Slashdot Mirror
Los Angeles To Turn Off Traffic-Light Cameras
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that the Los Angeles Police Commission has voted to kill the city's controversial red-light camera program, rejecting claims that the system makes streets safer while costing the city nothing. The police department says the cameras help reduce accidents, largely by deterring drivers looking to run red lights or make illegal turns while critics of the technology question officials' accident data, saying the cameras instead cause rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes and liken the cameras to Big Brother tactics designed to generate revenues. More than 180,000 motorists have received camera-issued tickets since the program started in 2004 but the commission estimates that the program costs between $4 million and $5 million each year while bringing in only about $3.5 million annually. Members of the public who attended the meeting urged the commission to do away with the cameras, which trigger seemingly boundless frustration and anger among drivers in traffic-obsessed LA. 'It's something that angers me every time I get in my car,' says Hollywood resident Christina Heller. 'These cameras remove our fundamental right in this country to confront our accuser. And they do not do anything to improve safety.'"
Does this mean that LA is or was a large red light district?
this
i see people run red lights literally 5 seconds or more after it turns red. plenty of time to stop. i laugh every time i see someone run a red light and get caught.
in NYC they made this the equivalent of a parking ticket so it goes against the car. kind of like a lien on real property making it easier to stick someone with a fine instead of proving who actually ran the light. lesson is don't lend your car to someone who will run red lights
These cameras remove our fundamental right in this country to confront our accuser.
Whatever the other arguments are, this one is stupid. It's a photograph of you running a red light. What's to confront? She either means that it removes your right to try to intimidate (or otherwise coerce) an officer into not issuing a ticket, or that it removes your right to most of the time get away with dangerous driving. Neither of these is a right.
"the commission estimates that the program costs between $4 million and $5 million each year while bringing in only about $3.5 million annually."
So it's not making money. Surprising and rare (since red light cameras are generally a cash-cow), but I'd guess that's the main reason to kill it. If it were making $10 a year I bet they'd keep it going.
the cameras instead cause rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes
So which is better, a rear-end collision outside the intersection, or a broadside collision inside the intersection?
Actually, there are certain situations where it's legal to run a red light because of safety concerns. The summary even mentions one: When slamming on your brakes (to stop in time for the light) would cause an accident.
But of course, the camera doesn't capture the scenario, just the fact that you ran a red light.
Some places have even been accused of shortening the yellow light to catch more people running reds. I don't know if these allegations were proven, but I do know that I've seen some ridiculously short yellows.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
The accuser is the local government. The evidence is the red light camera's photo.
If you robbed a bank, or shot someone, and it was photographed or recorded, you wouldn't be arguing that the evidence was inadmissible because you couldn't challenge the camera.
I think it always works better in NYC because it's pretty rare that speeds are such that slamming on the breaks will actually cause a rear end and the plus side is saving pedestrian lives. As somebody who mainly walks in Manhattan I am all for them.
I always thought a good idea would be to put a yellow line in the road before a traffic light to indicate that if you are travelling the speed limit and are beyond this line and the light turns yellow you can safely make it through the light. If you have not passed the line than you should stop for the light.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I moved to Los Angeles in the late nineties and left before these traffic cameras were operational. When I first arrived, I noticed that people would collectively pause at a green light. It would be a one or two second delay which completely baffled me. In New England, we'd jump the greens like a drag race.
The answer came rather fast. In a lot of the intersections, there were no green arrows so in some places the only way for people to get across the street was to run a red light. And not just one person would run the light, but four or five. It was crazy but in time, it made complete sense to me and soon I internalized it. So I can imagine the outrage if there were now cameras placed at intersections. It's like paying a toll to cross the street. Maybe things have changed since then, but it seemed pure insanity not to have green arrows considering the amount of people in the area.
Yet too many cities buy into the sales pitch about the revenue side. The revenue of course only lasts until people become accustomed to the lights and suddenly, surprise surprise they don't run the lights anymore which fulfills the lie used to sell them to the public while at the same time ending the revenue which was the selling point for the officials to put them in.
We have them at two intersections I drive through regularly and since your used to them you know to not expect people to run them, including the car in front of you. They go yellow and people stop, no more of trying to beat it. I haven't seen an accident there in a long time but that could simply be timing on my part.
Now what I don't care for are speed cameras, those truly are only to generate revenue
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I can't speak about L.A., but when they installed traffic light cameras in my city they shortened all the yellow lights as well. This makes it blatantly obvious that it is nothing more than a revenue generator.
In general the data seems to suggest that yes, total crashes at the intersection will decrease (CMF = 0.8). CMF stands for Crash Modification Factor. Right-angle crashes will decrease (CMF = 0.67) and are generally more severe than rear-end crashes. Rear-end crashes may increase though (CMF = 1.45). Both groups generally tend to loudly argue their own point and both may be correct without listening to the whole safety argument. See http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/about.cfm and then search for "red light" and you'll see what I mean. All of this doesn't sort out the monetary costs and privacy aspects of the programs, but the safety data is reasonably easy to figure out so they can stop arguing over it.
that's why we have yellow lights to warn you of a red light coming up. of course if you're going 20 over the limit it means you have to slam your breaks
... that if it's not making money then it's working.
All other arguments to one side (I appreciate there are other reasons why it's suggested the cameras should be pulled) but public safety isn't supposed to be profitable, is it?
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
How are you going to confront a picture of you running a red light?
That's kind of the point they're trying to make. You can't, despite having a right to do so.
If you were making passage for a ambulance or policy vehicle, there will be witnesses and incident logs.
So you get to take a day off work to go into a court room, demand that the GPS logs of the emergency vehicles in that area be retrieved (assuming they even exist), show that your ticket was at the same time the emergency vehicle was going through, hope that the judge believes you that you really were making room and not just taking advantage of all the stopped traffic, and even if you do get out of the ticket, possibly have to pay court fees. All of which could be avoided if it were a cop on the corner instead of a camera. Sounds like a plan to me!
The town I live in recently installed speed cameras for a couple school zones. They claim it's about safety, so I want to see the before- and after-camera statistics - how many pedestrians were saved from injury? Are incidents of other accidents on the rise? I suspect that information doesn't exist, though. (I got a ticket from one of them on a holiday. They're allowed to keep them on year-round, whether school is in session or not.)
If they really believe it's about safety, then they should prove it by donating any revenue above the cost of operation to a non-profit fund (perhaps for victims of accidents) or something similar.
That's just not the way traffic works. Traffic of any area has a personality of its own. The personality of traffic is a composition of the various moods and mindsets of the people behind the wheel. You can't "logic" or "reason" your way through a problem with a mob. And traffic is a mob. You might see a collection of individuals, but they are no more individual than a flock of birds.
When you learn to understand those dynamics and you will be closer to a real solution to any of the problems you see.
And keep in mind, people while driving are not the same people you meet on the street or at work or even at home. If you can't see that much, then I dare say you have not driven very long.
One of the problems is that Amber lights to not lengthen for the conditions either. Even my home irrigation system has a rain sensor, why can't traffic signals? So what happens is that during a light rain and you get oily slick roads. A driver in their newer car that has ABS stops quickly to avoid a ticket. The car behind may or may not have ABS.
If you have ever driven a car without ABS on slick roads, you know stopping short is not an option. Typically rolling through an intersection is an option because you know there is no way to stop. The spacing you would need to allow for safety leaves room for all the other vehicles to get in front of you anyway. Vehicles changing lanes usually do not respect the fact you are trying to keep your distance.
When conditions are bad, I always keep in mind what is behind me, If there is an older car or 18-wheeler, I will move elsewhere. If I cannot, you better believe I will not stop short for a red light.
So now I'm responsible for what the guy behind me is doing as well? Great!
They caught some places reducing the time it stayed yellow when they installed the cameras.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
No. Which is why in every state in the US I can think of, the guy who slammed into your back end is responsible.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I think they should turn them off, but leave them there. Don't tell people they are "fake." People push the door close button in elevators, even tho 90% of them don't work(most work in independent service mode, which elevators aren't in normally) and about 40% aren't even wired.
As somebody that has a car without ABS (1970 Chevelle SS), I'm calling bullshit on your reason. It is your responsibility to operate your vehicle within its specs. Trust me, if the weather changes my car lets me know. Anybody with a old car knows it. I have used it for a daily driver for years and didn't have any problems with people cutting in front of me. Even now I don't have that issue with my other cars.
It does not make you any safer to run a red light because somebody behind you has a old car. If they rear end you it is their fault anyways. You blow the red light and you cause a much more serious situation for which you are at fault.
What? Don't you think the obvious answer is that if you cannot stop short, you are driving too fast! If it rains, you have to slow down, doubly so if you don't have a good break.
If the guy behind me is following too close to stop if I slam on my brakes, and I have to hit my brakes hard for a light with a camera, I have to choose between a ticket or a smashed back end. And while the smashed back end will end up being paid for by the person who hit me, that doesn't fix the fact that I won't get to my destination on time, I may have to deal with a rental car, I have to fill out paperwork for the insurance company, among other things that the guy behind me cannot fix. Sounds to me like I get punished either way simply because the guy behind me was doing something I can't control.
"How are you going to confront a picture of you running a red light? If you were making passage for a ambulance or policy vehicle, there will be witnesses and incident logs." What event logs, what witnesses? You are talking at an intersection of which the person moving for the ambulance may or may not have even noticed the camera when being forced to move. Are you implying the ambulance speeding by has someone in the passenger seat taking notes "Just cut off a guy with the license plate A123-456 please submit this to court so they don't write him a ticket". Or after doing that you round up all the other cars that saw what happened and say "when I get this in the mail, come to court with me to testify that I didn't run the red light".
No, you aren't responsible for the actions of whoever is driving behind you. However it is suicidal to not be aware of what is behind you, as motorcyclists in particular will attest. However, it is becoming less the case that the person rear ending another is automatically at fault.
Case in point: I drive an 18 wheeler. Its equipped with forward facing camera, accelerometers, a radar system ( Eaton VORAD) and fairly extensive datalogging. Don't blindly assume my 80,000 lb. vehicle can stop short if you decide to stop for a stale green, miss your turn or whatever. Unless I am driving like an ass, the data logged by my vehicle systems is admissible in proving I wasn't at fault.
The common practice before the advent of red-light cameras was an amber signal timed to provide safe warning that the light is about to turn red. This allowed traffic approaching from a distance to begin slowing, and cars already committed due to proximity and speed to expeditiously clear the intersection. When my region (Washington DC metro) began embracing cameras, the practice changed to a very rapid amber that creates a situation where drivers became conditioned to either slam on the brakes immediately or stomp the gas since unless one is already half-way through the intersection it is otherwise impossible to avoid the trap. So, this is a huge annoyance, but nowhere near as pernicious as the ubiquitous DC speed cameras. To understand the game here, one must understand that Washington DC is one of the most oppressive and corrupt city-states on the planet, with an attitude of entitlement. Broad thoroughfares will commonly shift speeds unexpectedly across a broad range of speeds from 55 to 40 to 35 back to 50 with apparent rhyme or reason and no more warning than a single sign obscured by a bush with a speed camera right behind. So, simplistic, "then don't run red lights, dude!" or "don't speed" fails to understand the corrosive effects of nanny state chicanery.
Are you sure about that now?
Those damn middle aged women just wont listen to reason!
As much as I am opposed to private companies getting cushy deals to run red light cameras, and using "civil fines" to get around rules protecting peoples' rights, I am actually for red light cameras. And I'll tell you why. They save lives. Oh, I'll admit that the total number of accidents increases slightly, but the types of accidents are important. The serious accidents, people getting t-boned when someone runs a red light, (the kind of accident that often leads to serious injury and death, not to mention severe damage to the vehicles), drop drastically when red light cameras are put up, but the number of minor accidents (someone rear-ends the car that stopped at the intersection) increases - with people getting used to the new behavior, I would expect those to go back down. And I have personally seen the numbers, as compiled by law by my city's Traffic Engineer. He hates the red light cameras, just because they are so much of a hassle, both bureaucracy-wise and politically, but he admits they save lives. The local news stations will interview him, and then report just the part about "total number of accidents increase," leaving out the part where "red light cameras prevent traffic deaths" because that doesn't sell as well. The issues of proper appeals, confronting your accuser, private companies taking on law-enforcement roles and acting in the government's name, etc. can be dealt with (and should be - the system needs to be fair), but running a red light needs to be discouraged, and this is a cost-effective way to do it. I have seen no evidence that camera speed traps increase safety.
"If you were making passage for a ambulance or policy vehicle, there will be witnesses and incident logs."
witnesses that they won't bother to find and incident logs that will be "unavailable" until after you go to court.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Your argument is incredibly naive or indicative of some sort of bias.
What a moronic statement. The original complaint that you can't confront your accuser is the statement that shows bias. Why on earth would anyone feel the need to confront an inanimate object? Do you think the camera might have it in for ethnic minorities? Or perhaps it might have been distracted by something happening behind it and it wasn't really looking?
Confronting an accuser makes sense if the accuser is a human. If it is a camera, then it can be calibrated and regularly tested. We don't need to ask questions to find what a camera really saw, because it keeps a perfect record of this. But perhaps the picture doesn't see all the factors involved? Well neither does a pair of human eyes watching the same scene. But I would still place my bets on a camera recalling an incident better than any human.
The people who argue against traffic cameras are probably the same ones who also argued recently that knowing the locations of DUI checkpoints somehow makes the streets safer. These people really just want to protect their "right" to break the law.
I'm guessing the majority of nasty accidents at intersections result from people trying to catch the tail end of the light... esp when combined with people who are getting a jump on the green.
1) Long yellow-light durations. You'll speed through a light that's just turned yellow, but you'll stop at a light that's been yellow for a while. My hometown (Fremont) found that adjusting this setting reduced red-light running by much more than installing intersection cameras: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3436.asp
2) Long pauses between the moment that one signal goes red and the cross-traffic's signal turns green. This allows the intersection to clear, even from assholes who still manage to run a red even after the long yellow.
Ironically (but predictably) what seems to happens when stoplight cameras are installed is a LOWERING of the yellow-light duration...
We left LA after our daughter was born in part because we couldn't stand the risk involved in driving through that city, not with a baby in the car. To illustrate how insane it is, when you're at a red light and it turns green, people don't start to drive, they wait several seconds, because there are ALMOST ALWAYS one or two idiots who will drive at full speed through the newly turned-red light, although they could very easily have stopped. But it's LA, so the right thing to do is to drive through the red light, and assume that people who have the green light won't start going soon enough to crash into your car; otherwise, if you're the one with an opportunity to drive through the red light but you actually brake, the idiot behind you is going to rear-end you, since they assume that you'll accelerate through the light, so they get a chance to play with other people's lives as well. I have never seen as many cars with evidence of accidents on their body as in LA, not in any European or North American city.
As a pedestrian it's insanely dangerous as well, since car drivers think they should drive through their red light and you are an object that they don't think exists. And given the clement climate, one would decently expect that biking is a pleasant, common activity, with lots of bike lanes throughout the city. The car drivers use the few bike lanes to cut corners, or to park, and they are too busy with their cell phones to even try to leave a bit of space for bikers.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson
As has been demonstrated experimentally countless times (by Consumer Reports among many others), ABS doesn't decrease stopping distance. It simply improves handling during a stop.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Would somebody like to point out that they don't CAUSE accidents because people slam on their brakes - that's due, exclusively, to already-bad drivers (of the kind that the system is designed to catch / remove / discourage) having insufficient braking distance between them and the car in front and is a phenomenon that will happen even if the red light didn't exist (e.g. if a child ran out into that road every two minutes or whatever).
So the police's response is to abandon the cameras? Don't catch one kind of driving-rule-violating idiot because you often find a different kind of driving-rule-violating idiot instead?
Red-light cameras are ubiquitous over here in the UK. I can't say that I've ever seen one activate (whereas I see a speed camera per month or so flash someone who also wasn't paying attention enough to notice the bright-yellow, signposted box at the side of the road).
And certainly people don't lobby for red-light cameras to be removed - if you get caught on them, you were breaking the law. If you have an accident because you couldn't stop before the guy in front, you were breaking the law (driving without due care and attention). If you run into the back of someone who has braked for a speed camera - yes, they're a pillock but you were STILL BREAKING THE LAW by being too close.
They may not be "safer" but then abandoning them entirely so people now KNOW they can run those cameras and see virtually zero punishment is infinitely more dangerous (and harder to record in statistics without some device recording how many people run red lights, for example).
How about putting a camera facing BOTH ways and then convicting those people who have insufficient braking distance enough to hit someone queueing at a red light (or stopping hard to prevent themselves getting caught in a red light). The fact is that if someone's car is hit while doing that you were BOTH going too fast while approaching a red or amber light!
And, personally, safety is the kind of thing you spend money on. It's only in stupid countries like mine that the police expect to make a profit on something like that (and get universally moaned at when they do, ironically!).
I am not disagreeing with you. All of this talk assumes that we are on a nice leisurely road. When you start thinking about 8-lane highway with traffic lights every few blocks and dense traffic. You could slow down all you want, but if leave more than one car length of space, someone is getting in in it. Now try changing lanes and keep any sort of appropriate distance. It is impossible to keep any proper following distance (by the book) in front of you for much longer than a few seconds, bad weather or not.
I have seen yellow lights that last from 1second to 5seconds
The one second yellows are mainly on the lights with cameras. I have also seen the ticket were a girl "ran the light" because her front bumper was in the cross walk.
I dont mind the cameras so much as the arbritary nature of what is considered an offense. Since it can only be a civil fine then the rules should be strict.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Rear end collisions are caused by one thing.. following too close. I don't care if the guy in front hits a brick wall, If you keep your three seconds distance and pay attention, you won't rear end anybody.. The war ended 65 years ago. There is no need to keep such a tight formation
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
1. Its not a picture of you. Its a picture of a car and its license plate.
I do not know of USA, but here if the driver cannot be identified then the owner is legally responsible of the fines. Of course, if he can prove that someone else was the driver it then gets passed to the driver. Apart from theft, it is pretty sure to say that the owner knows who was driving the car and can discuss the matter with him.
In the USA, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". The defense is under no obligation to prove anything. Most defenses consist simply or raising doubt. Here, there is a presumption of innocence. "Innocent until proven guilty."
Therefore, any "reasonable doubts" raised and believed by even one reasonable person on a jury of peers, usually 12 people total, (and here, a jury can be called for any matter more than $20) will fail to result in a guilty verdict.
So, if the prosecution cannot prove that I am the driver, they would have a harder time winning a case if I took it to jury (IANAL). If I had an alibi, or even the suggestion that "I leave my keys on the counter and often let my neighbor borrow my truck," and have no recollection of what happened on that particular day, I could use such information to sow doubt to be found not guilty without even proving that I'm innocent. I'm sure 1001 explanations could be found, none of which I have to prove, but my lawyer can merely suggest as "reasonable doubts".
I8-D
Bzzt!!! Wrong. It is common practice that each ticket is signed by a real person who has reviewed the evidence gathered by the camera. That person may be called to the stand. The staff that maintain the cameras may be called to the stand to discuss how they are maintained. Experts can be brought to the stand to discuss how the cameras work. Each camera has a video camera that may be brought forth into evidence. There are MORE people and evidence that can be brought to the stand with a red light camera than when a cop just gives you a ticket. Cameras do not issue tickets, they collect evidence. Just as a radar gun in a police car does. In fact, they collect MORE evidence that is well documented and provides even better opportunities for those truly innocent to fight a ticket. That also means the guilty have fewer capabilities to fight the tickets also. Seems like a win-win to me.
As for safety, a recent study by the Institute for Highway Safety found that fatal crashes and the number of injured went down significantly in the 14 largest cities that installed red light cameras. In Chandler, Arizona, the number of fatalities dropped 79%. Arizona has three of cities where red light running is most common. Yes, there are more fender benders. I'll trade less fatal crashes for more fender benders anyday. *AND* the reason there are more fender benders is because the guy behind the car that stopped was following too closely or was trying to get through the light. So he deserves a ticket and increased insurance costs also.
The IHS has also noted that other measures can be done to reduce crashes at red lights, such as a period when all lights are red and longer yellow periods.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
No, if you entered the intersection to move out of the way of an Emergency Vehicle then the video will clearly show this and you either won't be issued a ticket, or it will be quashed if you challenge it and the recordings are checked.
I have seen yellow lights that last from 1second to 5seconds
Watch the crosswalk signs, because most of them are automated to sync with the lights nowadays. When the "don't walk" signal stops flashing (i.e., goes to a solid "don't walk"), the light will generally turn yellow -- if not immediately, then within a few seconds. Based on whether the "don't walk" is flashing and your distance from the intersection, you can figure out whether a yellow light is something you need to worry about.
In any case, though, the lights are timed based on the speed limit for the road, so if you're driving within a few mph of the speed limit, stopping for a yellow light shouldn't be a problem. You just have to make it reflexive: if you have time to think about whether you should run the yellow light, you have time to hit your brakes so you don't run the red.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I got one on the east coast, because I couldn't see the light change. The NHTSA recommends at least 4.5 seconds at that intersection, based on the speed limit on that section of road, and the width of the intersection. The bare minimum to allow a driver to react to the light change is 3.5 seconds. The light is set to 3 seconds. At every intersection nearby of similar size characteristics, the yellow light is 5 to 6 seconds.
When I went through it, it was green when I couldn't see it any more. The jurisdiction provides video evidence. At 3.5 seconds, I had already crossed over the line at the other side of the intersection. At 4.5 seconds, I was well clear of the intersection.
Since they installed the camera, and drivers have found out about it from other drivers and newspaper stories, there have been an increase in accidents, where drivers make panic stops to avoid running the light. But "officially" they don't attribute that to the light, they attribute it to the driver in the rear of the accident. By the state's logic, if he hadn't been following so close, the accident wouldn't have happened. In reality, different vehicles have different stopping characteristics. In my car, I *can* stand on the brakes and make it stop on a dime (practiced in autocross racing). In my SUV, if someone stopped like that, they'd be be crushed. It's the difference between a performance sports car, and a truck.
There are plenty of heavy commercial vehicles on that stretch of road too. They try to leave sufficient space, but if the front driver just changed lanes too close (I see it all the time), and then panic stopped for the yellow, the remains of his car would be shoved through the intersection.
The city where that specific light is makes something like $2 to $4 million per year *PROFIT* from the light. They'll never take it out. Other cities on the same road only a very few miles away refuse to install a camera, because of safety concerns. Instead, they made the yellow light longer (a recommendation of the NHTSA), so drivers have time to safely stop, or get clear of the intersection.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
the problem with leaving space for stopping distance is that most of the time folks will
1 go around the car going "too slow" and slip into the gap
2 honk their horns (or worse) because you are going too slow (obviously if you have 3 or 4 car lengths between you and the next car you are going too slow)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Again, I think the debate here is skewed by the range of different types of roads and traffic we experience daily. Rural roads and highways are not much of an issue, as interstates are not either.
I should of said that being in Florida, everyone drives like it is a NASCAR race, feel the need to draft, needlessly swing wide before turns, and letting anyone in in front of them is regarded as "losing". Any use of the horn makes another driver rage at you (swerve at you, get in front of you and brake, etc.), even if you saving them from hitting you.
The law assumes it is always the safest option, but that also assumes everyone around you is following the law. If a car behind you is illegally on your ass, regardless of fault, I'd rather avoid a collision altogether and roll through an amber or "orange" light rather than a jackass in a laughatrice.com special rear-end my car. They were probably trying to tail you in order to run a red as they always do.
I fully agree there is 99.9999999% of the time no reason to run a Red. But one can't deny that there is that rare moment, where it may actually be a safer option.
So would you be happy to be one of the people who dies on the road for my right to free speech? Seriously???
I can understand that we should be able to have these discussions about road safety and police practices. As you say, in a democratic society this is a fundamental right. But it is not right to yell fire in a theatre because it will endanger people's lives. It is not right make libelous, false statements like "Mr Anonymous Coward is a kiddy fiddler. He lives at 22 Main Street and everyone should hunt him down and kill him."
So if I had to choose between not being able to tell people where a DUI checkpoint was and not being killed by a drunk driver tonight... well, I would rather live to argue the merits of this another day.
You say that "one of THE most basic and important fundamental rights in a proper democracy", but I say that the right to stay alive trumps this every single time. After all, you can't have free speech when you're dead.
... to run a red light, crushing anyone in our way.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
And I can state the following observations:
1. Different areas of the greater LA area show different driving habits. Some areas have a (well-deserved) reputation for aggressive drivers, such as the Westside, compared to more sparsely populated, remote suburbs. Higher traffic density seems to correlate with more reckless driving.
2. Some yellow lights are abnormally short for the size of the intersection, but not all.
3. Some drivers are willfully reckless/stupid. Just last night, I was in downtown LA for an event that included street closures as well as a heavy police presence. Due to the crowds, traffic was very bad. Despite the presence of police who would try to regulate the traffic flow when they were watching, drivers would allow themselves to get stuck in the intersection (driving ahead when the light was about to change, while seeing there was no room for them to exit). The police didn't cite them for blocking traffic.
4. I've seen a lot of broken red light cameras--they would flash when no violation occurred. This has actually happened to me personally; I'd go through a clear green light with the flow of traffic, and get flashed. No ticket was ever generated, but the kind of distraction and anxiety that this sort of thing produces is abusive and might actually cause some people to panic and hit the brakes.
5. The fines are insane--$475 or more in some cases. Thankfully I've never gotten one. I've seen the posted fine rise steadily in a few short years, and it seemed completely arbitrary. It also has little or no deterrent effect on the wealthiest Angelenos, who tool around Beverly Hills and Hollywood in their luxury vehicles and consider that kind of money to be chump change. It would be like telling you, "oh, you broke the law, now you have to pay a fine of $0.25." Meanwhile, they endanger everyone else around them. But if you are relatively poor, $475 could crush you.
6. The cameras are not everywhere. I've seen people reroute around them, causing changes in traffic patterns that may actually increase accidents because more cars are being directed to intersections that aren't able to handle the traffic flow, or have more pedestrians. Many drivers roll through four-way stops around here.
people who run red lights suck and all, but this isn't about safety. If it were about safety, the cameras would go into places where your safety is most likely to be compromised. For example, cameras would be on parking lots, etc, where people are robbed, abducted, attacked. The placement of red light cameras suggest that their purpose is to make money. They are put in places where there is a high probability of catching you doing something ticketable.
The red light camera companies are in it to make money off you. Where I live, a majority of the money goes not to the city, but to the company operating the red light cameras. They are heavily interested in making money by taking it from you. And guess what? Dishonest people who run the red lights and get camera tickets don't pay them. The only people who pay them are honest people. So these companies have found yet another way to extract money from hardworking people who perhaps misjudged a traffic light.
If a cop pulls you over for running a red light, that's one thing. He has an interest in preventing crime. The police officers I have talked to about this usually tell me that in most cases, unless the person was being reckless or was suspect (or treated the cop like a jerk), the person would be let go with a warning. He isn't getting richer by pulling you over. The police officer can make a judgement call. Many police officers are reasonable people who aren't trying to ruin your day.
The companies who run the red light cameras have the power and the incentive to be as harsh and unreasonable as possible. They want your money. It's all done via an automated process so there is no face to face contact with anyone, so no judgement call can be made.
If the local governments were in charge of operating the cameras I think many people would feel differently. I know I would. I mean I don't like the idea of the cameras, but at least the money isn't just making someone rich.
blah blah blah
but the commission estimates that the program costs between $4 million and $5 million each year while bringing in only about $3.5 million annually.
So how much is that in human lives?
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
By the state's logic, if he hadn't been following so close, the accident wouldn't have happened. In reality, different vehicles have different stopping characteristics. In my car, I *can* stand on the brakes and make it stop on a dime (practiced in autocross racing). In my SUV, if someone stopped like that, they'd be be crushed. It's the difference between a performance sports car, and a truck.
Then maybe SUV drivers should allow extra distance, or we could just make them require a more strenuous license. I personally think we should require all drivers to take their cars through a road course and skid pad yearly, if you can't make it in the expected time without leaving the road, you aren't allowed to drive that vehicle. I bet SUVs would stop being so fucking popular.
They are popping up all over Nice in France. The question was asked what happens if you have to move out of the way of an ambulance. The reply was tough luck, get still get a fine and have to pay it. Down here it's just seen as easy money. Also they tend to flash even if you are not moving. It happens if you happen to just roll your wheels an inch over the line and are stationary.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
By the state's logic, if he hadn't been following so close, the accident wouldn't have happened. In reality, different vehicles have different stopping characteristics. In my car, I *can* stand on the brakes and make it stop on a dime (practiced in autocross racing). In my SUV, if someone stopped like that, they'd be be crushed. It's the difference between a performance sports car, and a truck.
So you recognize that different vehicles have different stopping characteristics... but are confused as how you could vary distance so as to prevent hitting the car in front of you when driving your SUV.
As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.
First of all I think it's interesting that it's the police commission proposing dropping them as most police agencies are FOR red camera lights. This one is simple economics--they're not making any money off of it. And that's the problem--it's ALL about revenue. This blog exampled 6 cities that were caught shortening the yellow light so they could catch more red light runners. The yellow light is there to warn you the light is changing so you have time to stop. Cities will put the public in more danger just to bring in higher revenue.
There is a battle going on now in Houston as the voters voted the cameras out, but the powers that be are trying to get the will of the people overturned--no doubt one big supporter is the company running the red light program. But for statistics it has been pointed out that the data they're using includes ALL accidents, regardless of cause.
I worry a lot more about people texting while driving than I do the red light runners.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Sounds like instead of turning the cameras off they should better manage how the money is used and who is in control of the cameras. It would be nice to see the money accumulated from the LA traffic system used to get some of those other not profitable cameras in place where the real crime is happening.
I have seen some yellow lights lasting about 1.5 seconds in Cleveland, and that's on intersections without traffic cameras. I think they are conditioning people to accept an overly short yellow light as somewhat OK. It makes no sense, IMHO, for the yellow light to be any shorter than 5 seconds.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I don't think you'd be killed. Some whiplash and seatbelt bruises maybe, but that'd be about it.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
You do understand that in most traffic situations, there's no such thing as "proper following distance". That specific three-word combination is actually pronounced "invitation for one or more asshats to jump into the gap, reducing 3-second separation into multi-car bumper-to-bumper".
The logical conclusion of your argument is that any vehicle without instantaneous braking capabilities is required to drive backwards in order to maintain proper separation with vehicles in front of it.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Your SUV's stock brakes must suck donkey balls so to speak. There's no reason for an SUV not to stop on a dime. SUVs are not all that heavier than sedans, and remember that the stopping force is only proportional to mass. Same goes with energy to be dissipated. A SUV's brakes may only need to produce 1.5-2x more braking torque, compared to a sedan, to stop in the same distance.
If you really cannot stop your SUV, on dry pavement, in the same distance as your sedan, starting from the same speed, then -- seriously -- get your brakes checked/upgraded.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
The people who argue against traffic cameras are probably the same ones who also argued recently that knowing the locations of DUI checkpoints somehow makes the streets safer.
I haven't read that one yet but it makes sense to me. If I knew they were testing drivers for alcohol on my route back, then I would ensure the person driving the car back doesn't drink. Otherwise if you don't know where they are who cares if they are doing a test? The chance of getting caught on some random road are incredibly small.
The cameras make mistakes all the time. In my area they flash even if you aren't moving, if at any time your front tyre rolls 1cm over the arbitrary flash limit somewhere near the white line. It took ages for the council to finally admit this was true. It is mistaken that you jumped a light if an ambulance comes up behind and makes you move out of the way.
These people really just want to protect their "right" to break the law.
When you grow up, you will find life is more than just being a robot and following the rules the adults set up for you. If I found a member of my family died because some idiot refused to jump the light to let an ambulance past, I would be pretty pissed off. Traffic laws are there to help guide how we should get along with each other, after all we are throwing several tons of steel around at lethal speeds, but they are not rules set in stone to be used to squeeze money out of people that are not endangering anybody else. Rules are not a substitute for common sense. If you ignore the rule it's useless, if you apply it to the letter rather than the spirit it becomes counter-productive, the way is somewhere in between.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
What video? And why should I have to take time out of my schedule because of a mistake that never would have been made were a person watching? They certainly aren't going to pay me back for the missed hours of work.
...cameras in place where the real crime is happening.
here, for example...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Aren't you required to leave enough room to allow for such a situation? Not saying it'd be ALL your fault, but if I do something stupid and you are following too close to react when I do something stupid, it seems like fault would be shared. And being aware of what's behind you is exactly what I mentioned in the reply to the post above yours. If I'm aware that you are too close and cannot stop in time, it is my duty as a responsible driver to keep going, even if it means not quite making it before the red light. With cameras that cannot account for extenuating circumstances, I'm screwed whether I stop or go. That's what I mean by "responsible for the guy behind me." You driving irresponsibly could force me to deal with undesired consequences no matter what my choice, holding me "responsible" in some way for your actions.
As has been referenced many times in various comments (including mine) the LAPD website has a FAQ on red light cameras that clearly states that video is taken from multiple angles and that is what is used to assess whether a ticket should be issued.
If you moved forward into an intersection to allow an Emergency Service Vehicle to pass then it would be obvious from the video and a ticket wouldn't be issued.
No, if it were about safety, they would not be putting up cameras at all, but rather would be doing the one thing that has actually been proven to reduce red light violations: making the yellow cycle longer. Instead, they put in cameras to raise revenue, then make the yellow cycles as short as they can to maximize revenue. They also write tickets for provably safe violations like a rolling right turn just as the light turns red. And so on.
Want to improve road safety? Raise the minimum yellow cycle length to 7 seconds, or 10 seconds on roads with speeds of 40 MPH and up. Add a countdown timer above the light in large numbers that tells how long before the light turns red. Finally, add a minimum two-second all-ways-red cycle before the light in the other direction turns green.
It's about like the county Sheriff in Cupertino, CA ticketing people as they "jaywalk". It's a highly traveled corner, and despite not having a true pedestrian island, there are places that a pedestrian could go if they get stuck in the middle. People therefore walk halfway out while the left turn light is on. This allows them to be halfway to the other side when the light turns green. This is provably safe because (ignoring people turning right on red) no vehicle can legally cross that pedestrian crossing at that point in the cycle. In short, it's pure revenue generation.
And they ticketed my boss for not stopping long enough at a stop sign. The guy claimed that you need to stop for a full 5 seconds. If I stopped for 5 seconds, the people in the other direction would assume that I was yielding the right of way, and they would start driving the moment I did, and we'd probably have a wreck. I guarantee that the cop wouldn't have spent five seconds at that corner.
Ultimately, what needs to happen is this: police should not see one penny of traffic ticket revenue, and neither should cities. The state is licensing drivers, so the state should collect all of the revenue, and should distribute it proportionally by population. That would eliminate the incentive to write tickets for things that are not truly unsafe, and more to the point, would eliminate the incentive to reduce yellow cycles to unsafe levels to increase traffic camera revenue.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The red light camera companies are in it to make money off you.
TFS said it was costing LA between 0.5 and 1.5 million dollars a year.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
yep, what you said is even better than what I said.
blah blah blah
I hate ticket cams. But I also dislike idiots. If you hit someone in the rear it is only because you made a huge error. The person in front of you as you should know may slam on their brakes at any given moment. If you are driving properly you will be focused and be able to make a safe stop. It is your fault 100% if you hit someone from behind. Now chime in and tell me that scatter brained idiots need t o drive as well as good drivers.
I would argue that speeding is not necessarily unsafe in many circumstances, but in others it is definitely unsafe. I was the passenger in an accident once. We were pulling out of small side road and turning right (right-hand drive country, so turning right means you have to wait longer usually). We'd been waiting a while for a steady stream of traffic from the right to pass. About 50m down the road to the right, the road we were turning into curved out of sight. Having seen dozens of cars pass at a relatively steady rate, they cleared up and there were NO cars coming from either direction. We pulled out finally, and a car came tearing round the curve on our right, saw us, slammed on the brakes, and still hit us. A clear case where speeding caused the accident. So yes, in built up areas, round blind corners, over blind rises, ... there are places where speeding is dangerous. On a straight highway through a desert where you can see for miles, well, if you don't brake in time, it's not because you were speeding, it's because you weren't paying attention.
Actually, there are certain situations where it's legal to run a red light because of safety concerns. The summary even mentions one: When slamming on your brakes (to stop in time for the light) would cause an accident.
And presumably in that case you fight it in court, although you'd need witnesses somehow, I imagine. It's like speeding, if you genuinely have a defence, you go to court and explain it to a judge. (This is in the UK, I can't believe you have fewer rights in the US...)
However, in ninety nine point.something percent of cases, people speeding or going through red lights have no excuse.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Exactly. Which is why they sometimes illegally shorten the yellow lights
The NTSB puts out recommended lengths of time for yellow lights but I doubt you will find a lot of local jurisdictions having actual laws to break regarding yellow light times. Shortening the yellows is highly dangerous and makes money from tickets. Guess which factor is overriding to city managers.
heh exactly
but then i was sad
Some places have even been accused of shortening the yellow light to catch more people running reds. I don't know if these allegations were proven, but I do know that I've seen some ridiculously short yellows.
They most certainly have been proven.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The above scenario is just proof of the idiocy of a lot of SUV drivers, not a reason to abandon traffic regulations.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
[note: based on LA Westside experience only]
1) People in LA drive like nuts. Going straight through a red light appears to be normal if they are in a rush.
2) It should be kept in mind that most of the red light cameras are in the nicer parts of town (like Beverly Hills). Of course, that is where the rich nuts who need to speed through a red light to get to their lunch meeting with a producer live.
3) If I really thought red light cameras would keep these nuts from doing it, I'd support them, but I don't think they do. The rich nuts get mad about the tickets but it is unlikely to change them from "type A" personalities. And it means the people who can't afford the tickets slam on their brakes on yellow.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My sedan weighs 2,050 lbs. A Ford Expedition weighs 5,801 lbs. That is nearly triple the weight! Obviously, the heavier vehicle would require much more stopping distance.
I buy heavy items a lot and the difference in stopping distance is amazing. I notice the difference when I have a lot of passengers in my car. I can easily double my minimum stopping distance when heavily loaded.
Man, you really need that seminar!
The yellow light is there to warn you the light is changing so you have time to stop. Cities will put the public in more danger just to bring in higher revenue.
Nope!
Believe it or not, a 1985 & 1989 change to ITE standards for traffic signal timing added: "Allow easy identification of violators by law enforcement agents." as an objective for traffic signal timing.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In normal conditions, saying that the follower is a terrible driver if they can't stop in time is absolutely right. I agree in principle.
The problem comes in areas, like LA, where there is so much reckless traffic that it's virtually impossible to leave a safe stopping distance in front of yourself. If you leave 1.1 cars worth of space, within a few seconds another car will fill the void. The only way to always have enough room to stop is to not drive at all.
This wouldn't apply in the vast majority of locations, but LA is an outlier in this regard.
So in general, I agree. I'm just pointing out that situations can (in some locations frequently) arise where you don't have the ability to maintain that cushion.
That said, I have managed to never run into anyone in any situation.
Note I didn't say "make money for the municipalities off you". The camera companies were not operating at a loss. Of this you can be sure. Those guys are a lot of things, but bad businessmen isn't one of them.
blah blah blah
That's not the effect of a nanny state, that's the effect of a corrupt state pretending to be a nanny state.
A nanny state would set a safe speed limit and sensible yellow lights, if anything, changing the speed limit like that would make it more dangerous.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I think the issue with slamming on the brakes is the shortened yellow times that are often associated with this kind of thing.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
This is the unvarnished truth. In some places, when traffic is heavy, allowing a safe distance between yourself and the car in front of you lets all manner of idiots cut in front of you and then HIT THE BRAKES, forcing you to panic stop. Keeping an unsafe, shorter, distance at least prevents the lane-change whores from causing an accident that YOU will be blamed for.
If you can't tell, this is something I find very irritating.
God is imaginary
If you keep your three seconds distance and pay attention, you won't rear end anybody.
You've never been in a crowded city, have you? Maintaining a three second gap at 20mph would be 88 feet, or about 8 car-lengths. It would also require you to sit for 3 seconds at a light after the car in front of you moves.
Driving like that might get you beat up or shot in some cities.
The city of Chillicothe, Ohio did a study of their own intersections after installing traffic cameras. They found that it was more effective to reduce instances of red-light running dramatically by increasing the yellow time. They also concluded that with a sufficiently long red pause between the time the yellow turns red and the cross-traffic red turns green, you can all but eliminate t-bone collisions. That is basically free.
You can see the study PDF here (www.shortyellowlights.com/ChillicotheRLCStudy.pdf)
In any case, though, the lights are timed based on the speed limit for the road
+1 Funny
There are some places (like New York City) where the lights are all timed so that driving at some speed under the speed limit will allow you to keep seeing greens for a very long stretch, but most of the time the light timings and speed limits are not in sync.
On a local stretch of road about 5 miles long, with a varying 35-45mph limit, if you drive exactly 52mph you can hit every light at the green. If you follow the speed limits exactly (changing when it changes), you will hit about every over light when it is red. Now, it might be possible to hit every light at the green by keeping to 26mph, but then you'd be doing nearly 20 less than the limit at times, and would be a hazard to traffic.
I've driven SUV 4x4's and several full sized vans (the SUVs worked out quite well for performing computer repair work up in the mountains, being able to hold tool boxes,6 spools of various cables and several PC's while keeping everything nice and dry). I've been able to avoid rear-ending idiots at lights so far. The way I've been able to avoid the accidents has hardly ever been "leaving the distance open," it's always been keep an escape route open in the lane next to you, cuz some idiot with suicidal tendencies is going to swap lanes five feet in front of you and slam on their brakes for the yellow. Granted, more than once I had two wheels start coming off the ground while I did the swerve, but the worst of it is if I had actually hit anyone it would have been my fault, since it wasn't until very recently that the legislature put "Illegal Lane Change" into the Code.
I'm not going to say I'm the best driver out there, but being trained in advanced maneuvers by State Patrol, I'm better than some (how many of y'all can pull a J-turn in a Chevy G-20 Conversion Van without spinning out or tilting it over while rocketing off at 30mph and accelerating in the complete opposite direction you were initially facing? without blowing the transmission?)
If I knew they were testing drivers for alcohol on my route back, then I would ensure the person driving the car back doesn't drink. Otherwise if you don't know where they are who cares if they are doing a test? The chance of getting caught on some random road are incredibly small.
That really just tells us about you. I'm not sure how much it says about society in general.
The other night I was out playing sport in the kind of competition where we ruin all our exercise by going out eating and drinking afterwards. I saw two separate instances of drivers encouraging their passengers to have another drink because they will stay under the limit to drive them home. I have been out with other couples and watched them negotiate with each other who will be driving them home so they knew who could keep drinking.
This is all without apps to tell them where the "booze buses" were. These were just ordinary people who obeyed the law. Whether that was because they thought they might get caught or just that they thought it was worth keeping under the limit to be safe on the roads, I don't know. But I saw no incredulous looks on the faces of those around me when these events occured. It was just accepted as the norm. Perhaps the people with whom I associate are a bit more civilized than you and your friends.
The cameras make mistakes all the time. In my area they flash even if you aren't moving, if at any time your front tyre rolls 1cm over the arbitrary flash limit somewhere near the white line.
As long as that does not result in fines being incorrectly issued then the cameras can flash as much as they like. If nothing else, it provides a reminder to drivers that they should not do anything stupid.
When you grow up, you will find life is more than just being a robot and following the rules the adults set up for you.
So as you get older, you become less mature. I get the feeling that I should read your message out aloud in my best Jeff Foxworthy voice and sprinkle a few "you might be a redneck if..." phrases in. It is people like you that make shops have security cameras so people who think that they are above the law do not just "help themselves".
If I found a member of my family died because some idiot refused to jump the light to let an ambulance past, I would be pretty pissed off.
Would you be similarly pissed off if your family member was killed by some idiot running a red light. I can't imagine the conflict that you would feel if it was to that road accident that your delayed ambulance was headed. Although now I think about it, in my neck of the woods we all stop when an ambulance comes through an intersection and allow the paramedic to drive on the wrong side of the road if necessary. I'm not sure how wise it would be to surprise an ambulance by suddenly driving out against the lights as they weave in and out of the traffic. In these parts they prefer people to be predictable.
Rules are not a substitute for common sense.
And yet we need to have rules precisely because common sense can often be quite uncommon. How many people who consider themselves to be safe drivers end up being involved in the yearly road casualty statistic that is over ten times larger than the death toll for 9/11.
.... The placement of red light cameras suggest that their purpose is to make money. They are put in places where there is a high probability of catching you doing something ticketable.
The red light camera companies are in it to make money off you. ....
I would tend to agree, and so does the article: "the commission estimates that the program costs between $4 million and $5 million each year while bringing in only about $3.5 million annually."
So essentially, they were running at a loss and have to be shut down, because not enough people continued to run red lights.
Nope. The heavier vehicle requires 5800/2050=2.8 times more braking torque than your sedan and it will stop in exactly the same distance. braking torque * effective brake radius = vehicle mass * deceleration. Peak deceleration can be assumed fixed per given stopping distance and speed. If vehicle mass goes up by a given factor, braking torque needs to go up by the same factor. Assumption is that you don't exhaust road friction of course. This is elementary school physics.
If you can "easily" double your minimum stopping distance when the car is heavily loaded and the ABS has not turned on yet, you're simply not pushing the pedal hard enough. IOW, it's your fault and only your fault -- either as a driver, or in not maintaining your brake system correctly, or in picking up a car that has inadequate brakes.
At the time when ABS comes on, you've exhausted the available road friction. Before that happens, though, it's either you not braking hard enough, or your brakes being inadequate.
I have a simple test for brake performance: no matter what the speed and load (within car specs), you should be able to activate the ABS by braking hard on dry pavement. If you can't, it means that you're not fully using the road friction, and your brakes perform poorly. In fact, if you're a good driver in a car with good brakes and were to brake hard, the ABS should activate within 0.1s or so of you applying brake pressure.
Ideally I'd also like to see the brakes being powerful enough to activate ABS (exhaust road friction) while full engine torque is applied at low speeds (say middle of power band in 1st gear). But I've yet to see any popular stock cars be able to do that. Both my and my wife's Volvos can do that, but that's only because the brakes have been upgraded (beefier discs and calipers, good pads).
Now, having a tiny bit of human factors experience, I'd certainly like it if brake systems were calibrated such that on all cars, same brake pedal pressure gives same deceleration. This would need to be "tuned" for seat vs. brake pedal geometry, as relative location of your butt vs. the pedal does change braking effort. But this would be essentially a workaround to not having proper habits as a driver.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Look, I'm not saying it's a minor issue, just that you'd live.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I lived in Los Angeles for 3 years and frequently rode a motorcycle around which meant that you could split the lanes and reach the intersection front line. When they see the yellow light, many LA drivers accelerate on the theory that even if the light turns red before they reach it, there'll be a delay before the other cars get moving. There were many drivers in LA who would enter the intersection 10 seconds after it turned red. They are in a hurry after all and on a very important trip so they knew it was okay. This meant that when the light turned green and you were waiting to enter on a motorcycle, you looked both ways before moving and then slowly and cautiously entered to avoid sudden violent death...and that near avoidance happened frequently. Those red light cameras catch all of the people who are running the red light and they are the ones complaining. The fact that there are so many of them tells you how common running red lights is in LA.
Yeah. You've never driven in Manhattan. It IS a war zone - especially 57th-59th st.
We have all types in the UK, including bus lane cameras which are proper stupid in some instances. Numerous times I've had a camera bus lane on my side, and a bus attempting to overtake a loading vehicle on their side. I can't move over into the bus lane to let the bus coming the other way out, because I'll get a ticket. It's completely counterproductive... this is in London, too, so you can be sat in the same spot for minutes with the bus driver getting annoyed at you.
One of the newest things they've introduced is junction red lights activated by prior speed. ie a camera up the road clocks you at over the speed limit, and automatically switches the light to red in the junction ahead. Yet to see how these will pan out.
I've personally gone through red lights (carefully) to let emergency vehicles past, but only after I made sure there were no cameras. If there was a camera in that situation, I wouldn't, just because I can't be dealing with the hassle. I never jump reds (generally), because it makes driving so much more stressful, checking to see which car's a cop car etc.
One good thing about the UK (I think - someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that all yellow lights are exactly the same time... it can be annoying for high speed junctions, but at least it's consistent. I can't imagine how annoying not knowing how long a yellow will hold.
I do about 100,000 miles a year... I'm an HGV driver, though I don't always drive big trucks.
was that effect just transitory as people have a timer in their head for how long the yellow lasts? Increase the time, and the rates go down. Until the internal timers are reset.
Physics, not just a suggestion, it's the law... If you want to avoid an accident, you will respect the law.. Go out and learn from professional drivers that will demonstrate something a bit more exciting than parallel parking. Luckily, in most places, if you rear end anybody, no matter what the reason, even if you get hit from behind, it's your fault. That's the way your insurance company sees it, and they are right. And as far as the road rage thing goes, I know how to handle that..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Driving like that might get you beat up or shot in some cities.
It won't get you beat up or shot, but you won't be able to maintain that distance, no matter how hard you try. Distances of 2 or more car-lengths will be filled in by other drivers. That means that you'd be waiting indefinitely at the light for the cars in front of you to move as cars from the other lanes cut in front of you to fill the space you're trying to maintain.
As far as the red light cameras go, they wouldn't cause so many accidents if the accompanying measure of lengthening the duration of the yellow light was also taken. Unfortunately, since many municipalities see these as revenue generation techniques that, at a minimum, need to pay for themselves, the tendency is to shorten the yellow lights, which creates the rear-end accident danger. It's also helpful to have the countdown timers that tell pedestrians how much time they have left to cross the intersection since they alert motorists as to whether it's at all questionable whether they'll make it through the intersection in time.
Every car I've owned I have been able to exhaust friction, skidding/triggering ABS, when doing a panic stop. When I say I am doubling minimum stopping distance, that is braking as hard as is possible without skidding or triggering ABS. I do this occasionally on an empty road in order to keep my skills and assumptions sharp, or to evaluate a rental car or new car, or to estimate the increased distance needed when hauling extra weight.
My brother in law is a trucker, and he is very familiar with the increased stopping distance needed when hauling a load. A fully loaded rig requires over 10x the distance as an empty one. The limiting factor for him is similarly friction.
I'm not sure why you are so confident that vehicle mass doesn't affect stopping distance. It is a simple enough experiment, and the physics are basic.
Man, you really need that seminar!
police should not see one penny of traffic ticket revenue, and neither should cities
You're absolutely right. Letting towns set the speed limit, manage the cops and collect the fines creates a perverse incentive. It's easy to find towns that will instruct their cops to start issuing more tickets so that they can make the budget. The law is supposed to be about justice, not revenue.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Your math for the distance is spot on, but I checked quickly and even for a compact, the average length of a car is nearly 15 feet according to http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-07-15-little-big-cars_N.htm. That makes 88 feet less than 6 car lengths. Regardless I'm nitpicking a bit. More importantly, you don't need to wait a full three seconds after the person in front of you moves.
That would be true if you accelerated at exactly the same rate as them, but if you do so a bit more slowly, you can start much sooner. I do follow the three second rule and recommend others do as well. I've never rear ended anyone, but I have had more than one situation where someone slammed the breaks in front of me and I would have had I been following as close behind as most other drivers around here do.
On the most recent occasion, the person behind me came about as close as you can get from hitting me. If I hadn't inched up a bit more at the last second, he probably would have hit me, and I didn't stop nearly as quickly as the car in front of me did, which I had no trouble avoiding.
Big rigs are different since they are not, as you claim, friction limited. At friction limits on all wheels they are generally dynamically unstable. So stopping with all wheels at the friction limit causes loss of control unless you have control augmentation hardware, just like in stealth fighter planes. None of the production rigs come with it, you only get it in passenger cars, mostly as an option. Big rig brake systems AFAIK are pretty much technological relicts, kept around to cut costs only. I've seen a big rig test bed experiment with disc brakes on each wheel (in both tractor and trailer), and the controller had anti-lock and stability augmentation enabled. It was a sight to behold. You could slam the brakes, activate ABS, and the thing was going exactly where you wanted it to. There was no way to jackknife it while braking, no matter how hard you tried, and the braking distances with 18 tons of load made a joke out of a normal truck. Of course it was experimental, but still the effects that you mention are solely due to implementation choices, there's nothing fundamental about it.
Your test, when done on a car, must be always done with triggering ABS, on all wheels. Otherwise it's not valid -- there's no way for you to tell how close you are to becoming friction limited otherwise. If your emergency brake affects rear wheels, you can stagger ABS activation by adding a preload on the rear brakes. Then when you press the brake pedal you'll first hear rear brakes pulsing, then fronts will join in as you add more braking force. You can adjust the preload to get a good indication for how close you are to getting front ABS coming on.
To a first approximation, friction (thus braking torque, when you're friction limited) is proportional to the normal load -- the weight of the vehicle. That's the basic physics. A heavier vehicle automatically provides you with more available friction force. The AASHTO braking distance equation only depends on initial end final speed, and on coefficient of friction. The coefficient of friction does depend somewhat on tires, of course, so you cannot have an ultimate comparison with different tire types and sizes, unfortunately. You're pretty much bound to testing with one vehicle, with one set of tires, and different loads.
Whatever effects you're seeing are second-order and thus should be small, and relate IIRC first to tire contact area. You could compensate for the latter by adjusting the tire pressure to obtain same axle-to-ground distance. If you are still seeing an effect, then your tire's design is "poor" in that the effective coefficient of friction of tire vs. pavement depends on load; that's -- again IIRC -- due to changes in the geometry of the rubber elements that contact the pavement while being sheared. They deform due to shear in such a way that the effective friction coefficient changes, usually decreasing. I've seen plenty of variation in that effect in different tires. The more the tire is worn, the less pronounced the effect. Whatever we're talking of here is minuscule stuff in single percents. Nothing that will double your braking distance.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Well, the vehicles I'm comparing are a 1999 Tahoe LT 4wd vs a 2000 TransAm WS/6. Both have upgraded tires, but the TransAm tires have a much hire traction rating. While I can hit the brakes hard enough to toss passengers around, I can make the TransAm stop and corner much faster. It's simply inherent in the two vehicles.
The stock TransAm (not the WS/6) is rated for a 60-0 braking distance of 120 feet. The WS/6 performs better in most categories, and the only significant change as far as that part of the vehicle is concerned.
I couldn't find the 60-0 distance for the Tahoe, but I did find these. It's a snippet of a list from Motor Trend.
08 Cadillac CTS 3.6 104'
07 Ferrari 599 GTB 105'
09 BMW X6 111'
09 Dodge Challenger SRT8 121' manual tran, 117' auto tran
08 Shelby Mustang GT-C 117'
08 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 118'
08 Accord coupe EX-L 127'
09 Dodge Challenger SE 130'
08 Charge R/T 137'
08 Toyota Tundra Doublr Cab 4X4 139'
08 Tahoe 4WD 140'
07 Silverado Crew Cab 150'
Now assume this scenario. 3 lanes in the direction of travel. The outside two lanes are occupied with vehicles. A '08 Cadillac CTS moves from an outside lane to the center lane, in front of a '08 Tahoe 4WD. Cars almost never change lanes allowing for a "3 second gap" between themselves and the vehicle that they're changing lanes in front of. You can assume 20 feet, which just from my drive today I'd say is a very liberal number (a car cut in front of me, so I could no longer see his car from the rear window back).
They are both traveling at 60mph.
The NHTSA has tested that an average driver on an average day needs 1 full second to recognize something happening in front of them, and react properly. You've shortened the 20 foot gap down to maybe 5 feet.
The Cadillac in a panic stop will be fully stopped at 104' . The Tahoe won't be stopped until 140'. That's a 36' difference. So there will be an accident, and the Cadillac in front will likely be shoved or energy otherwise being passed, resulting in the Cadillac, a tad bit shorter than moments before, will be 36' from where he could have stopped.
So like I said, no, a SUV won't stop as fast as a sports car. And I never claimed to drive a sedan. The only ones I've driven in years either belonged to friends, or were rental cars.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
The reason for the removal of a cameras was they they were not running a profit. Public safety? oh, yea... that too.
So in munny the truth comes out.. the REAL reason speed limits are too low, why you are more likely to hit a red than a green, why all those country-ass towns in the Midwest where the 'major industry' is an off-brand filling station have huge police stations and shiny new patrol vehicles.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
The SUV's tires must suck compared to passenger cars, then, as -- again -- it's not the weight but the coefficient of friction that affects the braking, assuming that friction limit is reached on all of the tires. If you'd get that Tahoe and cut off enough stuff off to make it as heavy as, say, BMW X6, it wouldn't magically stop in 30' less. It'd stop in exactly the same distance.
I do hope, though, that all those stopping distances are calculated with ABS activated, and with a mechanical actuator pushing on the brake and very quickly applying maximum pressure, as verified by recording pressure in the brake circuits. There's no uncomplicated way to make such tests with human in the loop.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Exactly. Which is why they sometimes illegally shorten the yellow lights
The NTSB puts out recommended lengths of time for yellow lights but I doubt you will find a lot of local jurisdictions having actual laws to break regarding yellow light times. Shortening the yellows is highly dangerous and makes money from tickets. Guess which factor is overriding to city managers.
I don't know of any jurisdictions that mandate a minimum length of time for a yellow light. Instead, most jurisdictions that have this type of law mandate a minimum length of time between when a light turns yellow and when the opposing light turns green. To increase revenues without compromising safety, the light stays yellow for a very short time before turning red. However, the opposing light doesn't turn green until several seconds later, thereby complying with the law, while increasing tickets.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
"Brakes", the word is "brakes"...
No sig today...
This mess is just a result of poor regulation.
:).
One solution is to:
1) make it illegal to have yellow lights that are too short.Then have a regulator fine the people/organizations setting yellow lights that are too short, and actually make it known to the public that "yellow lights have to be X seconds long, if they aren't they are illegal and please call this number to report them".
2) Make it law that if a traffic light is run by more than one car, the LAST car gets the fine. The ones in front don't. This part is important.
3) Rear number plates would have to be mandatory - otherwise 2) doesn't work so easily
Then the red lights will work better since:
1) People know that if they run a red light they will get fined.
2) But people will also know that legal yellow lights will be at least X seconds long, so fewer people would slam on the brakes on yellow lights.
3) Fewer people would also slam on the brakes if a car is too close and too fast behind them to stop in time, because they can now go through and let the tailgater get the fine.
That's the way your insurance company sees it, and they are right. And as far as the road rage thing goes, I know how to handle that..
With your medical insurance after not dodging the bullet?
From a nerd hacker point of view, I've wondered if you could rig your car up with a electromagnetic loop or more to trigger or confuse the detectors that use induction loops:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_loop
There are many places where they use these.
People got involved, and get this crap stopped using facts.
So all you people who think getting involved is a waste of time, you are wrong. And all you people who complain but do nothing: Fuck You.
But I'm sure you will find some way to twist this into to some other grand conspiracy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's because on the Internet, everyone thinks they're experts, regardless of the field.
You're probably arguing with a 15 year old kid, who's never driven anything heavier than his Huffy.
I'm confident that you are correct, not only from the math and what we see on paper, but from practical experience. I've driven everything, from mopeds to 26' box trucks, a 40' city bus, and a few solid tanker rigs with 13 speed transmissions.
I know the biggest annoyance for truckers is the four-wheelers (passenger vehicles), because they get in the way, and don't consider what kind of space a large rig needs to stop or maneuver. They'll cut you off, ride in your blind spots, and try to squeeze by on the right when you're making right turns. Well, except for a few people like me. If I see a truck signaling or trying to maneuver, I give them room, and flash my lights twice to indicate I'm doing so.
But back to the question. yes, the heavier the vehicle, the more room you need to accelerate and stop. I had fun in a 26' U-Haul when it was empty. It felt comparable to a sluggish pickup truck. Once it was loaded, with a flat bed car trailer in tow, it felt like a turd tied to a huge boat anchor. 0 to 60 in about 60 seconds or so (assuming it's downhill with a good stiff breeze). Stopping time was anything but graceful.
I rather enjoy my bus (It's converted to be an RV). It has lots of torque. 0-60 time is somewhere around 15 to 20 seconds, as I recall. The weight of a car and trailer are negligible, if there isn't too much stuff inside the bus. Even still, if I stand on the brakes, it doesn't stop like a sports car, or even a custom conversion van (they add an amazing amount of weight).
It's idiots who assume everyone can stop at their rate, that cause accidents and get people killed. The guy in the rig will be ok, but the guy in the passenger car is going to know what pain is, if he survives.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Allowing people to throw stones over a hedge is a bad thing. Also I demand to Know your name AC
Sorry, I was talking specifically about the length of time of the yellow light, not synchronization between lights. That's hit-and-miss in most cities anyway. What I mean is, a yellow light should last longer at an intersection where the speed limit is 45 mph than one at an intersection with a 30-mph speed limit.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I hit my brakes and come to a perfect stop before the crosswalk and a HUGE SUV behind me hit his brakes and barely came to a stop but had to pull over to the side of the road to avoid rear ending me. Thanks to the red light camera guys, I nearly was killed. THANKS BIG BROTHER!
Instead of "thanks Big Brother," how about "thanking" the delta bravo in the SUV who clearly wasn't paying attention to what the drivers around him were doing?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
The superman analogy was nothing more than that, an analogy. A more accurate scenario would be something falling off the vehicle (be it something in the back, a lose muffler, the bumper, etc) It could also be something the car ran over (branch, board with nails, etc) that they either cleared or didn't notice that if YOU hit would cause an accident/damage. If something like that falls off, the item generally stops moving withing a few feet which incidentally would be about the depth of the crumple zone had they hit superman.
Oh, by the way, if there is a front-end collision (that you can't see coming for what-ever reason), you can bet your ASS (figuratively and literally) that it will stop DEAD!
Ok, lets look at this another way for you then. Before I owned a SUV, I had to use my Trans Am to move anything that I wanted to buy, or rent a truck. I lived on a lovely wind-swept hill, which meant anything that would sit on the back porch had a tendency of finding itself torn to shreds, knocked around, or be found hundreds of feet away. I went to Home Depot, and picked up eight 8x8x16 concrete blocks to secure a few things, such as my BBQ grill. I had the rear seat folded down, and layered the blocks across the seat , rear deck, and trunk area. It's only about 300 pounds, equally over the rear axle. It made a huge difference in stopping ability. Rather than feeling like it would stop on a dime, it felt like I was being pushed while stopping. No other changes were made during that trip, except consuming a bit of gasoline.
Have you ever towed a trailer? I helped a friend move a travel trailer not too long ago. Again, the added weight adds substantially to stopping distance. You won't find anyone who says it doesn't, unless the weight of the towed vehicle is insignificant to the overall vehicle weight. The bus, at something like 35,000 pounds, doesn't take a significant performance hit with about 3800 pounds of car and trailer behind it (10.8% increase in weight). A 4500 SUV with the same trailer in tow would (84% increase in weight).
But for the sake of tire traction, yes, you can generally get better performance tires in 275/40x17 than you can in 275/70x16. We're not talking about either one sliding down the road when stopping though. We're talking about stopping in a normal distance. High traction tires made it harder to lock the wheels up when stopping, since they do have an excellent grip on the road.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Your gut feel is entirely wrong. Sorry.
You will certainly feel differently because the inertia of the car changes. Again, the feel is entirely unimportant. You have to measure things, and you have to know that you're friction limited, and that can only be done with a reasonably good ABS system. That's why folks who discount ABS are quite silly IMHO.
To give you a visual aid in understanding how braking distance is unaffected by curb weight, look at a graph in this presentation (unfortunately it's PPT). You need to discount the idiotic fit they applied to the data as it's really meaningless. Cars/trucks with curb weights between 2500 and 6000 lb all stop between 100 and 150 feet, seemingly randomly distributed. I presume it's from 60mph to 0. Curb weight is pretty much unrelated to braking distance, all you see in that data is experimental error and varying tire/pavement conditions.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Lets look at this scientifically. We should do experiments to validate your assertion.
We'll take different vehicles, and put them in this real-world scenario.
You get a Mazda Miata. I'll take my Firebird. We'll get on a major road, and find loaded semi rigs traveling at 60mph, change lanes to be in front of them, and try emergency stops. You get to try first. Remember to have someone shoot the video.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
My guess is the effects of this would only be temporary. I remember before there was an all-ways red cycle where I live. People ran red lights a lot less back then. Once they added it in people knew there was a bit of extra time and adapted. Now it's common for 1-2 cars to go through any light that has just turned red.
What a strawman. At this point you're either trolling or you seriously don't get my point.
In another post I've clearly stated that trucks have fairly poor braking performance and it's got nothing to do with their weight, just poor technology. A big rig's braking performance is about as good as a poorly adjusted emergency brake in your car, braking on rear wheels. Again, nothing to do with weight.
I've also stated that you have to do controlled comparisons: mechanical actuator, same chassis, same wheels and same stretch of road, under same conditions. It's a coincidence only that, say, an F150 with maximum load will brake over a longer distance than a Ferrari. If you were to cut said F150s weight down to that of the Ferrari, it wouldn't brake in any shorter of a distance. Then if you'd upgrade its tires to those of a Ferrari, it'd brake exactly as the Ferrari would. Really. You claim "let's look at this scientifically" -- I've already pointed you to objective data from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Both underlying physics and test resuts. Just look at the chart in the presentation I linked to in the post you reply to. Weight between 2500 and 6000 lbs has no effect on braking distance. None. That's the science you ask for.
You cannot willy nilly compare a big rig with a Ferrari, unless you first ensure that the big rig's braking performance is limited by the same thing as that of the Ferrari: road friction. Production (as opposed to test bed) big rigs can only get limited by road friction when they have ABS, hydraulic brakes and when there's no trailer.
Big rigs do brake in a much longer distance when they're loaded, but that's a consequence of their extremely poor braking system design and dynamic instability. It's not due to some imaginary physical law making braking distance get longer with load. U.S. big rigs use antiquated air-driven drum brakes, but even in Europe they still use air-driven discs. An air-based system makes for very poor ABS response, and you need ABS to stay road-friction-limited. The only sane way to do braking on a truck is to have a self-contained hydraulic brake system with a spring preload on both tractor and trailer, and an electrical link between them. At a slightly higher cost, one can have a double redundant diversity hydraulic system and then you don't need the spring preload. By "self contained" I mean having its own reserve power source, its own hydraulic pump, its own inertial sensors for stability augmentation, etc. It will stop on a dime.
From what I recall, the truck dynamics test bed I saw was braking about as good as a passenger car (under 40m from 100km/h to zero), so I would in fact gladly cut it off, stomp on the brake, and watch it stay a good distance from my back with 18 tons of load on the trailer. It's a sad state of affairs that production trucks are nowhere near that.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I'm pretty sure there have been studies that show that people only adapt up to a certain yellow light duration, but I don't have the time or energy to dig them out right now.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Don't know about L.A. but in Seattle there are plenty of key intersections that people are constantly blocking. Pulling out into the intersection when there's no room for them to make it out, then sitting in the intersection during the other direction's whole green light blocking the way. It accomplishes nothing, gets them no further, and only makes traffic worse for everyone. I haven't seen any way to get people to stop mindlessly gridlocking these bottlenecks except by holding them accountable for it, and cameras do just that. I hate cameras and violation of privacy, but when people consistently don't follow the rules (and they're not so hard to follow, not so hard to understand, and not such a sacrifice here), it's one way to solve the problem.
Has it been proven? It might well have been proven that making it shorter, excessively and unpredictably leads to increased infractions. But that doesn't prove the case in the reverse direction. For example, starvation will kill you, but excessive eating won't make you live forever.
Though you are right in a way; setting the lights to permant yellow will reduce red light running to zero. What it will do about accidents and convenience is open to debate.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In other words, you're using the phrase wrongly.
ABS is cadence braking on steroids. Exceptional conditions aside (deep snow, gravel) it will be in the optimum zone (just before skidding occurs) a darn site more often than you or any other human can achieve by pumping the pedal.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."