and there was some fine print about a $50 administrative fee for doing so. It wouldn't be at all worth it to fight or argue the thing (especially considering that I admittedly didn't come to a full stop), so I just paid the $75 and take it as a lesson learned.

I have no problem with using the cameras to ticket those who actually blatantly run red lights. I see it all the time and it scares the crap out of me how much people endanger themselves and others just to save a few minutes. After sitting at a red light, I'm always sure to check and make sure no one is about to blast through the intersection before I start going. It's something I started being extra sure of when riding motorcycles, and has just become a good habit.

Re:I was caught recently

[Myopic]

Indeed. The lesson is don't go do that small town, especially when you want to buy goods and services. It's even more helpful if the local business owners know why you have been 'driven' away from their stores.

Re:I was caught recently

[radish]

So is your problem with the law in question (stop at a red light) or the fact that people are being caught for breaking it? The OP admitted not stopping, so he's guilty, so which is it? I'd say the lesson is "don't break the law", with a side of "if you don't like the law, lobby to change it", not "only go to places where you can get away with breaking the law". But that's just me.

Re:I was caught recently

[Dunbal]

there was some fine print about a $50 administrative fee for doing so.

      Oh that's cute. So either way, the town gets $50 if you're innocent, $75 if you don't contest the ticket and pay the fine, or $125 if you argue in court and lose.

      You know we used to joke about these kinds of devices when I was a kid in the 70's. Only they were supposed to be in Russia...

Re:I was caught recently

[Dunbal]

I'd say the lesson is "don't break the law"

Sorry, this calls for a Terry Pratchett quote:

"Everyone was guilty of something. Vimes knew that. Every copper knew it. That was how you maintained your authority: everyone, talking to a copper, was secretly afraid you could see their guilty secret written on their forehead. You couldn't, of course. But neither were you supposed to drag someone off the street and smash their fingers with a hammer until they told you what it was. "

If you put cameras everywhere, record everything, and use computers to dig through all that information, we are ALL going to jail for one reason or another. Heck, most of us wouldn't make it to adulthood. This monitoring should be passive, not active. Law enforcement should concentrate on deterring REAL crime. Yes, running a red light is dangerous. Educate or eventually enforce consequences for the ones who do it habitually. If governments were really concerned about "safety", red lights would be accompanied with barriers like at railroad crossings (and it probably would be cheaper than the camera system to boot). This is a shameless scramble for cash, driven by irresponsible and uncontrolled spending. Nothing more.

Re:I was caught recently

[Myopic]

I guess I'd say both. You might want to, but I don't want to live in a society of perfect law enforcement. That doesn't sound nice to me. It's difficult to explain where the balance is for me. But it's fine for us to differ on that and I don't want to argue about it.

Re:I was caught recently

[radish]

If you put cameras everywhere, record everything, and use computers to dig through all that information, we are ALL going to jail for one reason or another

So the answer is "change the law". I agree there are too many, and I agree that in the current system it's virtually impossible not to commit some infraction at some point, but the solution to that is not to artificially hamper enforcement, but to fix what's broken - to get rid of the laws which we don't want to punish people for. If you only want to punish people who habitually run red lights then record every instance but only issue a ticket after 10, or 20, or whatever.

A fair legal system is one where people know what's OK and what's not, and understand (and can predict) the consequences of their actions. That REQUIRES the removal of the random "will I get caught" factor but also requires the laws to be sensible and fair in the first place.

Re:I was caught recently

[radish]

I'd be happy to live in a society of perfect law enforcement, provided it was also a society of perfect laws. It's a pipe dream for sure, but I don't think the solution to bad laws is patchy enforcement - that just makes it even more unfair for those who _are_ punished (i.e. "everyone was speeding, how come only I got a ticket?").

Automated Speeding is another...

[IgnitusBoyone]

In Louisiana these things are always used to also give out speeding tickets for (they claim 11 over, but my wife received one for 7 so I personally think its 6mph). Might sound bad as I have had to pay tickets from these things, but I disagree in handing out speeding tickets through automated systems. This Article cites a reviewing officer, but to my knowledge the system in place where I live uses company employees and not police officers to review the video's. Anyways I have no problem with ticketing anyone who runs a stop sign its a dangerous act that you can't expect cops to witness enough to enforce the law. However, I can't say I like the idea of ticketing a car and not a driver, but at least they have a spot on the ticket to transfer the ownership of the ticket to the driver.

I do have problems with getting speeding tickets from them with out the benefit of the doubt or consideration to the flow of traffic and day of the week. In a big city normally the roads are so busy its not possible to speed when it would be really dangerous to do so, but it is possible to run red lights. However, on the weekdays or early in the morning when no one is on the road its easy to forget that some parts of a five lane road are 35MPH and be caught going 42MPH. They do not release the stats here that often, but it was reported by the local news (for what ever that is worth) that the five camera's in my area produced more revenue then the traffic tickets issued by the regular police force during the first year of operation. As I can't find the quote right now online I will have to take that fact with a grain of salt, but worth mentioning.

Gary Larson's traffic sign

[tylersoze]

I first misread that as Gary *Larson*, I'm sure his idea for a merged traffic sign would've been much more humorous, perhaps involving talking animals in an incongruous situation of some sort.

Off Topic

[networkzombie]

I always stop at intersections with cameras, but because some intersections have them and other do not, I take the intersections that do not have them less seriously. No red light camera, no traffic, and no cops, means drive through. I feel if they want to force their authority down my throat on some intersections, say by giving me a ticket because I missed the yellow by less than 1 second or inched into the crosswalk, then I can practice my free will at unmonitored intersections by yielding rather than stopping.

What about jaywalkers?

[mangu]

I agree with that, as long as the fine (and the probability of getting caught) is the same for jaywalkers as for rolling stops.

How about Red Light = STOP

[marc_the_kiwi]

Is it just me or is this issue a non-issue for pretty much every other country in the world. I don't have facts about how many other countries actually let you drive through a red light, but come on people. A red light should mean stop. STOP. Pretty much every country I've ever driven in (NZ, AU, EU) have 'Free Turns' or equivalents, that is, you can take care and drive around the corner giving way to oncoming traffic. Simple.

Re:How about Red Light = STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree - traffic control saves lives, manages tempers that would otherwise flare when traffic is left to its own devices.
I think the real problem can be explained with the numbers : 3,878 citations in 3 months in a town of 17000 people. Clearly, a red light means squat to the residents of this town. Something tells me that more drivers are going to respect the meaning of the red light from here on in, though. I'd say the program is working better than the previous method (whatever that was).

Re:How about Red Light = STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your understanding of the sample is flawed. It's not simply from the population of the town itself, as far as I can tell, but includes anybody, potentially, who could drive a car to the place.

I doubt there's anybody from Patagonia or the Yukon going through, but it's not impossible. More likely, however, is that any number of people in the area have been through the town. Narrow down the statistics by repeat offenders, or local billing addresses, you might have something, but not from the summary.

But hey, don't let that stop you.

That said, I will say many drivers in TN do suck. I was on the road, and somebody cut in front of me...to turn into a restaurant. They could have just slowed down, and gotten in behind me, there was no traffic behind us. But instead they decided to jump right in front of me, without even a signal.

Moron.

Re:How about Red Light = STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the sample includes many non-residents and repeat-offenders, the thought did occur to me - but 3878 in 3 months? That's not 17000 drivers, either, as a census would include children and non-driving adults. Additionally, any out-of-state plates would be tossed (unenforceable law?), if I'm not mistaken, and the police did toss an additional 3335 cases. Sure, the numbers given are less than perfect, but it would seem you are arguing that "in the past 3 months, twenty two hundred people from other places came to town and ran red lights, but the rest of town (except for those three guys that each ran 150 red lights) only got caught running a thousand". No matter how it's spun, it's one hell of a lot of red light infractions. So many, in fact, that although the sample doesn't yield the same result a full analysis would, it's reasonable to draw an assumption or two about the citizens of this town and their prior opinion of red lights.
But hey, stay smug if it's working.

Commuters?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what percentage of the 2,673 "rejected" were residents of Farragut? And what percentage of the "total" violations were residents of Farragut? I've lived places where some of the smaller municipalities gave their "true" residents a sticker for their car, so it's obvious who is from there. I've always believed that the commuters took a much heavier hit on traffic fines.

Predictable consequence

[overshoot]

Here in Los Angeles, a TV station got ahold of the records, and in most cases, accidents *increase* at camera intersections.

That's a predictable consequence of shortening the yellow interval to generate more revenue.

Revenue Generation in a down economy

[wirehead_rick]

This is just a simple way for localities to make up lost revenue for a decreasing tax base in an economic downturn. Speeding tickets are on the rise too.

It's just another case of there are so many damn laws you can't help but break some everyday. It's just govt. doesn't choose to fine you until the coffers get low. They let you break the law (speeding and the such) so you get into the habit and then bam - crackdown! Instant revenue stream.

My favorite way to get back is to absolutely refuse to turn right on red at any light with the cameras. I don't care how many people I piss off. I'll sit there all freakin' day long. If it's in your local municipality and you support the camera then you get to wait behind my paranoid ass. Serves ya right.

re stats

[freddieb]

Pretty much proves what I thought. A cash cow!

I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[netsavior]

Obviously they don't work.

The obvious solution is RED LIGHT SPIKE STRIPS.

Severe tire damage has 3 awesome consequences:
1) no court proceedings
2) no appeals
3) stimulates local economy

Re:I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[Fulcrum of Evil]

How about we shoot or burn any red light cameras we find? Replacing the camera should stimulate some business.

Re:I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[Renraku]

I can see the lawsuits now --

"Your honor, I had to run that red light. It was safe to do so, as no one was approaching from either side, it was 3am, and the red light lasts five minutes in the direction I was coming from. My wife was about to give birth in the back seat and bam, my tires busted. The car flipped and now my baby has cerebral palsy and an IQ of sixty. I'm seeking ten million dollars in damages from the state."

Re:I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[quacking duck]

I'm sure you're joking, but in case you're not...

Fire, ambulance and other emergency responders are absolutely going to love your idea. So will the people they're trying to reach in a hurry.

Re:I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[steelfood]

Except when somebody runs it anyway, blows their tires, and manages to flip over in the process. Then you have a traffic mess and nobody's going anywhere.

I think it's absurd to force people into obeying traffic laws all the time anyway. Certain things are dangerous (like driving the wrong way down a one-way street) and shouldn't be done except in the most dire circumstances. But those "dire" circumstances when it's worth it to risk a minor collision (because a head-on collision isn't likely unless the road curves), when it's worth it to get a ticket, should be left to the driver's discretion. Granted, not everybody makes good choices and even those who do don't necessarily do it all the time. But the ability to choose is important.

You don't want to be stopping at every stop sign on your way to the hospital when your pregnant wife is about to give birth. Sure, you can enlist the help of a local squad car in those circumstances, but you'd have to find one first because as you know, making phone calls while driving is far more dangerous than blowing a few stop signs where there's nobody else around.

Re:I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is RED LIGHT SHOTGUNS that shoot the driver dead if they run a light. Since they are putting others in danger I think that would be perfectly acceptable as punishment.

Or how about a trap door that drops the vehicle down into a pit and crushes it into a cube. Then it would be out of the way so no one else is inconvenienced by these red-light-running terrorists.

Re:I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been done before, well, almost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9sRxWvXHTk

Re:I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're trying to stop accidents, the right solution is to delay green lights by a few seconds. It pisses everyone off (I forget what town it was that had them), but the intersection is always clear when someone finally gets a green light.

let's be sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me we just need to drastically raise taxes so that we can afford to put multiple police officers and coordinated cameras (controlled with open source software) to catch the infraction from multiple angles. Only that way can we possibly avoid the 1 in a million false positive.

Fifth amendment

[sjbe]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

The answer to your question is that your accusers have to prove you were guilty. This is derived primarily from the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. You are presumed innocent until convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction. You might have committed the infraction but you aren't supposed to be guilty of anything without due process.

Furthermore there could easily be extenuating circumstances which a camera has no possibility of evaluating. We put a lot of limitations on our police for a good reason. Without those limitations police will inevitably abuse their authority. Granting no presumption of innocence when a machine is involved in observing an infraction is in some ways an abuse of power of the worst kind.

Re:Fifth amendment

[professorguy]

[STRIKE]Without those limitations[/STRIKE] police will inevitably abuse their authority.

FTFY

Why not?

[Posting=!Working]

I can't believe that every one of these cameras has not been hit by a paintball gun already. Simple, quiet, effective, makes them cost more than they're worth, and although certainly illegal, pretty easy to get away with (if you shoot at 4 am and when your light is green.)

What ever happened to civil disobedience? So very few are willing to make a stand anymore.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have given this a good deal of thought, and I think that simple vandalism to these devices would backfire.
I suspect that the vendor of the equipment is under a lucrative maintenance contract.
I further suspect that the maintenance costs are directly deducted from the revenue.

So, if you increase the maintenance costs then:
1) your community gets less net revenue
2) the slimy vendor gets more revenue

Plan B:
1) Find out if your community contract allows the vendor to bill the community for all maintenance costs versus just the maintenance costs that are not obviously the fault of the equipment.
2) Find a way to damage the equipment in such a way as to make it look like faulty equipment.

I'm thinking of a directed EMP pulse beam...

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron. But you already knew that, right?

Re:Why not?

[bigtrike]

They could install wipers. Also, I would assume that the cameras can be made to record even when the light is not red.

Re:Why not?

[Posting=!Working]

Wow, with that witty and insightful refutation of my main points, I must concede that my idea was indeed ill-formed and fraught with confusion. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways, I shall endeavor to improve myself before posting again.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe that every one of these cameras has not been hit by a paintball gun already. Simple, quiet, effective, makes them cost more than they're worth, and although certainly illegal, pretty easy to get away with (if you shoot at 4 am and when your light is green.)

What ever happened to civil disobedience? So very few are willing to make a stand anymore.

A rifle with a scope 100 yards away would be an achievable event.

Re:Why not?

[Posting=!Working]

Walk up to the intersection wearing a hood and large sunglasses. Or shoot from a long distance, they're not using super-high resolution zoomable cameras. There's many other simple ways to get a paintball onto the camera without being noticed.

Wipers don't wipe off paint too well (think bird poop and your windshield without washer fluid.) And you could always freeze the paintballs and take out the wiper (glass, lens, and maybe the whole camera.)

Re:Why not?

[Posting=!Working]

The community getting less revenue is exactly the goal. When the cost exceeds the revenue, the politicians will want to get rid of them as well, and slimy vendors will go out of business.

Re:Why not?

[Dhalka226]

What ever happened to civil disobedience? So very few are willing to make a stand anymore.

Neither are you, if half of your post and all of another are about how to get away with it.

That's not making a stand. That's vandalism. You want to make a stand? Commit the crime -- then pay the penalty.

Re:Why not?

[Svartalfar]

Wouldn't it be easier to use a laser light and burn out the sensor in the camera itself? Then it really has to be replaced.

Re:Why not?

[tehcyder]

I can't believe that every one of these cameras has not been hit by a paintball gun already. Simple, quiet, effective, makes them cost more than they're worth, and although certainly illegal, pretty easy to get away with (if you shoot at 4 am and when your light is green.)
What ever happened to civil disobedience? So very few are willing to make a stand anymore.

The definition of civil disobedience is not "something that's pretty easy to get away with."
If the freedom to drive through red stop lights and endanger other people is that important to you, buy a sledgehammer and wreck the thing in broad daylight then wait for the cops to arrest you.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize they put these in fairly busy areas right? I can't just walk down the street with a bandanna over my face and a spyderco under my arm - I live in Arizona! They'll shoot you dead for sport and say "Well I thought he was Messican" by way of explanation! I'm sorry sir, I am just not that hardcore.

ahaha the challenge phrase it wants me to type is 'felony'

Re:Why not?

[Posting=!Working]

Civil disobedience does not require that one gets caught. If I smash one camera and wait to get caught, I'm just a nut who smashed a camera. No one will pay any attention or change anything because of that. It would be completely pointless to do so.

The point of civil disobedience is to enact change. My suggestion has a chance to do that, what you suggested has none.

Re:Why not?

[Posting=!Working]

You want to make a stand? Commit the crime -- then pay the penalty.

How is that making a stand? What difference would it make to anyone if I did that? Do you think they'll be some public outcry if someone gets fined or goes to jail over a single instance of vandalism? I'd have to pay restitution, so this would cost the city/state nothing. This has zero possibility of causing any change in the usage of these cameras.

Re:Why not?

[Monchanger]

Civil disobedience isn't about a single crackpot with an imagined grievance with authority and taking it on in a covert manner. That won't get you anywhere. The point of it is, justified in hindsight or not, acting as part of community which opposes what it perceives to be injustice by government. Only through solidarity would you have any chance of impact.

Violence and vandalism are not necessary, and more creative solutions can have far greater results. Want to be noticed- get a hundred townspeople to safely close off the intersection late at night and just get the camera to issue a thousand violations. Make sure to invite the press. That'll get your point across.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your suggestion does not enact change. It leaves us with the same society of douchebags who like to wreck things for no good reason we currently have. And it would also increase surveillance of the public.

Re:Why not?

[_archangel]

MY VISION IS NOT IMPAIRED!

Stop v. Yield

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs

Having driven in both Italy and France, where stop lights and stop signs are regarded as somewhat amusing suggestions, I can tell you that this would be a bad idea in Road Rage America. My theory about Italy is that since the signs say "STOP" instead of "ARRESTO", Italians think they apply only to any native English speakers who might be around, certainly not to any Italian.

Re:Stop v. Yield

[Cro Magnon]

My theory about Italy is that since the signs say "STOP" instead of "ARRESTO", Italians think they apply only to any native English speakers who might be around, certainly not to any Italian

I would think that a sign that says "ARRESTO" would get more attention from English speakers than one that just said "STOP" as well.

Obligatory SQL Injection

[Anonymous Coward]

http://gizmodo.com/tag/licenseplate/

Now if we only knew the table name...

Did Tennessee ratify the US Constitution?

[WebManWalking]

If they did, the two nearby cities can CLAIM no presumption of innocence all they want, but Article VI holds them to the national standard. That's Article VI, not Amendment VI.

Re:Did Tennessee ratify the US Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrongo! Presumption of Innocence? That's for Criminal Proceedings. Many proceedings in courts, not to mention numerous other acts of government...are civil, not criminal.

"ALL"?

[mangu]

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ...".

In other words, which part of ALL they didn't understand? Was it the "A" or one of the two indistinguishable "L"?

Hey! You dissapointed me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to read about spying in the red light district. Not traffic regulations. Those puritan Americans.... They will never learn...

Mod parent up, really

[name_already_taken]

The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.

Interesting theory, but not one that agrees with the studies I've read. Citation definitely needed.

Ok, I hate it when people say "mod parent up", but in this case, it's a valid point.

Everything I've read (and I read everything that comes out about the red-light scameras) says that lengthening the yellow light time reduces accidents at intersections. There are studies out there that prove this. Lengthening the yellow light does far more to improve safety. I usually drive the speed limit, and I've noticed any number of traffic lights where the yellow light requires a harder stop than it should. I drive a car with very good brakes and more than once I've been concerned that the person behind me isn't going to be able to stop in time.

And, it doesn't cost anything! No extra displays or lights need to be installed - just adjust the timing to lengthen the time for the damn yellow light.

Re:Mod parent up, really

[doug141]

How long did these studies take data for to show the change wasn't temporary? How did the studies account for the bias of their test yellows being made longer relative to the average yellows the drivers encounter everywhere else, a bias that would disappear if all yellows were made longer?

If drivers have adjusted to how long yellows are now, aren't they certain to adjust to how long they are after we make them all a little longer? Isn't another thing drivers have adjusted to is the historically low likelihood of being caught running a red, and the new cameras have upset that, and drivers have yet to adjust (in this case by taking yellows more seriously)?

Re:Mod parent up, really

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a big city, lights here are about 3 seconds on yellow. All streets have a speed limit of 30mph unless it's a highway with no intersections, as soon as you hit the city limits, big streets have speed limits of 40mph, and some have 50mph speed limit despite having lights on them. I tend to come to a complete stop at a yellow, watch that yellow keep being yellow, knowing I could walk (not really, but phycologically, it feels that way) across the damn intersection during that yellow, and cars blasting it around me and beeping at me for stopping early. Basically the locals are used to the light being yellow that long, while I'm used to it being yellow shorter, so drivers like me, that longer light makes it so we -never- run reds, but the ones who are used to it run them just as often.

Re:Mod parent up, really

[Raenex]

Ok, I hate it when people say "mod parent up"

Yet you did it anyways.

, but in this case, it's a valid point.

Right, all those other people said it for invalid points.

Re:Mod parent up, really

[mr_gorkajuice]

Like OP said: Interesting theory, but citation needed.
You argument is by no means unreasonable. If no statistics exist on the topic, I think we can agree it may be worth investigating.

Re:Mod parent up, really

[Calinous]

Yellow allows you to cross IF YOU COULDN'T STOP IN TIME. Red doesn't allow you to cross, even if you couldn't stop in time.
      Long yellows allows one to stop easily, and are just as good for the bottom line of the police (same fine I think)

Re:Mod parent up, really

[lunatic1969]

There are traffic lights in my area that have yellow lights so short that even if you are right AT THE LIGHT when the light turns yellow, you cannot get completely through the intersection before the light turns red. Traffic light cameras are a money grab, pure and simple. Lengthen yellow lights, have a short delay between red light and green light for the opposite traffic. Any other solution is just playing games.

Re:Mod parent up, really

[alexo]

It is illegal to enter an intersection on a red light. If you are already past the line when the light turns red, you are supposed to clear the intersection. That's how most North American left turns work.

Just for reference, in the GTA (and, as far as I know, the rest of Ontario) we have 6 seconds of amber light, then another 3 seconds before the other direction turns green -- regardless of the speed limit on the road.

Cameras in the Red Light District?

[Anonymous Coward]

TL;DR on TFA but do I get from the headline that a town in Tenn. has put up cameras in their Red Light district? Awesome! All those wifes can get subscriptions to see if they recognize someone, instead of trolling around on the Big Brother live feeds...

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

It works for my dog. He shit on the carpet a month ago, so I swatted him with a newspaper and rubbed his nose in the spot he shit on today. He's learning just like these drivers are.

"Small town?"

[Zak3056]

SonicSpike links to what he calls "a transparent look at some statistics released by a small town's red-light camera program,"

"Small town?" While Farragut itself has only 20,000 people living in it, it's a suburb of Knoxville, and is part of the Knoxville metro (which has a population of almost 700,000 people). Characterizing it as a "small town" is highly misleading.

YRO

[MadGeek007]

What does this have to do with your rights online?

WTF is a rolling stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are still rolling you haven't stopped. What part of "stop" did you fail to understand? You do a rolling stop at a stop sign and you deserve a ticket. Doubly so if you are a bicyclist.

spastic non-conformist

[epine]

Bikes do have to obey the same traffic laws as cars.

Brought to you by the same people who managed to shut down a perfectly good public transportation system in LA long ago so that cars would rule the universe.

Like many other things, biking has different proficiency brackets. A novice or careless recreational rider should stop at stop signs, no questions asked.

An experienced rider with cleats who commutes daily might choose to practice safety differently. The disadvantage of coming to a complete stop is that you when you do enter the intersection, you enter at a slower speed, and expose yourself while crossing for longer (often longer than you can predict the future). I also cross the intersection on a much straighter path without stopping. It's hard to cleat in under power without at least one brief front wheel wobble. When you ride under control in perfectly straight lines, cars anticipate your trajectory better. If you don't cleat in under power, you end up crossing the intersection beside the cars instead of in front of the cars. You might collect some paint, but you won't get a ticket.

Advantages of a standing semi-stop for an experienced rider: less time spent in the intersection, better control over bike path, less window of risk where you can't predict what other idiots will do, and less hindrance of traffic around you, who are prone to do stupider things when feeling delayed, even if the delay is trivial *or doesn't even exist*. It only takes a minuscule perceived delay to bring out the worst of driver with cell phone, who certainly won't spare the bandwidth to check whether superficial perception reflects reality.

The speed of the semi-stop doesn't interest me much. What matters is that I get four clear checks for oncoming vehicles and pedestrians: look left, look right, listen left, listen right. If traffic is heavy enough that the auditory check is worthless, I usually accept my fate and come to a full stop. Fortunately in my town, that's only major corridors and certain times of day or poorly planned routes.

If stopping at the stop sign raised a protective fence against all contending lanes, I would concede the merit of unthinking adherence.

Stopping is not some magic force field that makes an intersection safer. There's a right time and a wrong time to enter an intersection, regardless of your minimum speed of approach. The amount of time required to evaluate this is to some degree proportional to your time of exposure in crossing the intersection. There's a nice little equation to solve. With one small caveat: NEVER make any decision that depends for safety on a vehicle driver having a correct interpretation of what you're going to do next.

Another defensive tactic is isolation: only having to pay attention to one threat in one direction, with a plausible path of escape. Is it safer to cross an intersection after stopping with vehicles chomping to cross against you on both your left and right (it's hard to look both ways), or safer to scoot at the first opportunity when there's only one car in contention on one side, and further away? Sometimes if there are too many cars lined up against me and not looking predictable I pretend I've dropped something until the idiots clear.

One time in the past five years of aggressive traffic management I made a risky decision and had three cars do something unpredictable in short succession. I was trying to get into a grocery store parking lot, and there were service vehicles in the street, plus a mass of oncoming vehicles halfway down the street. Poof! Plan A, plan B, plan C, plan D evaporated in a two second interval. Had to go to plan E. Pinned the brakes on both wheels without time to unclip and toppled over in the middle of the street (far enough away from any moving cars). To the people on the sidewalk who didn't understand the chess game that had suddenly hemmed me into a bad situation, I looked like a guy who just randomly grabbed both brakes and

Re:spastic non-conformist

[drinkypoo]

Stopping is not some magic force field that makes an intersection safer.

No, it's a logical action that makes an intersection safer. If there's nobody around then by all means roll through it, and on a bike you're better-equipped to tell if that's the case or not. But it is simply true that drivers expect bikes to stop at signs and if you don't they may not even really see you. Your survival depends at least in part on your predictability.

Think cameras are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington DC will give you $100 ticket for having out of "state" registration, even if you're parked legally.

To get out of the ticket and on your car "approved" to park in DC be ready to spend several hours at the DMV. Don't forget to bring along a lease/mortgage and utility bill to prove you live wherever it is your plates say you do.

Re:Think cameras are bad

[Renraku]

Yeah, that's a 'papers please' law and is pretty much completely illegal. All states recognize licenses/registration from other states. They have to.

Scameras

[SonicSpike]

Where I come from (TN) they call these things scameras.

Don't be fooled by the population numbers

[tyhockett]

I live in west Knoxville, less than about five miles from Farragut. Farragut is a self-incorporated upscale community with no geographical separation from Knoxville. The Knoxville metro area has about 250,000 people, so it's not like we're talking about a ghost town or anything.

Money!

[b4upoo]

Actually stop light cams could make traffic safer but they will be abused as long as cities can make money by using them. If the public insists that such such ticket issued causes a small loss to the city then enforcement will mean something other than a fraudulent way to tax the public.
                  Anyone who thinks these cams should not be used only need visit a city where drivers get so frustrated by congestion that a light can turn red four or five times and thousands of cars run the light bumper to bumper and refuse to allow the other lanes to use the road at all. I've seen this in Ft. Lauderdale and it is usually about 4:30 in the afternoon when people are leaving work.

Synchronize the Lights

[spambucket235]

The best way to have fewer accidents is for cars to not to have to stop.

Just synchronize the traffic lights. Fewer accidents. Fewer traffic problems.

Easy.

Those of you saying "it's the law, follow it..."

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope none of you have ever pirated anything off the internet, ever. Funny how the opinions change with the subject.

No Pay

[SuperKendall]

Arizona got rid of red light cameras across the state, apparently in large part because a huge number of people simply did not pay and it did not make financial sense to go after them.

A fun experiment would be, if you get such a ticket - refuse to pay, and see what happens. At worst you might pay double the small fee you'd be paying normally, but far more likely is nothing will happen and over time the cameras, deprived of revenue, will vanish.

Mind you I have not got one yet to apply my own wisdom to, so you do this at your own risk and I take no responsibility for your actions and so on and so forth.

and Europe is different

[DotDotSlasher]

I have rolled through more stop signs than most. I passed my time with moral relativism, until work sent me to Europe for a couple weeks with a rental car (circa 1998). During those two weeks, I never rolled through a stop sign -- because where it made sense, they put up Yield signs. Where it made sense, there are Stop signs. I rolled through the Yields, I stopped at the Stops. It made so much sense while I was there. And back in the USA, it still frustrates me that we love our Stop signs, and can't trust our population with Yield signs.

Agree with replacing stop signs with yields

[brucmack]

Here in Denmark there are very very few stop signs - I've probably seen two or three in the six years I've lived here. This functions just as effectively as a stop sign, since everybody understands what a yield means, and knows to stop if someone is coming. And everything flows much more smoothly since you normally don't need to stop at every intersection.

Another thing to consider is roundabouts. They are very effective at slowing traffic, since it's impossible to run a roundabout if it's got a fence or hill in the middle. They are also quite effective for intersections that would otherwise be 4-way stops or traffic lights.

I live there

[Anonymous Coward]

This is my home town! never thought we'd make it onto Slashdot. The cameras here suck pretty badly, and what they do and don't snap for is pretty inconsistent. Some have full stop sensors for right turns, others do not. Some in neighboring cities have speed sensors, others don't.

Great while taking trips...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Presumably you checked to see what actually constitutes a full stop in your jurisdiction, yes?

The great thing is that it can be different everywhere.

And by "great" I mean "terrible." How are you supposed to know how long to stop for? Can you stop for five minutes "just to be on the safe side" or will you then get fined for obstructing traffic?

Re:Great while taking trips...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to dispute a ticket, it helps to at least know what the standards are...

The problem with rolling stops...

[jridley]

is that with habit, they turn into "no look barely slow downs." As a regular cyclist, and given that cyclists are often accused of blowing stop signs and lights (I don't), I have been watching cars for a couple of years, and to date I have not yet seen a single car actually stop at a stop sign unless there was traffic present.

The problem that I've seen is that especially in rural areas like where I am, people follow the same routes day after day, and almost every time there's no traffic there, so after a few months, people start to assume there's no traffic, and they blow the sign without even looking. I've watched people go through stop signs without even turning their head.

It's especially a problem for cyclists, because car drivers are really only looking for things that can hurt them, not for more vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians. Coming to a complete stop gives them an extra second or two to register something other than a couple ton steel box in the road.

Learn to drive properly!

[tehcyder]

What happened to personal responsibility?

...so I take my money (and car) elsewhere.

[dfm3]

I don't spend money or time in places with these cameras; if enough people have that attitude, they will go away. Hopefully before the town does.

Exactly. I live near the "small town" in question and since the cameras went up I've significantly reduced the amount of money I've spent at nearby businesses. When given the opportunity, I also make sure to let people know that this is the reason I avoid the area.

By the way, the summary is a bit sensationalist with the way it presents the numbers. Despite what those who live in Farragut would like others to think, it is in no way a small town but is a quite busy suburb of Knoxville. There are many large shopping centers there and some of the cameras are installed at the ends of on/off ramps for a major interstate (I-40/75). I don't doubt that a large number of those 3,878 citations were issued to travelers who stopped over for a break from the highway.

Thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that misread that topic and though red light district? I had sudden images of prostitutes and their John's showing up on video.

Happened around here

[phorm]

Apparently the city at one time decided that it would be a good idea to put parking meters along the downtown strip. Now this is quite a small city (population maybe 30k), and fairly redneck in areas.
Most of these rednecks also tend to own large jacked-up rusty-but-solid pickup trucks.

After replacing several rounds of meters that had been knocked at mysterious times in the night, apparently the city decided that the meters were unprofitable, and it's now meter-free.

It's not the solution that I would recommend, but apparently making things too expensive to replace brings in the "cost of doing business" factor and does tend to eliminate them.

Re:Maybe just enhance Yield signs and use them mor

[mooingyak]

I once came upon a neighborhood where the intersections had been signed with 4 way yield signs. I ended up treating them like stops signs are supposed to be treated (rather than how they ARE treated by almost everyone, including me) out of the fear that someone else would see their yield sign as permission to go barreling through the intersection without pausing.

Support and Oppose

[stewbacca]

I support and oppose the use of red light cameras. I support them if the find and heavily fine people who blow through red lights. You know, those assholes who are far more important than the rest of us, and the rules don't apply to them?

I oppose them for how they are being used in the story--to capture people doing rolling stops on a right turn? Seriously?

It should be self-evident that the consequences of running a red light at 45 mph are far more dire than a rolling stop at an empty intersection.

This is the same reason I oppose speed traps, but not red light cameras used to catch red light runners. The consequences of doing 45 in a 40 mph zone are minimal, and speed limits are artificially low as a matter of revenue, not safety. The consequences of running a red light (majority of accidents are due to failure to yield and occur at intersections, not on straight stretches of road with drivers driving over the posted limit) are deadly.

Advice

[AhabTheArab]

Look both ways before you cross the street.

they're unsafe

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going below the speed limit when I hit a yellow light. It was raining and the road was extremely slick. I was barely able to stop the car within the intersection, and I had to borrow another lane to do it. A red light camera almost caused an accident. Yet again.