Slashdot Mirror
Denver Must Prove Red-Light Cameras Improve Safety
An anonymous reader writes "An audit of accidents at Denver intersections where red light cameras were installed versus increasing the length of the yellow light shows little difference in the results. In a case of putting the public ahead of the corporation, the Denver auditor is recommending canceling the red light camera program unless the city can prove a public-safety benefit." I hope that private citizens offering analysis or recommendations are treated fairly.
I know here in Canada and in all the places I've been in the US yellows are plenty long.
The issue is assholes entering the intersection to turn left when it isn't clear, people refusing to stop when the light does turn yellow, etc.
I'd actually want to see a very clear causal link between longer yellows and safety increases, because my gut tells me longer yellows would make people ignore them even more.
Perhaps the increase number of such crashes will educate those few extra people into not following the car in front at a distance of just 0.5cm, not distracting themselves with their radio, cigarette, makeup application etc. or... heaven forbid... perhaps taking another form of transport instead.
Notice how no one went to jail for any of that. It's almost as if corruption were permitted in the US.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Is there any where in the world where it isn't, in practice, permitted.
As long as you aren't caught by the right people, go for it!
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
As a EU citizen I understand americans hate regulations. But would this not be a thing that should be covered by law? I mean ... what the fuck? In your country a city can decide how long the traffic light is yellwo, that sounds pretty retarded to me.
In germany the duration of yellow depends on the speed limit of the affected road.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
My reading of the stats in the TFA is that the rate front to side impacts have decreased 5 times for read light cameras compared with a rate decrease of less than 2 for yellow light extension. Being T-boned at an intersection by a red light runner is far more dangerous than being rear ended by someone not stopping soon enough because they didn't see the light change. So I'd hardly call the change in accident rates a "little difference". Sure injury reduction has been about the same and front to rear is slightly better for the yellow light extension, but I'd hardly call that conclusive.
It astounds me that in the US red light cameras are so reviled. I am continually scared when facing a green light at an intersection and then having some one drive through the red light from my left to right. These people are trying to kill me. So supporting a system that lets them get away with it is nonsensical.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
According to the law*, a yellow light is to be treated as a red light *if* the vehicle can safely stop. Only if you can't safely stop at a yellow are you to proceed.
Naturally, if folks are driving the posted speed limit, it's far easier to stop at a yellow, because stopping distance increases quite a bit when your speed goes from 30 mph to 35 to 40 to 45. We can bicker about speed limits on the interstate all day long, but local road speed limits are much more important to get right, because you've got pedestrians, cyclists, autos pulling in and out of driveways, right on red at intersections, etc. Stopping distance is really important. Do a better job enforcing local speed limits, and you'll find that folks are less likely to drive through a yellow (or "orange") light, improving safety for everyone.
The other part is this. Plenty of folks treat a yellow as green. Always. Lengthen the yellow, and folks get a feel for the longer length... and will continue to just plough through it as if it were green. Once folks re-calibrate, you've got a worse situation, because people will see a yellow and be even more inclined to accelerate.
There's no need to lengthen the yellow. We need to enforce local speed limit laws.
* all vary state to state, but this is generally speaking the case
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Folks would brake suddenly when they saw the camera causing the vehicle behind them to rear-end them.
Nothing the driver in front of you does should result in you crashing into him. That is why there is a two second rule for following, and laws against tailgating. Ive had someone yell at me because they hit me when I slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting a line of cars. Guess what, she lost that battle when they admitted I was in front of them, and she admitted that she only had half a second to respond.
From the article it appears that the number of injuries at the intersection have actually declined since the introduction of the red-light camera. Front-to-side collisions are down and these are caused by the driver running the red light. These collisions are more dangerous than the front-to-rear collision since the vehicle directly enters the passenger area at a potentially higher speed.
Rear-to-front collisions are caused by the driver tailgating and these in general are due to him not being able to stop in time and the collision are at a much lower speed and do not directly enter the passenger compartment. The data provided in the article reenforces this hypothesis since there were 53 injuries prior to the cameras installation and only 18 afterwards. This is despite the gain of 1 front-to-rear accident.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
If it's everywhere, I guess it's just fine that it's permitted in the US.
Do people really think like this? What's wrong with them?
How about increasing the delay between red in your direction to green for the cross traffic, so if someone does run the red there will be a couple extra seconds before cross traffic starts to flow.
While we're at it let's remove what I call "Stupid stoplights", that do nothing but waste gas. How many times have you sat at a red light with NO cross traffic for 30 seconds or more.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
What's wrong is that they live in hope that one day, somehow, they'll cross the line and be on that gravy train full of free money.
In America it's called "The American Dream". It's why things like the outrage against wall street and the bankers is a few people in tents when it should really have far more pitchforks, lynchings and burning mansions.
No sig today...
It is as long as there is a bracketed letter behind your name.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Notice how no one went to jail for any of that. It's almost as if corruption were permitted in the US.
Corruption is not permitted in the US. It is encouraged.
An observant person might think they wanted people running red lights.
A realist might think they wanted people running red lights.
Anyone capable of rational thought might think they wanted people running red lights.
Fixed that for you. Take your pick.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
But knowing that drivers do what they do, are you willing to risk a collision (and your safety, along with your passengers' safety) when you see someone is following too closely? Or would you risk the ticket? What if the person behind you is underinsured?
You're right legally. But legality != reality.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
That's not an Yankee problem. It's the same every where. There's no accountability as long as they turn a profit.
If a corporation does something there is no way to punish them. A person can go to jail. There is no equal punishment for a corporation. They have all the advantages a person does but none of the downsides.
If a corporation had to stop all business for say 4 months as punishment then you'd start to see ethics in corporations. However this would never happen because no politician wants to deal with the blow back of putting that many people out of work.
I find being offended by me offensive.
So drive slower.
"there's ice on the road and I think I'll drive at 100mph" - only an idiot would say that.
Only drive as fast as the road conditions allow - this is bascially the law in the UK. Don't follow that law; expect to get punished for dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention.
We have speed limits here too. They aren't a target speed. You do not have to drive at the national speed limit, only under it.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
In Uhmurrica we live the Ferengi Dream.
"You don't understand. Ferengi workers don't want to stop the exploitation, we want to find a way to become the exploiters." - Rom
WALSTIB!
If braking didn't involve inertia and human reaction time, you'd be right. A light needs to be yellow long enough for the driver to see it, decide if they can safely stop before entering the intersection, and then do so. If the yellow is shorter than that, even a perfect driver will inevitably "run the red" from time to time. Shorten it enough and even an automated driver with perfect reaction would run the light from time to time based solely on statistics and the laws of physics.
Consider a 1 microsecond yellow and it flickers when you are 1 foot from the line doing 45 MPH.
This is well understood by traffic engineers and so there are guidelines for the minimum safe length of a yellow. Cities with red light cameras almost always end up with yellows shorter than that.
Oh, heaven forbid we penalize the stock-holders ... oh no, that would be horrible.
Look, if the only way to punish a corporation is to hurt their bottom line, then I'm all for it. Because otherwise companies will just keep doing anything they want with no consequences whatsoever.
If you can't slap a company with a huge fine which hurts their bottom line, what can you do to punish them? A stern talking to won't work.
Why not? That's practically what legal incorporation means ... it's a separate legal entity, which apparently now is a person with free speech, and which limits individual liability.
So except for the most egregious stuff (which is usually financial shenanigans -- again, it's all about the stockholder) there is almost no chance of someone being held criminally responsible for the actions of a corporation.
If a bunch of individuals decide to do something criminal on behalf of the company, you pretty much need to punish the corporation so there is an understanding that they need to play by the rules as well.
In some extreme cases you might be able to hold individuals criminally responsible, but letting the stockholders and the company off without any punishment only encourages them to act like assholes -- something they already do much of the time anyway.
I'm sorry, but if a company decides to use ground, rabid squirrel as an additive to their pepperoni, I fail to see why the corporation shouldn't be penalized; and if that means the stockholders get penalized, well, then they can tell the people who run the company they're not happy.
If you want to get paid for the company successes, you also own a share in their wrongdoings and misfortunes.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So you're saying people who fund and drive criminal activity but don't directly get their hands dirty are just fine.
You have no problem with someone ordering a murder? Just the person who actually does it?
I find being offended by me offensive.
So you're saying people who fund and drive criminal activity but don't directly get their hands dirty are just fine. You have no problem with someone ordering a murder? Just the person who actually does it?
Owning a mutual fund is now equivalent to ordering a murder? Man, gotta love slashdot logic.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Umm, quite possibly, if one of the companies held by the mutual fund does their risk analysis and finds that probability of death * cost of death profit, then yes, it's basically murder.
But that's not really the point anyway. If you buy into a mutual fund that holds stock for a company that profits from fraud, and you profited from that fraud, you should take part of the hit when (or, more likely, *if*) the fraud is discovered.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal