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.

Comments

I Seem To Recall

[sycodon]

...reading some years back that the Red Light camera companies had specific language in the contracts that restricted the length of yellow lights.

A cynical person might think they wanted people running red lights. But I'm not...oh, fuck it. I am cynical.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[digitalaudiorock]

As I recall, cities were in fact called out for shortening yellow lights for profit, and risking lives in the process. A quick Google search found this: http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Hatta]

Notice how no one went to jail for any of that. It's almost as if corruption were permitted in the US.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[ByOhTek]

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!

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Hatta]

Come now, let's attend to the plank in our own eye first.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Joce640k]

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.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[rickb928]

Not all. we're just the most hypocritical.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[g0bshiTe]

It is as long as there is a bracketed letter behind your name.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[bjdevil66]

Cities ABSOLUTELY cheat on yellow light timing - and they always will be because after they sign the contracts, they realize just how much money they HAVE to bring in just to pay the minimum monthly fees to the camera companies.

Case in point: In Paradise Valley, Arizona, they were caught red-handed by anti-camera activists intentionally shortening yellow lights going less than four seconds, which was a threshold they were never supposed to go under. The city claimed they weren't doing it, until this youtube video proved they were cheating at photo radar intersections.

After being caught red-handed, the city quietly and quickly - the very next day, in fact - changed the timing to match that minimum threshold.

In downtown Chandler, AZ, there was another well-known intersection with cameras with a shorter yellow time than the others, and it led to a majority of ALL of its camera "revenue".

Bottom line: There are a ton of revenue-desperate city councils out there full of dopes who aren't clever enough to see what the snake oil salesmen from camera companies are selling: "sin tax safety" AND revenue to boot, with a huge gotchas attached. It's going to take years to flush the system of these safety-neutral, revenue positive cameras.

BTW - Everyone should take notice that Los Angeles hasn't burned to the ground after turning off their cameras. It's safe to say that if LA can live without cameras, Denver (and any other major city in the United States) would probably avoid their own "carmageddon" as well...

Re:I Seem To Recall

[alexo]

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.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[mr1911]

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.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Isaac Remuant]

They feel attacked. It's a common response. If they accept those kind of statements they can't really be as proud of their country as they are.

In my opinion, patriotism is more often than not an impediment for common sense and diplomacy.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[harl]

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.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[pixelpusher220]

That doesn't prove anything about red light cameras being effective. *Any* tool can be misused. You don't throw a tool out because the person wielding it is doing something bad with it.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[oracleguy01]

While that is true, if a tool continually gets abused by those wielding it maybe it isn't worth having.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[schwit1]

Penalizing all stockholders for the crimes of others is hardly fair. Criminals should not be able to avoid consequences by hiding behind legal incorporation.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[brusk]

Sure, but it's easy enough to fix the problem in this case. The city council just needs to pass a bylaw that the minimum time for all yellow lights be X seconds. And the incentive is there even without cameras, since cops can use short yellows to increase the number of red light runners they catch.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[sjames]

They could just confiscate all of the profits from the 4 months, but that won't happen either because no politician wants to compromise his chances of a nice cushy job after his term ends. When they say tough on crime, they mean blue collar crime, of course.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even understand the theory behind yellow lights? You said it doesn't matter how long the yellow is so thus a .00001 second yellow is ok? Based on your assumptions we don't even need a yellow light at all because you should just stop when you see red, right?

If you are moving at 45/50 mph and the light turns yellow for a second then you may not even have time to stop at all let alone safely if you are already near the intersection. You seem to be assuming you can stop a car instantly and safely the second you see the yellow light. This is not always the case. A longer yellow allows cars that can't safely stop to continue though the intersection during the grace period and warns cars that have enough time to stop to do so. The problem is, unless the speed limit is extremely low, shorter yellows force drivers to make the "stop" decision more often and in more dangerous situations. It is also important to remember people have reaction times that are not instant.

I know these cases are not everyday for an individual person but at almost every light change someone is being forced to make the decision of stopping or continuing shortening the yellow.

I don't think we want to live in a world where the second a yellow is up we must smash our foot to the ground and use ABS just to be sure the light doesn't turn red before we cross into the intersection.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[0100010001010011]

As long as you're not at the bottom, you're fine. People in general, given the opportunity, would make as much profit as they could from what ever they could, society be damned.

The best that I can put together is that if you're at the top or in charge, you're living the American Dream and we don't want to punish anyone that makes it to that level. But if you're at the bottom you screwed up or God is punishing you so you deserve to be there. We have people making $40k a year cursing at the person making $15k for "stealing their money" and "needing to work harder". But they let the person making $1M a year slide because some day that person making $40k is going to be a part of the $1M and they don't want their money taken away.

The CEO of what had been one of the largest privately held mortgage lenders was sentenced Tuesday to more than three years in prison for his role in a $3 billion scheme that officials called one of the biggest corporate frauds in U.S. history.

The 40-month sentence for Paul R. Allen, 55, is slightly less than the six-year term sought by federal prosecutors.

vs

A homeless man robbed a Louisiana bank and took a $100 bill. After feeling remorseful, he surrendered to police the next day. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

Roy Brown, 54, robbed the Capital One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007. He approached the teller with one of his hands under his jacket and told her that it was a robbery.

The teller handed Brown three stacks of bill but he only took a single $100 bill and returned the remaining money back to her. He said that he was homeless and hungry and left the bank.

The next day he surrendered to the police voluntarily and told them that his mother didn’t raise him that way.

Brown told the police he needed the money to stay at the detox center and had no other place to stay and was hungry.

In Caddo District Court, he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison for first degree robbery.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[hrvatska]

To determine whether red light cameras are effective you have to first ask what their purpose is. What is the purpose of red light cameras?

Re:I Seem To Recall

[iceaxe]

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

Re:I Seem To Recall

[sjames]

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.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[BasilBrush]

Of course it's fair. You expect to gain when the company does well. Often that success is partly from a corporation flouting the law and getting away with it. Well, a stockholder should be taking both sides of the risk. How else can we expect AGMs to vote for better governance?

Re:I Seem To Recall

[gstoddart]

Penalizing all stockholders for the crimes of others is hardly fair.

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.

Criminals should not be able to avoid consequences by hiding behind legal incorporation.

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.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[BasilBrush]

And in America of course his election expenses are mostly paid for by the corporations. That's a more pressing form of corruption. Yes corruption - corporations paying money to both parties so whoever wins they get better treatment at the expense of the public. What else can it be called than corruption - even if it's not been made illegal.

(And of course although it's obviously unethical, politicians aren't going to make it illegal!)

Re:I Seem To Recall

[harl]

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?

Re:I Seem To Recall

[harl]

Profits? What profits? Our books show we lost money those 4 months.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Fortunately political contributions aren't deductible.

Unfortunately the elected politicians pay back the corporations in the form of tax credits and deductions.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[pixelpusher220]

I didn't blindly state that they were effective. I said thatthe corruption of the operators doesn't say anything about the tool.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[pixelpusher220]

Same purpose as speed limits. Reduce undesirable behavior by providing a fine when a certain threshold is exceeded.

This is really no different than if they installed radar speed guns that automatically issued tickets and started lowering the speed at which the tickets were issued.

Except that the consequences of the difference between 64mph and 66mph is a significantly lower than the 40mph t-bone accident and the rear end collisions these systems tend to cause (due to lack of driver training and awareness).

Re:I Seem To Recall

[roman_mir]

Corruption is not permitted in the US. It is encouraged.

It's about government, corruption there is not just 'encouraged'. It is mandatory.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Quirkz]

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.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[dbitter1]

If I understand your insinuation correctly, those - however few they may be- with the bracketed "L" would likely be greatly offended at your statement. The "I"'s a little less so, but probably still enough to make them mad.

Just the "R" and "D" that you are likely trying to call out.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Anonymous Coward]

Swing and a miss. That wasn't the point he was trying to make.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[cayenne8]

Tell you what...let's prove that they are there for safety.

Take all funds generated from the cameras, and pool them. Give back at the end of the year (plus any interest generated) to all the citizens that didn't get caught, and take all the $$ out of the hands of the officials.

If you take the money out of it, I dare say...city officials and police will immediately drop their high interest in such tools.

The safety aspect of these things is secondary to the revenue they generate. Hell, when the light cameras first went up here in New Orleans...the people got a temporary injunction against them for being illegal and against the state constitutiion. The mayor and city council immediately, on TV were screaming "We'll lost $7 this first year if they come down....OH, and also for safety reasons."

They actually on tv, multiple times, decried the loss of revenue first...and then paid safety a tip of the hat second.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[scot4875]

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

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Toonol]

That's uncharitable. They felt attacked because it was an attack. When a country is specifically called out for doing X, it's a valid point to mention that everybody else is doing X, too. No, it doesn't make it ok, but it does highlight that the original criticism was probably biased for calling out just one country specifically.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[pixelpusher220]

Again, well and good, but it doesn't say *anything* about the red light camera technology itself.

As in my OP here, corruption is the problem, not the tool. And using an example of New Orleans? Completely proves my corruption point :)

Many of the original contracts were written such that the private company servicing the cameras got a cut of the ticket revenue. Clearly a bias in their operation. And again, bad implementation that proper oversight will catch.

I'm all in favor of independent and fair study of whether they are 'effective'. That has absolutely nothing to do with their management by corrupt or non-corrupt operators. Once you have the effectiveness determined, then you weigh the costs of operating the system against the benefits to be gained by operating it.

My biggest issue with studying this type of thing is that absolutely no one is ever 'trained' on how these systems work. Simply throwing a new technology into the mix without training the users is going to cause issues with their use. Hence why there is a noticeable spike in rear end collisions. People realize too late that the system is there and slam on the brakes. People behind them expect, through years of experience, that the person would continue through the light only to see a rapid screeching stop in front of them when they are following too closely to begin with.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Idbar]

This is not only corruption this may even be manslaughter.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Belial6]

No more or less fair than penalizing my wife and child by preventing me from earning money if I commit a crime. "Think of the Shareholders." is an even worse reason to let people commit crimes than "Think of the children."

Re:I Seem To Recall

[harl]

Those are your words not mine. Don't put words in my mouth.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[whoever57]

Penalizing all stockholders for the crimes of others is hardly fair.

Punishing stockholders provides an incentive to hire trustworthy CEOs and to manage them properly.Actually, I think that possibly the most needed change in US laws could be to increase the power of stockholders of public companies. Make the board and CEO really responsive to the stockholders.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[shutdown -p now]

How about this? A real-world study, running for several months, ended up in the city council ditching most red light cameras because "the data that was collected showed that there was not a significant or discernible change in the safety of the three intersections we were using to program it", and also "there were three more crashes at the intersections with red-light cameras in the first six months of the year .. two were rear-end crashes ... they stopped short of the light because they indicated they didn’t want to get a ticket".

On the other hand, they've kept one speed-zone camera near a school, for which data showed a marked improvement in how people drive in the area.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[bzipitidoo]

There are many remedies for a problem intersection. Can change lanes, signs, and the order of operation. And of course, the timing. Red light cameras should be the last resort, undertaken only after all other measures have failed. Instead, they are often deliberately implemented first, for revenue. Let's not fix the bad timing, let's instead make money off it! Maybe we should implement a red light toll system. To shorten that red, just wave your toll tag at a handy nearby sensor. Whichever direction has paid the most gets the green soonest!

There have been studies done on this. The Texas DOT did one. What they've found is that in most places, once the yellow is set to an appropriate length (and 1 second per every 10 mph of speed limit is not long enough), so few red light violations occur that the cameras aren't worth having. Lengthening the yellow is by far the safest measure to take. Everyone has more time to evaluate the situation. The routine driving situation I hate the most is the light that turns yellow when I'm 3 to 4 seconds away from the intersection. Got to make a split second judgment on whether I can stop in time, and whether the vehicle behind me can also. You don't have time to think about it, have to decide immediately whether to apply the brakes. Can't easily change your mind. A little bit more time on that helps a great deal, and lowers everyone's stress. The idea that people will become habituated to the longer yellows and will run the reds just as much as before is a popular one, especially with the camera vendors, but it is bunk. That's also been studied, and that's what they've found.

Plano, Texas is running a red light camera program. They claim they use a standard of 4.0 seconds for the yellow duration for a 40 mph zone. But they cheat by omission. I checked one intersection with a 40 mph speed limit and a camera, and it is 3.9 seconds. I read elsewhere that 3.9 seconds is a default setting, and if the city has never adjusted the lights, then that's what they will be. And if Plano thinks they have made money off of me, they are mistaken. I don't shop there now. They've already lost more in sales tax revenue than they gained with that ticket they nailed me with.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Grishnakh]

You don't need to settle for fines. The people running the company are still people. Those people, usually called "executives", can be arrested, imprisoned, and executed with a bullet in the head and their body dumped in a ditch. They do it in China, we should do it here.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[mcgrew]

Owning a mutual fund is now equivalent to ordering a murder?

It certainly can be.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[FallSe7en]

No, you're not supposed to feel sorry for the guy.

You're supposed to notice the contrast between the two cases - 40 months for attempting to steal $3 billion and 15 years for attempting to steal $100? Does that sound right to you?

Re:I Seem To Recall

[ckaminski]

You miss the point. That the guy who embezzled $3B was given 1/4th the sentence of the guy who stole $100 and APOLOGIZED for it.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[mcgrew]

No, you're not supposed to feel sorry for the armed robber, you're supposed to be outraged that stealing a hundred dollars is worse than stealing millions of dollars. Fifteen years for armed robbery? I'd say that's about right. Forty months for stealing millions and impoverishing many people? Way too short.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[cayenne8]

Which guy used a gun (threatened with a gun)?

I think it is the armed part that draws the large year factor in sentencing.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[GeoGreg]

As I Denver resident who has sort of followed this, I can say that when the red light cameras were installed, someone pointed out that the yellow lights should be timed properly. Apparently, Denver yellows, even before the cameras were installed, were not always long enough per Federal Highway Administration standards. The timing was increased to the standard, at least at those intersections where the cameras were put in.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[pixelpusher220]

As I said, without retraining the users of the system, you're going to get increases in misuse; i.e. accidents. You're own example shows that 2 of the 3 crashes were due to people not knowing how to 'use' the system.

The plain number of crashes isn't necessarily the right metric either. Generally speaking a t-bone accident has higher costs than most rear-end collisions, so an increase in rear-end collisions may still indicate a better result than fewer but more serious t-bones.

I'd also say you'd probably need a longer period of study than just a few months. If we aren't training people on them, which is realistically what will happen, you need to longer amounts of time for people to become adjusted.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[pixelpusher220]

The routine driving situation I hate the most is the light that turns yellow when I'm 3 to 4 seconds away from the intersection. Got to make a split second judgment on whether I can stop in time, and whether the vehicle behind me can also.

Then you're going to fast. If you hadn't noticed *everybody* speeds. So whatever they measure the yellow to be it's going to be too short because people are approaching at faster than the speed limit for which the light is set.

If you're going the speed limit and still get a ticket, fight it. It's funny how our system allows you to do that.

I read elsewhere that 3.9 seconds is a default setting

Sources?

And lets not forget less people are DEAD because of decreases in t-bone accidents. Not exactly a small thing...

Re:I Seem To Recall

[LordLimecat]

Thats not what I said, I just get irritated at this stupid implication that everywhere else is so much better and has less corruption than the awful US. Its REALLY great when people drag in comparisons to China and N Korea. GP's comment was making a clear, implicit comparison to other countries as if they dont have these problems.

Im not saying that that makes it OK, but this stupid attitude needs to die.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[stewbacca]

To fine the hell out of bad drivers who may or may not be putting other people in danger...I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[YrWrstNtmr]

Sure, but it's easy enough to fix the problem in this case. The city council just needs to pass a bylaw that the minimum time for all yellow lights be X seconds.

The problem is that the company, in many cases, takes a cut of each ticket. Not an annual flat fee to operate, but a specific percentage of each ticket (above and beyond the annual fee). So the company has direct incentive to convince the city to pull in as many tickets as possible.
And of course, the city would be cutting off their own revenue stream.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[LordLimecat]

Shhh, theyre busy calling me a corrupt, greedy, republican whose only desire is to repress the hardworking masses.
Whether or not they understood my post (as you did) is irrelevant at this point, no point in ruining their fun.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[EricScott]

We should create "corporate jails" that "hold" corporations. So there's no longer the excuse of not throwing the corporation in jail. When the corp is in jail, it forfeits freedoms just like regular people would.

Of course the law of unintended consequences means they'll also get free internet, health-care and whatnot. That could work out pretty good for Amazon.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[drsmithy]

The routine driving situation I hate the most is the light that turns yellow when I'm 3 to 4 seconds away from the intersection. Got to make a split second judgment on whether I can stop in time, and whether the vehicle behind me can also.

When approaching any controlled intersection at speed, you should pick a go/no-go point should the light change well before you get to it. Then you don't have to worry about "making a split-second decision", because you've already made it after having time to think.

(I do agree that longer yellows are a better solution than cameras, however.)

Re:I Seem To Recall

[bzipitidoo]

That's a nice idea, and I would guess most drivers do that almost unconsciously. But if the yellow is too short, you'll get it wrong, and will run the red. Why make drivers sweat over that? That's how we get rear end collisions. It's so much easier for all concerned just to make the yellow a tiny bit longer. There's plenty of other things to worry about when driving, why burden drivers with that too, when it is so unnecessary, so easy to avoid by making that yellow longer? A traffic light should never require a driver to make a hard stop, never be too short for a heavy truck. Cities have shown by their actions that they are more interested in revenue, and will neglect and even reduce safety in pursuit of money.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[pixelpusher220]

This was the case in some of the very first installations many years ago, but was rightly called out as unconstitutional and removed. I don't know of any cases where this is still case.

This is also exactly what I mean. This is the 'implementation' of the contract not the technology. It can and has been fixed.

Besides, having such obvious bias in the ticketing process means that those tickets are going to be thrown out...bye bye revenue stream. So cities won't do this.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[pixelpusher220]

A traffic light should never require a driver to make a hard stop, never be too short for a heavy truck.

In the real world however, there is always a point at a given speed where you are at the make or break point.

If you are just far enough away that it's easy to say stop, the car just in front of you is closer and needs to make that split second decision.

Increasing yellows is fixing a symptom, not the problem. People will just become more accustomed to the longer yellow and react the same way.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[fgouget]

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.

Then oppose the corruption, not the red light cameras!

Re:I Seem To Recall

[mcgrew]

The fraud who stole millions uses a gun that fires cops, not bullets. Who caused the most harm? The hundred dollar guy just made a few folks shit in their pants. I've had guns pointed at me, and no it's not fun, but I'd rather you steal $100 from me at gunpoint than take my entire pension by fraud.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[WOOFYGOOFY]

It is an unproven statement to say that Wall Streeters and the mortgage loan companies did not commit crimes, since you don't know that.

Only in the rarefied and technical proceedings of a court room are you considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, people in general may know full well you're guilty and certainly people close to the executives know they're guilty and know exactly what they did and how they did it.

Your claim runs up against a huge amount of circumstantial evidence involving people like Angelo Mozilo. But see Google for details. Or go see Inside Job, or read All The Devils Are Here

Den of Thieves, Too Big To Fail.... in fact we are fortunate to live in a time when there is an embarrassing surfeit of talented investigative journalism documenting exactly the kind of corruption OWS is complaining about.

You really owe it to yourself and your fellow countrymen to sit down in your easy chair, get nice and comfy, pour yourself a cup of cocoa and break the spine of a book or two so that you can be an informed member of the electorate.

To operationalize the point, if you were to be given a chance by a magic genie to win a ten million dollars if you just guessed correctly whether Mozilo were actually guilty of crimes- things like conspiracy, mortgage fraud, contract fraud, corruption of public officials etc. etc. which choice would you make? Remember, the genie knows what the truth is.

Your of claim of having "committed no crime" which was already on the books is not particularly credible and people are behaving as though it was not particularly credible.

What you can say is that they did not get caught, yet, or even more precisely, DAs have not believed that they can gain evidence sufficient to convict them in a court of law. But that's a different thing from being innocent.

We have too many reports of people being told their mortgage contract said one thing when it really said another. That my friend, is a crime, nothwithstanding the fact that it's a crime which is hard to prove.

It's not possible for GE to have the chief lobbyist for tax law be seen literally on his knees in front of Charlie Rangel begging for Rangel to change his mind on a bill,. then have Rangel change his mind, then have GE pay zero...ZERO taxes to the government as a result of that bills passage then have Rangel be found guilty of 11 charges by the House Ethics Committee and not conclude, as OWS has, the government is fundamentally corrupt. .

It's impossible for a similarly situated John McCain to be "lobbied" by a young blonde "lobbyist" whose closeness and non-stop accompaniment of the Senator panicked his handlers during the 2004 Presidntial elections to such a degree that they sent out notes attempting to forbid her from getting near the Senator and then have the matters of concern to the company she represented succeed legislatively and not conclude that John McCain lets his cock be sucked in exchange for legislative outcomes.

At a time when 1% own 50% of this nations wealth and the bottom 80% own just 6% of the same wealth, it's amusing to listen to someone trot out the "they broke no law" meme when in reality they're breaking laws every day all the time and the result is all around us.

Good day, Sir.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[Arterion]

At least if you're getting robbed, you have a shot at kicking the guy's ass, and you get to look him in the eye. It's honest, even if it's wrong. There's something to be said for that.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[sjames]

The perverse incentives for the corruption come from the cameras in this case. They need the ticket revenue to pay for the camera.

It's just one more reason to oppose the cameras though, others include their inability to attach the fine to the driver rather than the owner, the impossibility of facing one's accuser in court, and a complete lack of confidence that a fault resulting in false positives will be addressed any time this century.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[fgouget]

The perverse incentives for the corruption come from the cameras in this case. They need the ticket revenue to pay for the camera.

So by this argument you oppose anything that provides incentive for corruption? So for instance you oppose the government having a budget because that provides an incentive for corruption of the elected officials who handle these funds.

It's just one more reason to oppose the cameras though, others include their inability to attach the fine to the driver rather than the owner,

Have the camera take a photo of the front of the car.

the impossibility of facing one's accuser in court,

If you cannot contest a red light camera fine in court then that's a problem with your justice system or traffic laws. Advocate for these to be fixed.

and a complete lack of confidence that a fault resulting in false positives will be addressed any time this century.

If you only count on yourself to fix the issues then your lack of confidence is warranted indeed. The situation will not improve unless you recognize and attack the real problems.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[sjames]

So by this argument you oppose anything that provides incentive for corruption? So for instance you oppose the government having a budget because that provides an incentive for corruption of the elected officials who handle these funds.

It is one reason of many.

Have the camera take a photo of the front of the car.

Then what? If the picture doesn't look like the driver, shred the ticket? Have a crack team of experts comb the streets for someone who looks like that? Make driving in a Nixon mask the latest fad?

Meanwhile, that's not how they work now, so even if it adequately addressed my concerns, I would oppose the current red light cameras.

If you cannot contest a red light camera fine in court then that's a problem with your justice system or traffic laws. Advocate for these to be fixed.

I said face my accuser. Why don't you tell me, just how do you put a camera on the witness stand?

If you only count on yourself to fix the issues then your lack of confidence is warranted indeed. The situation will not improve unless you recognize and attack the real problems.

You're right! Where is my toolbox? OK, got it, now to work. OH! Look! They're carting me off to jail!

Or, I could use the simple and easy fix to 100% of those problems: Ban the damned things.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[fgouget]

Have the camera take a photo of the front of the car.

Then what? If the picture doesn't look like the driver, shred the ticket?

Require the owner to indicate who was driving at the time like it is done in France. It's strange, it does not seem to be much of an issue here. You seem to be making a mountain out of molehill.

If you cannot contest a red light camera fine in court then that's a problem with your justice system or traffic laws. Advocate for these to be fixed.

I said face my accuser. Why don't you tell me, just how do you put a camera on the witness stand?

So what? Do you mean that any video, audio or paper evidence must be discarded because 'how would a piece of paper take the stand?' You're just being ridiculous. The video evidence can be reviewed and analyzed by all parties.

You're right! Where is my toolbox? OK, got it, now to work. OH! Look! They're carting me off to jail!

Or, I could use the simple and easy fix to 100% of those problems: Ban the damned things.

Banning red light cameras won't solve anything, if your government / police force is corrupt they can find a hundred other ways to make you pay. Again, I have never heard of the yellow light time being shortened in France despite the numerous red light cameras that we now have. Would it be that some countries manage to have no corruption despite the red light cameras? Why can't it work in the US? Oh, right, in the US people like you prefer to oppose the red light cameras rather than the corruption.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[sjames]

Require the owner to indicate who was driving

That's legally questionable in the U.S., particularly if a spouse was driving.

So what? Do you mean that any video, audio or paper evidence must be discarded because 'how would a piece of paper take the stand?'

In those cases, a relevant expert (often a detective) who views that evidence is your actual accuser. He sees you do something on the video and so accuses you of a crime.

In contrast, the red light cameras do not show enough to independently conclude that you have run the red light. The camera is the accuser because a person looking at the snapshot simply cannot state as a fact that he sees you entering the intersection on red and that the traffic light had been yellow before turning red. He can at most say he sees a car with xyz tag number ion the intersection while the light is red (not always a traffic violation). He himself must rely on the 'word' of the red light camera and so a detectives testimony is properly considered hearsay in this case.

Yes, those issues could be cured with a more advanced traffic camera system, but since no such system exists now, I oppose the use of all existing red light cameras.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[fgouget]

He can at most say he sees a car with xyz tag number ion the intersection while the light is red (not always a traffic violation). He himself must rely on the 'word' of the red light camera and so a detectives testimony is properly considered hearsay in this case.

In France the system takes at least two photos: one that shows the light is red and the car has not yet entered the intersection, and another a second later showing the car in the intersection. Seems like a pretty simple software-only change could achieve the same thing in the US.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[fgouget]

The onus isn't on the driver to prove they are innocent. The onus is on the state to prove they are guilty.

If your car is matched to a crime scene, you'll have to tell the police who was using it at the time (or face the consequences). So that's not unprecedented. The law extends that to the red light (and speed trap) cameras. Now you can debate whether that's crossing a line.

You are implying that, if we had to choose, we would keep the corruption than the red light cameras. That is just factually wrong.

All I'm saying is that people in this thread fight the red light cameras but not the corruption. And that's a fact.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[sjames]

One might think so but that's not what the cameras here do since their primary purpose is to collect revenue as cheaply as possible rather than to be a legally justifiable enhancement to safety. To oppose them is to oppose corruption.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[fgouget]

One might think so but that's not what the cameras here do since their primary purpose is to collect revenue as cheaply as possible rather than to be a legally justifiable enhancement to safety. To oppose them is to oppose corruption.

That's your mistake. Being inanimate the cameras are not corrupt. The people making the rules are but since you're not opposing them, you're not opposing corruption.

Re:I Seem To Recall

[sjames]

It's not mutually exclusive. I can oppose the acts of corruption and the actors as well.

Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AdrianKemp]

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.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Anonymous Coward]

In many states drivers are taught to enter the intersection to take a left turn, and it's legal.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[captbob2002]

That's what I see. Longer yellow lights, more people running them because they know the yellow is longer, so let's make the yellow even longer...Hey, here is a thought, if you don't want a ticket, don't run the damn light. Trouble stopping when the light changes? maybe you ought to have been driving the speed limit - and not chatting on your phone.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Attila Dimedici]

I have seen several studies showing a very distinct link between length of the yellow and safety. This study shows that increasing the length of the yellow decreases red light violations and this article references several studies that show that this effect does not diminsh with time. So, your gut is wrong on this one (although I understand why you would suspect that to be the case).

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[LordLimecat]

....until the light turns yellow, and oncoming drivers continue to pass through the intersection. Oh no, the light is now red, there is intersecting traffic, and youre blocking one of the traffic lanes. At this point you can either do a really dangerous left turn, or remain blocking the traffic, or try to back up (assuming people havent filled in behind you.

Entering the intersection makes sense when you can see an opening coming shortly, but if there is a line of traffic entering the intersection to make a left turn is just going to make traffic worse and create a dangerous situation.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[SirGeek]

So you'd rather have someone slam on their brakes so that you rear-end their car and are immediately at fault ?

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Pope]

If you're paying attention and following at a safe distance, why are you slamming on your brakes and hitting anything?

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AdrianKemp]

You should never be so close to the car in front of you that this happens. If you are, you absolutely are at fault.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh no, the light is now red, there is intersecting traffic"

no cross traffic should enter the intersection until the way is clear.

Green != Go

Green = precede if clear

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Pope]

Biggest problem I see is the (a) 2 dipshits who are behind the stop line turning left after the red, thereby (b) blocking the advance left turns on the cross street, which leads back to (a) again, etc. Turn the cameras on and ticket those assholes first!

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

From the article: City traffic engineer Brian Mitchell said fewer crashes are being recorded at intersections where photo-red-light enforcement has been set up and where yellow-light clearance time has been lengthened.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Entering the intersection makes sense when you can see an opening coming shortly, but if there is a line of traffic entering the intersection to make a left turn is just going to make traffic worse and create a dangerous situation.

The car making the left turn is stopped in the intersection and not colliding with anyone and the cars behind the white line can not enter the intersection once the light turns red. If traffic congestion proves too bad, the traffic engineer can make the green light longer on the side that has the most cars waiting to turn left and add a green arrow.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[kilfarsnar]

Yes, thank you. I wish more people understood this. You get many more through an intersection if the lead left-turner pulls into the intersection.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Anonymous Coward]

In rush hour traffic, which is the bulk of vehicles moving around, you are travelling at the speed of your lane and you probably can't keep a safe breaking distance, like you can on a midday traffic situation. As soon as you drop back, some bastard will bounce in and steal your breaking space. Short yellows mean people slamming on their anchor, particularly when a normal car is stuck behind taller SUVs, trucks and buses. BANG!

Now the solution to this is pretty easy. Yellow lights should not be different periods, which they can be on the same stretch of road, and seeing as most have been swapped out (at least everywhere I travel) with LED arrays, they merely need to display a number counting down per second for the yellow. Everyone can see how long they have, and drive accordingly.

They have this for pedestrian crossings, which don't always change the traffic signals consistently. I drive by one that will stop the traffic on reaching zero, but then the next one up has a 2 or 3 second gap between changing the signals.

A longer yellow means those that can see them know a red is coming and can reduce speed gracefully. The vast majority of red light accidents are people doing heavy breaking in rush hour.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Anonymous Coward]

In many states drivers are taught to enter the intersection to take a left turn, and it's legal.

That's why there's not only a yellow delay, but a red delay as well. If you're in the intersection when the light turns red, you're supposed to go. The red delay provides clearance for you to do so.

Obviously you're not supposed to enter the intersection if you're turning left, the light is yellow, and the lane is blocked.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[rickb928]

Three cars go through on the yellow. doesn't everyone know this?

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also legal in Canada, or at least Ontario. The OP is a moron. You may always enter the intersection to perform a manoeuvre you have a green light for (in fact, the HTA says you can receive a ticket for NOT doing so). Once you are fully in the intersection, if you light turns red because you cannot complete the manoeuvre you are permitted (and required), by the HTA to complete the manoeuvre on red.

Yes, you must wait until the intersection is clear, that is also in the HTA, however, that is much more discretionary than the other directions, since the driver may start their left turn and realize the intersection is not clear before they complete their turn due to a blocked view or a car speeding up, at which point the driver is required to yield the right of way.

Furthermore, while it is horribly annoying when people overstep this and try to squeeze three cars though, it present absolutely no collision risk because the left turn is complete either during the time when the whole intersection is red (yes, the entire intersection is supposed to be red for a moment before the other traffic is allowed to move) or as the other light turns green (in which case they are stopped and notice you in their path so they wait to proceed). The only possible time I can see it being a problem is when a driver decides to speed at a stale red, not paying attention to the intersection, in the hope that the intersection will be clear and the light will magically turn green. That sort of driver was planning to run the red, anyways.

I *have* driven in an area where left turns on red are "illegal" (Philadelphia) and they aren't really illegal as far as I can tell. Instead, the left turn lights turn RED after they give you an opportunity to do a protected left turn. Notice that in the first paragraph I mention the driver must have a green light when they enter...

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[colinnwn]

In most states, the person in the intersection (e.g. you), has the right away over people entering the intersection. Since in some states it is perfectly legal to enter the intersection on yellow, the people proceeding straight in front of your intended route have the right of way. This is of course ignoring how some people enter on yellow when they were perfectly capable of stopping safely. Once traffic finally stops, no one should be entering the intersection from crossing traffic until you are clear of the intersection. If they do, they are violating traffic law just as much as someone running a red light.

There should never be backing up in an intersection unless you think it is the only way to prevent a wreck, or reduce the severity of one. And even then, you better think twice, quickly.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[colinnwn]

If I hadn't commented already, and I still had moderation points, you'd deserve all 5 for this week.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[MobyDisk]

At this point you can either do a really dangerous left turn, or remain blocking the traffic, or try to back up (assuming people havent filled in behind you.

I've driven in a dozen states, all on the east coast of the US. In those states, this is not only permitted, it is the correct thing to do. It is taught that way in driver's education and a traffic cop will direct you to do this as well. When the light turns red, the driver in the intersection completes the left turn. It is not dangerous because there are a few seconds where the light remains red specifically as a time to clear the intersection. The only problem I've ever seen is when bad drivers either stay in the intersection and block it, or back-up - both of which are illegal.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[KingAlanI]

sometimes the car in front of me goes far into the intersection, I go a little into the intersection and the car in front of me doesn't take advantage of an opening in the oncoming traffic. so now I'm stuck partway into a red-light intersection.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Jeffrey_Walsh VA]

Shortening yellows where there are cameras is truly of grave concern. And yes studies have shown that longer yellows can make an intersection safer and reduce incidence of violations - at that intersection. But there seems to be a paradox wherein drivers may become accustom to the longer yellows, diminishing the benefits, and making those intersections where yellows have not been extended more dangerous.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[KingAlanI]

the alternative being when the car in front doesn't pull up and only he or she can get through the green at all...

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[alexo]

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.

For the Google-challenged:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/243.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2887.asp

You can find more.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[bondsbw]

The problem isn't fault, it's the consequences of a collision. Even a minor crash can result in injury, and thousands of dollars of damage and medical bills during a recession economy. Even if insurance covers you, your rates may increase.

Now add in the camera fines. Most cities get a small cut of the fines, typically not enough to cover court costs on all the cases that get thrown out.

The camera vendor is the only one to make money in this deal. Profits get larger by convincing the city to decrease yellow times, and by manipulating the cameras to catch people who were behind the line by inches but posed no danger.

The economy suffers in order to make a government vendor rich... is that what we want?

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Sloppy]

Hey, here is a thought, if you don't want a ticket, don't run the damn light. Trouble stopping when the light changes? maybe you ought to have been driving the speed limit - and not chatting on your phone

You're looking at things in terms of who is at fault and what a particular driver should do.

That is a dumb way to think when setting policy. If (and that's actually a big if that branch-prediction tends to get wrong) the goal is to increase public safety and reduce collisions, then you acknowledge that some idiots out there are going to be entering intersections right after their light turns yellow (yes, that's bad), will be following other cars closely (yes, that's bad), and doing other dumb things (yes, that's bad), and that there are sometimes collisions as a result. Then you ask, "What do we do about this?"

Giving tickets to bad drivers as a deterrent force is a perfectly valid idea which can be implemented in parallel with other approaches, but for whatever reason, after using that approach for many decades, people didn't think it was good enough. So they came up with the totally stupid idea of government punishing suspected offenders without due process, and that creates a new problems for everyone (whether they obey traffic laws or not) and suddenly traffic safety isn't relatively important anymore, because we've regressed on simple law and order.

Those other approaches to run in parallel with ticketing, include things like increasing the yellow time, so that there will be fewer collisions when drivers screw up.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Galestar]

Mod parent up. He is correct that OP is a moron. I'm from Canada as well, and that is indeed how its done.
The law is that you cannot enter the intersection on a red. If you are already there, you must clear the intersection.
Also... as far as this...

I *have* driven in an area where left turns on red are "illegal" (Philadelphia) and they aren't really illegal as far as I can tell. Instead, the left turn lights turn RED after they give you an opportunity to do a protected left turn. Notice that in the first paragraph I mention the driver must have a green light when they enter...

We have those in Ontario too. I know of several in my city - all are where there are 2 left hand turn lanes. You get an advance, and then a red.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[director_mr]

In Chicago, If you don't enter the intersection and wait until the oncoming traffic is stopped before you take your left turn, you will never make a left turn at all. It is accepted practice for 3 cars to take a left turn after oncoming traffic is stopped, at least around here. I don't understand why this bothers anybody.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[maxwellmath]

When it comes to safety, we should never play the blame game. It does not matter who is at fault, what matters is people being safe. The fact is that we need to do what we can to ensure safety. People will do what people always do -- that is they will do stuipd and dangerous things. I work in industrial automation designing machines. Whenever we design something, we do our best to think of every stuipd thing that the machine operator will try to do. We look at ways they might try to reach into a machine to grab a part, or places where they may try to get too close to a moving machine and every other idiotic thing they try to do.. Then we try to come up with some way to ensure that they can't do those things or at least that the machine will shut off if they do. Yes, it is stupid for them to do these things, yes it may be their "fault" if they get injured, but the fact is that people do these things anyways and we have a responsibility to try and ensure that they keep safe. I never want to see anyone get injured on a machine that I designed. This situation with traffic cameras is no different. People should not be following the car in front of them too closely, but they do. If using cameras causes people to rear end eachother more often (regardless of who is at fault), then we should not be using them.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[TheSpoom]

Yep, also from Ontario and I'm shocked that it's not this way in some places. I posted as an anon earlier in this thread in case I was somehow wrong for my entire driving career. ;^)

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[b4dc0d3r]

It's rather intuitive. The people right at the line go on. The people who are close try to make it under the light. The people who have plenty of time figure they are unlikely to make the light and slow down. If I see the yellow and barely have to brake in order to stop by the line, there's no need to push my luck.

You will still have instances of people not paying attention and blowing right through a red light. But giving more people the opportunity to squeeze under just makes sense, if you're most interested in safety.

Yellow light timing is important, but it has to be balanced so that people who do stop don't feel like they are waiting "forever" for the green to come back around. A longer yellow adds to the cycle length, unless the green is shortened to match. There are two intersections where I will risk running a red so I don't get stuck for what feels like an eternity. Especially when cross traffic is light, and I'm waiting for no reason.

Dynamic green lengths depending on traffic and longer but not excessive yellows are the best ways for drivers to feel like driving is "fair" for everyone. Waiting a cycle, then moving forward but getting stopped again because the green was too short is where I see people try to stretch the yellow, it just doesn't feel fair.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, my friend failed his first driving test because he DIDN'T enter the intersection to turn left. It made sense to me, actually, since in heavy traffic the only way to turn left without a green arrow would be to enter the intersection and go between changes. At least a little traffic would be moving. The perpendicular traffic isn't going to instantly achieve the speed limit, so there's usually enough time. Again, it makes sense to me.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Whorhay]

The Red all directions for a second or two is not uniformly implemented in all states. In fact what finally made them do that in my home town was when an inattentive driver ran over an elementary schooler that hadn't quite cleared the intersection on foot.

It in theory shouldn't matter because drivers should not be anticipating the behaviour of lights in that respect. In other words a driver shouldn't fail to slow down for a red light because s/he thinks it'll be green by the time they get to it. And a driver should never enter an intersection when there is still cross traffic present in the way. A green light is not an excuse to accelerate into another vehicle or pedestrian.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Mashiki]

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.

Please remember in most places like Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, actually most of Canada this is legal under traffic law. I think the exception is Quebec and New Brunswick. I'd have to re-read my traffic laws though, as it might have changed. Entering an intersection to make a left turn as long as it's not a red-left is 100% legal. This is called taking control of an intersection. People deliberately running a yellow or when it changes green for the other side and trying to cut the other car off, when a car is already in the intersection are breaking the law, because the car in the intersection making the left on a yellow, red, or green have full legal control of the intersection until they clear it.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[LateArthurDent]

In many states drivers are taught to enter the intersection to take a left turn, and it's legal.

He said when it isn't clear. If the guy turning ahead of you has entered the intersection, you're not supposed to enter it until he has turned. If the light is yellow, you're also not supposed to enter it, unless traffic allows you to make the turn.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Greyfox]

I don't know if it's true in all states but at least a couple of states where I've driven, "If there is a vehicle in the intersection, it has the right of way." If the guy in front turning left is really out there, the car behind him will probably be in the intersection too. The care behind that one will usually go, as well. I've seen up to 2-3 more people go, in some cases. If cops are hard up for ticket revenue, there are a lot of people turning left failing to yield the right of way. I think that's a nastier ticket than speeding, too.

Around Denver, left turn signals usually last for about 2 seconds. If you're the person in front you have to watch those fucking things like a hawk. If you're distracted for as much as a second, the person behind you isn't going to make the arrow. Despite this, on average, 6 cars will manage to turn left when the lights change.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[JesseMcDonald]

You don't always have that much control over how close you are. For example, you may be driving along in moderately heavy traffic, leaving a reasonable and safe following distance, when another driver decides to merge into the gap. Shortly thereafter, before you have a chance to open up the distance again, either they or the driver in front slams on their brakes to avoid an unpredictable obstacle. I don't see how anyone could reasonably claim that you were at fault for that situation—you were trying to follow at a safe distance, but were thwarted by the actions of another driver.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[PuckSR]

The problem was that the companies were encouraging cities to change the length of yellow lights to "throw off drivers". It wasn't an issue of safety or not, they were attempting to take lights in cities where all other yellow lights were 5 seconds and change them to 2 seconds. The thought was that this would cause several drivers to be caught in a red. The problem is that it also caused several drivers to suddenly slam on their brakes, because while they would have been fine with a 5 second light...they were suddenly at risk with a 2 second light.

This causes further trouble because yellow light length is somewhat based on the speed of the road. The thought being that at 70mph it will take longer to stop than at 30 mph. People will need more warning, and you don't want people to have to suddenly stop. Traffic light design takes these factors into account. Arbitrarily changing your light lengths to catch more drivers is therefore causing 2 problems. It confuses drivers who are used to a longer light, and it may be too short of a time period for the average driver to stop safely. It has been found in numerous incidents(i.e. city of Lubbock, TX) to drastically increase the number of traffic accidents.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AdrianKemp]

You don't know what causal means do you?

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[MozeeToby]

If you are in the intersection when the light turns red, you have the right of way to clear the intersection before anyone else goes. It's really pretty simple and no cop or red light camera anywhere in the US should give you a ticket for it.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[cdrguru]

The problem here in Phoenix isn't the people chasing yellow lights. It is the people that simply ignore the red light altogether and go through the intersection using their personal force of will to clear the way ahead. Yes, what I am referring to is where the light has been red for 20-30 seconds and a car comes from nowhere to enter the intersection. Just zipping along counting on the fact that people will avoid a collision.

Sadly, there is nothing that can be done about this because the drivers fall into two broad categories: DGAS (doesn't give a shit) and Mexican. The DGAS factor comes from Scottsdale and such where you have someone driving a $200K car and just keeps paying fines. It is pretty much impossible to successfully fine a Mexican national with Mexican plates in the US today - the police will pull someone over and finding they speak no English and have a Mexican license will just wave them along. No point in writing a ticket up that they will just trash. And Mexico doesn't seem to cooperate to any extent with US law enforcement. Run a red light in Mexico and you will likely just find yourself in a Mexican jail for 10 years if you are a US citizen.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Calos]

...then don't do that. What are you trying to say here?

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[tepples]

Entering the intersection makes sense when you can see an opening coming shortly, but if there is a line of traffic entering the intersection to make a left turn is just going to make traffic worse and create a dangerous situation.

In that case, what should someone stopped behind the stop line in a left turn lane do if there is no left turn arrow phase and no opening in the oncoming traffic for the entire green phase? I assume that remaining standing at the stop line for an hour waiting for rush hour to end would be ridiculous.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AVee]

In the Netherlands red-light camera's are often combined with speed camera's. This makes speeding pressing the throttle instead of the brakes when the light turns yellow (or orange over here) a really bad idea. I'm not sure how things are in the US, but I guess drivers won't be that different. If you keep the yellow long enough but add a speed camera people will loose the habit of rushing to a yellow light pretty quickly.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[tepples]

If you cannot make it all the way though an intersection before the light turns red, you should not be entering that intersection.

So what should the first car in the left turn lane do when facing heavy oncoming traffic if that lane happens not to have an arrow signal?

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Attila Dimedici]

But there seems to be a paradox wherein drivers may become accustom to the longer yellows, diminishing the benefits...

My second link was to a series of studies that show that the benefits do not diminish with time. It is possible that longer yellows may make intersections that do not have the extended yellows even more dangerous. However, the solution to that is to extend those yellows as well. The most decisive study on the issue I saw was one which showed that if the rate of decceleration necessary to come to a complete stop was below 8 feet per second squared, drivers were virtually certain to stop, while if the required decceleration was above 12 feet per second squared, drivers were virtually certain to continue.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AdrianKemp]

One driver is legally allowed to enter an intersection in order to turn despite oncoming traffic.

Once that one person has entered the intersection, traffic is backed up to the intersection and the law is very very clear that further intrusions into the intersection are illegal.

Before you go calling people a moron perhaps you should stop being one yourself.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Barbarian]

Usually the problem isn't the left turning vehicle in the intersection when the light turns yellow, but the 3 or 4 other vehicles who pile in after them after the yellow. This shortens the time if the cross street has an advance left turn signal, thus leading the left turning drivers from the cross-street to do the same. Ad infinitum.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AdrianKemp]

As I've said to others:

One driver may legally enter an intersection in order to make a turn; once a driver has entered the intersection traffic is backed up to the intersection and any further intrusions into the intersection are illegal.

The second, third and fourth car that enter to turn left are all breaking the law; they're also the ones that cause problems.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The DGAS factor comes from Scottsdale and such where you have someone driving a $200K car and just keeps paying fines

People like this just piss me off. What you need is a big piece of junk like a mid 80's Chevy Suburban or full size Bronco that only has liability coverage. I don't know if Arizona is a no fault state but if Arizona isn't and they smoke one of those in their $200k car you would be fine and they would be screwed. At work we have a few people who drive their $100k-$200k cars to work in the summer and will park diagonally across 2 or 3 parking spots. I love to box them in with my junk truck, it was better when I had the old Bronco II that was really rusty and no two body panels matched but the beat up Jeep Cherokee works just as well. It is best if you can get another person to do it as well and you both are parked less than an inch from their mirrors.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AdrianKemp]

Most (North American) traffic laws allow for a single vehicle to enter the intersection in order to start a turn.

The traffic laws around here, and I presume elsewhere are also very clear that when traffic is backed up so that you cannot clear the intersection you cannot enter.

When you combine those you get what is actually legal in the situation: One person may enter the intersection, and when safe clear it. Everyone else must wait at the line until the person in front of them is clear to proceed.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AdrianKemp]

Thank you, I really didn't think that what I wrote was that hard to understand but so many seem to have been unable.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[sjames]

That has no bearing on the fact that in many states you are supposed to enter the intersection to turn left. It is perfectly legal and in some cases is actually necessary to make a safe turn. If you refuse to do so, you are creating a traffic jam. When the light turns red, you are expected to clear the intersection as quickly as you can safely do so. Typically, the light will be red all ways for a moment to facilitate that. Meanwhile, when the light turns green, you are required to wait for the intersection to clear before you go.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[ironjaw33]

At this point you can either do a really dangerous left turn, or remain blocking the traffic, or try to back up (assuming people havent filled in behind you.

I've driven in a dozen states, all on the east coast of the US. In those states, this is not only permitted, it is the correct thing to do. It is taught that way in driver's education and a traffic cop will direct you to do this as well. When the light turns red, the driver in the intersection completes the left turn. It is not dangerous because there are a few seconds where the light remains red specifically as a time to clear the intersection. The only problem I've ever seen is when bad drivers either stay in the intersection and block it, or back-up - both of which are illegal.

This is also what I remember from my high school driving course (Virginia). Some places go a step farther with the Pittsburgh Left, but that's more of a custom, not the law.

It doesn't even matter whether or not there's a few seconds of red in all directions -- traffic in the intersection always has the right of way over traffic entering the intersection. Anecdote: I had a friend who went through an intersection on a green light and was hit by someone who blew the red light while turning left. I don't remember what happened with the other guy, but the police gave my friend a ticket for not yielding.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[_0xd0ad]

No, it isn't. You're a moron and either don't live here or shouldn't be allowed to drive here.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[DigiTechGuy]

That is the point of a yellow as opposed to just having green and red. it is legal to enter the intersection on yellow, whether it's a fresh or stale yellow. It is illegal to enter on red. The reason is when the light changes you may only be 5' from the intersection, or 20', or some other distance where stopping is either not possible or not safe. A sufficiently long yellow (IIRC 1 second for every 10 MPH of traffic speed) virtually eliminates red light runners, a brief overlap of red prevents the occasional oblivious driver entering on a fresh red from causing an accident.

I will say around here since they started putting up red light cameras I now slam on my brakes if there's any hope I may be able to stop. Had a few close calls almost sliding into the intersection and also damn near got rear ended a couple times. Not my problem though because the State is obviously more interested in revenue collection (hidden taxes) than safety. A red light camera (and of course the State) doesn't care if the road is wet or icy, or any other scenario that would make it safer or more prudent to proceed through a yellow even if it's a stale yellow. I won't take the chance of getting fined for doing something safe, I'd rather get rear ended and take that to court for a new paint job or new vehicle. You can win against someone else who caused an accident by inattentiveness or following too closely, you can't win against the State as the deck is stacked heavily against you.

Also red light cameras have caused me to make the occasional illegal uturn, or reverse down a road rather than proceed on red. This is when the light will never change or will go through several cycles and never turn my side green. Typically this happens more often later at night when tehre is less traffic on the road. Normally after waiting at a light for 5-10+ minutes with no traffic on the road I'd assume it won't change and treat it like a stop sign so long as I have good visibility both directions. Instead with red light cameras I'll make an illegal uturn or illegal reverse and take an alternate route, so as not to get a fine.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[CapnStank]

Correct! Most people think its ok to smash into people making an illegal maneuver: a friend of a friend recently lost his car because he was illegally parked and someone smashed into it. He got a parking ticket, they got an at-fault accident, point deductions, hefty fine etc. etc. As a driver it is your responsibility to know where you're going and if you're able to safely proceed, it is NOT your right to randomly punch the gas because someone else is breaking the law.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AdrianKemp]

If you have a witness, which you will, you will not be charged in that instance.

The person who went into the unsafe gap will be charged with at the very least following to close (probably a lot more depending on the officer) and you will be fine. If the officer does happen to charge you, you only need to go to traffic court and when the judge reads the officers report (ie. 3 cars involved) they will throw it out.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[gstrickler]

Yes, yellow lights must be timed correctly. The must be long enough for the longest of these factors:

1. A driver in a large vehicle (e.g. SUV, commercial truck, etc.) driving 5 mph under the speed limit who sees the light turn yellow, but doesn't have time react to the yellow, and stop before entering the intersection, must have sufficient time to continue through the intersection at that speed.

2. Same as #1, but allow enough time for driver to react and stop safely before entering the intersection.

3. Same as #1, but with driver traveling 5 MPH over the speed limit. Because of the higher speed, the driver must be farther from the intersection to allow for a safe stop and therefore, the time could be greater than in #1.

4. Same as #2, but with driver traveling 5 MPH (or 10%, whichever is greater) over the speed limit. Because of the higher speed, the driver must be farther from the intersection to allow for a safe stop and therefore, the time could be greater than in #3.

Then add .5-1.0 seconds to allow for a distracted driver (or slower than normal reaction time). The greatest of those 4 times gives a minimum safe time for a yellow light. Add ~ 2 seconds for the maximum safe yellow time.

The other critical factor is that other lights should remain RED for at 0.5-2.0 seconds after the yellow turns red. to allow any traffic to fully clear the intersection. In most instances, 0.5-1.0 seconds is best, longer delays tend to impede traffic flow and make for anxious drivers, increasing the likelihood of an accident.

The added delay factors (0.5-1.0) above can (and probably should) be random within the ranges given so that drivers don't "learn" and anticipate the change timing. For maximum safety and traffic flow, you want drivers paying attention to and reacting to the actual change in the signal, not reacting to predicted changes.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[JesseMcDonald]

I agree, but I was responding to this comment:

You should never be so close to the car in front of you that this happens. If you are, you absolutely are at fault.

which left no room for exceptions.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[pyneiii]

The issue is assholes entering the intersection to turn left when it isn't clear...

This general idea is one of the biggest issues that I see with traffic problems. People for some reason either don't agree on what the law is (as a further poster notes, it's legal and encouraged to enter the intersection for a left turn in many states if not all in the US), or just don't know. Now am I a perfect driver? Not by a long shot, but the fact that people have different ideas of what the actual law is while driving is one of the most concerning (and at times frustrating) thing to me as a driver.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[bored_engineer]

Signalized intersection often (it probably depends on local design standards) include a very short clearance interval to account (among other things) for these drivers. The clearance interval is a short period when everybody has a red light. The real problem is when several cars do it at once.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[thomst]

In most states, the person in the intersection (e.g. you), has the right away over people entering the intersection. Since in some states it is perfectly legal to enter the intersection on yellow, the people proceeding straight in front of your intended route have the right of way. This is of course ignoring how some people enter on yellow when they were perfectly capable of stopping safely. Once traffic finally stops, no one should be entering the intersection from crossing traffic until you are clear of the intersection. If they do, they are violating traffic law just as much as someone running a red light.

AFAIK it's legal in all fifty states to enter an intersection when the light is yellow, just as it's legal nationwide to turn right at a red light after first stopping, unless a right turn on red is clearly posted as prohibited at that intersection. Yellow means "prepare to stop", NOT "stop now", and the rule I recall from driver's ed, lo these many years ago, is "If your entire vehicle is past the stop line when the light turns red, you may legally proceed through the intersection." In some states/localities, it's "If more than 50% of the vehicle's length is past the stop line when the light turns red, you may legally proceed through the intersection."

Regardless, it is entirely legal in all 50 states to pull into the intersection while the light is yellow for the purpose of making a left turn once the signal turns red, as long as you meet the "whole vehicle/more than 50% of the vehicle's length" test. Anyone who believes otherwise needs a driver safety refresher.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Hatta]

But there seems to be a paradox wherein drivers may become accustom to the longer yellows, diminishing the benefits...

My second link was to a series of studies that show that the benefits do not diminish with time.

So what we really need are yellow lights of infinite duration.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[_0xd0ad]

"You cannot enter the intersection on a yellow unless in your judgement you cannot safely stop from your current position/speed."

You're wrong. Ohio's law says no such thing. It states that traffic shall not enter the intersection on red. Yellow is just a warning that red is coming.

Vehicular traffic, streetcars, and trackless trolleys facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal are thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic, streetcars, and trackless trolleys shall not enter the intersection.

"You cannot - CANNOT - enter an intersection if you cannot completely pass through it, even if you have a green light. This is known as blocking an intersection. This applies equally whether you are trying to go straight forward, or turn left."

The actual law reads thusly:

No driver shall enter an intersection or marked crosswalk or drive onto any railroad grade crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, or grade crossing to accommodate the vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley the driver is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles, streetcars, trackless trolleys, pedestrians, or railroad trains, notwithstanding any traffic control signal indication to proceed.

If there is sufficient space on the other side (the side to which you're turning) for your vehicle, you are absolutely permitted to enter the intersection while there is still opposing traffic that prevents you from turning left. Once the light is red, as long as everyone who is in the intersection has room to get out of the intersection, that law has not been violated.

Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 4511

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Quirkz]

I've seen a different outcome for a similar scenario. A friend of mine was driving a moving truck and while trying to make a tight turn clipped a car that was illegally parked (too close to the intersection). The owner of the car chased her down and insisted on calling the police, but they gave *him* the ticket for being illegally parked (plus a second for some other issue, like expired insurance or plates or something) but didn't fault my friend at all. This was Chicago, though, where police enforcement never makes any sense, so that may be it.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[AdrianKemp]

The laws are pretty easy to find, so the confusion is the fault of the drivers not the government(s).

In Ontario (my locale) it is very legal for one person to enter an intersection to start a left turn regardless of oncoming traffic.

At that point, the intersection is no longer clear and anyone else entering it behind them is breaking the law.

It's a very appropriate, logical and clear law that very few people are able/care to understand. I'm not surprised since most people also don't know how to actually control a vehicle.

The issue with left-on-yellows is not the one legally allowed driver, it's the subsequent people that entered despite the intersection being clear.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Quirkz]

Yep, very true. Just on the way to work yesterday I had to deal with (a) someone who came to a stop in the middle of a roundabout in an attempt to yield to me, while I was trying to enter rather than realizing they had the right of way, (b) someone who came to a stop at the top of a quarter-mile-long merge lane, thinking that was the appropriate way to yield to traffic, and (c) someone coming to a complete stop at an intersection when they didn't have a stop sign but cross traffic did. Oh, plus the parents in my neighborhood that just park their cars in the middle of the street, at the stop sign where the bus picks up kids, so they can watch their kids until the bus gets there. No blinkers, no pulling to the shoulder, just stop at the stop sign and get out to stand there for ten minutes.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You don't know what causal means do you?

I wear a tux after work. Why? We're not animals!

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[_0xd0ad]

"Entering the intersection is one thing. However, stopping in an intersection in Texas is prohibited at any time."

That is incorrect. It is not prohibited "at any time". There are specific times at which it is not prohibited, as described in the law. You are referring to Sec. 545.302,

(a) An operator may not stop, stand, or park a vehicle ... (3) in an intersection

However, go further in the same section and there are specific instances in which it isn't prohibited:

(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not apply if the avoidance of conflict with other traffic is necessary or if the operator is complying with the law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device.

I interpret that to mean that if you legally enter the intersection on a green light but there is a conflict with other traffic, you may stop in the intersection until it clears and you are able to proceed. You are complying with the laws by yielding the right of way to oncoming traffic and you are obeying the traffic-control device.

This web site takes the same interpretation of that section of the Texas transportation code. Also, the Texas Drivers Handbook(PDF) states that when making a left turn you should "Stay to the right of the centerline as you enter the intersection" and then "Yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction". The accompanying graphic shows the vehicle in the intersection at that step.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The graphic in the article showed a decrease in the number of accidents where only the duration of the yellow light was extended (less than a third reduction). The reduction was not as dramatic as the intersections where cameras were also being used (more than half reduction).

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[shutdown -p now]

You wrote:

The issue is assholes entering the intersection to turn left when it isn't clear

Most people interpreted "intersection ... isn't clear" as "there's incoming traffic", which is indeed the way it's normally meant. Not as "there's no-one else turning in front of you".

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[DRJlaw]

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.

Former civil engineer here. The italicized "asshole behavior" is legal many places in the US and is an intended result of traffic engineering. In congested intersections without a left hand turn signal, your preference would result in no traffic clearing the left hand turn lane during a traffic control cycle.

In common practice and design, a driver may enter the intersection on green when the intersection is not clear, and complete the left turn on yellow (or red) so that at least one car clears the left-turning lane each traffic control cycle. In practice, where you're typically turning between 3+ lane arterial roads, two cars can turn per cycle (roughly one car per lane the cars are crossing). That doesn't solve the problem of cars charging the yellow the make the left, or entering the intersection on red to make the left, but it does tend to prevent cars from stacking past the center apron and into the travel lanes.

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.

You aparently don't, because such links have have already been shown and reported by the NHTSA. Page 9 and cited reference 6, for example. The fact that someone has not shoved the studies down your throat does not excuse your reliance on your gut.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[TemporalBeing]

people making an illegal maneuver

Well, following the thread it's not quite clear what you are referring to as an illegal maneuver. If you are referring to people being in the intersection waiting for traffic to clear during a green so they can turn left, that is most certainly legal even if the light were to change to red, at which point they are to "clear the intersection"; if they cannot "clear the intersection" at that point (though they may have to wait for opposing traffic to clear, but it should be pretty immediate) and then yes, they are making an illegal maneuver.

Basically, if you are in the intersection then you have to clear it.

Now, I'm not talking about people to purposely enter into the intersection on the red because they don't want to wait for the light to cycle through again. But anyone that has entered into the intersection on green or yellow must by law clear the intersection before cross traffic has the right to move.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Grishnakh]

no cross traffic should enter the intersection until the way is clear.

Wrong. In some states, it is encouraged to enter the intersection if you're making a turn, and then if the light turns red while you're in the middle of the intersection, to go ahead and complete your turn. Other drivers (even if they have a green arrow) have to wait for you to clear the intersection.

You may not like it, but it's the law.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Grishnakh]

just as it's legal nationwide to turn right at a red light after first stopping, unless a right turn on red is clearly posted as prohibited at that intersection.

Wrong (unless the law has been changed in the last 10 years or so). There are a very small number of states, New Jersey I believe being one of them, where it is NOT legal to turn right at a red light after stopping.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[TemporalBeing]

sometimes the car in front of me goes far into the intersection, I go a little into the intersection and the car in front of me doesn't take advantage of an opening in the oncoming traffic. so now I'm stuck partway into a red-light intersection.

And you are legally obligated to clear the intersection. Please do. If you don't, you might cause the sensors to think there is no one in the left turn lane for your side of traffic depending on where you are at best; at worse, you block the cross traffic from being able to move.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[ckaminski]

In Massachusetts you are NOT allowed to enter an intersection unless you can clear it. Nobody ever gets bagged for this, but it's one of those technicalities that could bite you in the ass if you ever cause an accident because of it.

People block one of the intersections near my office all the time and make the traffic around here twice as bad as it normally is, but I blame the intersection designers for a lot of that as well.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[blackraven14250]

You can turn right at a red in New Jersey, for sure. There's signs that tell you otherwise at specific intersections, but it's legal by default for at least the last 10 years.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[_0xd0ad]

"Clearing" the intersection means there is room outside of the intersection for you. There may be vehicles inside the intersection which are blocking your path out of the intersection, but it is generally assumed that once the light turns red everyone inside the intersection will exit the intersection as soon as they are able. As long as you have room to exit the intersection, there is nothing wrong with stopping inside of it.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Grishnakh]

I'm probably thinking of another state, or perhaps some state(s) that changed the laws recently. I do remember learning in driver's ed many years ago that turning right on red was not universal across the country, though it was legal in almost all states, but there were one or two oddballs.

According to this Wikipedia article, it's still illegal in NYC. It was also illegal in Quebec until 2003, except on the Island of Montreal where it remains illegal. It's also illegal in Mexico, except in Mexico City. It's also mostly illegal in Europe for some odd reason.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[HungWeiLo]

I was in traffic court a few years back in Washington state and literally more than a dozen people got ticketed for not clearing the intersection before the red light came on.

So according to the judge, there are 2 parts to this. You can enter the intersection during a yellow, as long as your entire vehicle can clear the intersection before the red comes on.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[LordLimecat]

Green == you now have right of way

If someone else is in the intersection when they have the right of way, it is creating a dangerous situation. I really hope youre not advocating running a stopsign simply because "they should be checking to see if im in the intersection".

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[LordLimecat]

Not correct if both cars are in motion on the road. If you are illegally passing someone on a one-lane road and they smash into you, you will be at fault.

I have had this happen (on what I had understood to be an unmarked 2 lane side road, due to how everyone has always used that road). The other person had their left turn signal on, began their turn, and suddenly swerved into me. I received a moving violation for illegal passing; they got no ticket. None of the facts were contested.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[lazarusdishwasher]

I think the answer to your question lies on pages 36 and 38 of the Ohio Digest of Motor Vehicle Laws Handbook, It also seems to agree with AdrianKemp.

Left Turn
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left Is required to yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. Prior to engaging a left-hand turn, the driver must wait for oncoming traffic to clear the intersection. One may advance into the intersection as a prelude to turning, provided that no other traffic control devices prohibit this action.

STOPPING
A driver must stop Before entering an intersection if there is not sufficient space on other side to accommodate the vehicle. The law applies whether or not a traffic signal gives the driver a right to proceed.

http://publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/hsy7607.pdf

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[LordLimecat]

Protip: You do not enter the intersection until there is room to exit it. Doing otherwise is called "blocking the box", "causing gridlock", or "being a jerk".

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[LordLimecat]

Wrong. In some states, it is encouraged to enter the intersection if you're making a turn, and then if the light turns red while you're in the middle of the intersection, to go ahead and complete your turn.

I would be incredibly suprised if you could show me where in the state's traffic laws that was NOT illegal.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[LordLimecat]

It is not dangerous because there are a few seconds where the light remains red specifically as a time to clear the intersection.

Not everywhere, no. In the District of Columbia and in several nearby areas, the light goes from red for one direction to green for another immediately.

In Crystal City in particular there are intersections where entering the intersection to make a turn is particularly dangerous.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[_0xd0ad]

No, "protip" for you: there IS room to exit the intersection, just not an open path TO that room while the oncoming traffic still has a green light, which is why you must yield and wait for it.

"Gridlock" is caused when you pull into an intersection when there really IS NO room to exit it, and yes, it's illegal.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Grishnakh]

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00645.htm

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[stewbacca]

Actually, it's illegal to enter an intersection unless you can get all the way through the intersection. These sort of "urban legend" driving rules are part of the reason we Americans are the worst drivers on the planet.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[stewbacca]

Which is why it is illegal in most states to enter an intersection that isn't clear all the way through.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[slaad]

....until the light turns yellow, and oncoming drivers continue to pass through the intersection. Oh no, the light is now red, there is intersecting traffic, and youre blocking one of the traffic lanes. At this point you can either do a really dangerous left turn, or remain blocking the traffic, or try to back up (assuming people havent filled in behind you.

Entering the intersection makes sense when you can see an opening coming shortly, but if there is a line of traffic entering the intersection to make a left turn is just going to make traffic worse and create a dangerous situation.

Everyone in Michigan enters the intersection and waits to turn until it's clear. If that means that it is after the light changes then it's after the light changes. It works fine and it isn't dangerous at all. You're not completing a turn ACROSS moving traffic after the light changes. And no one is jumping right into the intersection to block your way somehow either. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation you're describing, but I can't see how this would be dangerous. And under Michigan law, if you've entered the intersection during a green light, you have the right to complete your turn when traffic clears regardless of the color of the light.

At some intersections (with no dedicated left turn light) it's the only way traffic is able to turn at times when it is busy. The one or two or three cars that can fit into the intersection just sit there until the light changes and then they're finally able to complete the turn. It doesn't make traffic worse, it actually makes it better. I think the throughput of intersections would be degraded if no one went into the intersection to prepare for a left turn. I really hate it when I'm behind someone who won't venture into the intersection. There's no telling how many cycles of the light I might have to sit there through if they won't venture out to ensure they can make their turn that cycle.

I can't stand it when people back up when they were already in the intersection. They have the right to complete their turn and by moving back it just makes anyone who comes in behind them have to wait longer to make their turn.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[registrar]

In Australia it's illegal to drive through a yellow light. Nobody gets fined for it, but it's the way the law is and should be. Both red and yellow mean "stop", but red also means "you will likely kill someone if you don't stop". Don't be the asshole who thinks of yellow meaning "you have 3 seconds, maybe more, before things get lethal."

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Galestar]

What kind of moron can't read? Since the OP this whole chain has been about Canada.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[fgouget]

The law is that you cannot enter the intersection on a red. If you are already there, you must clear the intersection.

Actually there's also the case where you're going straight but there's a traffic jam on the other side of the intersection that will prevent you from clearing it. I believe it is illegal to enter the intersection in such a case. People often don't respect this, in Paris for instance, so that we end up with a situation where the traffic jam goes straight through the intersection and cross traffic is completely blocked. Quite often both roads are actually backed up and take turns blocking each other, thus creating massive traffic jams that then propagate to nearby intersections. This gets nightmarish quick and provides a good incentive to avoid taking the car at all.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[digitalsolo]

Indiana law is similar. The yellow light is intended to signify a need to "clear the intersection" for the coming red. The recommended path is whichever the driver deems safest (stop or continue through).

My Mom once beat a ticket given because she "sped up" through the intersection on a yellow. That's not only legal, it's actually the INTENT of the yellow signal, assuming that you do not believe you can safely stop your vehicle before the change of the signal to red. FWIW, she did not speed up sufficiently to exceed the posted speed limit.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[thomst]

just as it's legal nationwide to turn right at a red light after first stopping, unless a right turn on red is clearly posted as prohibited at that intersection.

Wrong (unless the law has been changed in the last 10 years or so). There are a very small number of states, New Jersey I believe being one of them, where it is NOT legal to turn right at a red light after stopping.

Wrong. From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's index page: "Since January 1, 1980, all 50 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have had laws permitting right-turn-on-red unless a sign prohibits the turn. As of January 1, 1994, 43 jurisdictions provided for left-turn-on-red (LTOR) and nine did not. LTOR is permitted only at the intersection of a one-way street with another one-way street."

To quote Stephen Colbert, "I accept your apology."

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Bauermlb]

Having worked in the traffic sensing industry for 4 years now (but not red-light-running cameras), and from over 40 years of driving, I very much agree that long yellows only encourage red-light running. Oak Ridge (TN) put in red-light and speed cameras in a few intersections, and the Turnpike has much calmer drivers now, who travel much closer to the speed limit, and pay attention to yellow lights. A yellow light used to mean -floor it-. I will acknowledge that some towns may be cheating on yellow-light timing, especially if they are violating the national traffic standard. BUT, most of the libertarians in town think that longer yellows are the answer and that the cameras are just -revenue cameras-. The calmer traffic on the main drag are my proof that they are wrong. As to traffic accident reduction, that I am less sure of, and I have not seen the numbers.

Re:Are yellows in Denver really short?

[Grishnakh]

Ah, I guess my info was a little out of date then. I could have sworn I had heard differently up into the 90s however; I guess I was mistaken.

However, from my previous link, it does appear that it's still illegal in NYC for some odd reason, but that's the only place in the US that was mentioned in the Wiki article.

Changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to think the intersection camera were a good idea. However, I changed my mind once a I listened to a local police chief explain that in his city traffic accidents had actually risen at the intersections where the cameras were in use. Folks would brake suddenly when they saw the camera causing the vehicle behind them to rear-end them. Once he said that I knew he was right. People would do that.

The cameras are a good idea in theory, but the real-world unintended consequences are too costly.

Re:Changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Changed my mind

[LordLimecat]

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.

Re:Changed my mind

[Misch]

Was it Washington, DC?

Source

The [Washington] Post obtained a D.C. database generated from accident reports filed by police. The data covered the entire city, including the 37 intersections where cameras were installed in 1999 and 2000.

The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 [in 2004]. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame.
.
.
.
The results were similar or worse than figures at intersections that have traffic signals but no cameras. The number of overall crashes at those 1,520 locations increased 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent.

Overall, total crashes in the city rose 61 percent, from 11,333 in 1998 to 18,250 last year.

Re:Changed my mind

[bondsbw]

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.

Re:Changed my mind

[Ichijo]

However, I changed my mind once a I listened to a local police chief explain that in his city traffic accidents had actually risen at the intersections where the cameras were in use.

This is not unusual. The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.

Re:Changed my mind

[guruevi]

You obviously never lived in a city. If you leave enough space for the two second rule to apply, some asswipe will actually cut you off and insert his Hummer between you and the driver in front of you. Then the same scenario applies again.

Re:Changed my mind

[AthanasiusKircher]

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?

Seriously? You justify running red lights because someone behind you might be following just close enough and might not react quickly enough to stop within the same distance you are able to stop in?

I generally am good at stopping at yellows. On the rare occasion where I speed through a light that I feel is too close to red, I pay attention to what happens behind me, and I inevitably see three or four more cars going through after me when the light is clearly red. All of those cars are generally following very close to each other.

Therefore, by your logic, none of them should ever stop. The whole stream of cars, which are so close together, should just keep going through the red light until there's a break in the stream.

I worry a lot about what cars do behind me. But I would never use them as an excuse to break laws and endanger other cars and pedestrians (i.e., the people on the other street at the light who are assuming you will act as if the light is red).

Re:Changed my mind

[AthanasiusKircher]

You obviously never lived in a city. If you leave enough space for the two second rule to apply, some asswipe will actually cut you off and insert his Hummer between you and the driver in front of you.

So? I think you need to chill out. Driving normally on the street should not be a race. Pay attention to aggressive drivers who change lanes, cut people off, etc. continuously. In light traffic, they often gain some distance. But in heavy traffic, driving aggressively generally doesn't get you there any faster, and in fact it often contributes to further delays.

If you spend any time looking into literature on traffic patterns, you'll realize that allowing extra space not only prevents accidents but also generally allows better traffic flow (and, for that matter, decreases wear-and-tear on vehicles who don't do as much sudden braking and accelerating).

Traffic has transition densities, sort of similar to the difference between laminar and turbulent flow in fluid dynamics. Safe following distances are essential for efficient traffic flow. Driving aggressively to "win the race" by beating out that Hummer is actually helping to maintain the traffic jams that everyone is driving aggressively to avoid.

Re:Changed my mind

[LateArthurDent]

You obviously never lived in a city. If you leave enough space for the two second rule to apply, some asswipe will actually cut you off and insert his Hummer between you and the driver in front of you. Then the same scenario applies again.

And then, because you're a better driver than the asswipe who cut you off, you're going to slow down and increase the space between him and you. And continue doing so all the way to your destination as more people enter that space. What's the problem?

Hell, if anything that behavior would improve traffic, as you're making it easier for people to change lanes.

Re:Changed my mind

[harl]

With modern cars? Hell yes.

Re:Changed my mind

[as_ntg]

But from the engineering perspective. If the officer from the parent post gives you evidence that putting a red light camera in will:

1) not decrease red light violations and

2) will increase the incidences of rear ended collisions

Why would you install it?

Yes you can always say that the person in the rear is at fault, but being able to place fault doesn't help much when you have injuries occurring, vehicles getting damaged and traffic being delayed. Just because there are idiots on the road doesn't mean you should give them the opportunity to be one.

Re:Changed my mind

[rhsanborn]

For which we need to assign strong punishment to the people who rear-ended someone.

Re:Changed my mind

[ironjaw33]

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?

Seriously? You justify running red lights because someone behind you might be following just close enough and might not react quickly enough to stop within the same distance you are able to stop in?

When I'm on a road with a high speed limit, a light ahead of me turns yellow, and there's someone right behind me, I definitely consider going through the intersection. My car has good brakes, but I can't say the same for the car behind me. I'm paying attention, but I can't say the same for whoever is behind me. In fact, I can't make any assumptions about other drivers and their behavior. In a case like this, where the light is in the process of changing, the risk of a rear end collision at high speed is much greater than a collision with intersecting traffic. Avoiding an accident trumps following the letter of the law.

Re:Changed my mind

[FrozenFOXX]

three or four cars? embellish much?

At least around D.C./Northern VA/Southern MD that's an understatement, not an embellishment.

Re:Changed my mind

[David_W]

three or four cars? embellish much?

Not if the parent drives in metro DC...

Re:Changed my mind

[Hatta]

If you see someone following too closely, slow down. They're going to rear end you if you have to step on the brakes, so you need all the space in front of you you can get. Slowing down when you're being tailgated decreases the risk of a crash, decreases the risk of injury from a crash, and encourages the asshole behind you to pass.

I'm not advocating brake checks here. That's just stupid. Just ease off the gas and go as slow as you have to to be safe.

Re:Changed my mind

[dbitter1]

Living in Chicago, red light capital of the world, I can assure you it is actually worse than what you describe.

True story: Driver 1 and 2 are following each other, Driver 2 too closely. Yellow light, Driver 1 slams on the brakes. Driver 2 realizes he can't stop without hitting Driver 1, swerves instead.Your point is well taken here.

Here's where it gets interesting. Driver 2 hits a light pole after swerving, causing it to come crashing down, onto the roof of Driver 3, who is following from a safe distance and was able to stop in plenty of time ... just not enough time to get out of the way of their newly force installed dome light.

Truth is stranger than fiction. There are always consequences that aren't thought of.

Re:Changed my mind

[shutdown -p now]

Same goes for Redmond.

But my favorite is Sammammsh, which didn't even bother with red light cameras because, aside from everything else, "there’s this perception in the public that they’re being used to collect revenue rather to increase traffic safety" and “It feels really ‘Big Brother’”.

Re:Changed my mind

[LordLimecat]

What am I supposed to do, get aggressive and start tapping my breaks? Thought aggressive driving was a major cause of accidents, but I could be wrong. Or I suppose I could speed up to how fast she wants to go, and let her effectively drive my car.

Guess what, the driver is responsible for whats in FRONT of them, not whats behind. You pay attention when you can, and try to avoid breaking harder than necessary (I have mitigated otherwise serious accidents by being gentle with the breaks), but at the end of the day you cannot control the person behind you and it is dangerous to try.

Re:Changed my mind

[TemporalBeing]

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.

It has nothing to do with how far the person is traveling behind the person, and everything to do with how quickly they brake. If you are going 55mph, with a car following the recommended distance, and brake as hard as you can, you will still likely get hit.

The problem is that the traffic cameras make some decisions based solely on pure logic without taking into account the circumstances. Therefore, people try to keep to the strict logic of the cameras when they see them, and cause other problems as a result - including making people rear-end them.

Re:Changed my mind

[LordLimecat]

Confirming that in metro DC, it is not unusual. At Constitution and 15th st in particular, it is not unusual to see 4-5 cars run red light on left turns onto 15th. It is very common that oncoming traffic has to bull their way through.

Driving in DC around 4:45pm is a lesson in what happens when you dont enforce driving laws. Watch and be amazed as that DC Metrobus decides to block the entire intersection because he really really wanted to make that light, and wasnt able to (I saw this 2 times in 5 minutes one day in DC around K st).

Re:Changed my mind

[LordLimecat]

Incidentally, this is a big part of the reason why I tend to be so pro-redlight camera. If constitution and 15th intersection had cameras, either the shenangans would stop, or all of DC's funding issues would be solved.

I would be in favor of having a 3 strikes rule resulting in a 30-day license suspension, rather than fines, if anyone was worried about it becoming a fundraising thing rather than safety. THAT would make the roads safer.

Re:Changed my mind

[LordLimecat]

When I'm on a road with a high speed limit, a light ahead of me turns yellow, and there's someone right behind me, I definitely consider going through the intersection.

Thats normal. Being a good driver means making the right decision in those instances, of whether you can safely stop or not.

Of course, if you end up running a red because you cant stop, you were probably doing something wrong. Likewise, if you get rear-ended, it is very likely both you and the car behind you were going too fast.

Re:Changed my mind

[LordLimecat]

I live near I-495 in the DC area, and have racked up about 130k miles in the area. Probably a fifth of that is in the city itself. The "2 second" rule works because it is a following distance proportional to speed.

Incidentally, I would imagine that a large number of accidents are because people get so preoccupied over whether that person next to them is about to get in front of them. Try to focus on driving your vehicle, not on who gets there first.

Re:Changed my mind

[firewood]

Nothing the driver in front of you does should result in you crashing into him.

If I am the driver behind: Sure.

If I am the driver in front, and the light timing allows, there's plenty I can do to reduce the likelihood of the sleepy, the housewife distracted by screaming toddlers, elderly-dementia-candidates, race-driver-wannabes 3 centimeters off my bumper, hungover/drunk/stoned dudes, or people texting while trying not to be seen, (etc.etc.), idiots who are following behind me from potentially wrecking my car, causing me back/neck injuries, having me waste days/months dealing with insurance agents+lawyers, and etc.

Even if it's not legally my fault. It's called defensive driving.

Both

[Hatta]

Long yellows to give everyone a chance to stop, and red light cameras to catch the bastards who don't take that chance.

Re:Both

[MacDork]

Long yellows to give everyone a chance to stop, and red light cameras to catch the bastards who don't take that chance.

Longer red in both directions to make sure the intersection is clear before allowing the next lane to move. No cameras. Getting a ticket in the mail 2 months after the fact won't change "the bastard's" behavior. Being stopped by a cop will change "the bastard's" driving behavior almost instantly and for an extended duration. This is especially important if "the bastard" has been drinking.

Re:Both

[brainzach]

Getting a ticket in the mail changed my behavior in intersections. I would be an idiot to run the red light at the same intersection again.

Re:Both

[Sloppy]

and red light cameras to catch the bastards who don't take that chance

And courts to try, convict and sentence those bastards. Why everyone forgets this step, I don't know. Yet for some reason, whenever we're talking about any other sort of crime, it matters -- people don't ever say that murder is so serious that the suspects shouldn't be tried.

Re:Both

[bjdevil66]

"and red light cameras to catch the bastards who don't take that chance."

A big problem with debating this issue is the underlying, visceral hatred some people have for "the guy that cut them off last week". It clouds educated people's ability to objectively look at hard numbers and long-term consequences.

So - Please try to look past your bias towards the "bastards" to consider the following: If the yellow lights do the job of reducing accidents as well or even better than red light cameras (studies have shown this), then why put the revenue-driven devices up anywhere, thus allowing corruption (or the impression of impropriety) to take root and create doubt in the city or state government? More importantly, why allow the bottom line of camera companies and cash-strapped city councils to even be considered during the decision making process about how to BEST serve driver safety?

The best solution for the long-term viability of the city government while also protecting the safety of drivers: Lengthen yellow times and pull the red light cameras - which are the budding roots and/or platform for other automated (and profitable) law enforcement out.

The MUTCD and ITE

[Joe_Dragon]

specifies that the duration of the yellow change interval should be between 3 and 6 seconds. And people have won court cases over red light tickets over the yellow time being too short.

http://www.ite.org/decade/pubs/IR-117-E.pdf

http://www.ite.org/safety/issuebriefs/Traffic%20Signals%20Issue%20Brief.pdf

http://www.ite.org/annualmeeting/compendium10/pdf/AB10H2601.pdf

Re:The MUTCD and ITE

[Anonymous Coward]

Also worth reading this - Oregon DOT Recommendations: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/ODOT_yellow_red_clear_policy_A1.pdf?ga=t

The 3 to 6 recommendation is based on some general assumptions and characteristics. It's still a mathematical equation. Also, here's a few c/p from the parent's references that are relevant (including the statement that yellow duration is commonly limited by control manufacturers and the shortfall is made up during a red phase):

The calculation requires values for perception/reaction time of the driver, deceleration rate for stopping vehicle, vehicle speed, approach grade (uphill, downhill), intersection width and design vehicle length. The standard value used for the perception and reaction time of drivers approaching a signalized intersection is 1.0 sec.

The Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians concludes that the 1.0-sec. reaction time is appropriate for both older and younger drivers, but that the use of a 1.5-sec. reaction time “is well justified when engineering judgment determines a special need to take older drivers’ diminished capabilities into account.”

The MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices) indicates that the yellow change interval should be set within the range of 3 to 6 sec. and many signal controller units will not permit settings outside of this range. If the phase change interval needs to be near the top of this range or beyond, the additional time is sometimes provided as part of a red clearance
interval.

Already done.

[Trubadidudei]

Some science has already been done on this subject, and it suggests red light cameras actually increase the rate of accidents. If i remember correctly it was even covered previously on slashdot.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080311151159.htm

Guess the person(s) / corporation who sold this idea to the decisionmakers were not so keen at looking at what had already been established.
Also, I posted the full link as I don't know how to "linkify" a word, and could not find a guide anywhere. I'm a med student and not a programmer. Please, have mercy.

Re:Already done.

[bjourne]

The article claims that drivers are hitting the brakes instead of running the red light when they notice there is a camera. Reasonably those people would adjust and slow down when approaching a red light if the probability of it being camera monitored was high enough. Having to abruptly brake is uncomfortable for the driver (which running a red light is not, unless you get caught) so it makes sense that the driver would try to avoid that situation in the future.

Re:Already done.

[kilfarsnar]

In case you care, this page will show you how to linkify a word: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_a_href.asp Enjoy!

Re:Already done.

[rhsanborn]

If I remember correctly the types of accidents are vastly different. Rear-end collisions increased, which are much lower risk, and t-bone collisions decreased, which have a higher incidence of injury. [Citation needed]

Re:Already done.

[_0xd0ad]

And if I remember correctly, increasing the length of the yellow light to a reasonable time has the same effect on reducing the t-bone collisions without causing the rear-end accidents.

Re:Already done.

[cdrguru]

All traffic control devices in one way or another increase accidents. Stop signs are the beginning. Move up from a stop sign to a traffic light and the accidents will increase. Add a left turn arrow and more accidents happen.

Uncontrolled traffic where everyone knows their lives are in their hands constantly is probably the safest, most accident free way for roads to operate. Any controls, including speed limits, are simply arbitrary things that create accidents. The problem is, as we found out in the US around 1920 or so, without any controls beyond a rather low traffic density nobody has any respect for other drivers in the US. This doesn't seem to be a problem in Rome or Istambul, for example.

Re:Already done.

[bored_engineer]

I counter your study with another study. This is still a heavily studied topic, and results seem to vary depending on where, who and when the studies happen. The benefits seem to be negligible when compared to a properly designed yellow phase, though.

offtopic: Here's a link to a page on w3schools, briefly discussing anchors.

why are some tickets based on NFL style reviews

[Joe_Dragon]

why are some tickets based on NFL style reviews and people some times get tickets that a REAL cop would not give out?

You want improvement...?

[Atomus]

Start putting timers on the yellow and green lights. I've been saying this ever since I starting to see cities put timers for crosswalks. Timers on traffic lights will help people know when that sucker is going to turn red. I run yellows all the time because some seem to last forever, while others flash for a brief second then its red. If I'm coming up on a light, with only 2 seconds left on a yellow, I'm more likely to slow down and stop for the red.

Re:You want improvement...?

[OzPeter]

Start putting timers on the yellow and green lights.

Back when I was a lad there were several sets of traffic lights near where I lived that consisted of a single clock hand spinning around a disk that was segmented into red, yellow and green sections. So the driver always knew how much time was left in each part of the cycle. The only problem with this scheme is that it can't be adapted to changing traffic patterns - unless of course you make the dials out of the same technology as the video billboards.

Re:You want improvement...?

[PhxBlue]

Most lights are timed. Watch the "walk" sign on the intersection: when it changes to a flashing "don't walk," that means the light is going to turn yellow in the next 15-20 seconds. When it changes to a solid "don't walk," the light usually turns yellow within one or two seconds.

Re:You want improvement...?

[Imagix]

If you're coming up on a light that is already yellow, you should be stopping, not thinking "Hey, I can squeeze that yellow." You should also be thinking exactly where the (imaginary) line is that marks the point of no return where you cannot stop for the intersection. Before that line, you stop. After that line, you ignore the traffic light, you can't stop anyway. (And if you could, then you're misjudging where that line is to begin with.)

Re:You want improvement...?

[MozeeToby]

If you are able to safely stop, you stop. It isn't that hard. Yeah, you might have to sit through the light that you could have made it through every so often, but yellow doesn't mean "make it through if you can" it means "stop if you can".

Re:You want improvement...?

[Atomus]

If you're coming up on a light that is already yellow, you should be stopping, not thinking "Hey, I can squeeze that yellow."

But that's the problem, most people are not going to stop, they are going to think "I can squeeze that yellow". It's a fact of life and is the reason why we need to change the system. Red light cameras don't change that system, they only punish those who "misjudge" that imaginary line.

Don't get me wrong, I instinctly know all the lines for the lights I do my work commute on. The only problem is that outside my daily commute, it's a guessing game and not really a good way to judge a yellow light. Hence, the visual countdown timers within the yellows (and greens), so people don't have to learn or know those lines.

Re:You want improvement...?

[Atomus]

Most lights are timed.

I mean visually displaying those timers on the lights themselves. So people can better guess as to when to slow down or if they are within range to make it through the yellow. The city I use to go to college at just recently started to put visual timers on crosswalks. I thought it was great idea. A flashing "Don't Walk" sign is not going to stop people from making an attempt to cross a street, they don't know how much time is left, but a flashing "Don't Walk" sign with say a couple of seconds left on the timer, the majority of people will second guess about crossing that street so they can avoid being in the middle of the road when the lights turn green.

Re:You want improvement...?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Where I live that imaginary line is somewhere between where the turn lane first starts to go off to the left or right and where the solid white line for it starts. If I am clearly past where the solid white starts then I continue through but it I am before where the turn lane starts to go off to the right or left I stop. I find it works for most intersections where I live except a few really goofy ones that have really long or really short turn lanes, or the stop light near my mothers house that it times so it lets 1 maybe 2 cars through on a green because apparently Rosemount wanted a stoplight that was just like the 4 way stop sign it replaced.

Cake and eat it too

[jduhls]

How about just slow things down a bit and increase the illusion of danger instead of the illusion of safety?*

* http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

Re:Cake and eat it too

[netwarerip]

Great article, and the other, unmentioned, advantage to roundabouts is they are 'green'. Less time spent idling waiting for red light to change = less hydrocarbon and NOx emissions. The only people that should be against them are insurance claims adjusters and body shop owners.

Re:Cake and eat it too

[sjames]

Bonus points if they paint the intersection as a photo-realistic sinkhole.

easy to prove

[a2wflc]

The summary didn't specify "traffic safety", so

1. red light cameras increase revenue (that's their purpose, so if they can't prove that, get rid of them)

2. more revenue means they have to lay off fewer police officers (easy to fudge some books and threaten layoffs to "prove" this)

3. more police officers result in better public safety (use Biden's quote about fewer officers means more rapes and murders)

Re:easy to prove

[SirGeek]

The summary didn't specify "traffic safety", so

1. red light cameras increase revenue (that's their purpose, so if they can't prove that, get rid of them)

2. more revenue means they have to lay off fewer police officers (easy to fudge some books and threaten layoffs to "prove" this)

3. more police officers result in better public safety (use Biden's quote about fewer officers means more rapes and murders)

3.5 The Police officers can be used for more "high profit" crimes like arresting drug dealers and users.

Re:or..

[Hijacked Public]

At least it is a number.

Most projects, most laws in general, are sold via some hand waving and appeals to emotion. At this point anything quantatative is a step in the right direction.

Law and Regulation?

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[OzPeter]

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

(I know I will probably be modded into oblivion for this) As a foreigner living in the US I know exactly where you are coming from. This place takes parochialism to the extreme. From bottom to top its city vs county vs state vs federal. Everything is focussed on the smallest possible sphere of influence rather than looking at the bigger picture - which creates the situation where traffic laws are controlled (capriciously) by the local community rather than adhering to well thought out standards. Its the whole "we want to be free and do what we want to do without being controlled by someone else" mindset. I'm not going to say that this mindset is always bad, but it does leave you scratching your head over things like locally controlled yellow light times. One of my favourite examples of parochialism is that years ago I saw a letter in the Pittsburgh paper complaining that the team members of the Pittsburgh Steelers were denying the city of Pittsburgh valuable tax dollars by having the temerity to reside in county rather than in the city itself.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[Misch]

Technically speaking, it should be based on observed speed of people traveling on the road. However, standards have been weakened over time such that yellow light timing can be based on the speed limit rather than real-world speeds.

Source

The 1994 ITE "Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Interval" states:
When the percentage of vehicles that entered on a red indication exceeds that which is locally acceptable, the yellow change interval may be lengthened (or shortened) until the percentage conforms to local standards, or enforcement can be used instead.

There's a better analysis of how signal timing standards have been changed in the link.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[Registered Coward v2]

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

(I know I will probably be modded into oblivion for this) As a foreigner living in the US I know exactly where you are coming from. This place takes parochialism to the extreme. From bottom to top its city vs county vs state vs federal. Everything is focussed on the smallest possible sphere of influence rather than looking at the bigger picture - which creates the situation where traffic laws are controlled (capriciously) by the local community rather than adhering to well thought out standards. Its the whole "we want to be free and do what we want to do without being controlled by someone else" mindset. I'm not going to say that this mindset is always bad, but it does leave you scratching your head over things like locally controlled yellow light times. One of my favourite examples of parochialism is that years ago I saw a letter in the Pittsburgh paper complaining that the team members of the Pittsburgh Steelers were denying the city of Pittsburgh valuable tax dollars by having the temerity to reside in county rather than in the city itself.

While I understand your POV, much of the reason behind the US viewpoint is cultural, just as in the EU. American's dislike of a strong central government (unless it is doing something they support) is rooted in our founding - we gave states rights very specifically and limited federal power; after our experiences with the British crown. As the US expanded across the continent, the distances form the central government widened and local control become the norm. This feeling still exists today.

You still see the same feelings in Europe, from the UK's sticking with the pound and Bavaria have it's one unique view on beer and food. More to the point, most EU countries haven't ceded control to the extent US states did, with our concept of federal supremacy.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Everything is focussed on the smallest possible sphere of influence rather than looking at the bigger picture - which creates the situation where traffic laws are controlled (capriciously) by the local community rather than adhering to well thought out standards.

To be fair, we do have national standards for such things. Deviations from those standards are the exception, not the rule.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[harl]

An interstate can't have lights. It's part of the definition.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[SleazyRidr]

Do the feeder roads still fall under federal administration, or are they controlled by the city?

Re:Law and Regulation?

[swillden]

This is actually usually controlled at the state level (unless you enter a federal highway/interstate). Most states have it *very* well specified what it should be.

Colorado is a little bit unusual in this respect. The state laws are looser and less well-defined in many respects than in most states, leaving more to counties and cities to decide. There's even a notion of "Home Rule" in Colorado which I haven't yet researched, but which I know has allowed Denver to actually override state law in one instance: Colorado passed a law a few years ago "pre-empting" local firearms regulations. Lots of states have done this to avoid a patchwork quilt of gun laws. But Denver chose to ban openly-carried sidearms, even though state law allowed them. The state tried to crack down, but Denver took it to the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing "Home Rule", and won.

I recently moved from Utah, where the state laws are not particularly restrictive but crisply-defined and there's no question about counties or cities being able to override the state legislature, to Colorado, where the state laws are in some ways more restrictive, but are generally less well-defined and "looser".

So it doesn't surprise me that Colorado law leaves this up to the localities. I really doubt your supposition that the state law is simply being ignored, though.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[residieu]

In your country a city can decide how long the traffic light is yellwo, that sounds pretty retarded to me.

Someone has to decide. Even if, as you say, the duration depends on the speed limit, someone wrote up an algorithm to decide, and some government official approved it. Maybe it was at the city level, maybe it was at the state level, maybe it was at the national level.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[harl]

I don't know. My guess is that it varies greatly based on situation. Most would be state level though. Some could be city level in a handful of the largest cities.

Why?

Re:Law and Regulation?

[SleazyRidr]

Interstates don't have traffic lights, but the feeder roads do. If the feeder roads are considered to be part of the interstate and controlled federally, that would mean that there are federally controlled traffic lights.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[harl]

How much of the feeder road is federal and where's the line? Easier to leave it at the highway and have the local people deal with it. Hell the feds don't even maintain the interstates they pay the states to.

No place to go as long as this is theoretical. If you find some facts please share.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[angel'o'sphere]

The question is not who decides but that obviously 2 different cities have two different ideas how to handle it, at cost of the life of people who misjudge the length of the orange phase.
The problem is not to move over the road when it is red (and get flashed and a ticket) ... the problem is the other traffic has GREEN now and you can run into an accident. Just because some local moron decided he likes short orange phases more.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[GeoGreg]

I don't know if it's the best system, but it's what we have. The entire political structure of the United States is based on federalism, in which the states are the sovereign entities, giving only limited authority to the national government. Additionally, many of the states outside the original 13 were set up during a time when travel was arduous, even dangerous, and communication wasn't always reliable. Thus, they devolved much of the authority to the local level. This system has become very creaky and should probably be redesigned from the ground up. But since it would affect too many elected officials (and their brothers-in-law, cousins, etc.), it is unlikely to happen. A legislator in Kansas, for instance, has proposed consolidating that state's 100+ counties into less than 25. This would make sense, since many of those counties have less than 5,000 residents. But, since those counties employ such a large fraction of those residents, consolidation is not happening (last I heard).

Re:Law and Regulation?

[GeoGreg]

Wikipedia has an article, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Rule_in_the_United_States

Re:Law and Regulation?

[swillden]

Interesting. There are many more Home Rule states than I realized.

Re:Law and Regulation?

[wwphx]

Heh. I worked for Phoenix Police in the 90's, at one point the City Council, in their infinite wisdom, were toying with the idea that all officers should live in the city limits so that the real dollars for their salary would be partially recovered through theoretical increase in sales tax revenue. They did not implement it. There is one theoretically good reason for police to live in the city limits, and that's more rapid response to a call-out, but that's not really a solid reason. We did keep track on each precinct's rosters as to whether an officer lived north or south of the Salt River as during the second or third 100 Year Flood all of the bridges were taken out and traffic was a mess.

Bottom Line

[speedlaw]

If this technology/enforcement mechanism COST money NO ONE would install it. Private Law Enforcement...What could go wrong ?

Hmm summary editorializing

[OzPeter]

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.

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[netwarerip]

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.

Sorry, but I disagree. The camera might help ensure that the offender gets punished for running the light, but if someone is going to run the light, well, they are gonna run the light.

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[The Moof]

They're not reviled, we just hate when they're abused. Most people I know who've gotten red light tickets via a camera got one due to turning right on a red light at a very specific T-intersection in my area. The only possibly way the right-turners would pose a threat is if a car pulled a 180 turn and drove back into them. It's become quite a notorious intersection for the "bullshit camera" tickets (their phrase, not mine).

I also know of at least one red light camera that was removed specifically because it had increased accidents at the intersection where it is was installed. It had the usual shortened yellow, but it was on a downhill slope. The combination of the slightest inclement weather and overreaction to the yellow resulted in many cars losing traction and skidding downhill, straight into the intersection. They had slowed just enough for the light to complete the change, but had no control of their vehicle when they got to the intersection.

I'm actually in favor of red light cameras where they're needed (we do have some pretty bad intersections around here that need them), but there are others that are installed purely for monetary reasons (disregarding safety).

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[cobrausn]

Don't be silly. If a person was going to run a red light while you have a green, a $75 dollar civil fine wasn't going to stop them - they were probably drunk or not paying attention. All these fines do is hit people who guess incorrectly about the length of the yellow or (correctly or incorrectly) think they won't be able to stop before it turns red. You know, everyday minor driving errors that happen to all of us and rarely hurt anybody - the kind of thing most cops won't even write a ticket for, even if they witness it.

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[OhHellWithIt]

Just for grins, I plugged the numbers from TFA's chart into a spreadsheet and totaled up the changes, since they didn't give us that information. The change in injury numbers didn't seem to be significant (-68% at camera-enforced intersections vs. -64% at modified-control intersections), but the total number of accidents seemed to tell a different story. At camera-enforced intersections, there were 118 accidents before and 53 afterward (-55%), vs. 85 before and 60 afterward (-29%). Yes, rear-ending went up at the camera-controlled intersections, but it seems to have been more than offset by the reduction in side collisions. I'm surprised that there wasn't a significant difference in injuries since side injuries seem like they'd be worse.

IMHO, expecting all the numbers to go down is unrealistic, since any engineer will tell you that most decisions involve trade-offs.

I wonder what the average cost per accident is. I figure that if both sets of intersections started out with 118 accidents and experienced the same proportional reductions, the number of accidents saved would be 65 and 35, respectively. If an accident costs only $5,000, then the savings would total $325,000 and $175,000, meaning the cameras bring in an extra $150,000 to the people involved. Somehow, though, I think that accidents cost more than that, as the last two (low-speed) collisions in my family, with no bodily injury to anyone and only our car being damaged (don't ask) were about $4,000 per accident. It looks like the break-even point for the city's cost of the contract is about $23,000 per accident, assuming tickets don't defray the $700,000 cost.

I'd like to have seen two more sets of numbers -- no change in traffic signal and no camera, and both camera and modified control.

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[SleazyRidr]

Well, maybe if they started making more money from things like that they could reduce my taxes. Get your revenue from people who don't know how to drive.

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[cobrausn]

Houston. A ticket from a cop here is a $200+ traffic violation that goes on your driving record. A red-light camera ticket is (was, they got rid of the system) a $75 civil fine.

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[cobrausn]

Do you honestly think they would reduce other taxes? More likely you'd end up just paying your existing taxes and the city would be drawing additional revenue from 'people who can't drive' (hint: this is nearly everybody), with the end result being no net gain in safety (the supposed goal of these cameras).

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[TemporalBeing]

The problem with red light cameras is the lack of due process, the blatant use of it as a revenue stream

That is why South Carolina has said traffic cameras are illegal - no due process; even if a manned officer is monitoring the cameras (as one locality tried to do to get around the law with respect to I-95 and using them for speeding).

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[SleazyRidr]

Well they'd either drop taxes or spend it somewhere, making my city a little nicer...

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[fgouget]

All these fines do is hit people who guess incorrectly about the length of the yellow or (correctly or incorrectly) think they won't be able to stop before it turns red.

You appear to be under the impression that it's ok to go through a yellow light if you think it will be long enough. You are wrong and clearly your driving license should be revoked. The length of the yellow light is totally irrelevant. The second the yellow light is on the only thing that matters is whether you can stop before the intersection or not. Either you can and you do, or you cannot and you go through.

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[fgouget]

You know, everyday minor driving errors that happen to all of us and rarely hurt anybody

Oh, and you also seem to consider driving through a red light to be a minor driving error when it's one of the most dangerous things you can do. Clearly the world would be a safer place with you off the roads.

Re:Hmm summary editorializing

[The Moof]

There is no sidewalks at the particular stoplight (nor any pedestrian traffic) where my BS camera tickets are handed out, it's in an unincorporated area between two towns. The intersection itself could use the camera (it's notorious for the light being ran), but the majority of the tickets are for right turn without stops.

In all honestly, a right turn arrow would solve the issue entirely, but that's bad for town's revenue...

Longer Yellows

[Waffle Iron]

I can believe that giving a subset of the lights in one city a longer yellow would reduce accidents, for those particular lights. However, the key question is what happens when you adjust *all* the yellow lights in a city. My experience says that people generally time yellow lights, and try to get away with getting through just as the lights turn red. If they're uniformly longer, people will just keep going for a few more seconds of yellow.

Lengthening yellows encourages bad behavior

[stomv]

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

Re:Lengthening yellows encourages bad behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be basing your conclusions on your own intuitions, rather than on statistical data. The auditor mentioned in the summary cites actual observed factual data that correlates longer yellows with fewer accidents.

Reason is fine, but fact is finer.

Re:Lengthening yellows encourages bad behavior

[_0xd0ad]

"According to the law*, a yellow light is to be treated as a red light *if* the vehicle can safely stop. ... all vary state to state, but this is generally speaking the case"

Is that so? This is what Missouri state law has to say about vehicles facing a yellow light:

Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection

That says traffic shall not enter the intersection on red, and yellow is nothing more than a warning that the red light is coming.

Re:Lengthening yellows encourages bad behavior

[residieu]

There is such a thing as too short a yellow. If cars traveling at legal speeds can not come to a safe stop between when the light first turns yellow and when it turns red, the light is too yellow.

There is such a thing as too long a yellow. If the first time you see a light it is yellow, it provides no information to you on when the light is going to change. This would result in either drivers sitting for a twenty seconds at a yellow light, because they didn't know they caught it at the start of the light. Or people making the incorrect assumption that there was plenty of time left on the yellow and flying through only to get caught by the red.

Between these extremes there's a happy medium. We're discussing where in that range is the best length.

Re:Lengthening yellows encourages bad behavior

[Dallin]

Here in Australia, most red light cameras are also speed cameras, to address exactly this issue. I know a lot of people don't like speed cameras, as they are more for revenue raising than traffic safety. I don't disagree that they are a major revenue source, but In combination with red light cameras, they are a real deterrent to running the red light.

Re:Lengthening yellows encourages bad behavior

[shutdown -p now]

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.

The point is that you should give people time to think whether the vehicle can safely stop or not. Otherwise you encourage instinctive, panicky behavior - which is either to slam the brakes hard to avoid entering intersection on red (bad), or to slam the accelerator trying to go through while it's not yet red (also bad).

Why?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

Re:Why?

[Translation Error]

But it also shows that simply extending the duration of the yellow light greatly reduces injury and accidents too. So, the real issue is, is there justification to use the method that requires paying a third party $700,000 (annually, I assume) to install and maintain the cameras--and charge lots of people high fines to pay for said contract--over simply changing the timing of the lights?

Re:Why?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

But it also shows that simply extending the duration of the yellow light greatly reduces injury and accidents too. So, the real issue is, is there justification to use the method that requires paying a third party $700,000 (annually, I assume) to install and maintain the cameras--and charge lots of people high fines to pay for said contract--over simply changing the timing of the lights?

The article states that extending the yellow light and fining people who run the red lights greatly reduced injuries and accidents. There is no mention of only extending the yellow lights. While the placement of the cameras are random, the threat of getting caught is always present at these intersections.

Extending the yellow light without the threat of camera enforcement would only deter the drivers who already have good driving habits. The people who have bad driving habits would more likely take advantage of the longer yellow light and we'd see an uptick in the number of people "racing the yellow light". The "bad" drivers outnumber the "good" drivers and accounts for the increase in front-to-rear collisions due to the fact that they don't practice keeping a safe stopping distance between themselves and the car in front of them.

These are the same "bad" drivers who complain about the automatic enforcement done by cameras because they were lucky enough to not cause an accident therefore they feel like they are being unfairly penalized for running a light (e.g. No harm came from me running the light, so why should I be fined?). Another form of this argument is the "we need to ticket people who cause accidents at intersections" which literally means "no accident = no foul". I would argue that if you don't like being fined by the camera enforcement then try not to run the stop lights.

Quite simply the controversy reported in the article is over people complaining about the fines. The "good" drivers would not run the red light so they aren't likely the ones complaining. As for the $700,000 annually being spent, the program is paying for itself and is cheaper than hiring policemen to enforce the traffic laws 24/7 at these intersections.

Re:Why?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I didn't see the caption in the table. Why they didn't expound on this in the article text is beyond me, except maybe to introduce some bias for the revenue generating argument which the author gave better coverage. Sorry for the confusion.

The table used in the article showed four intersections with camera enforcements and four intersections that only used the longer yellow light (no camera enforcements). The four intersections where no camera enforcements were being performed was selected as a control group. This information only appears in the caption of the graphic not within the article itself.

The number of injuries at the intersection prior to camera enforcements is 28 and after is 9. Total number of accidents prior is 118 and after is 53 (total accidents dropped by more than half).

The number of injuries at the intersection where only the yellow light was extended (no camera enforcement) prior to the study is 25 and after is 9. Total number of accidents prior is 85 and after is 60 (total accidents only dropped by less than a third).

On the surface the number of injuries appears to remain the same. However the reduction on the total number of accidents is more dramatic for the intersections where camera enforcement was in place. This is why the conclusion is as stated above "that extending the yellow light and fining people who run the red lights greatly reduced injuries and accidents".

Re:Why?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

This is why they compared four intersections with camera enforcements against four intersections without camera enforcements. I assume the same type of vehicles were driven at all the intersections studied and as such would account for any improvements in safety being added to the vehicles themselves.

To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[Wingsy]

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.

Re:To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[Jeng]

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.

It's called traffic platooning. Basically the system that allows you to hit five or six greens in a row is responsible for the "stupid stoplights" .Unfortunately if you google that phrase you now come across driverless systems that take platooning to the next level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light_control_and_coordination#Coordinated_control

Re:To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[Freedom Bug]

A lot of cities have an all-red time. And it does reduce the number of accidents for a few years, although the effect deteriorates over time as drivers acclimatise.

Most cities are installing magnetic sensors at intersections to reduce "stupid stoplights", as you put it. That's why those "push to walk" buttons are becoming ubiquitous. But it's expensive to tear up pavement, so it's only generally done when other road work is done.

Re:To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[Wingsy]

Don't think that applies to stupid stoplights out in the middle of nowhere, with no other lights within 4 miles.

Re:To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[Wingsy]

Don't think I've seen an intersection without sensors in years (cut grooves in the stopping areas). At least not around here.

Re:To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[dbitter1]

Certain counties in Wisconsin will turn the "stupid" lights into a flashing yellow in the "main" direction, with flashing red from the cross street after a certain time (outside of rush hour or sunset or whatever is appropriate). A wonderful solution I don't know why others haven't implemented (obvious profit from red light cameras aside, of course).

Re:To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[Jeng]

You are right it wouldn't. Platooning is a way to squeeze a lot of cars at once though green lights by grouping them together at red lights and then sending them on though.

So yes, platooning would not apply, a stoplight with no other lights within 4 miles would be either time based, or sensor based, or a combination of the two.

Re:To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[chihowa]

I'm pretty sure that's not the case in Denver. Here, you are almost guaranteed to have to stop at least every other light unless you speed (about five over the limit seems to do it, or significantly under the limit). The traffic in the other directions is the same. That, complete with red lights on parkways without cross streets (presumable to slow people down, but if you're going the speed limit, you'll always be stopped, if you're speeding, you'll make it through) and intersections where an entire green cycle occurs with 100% of the traffic stopped at another red light fifty meters behind it, makes me think that the goal is really just to inconvenience people (and increase pollution, gas consumption, and brake service costs).

Re:To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[onkelonkel]

"But it's expensive to tear up pavement, so it's only generally done when other road work is done." - not disagreeing with your main point, but loops are very often installed in saw cut grooves. No need to rip up the pavement.

Re:To Improve Safety at Stop Lights ...

[GeoGreg]

I think the case in Denver is that the traffic engineer's office is not well-funded. So, they are always just trying to keep everything working, rather than being able to actually improve things. I remember a few years ago, they spent some time working on the Colorado Blvd. signals, and they were noticeably better. I think they are still better than they used to be. Also, I think the problem of handling large amounts of traffic on a grid is a hard one. The one-way streets are sometimes (but not always...) timed pretty well for 30 mph. They seem to either sometimes get out of sync, or there is some sort of dynamic adaptation that favors some streets over others.

Here come the quotas.. watch out

[WOOFYGOOFY]

"I need eight less accidents on 67th and Anderson, 15 less on Main and Second and a ten percent drop in the Joensboro distrcit over all". Get out there and make it happen or there are going to be career repercussions "

Inevitably these are the words that will issue from some Superior Officer's mouth each morning so they can "prove" that red light camera improve safety even around the areas they're installed where there are no cameras.

And what follows is destroyed and distorted paperwork, reclassification of incidents, motorists NOT being issued tickets on certain roads, people being "let go" and individuals involved in accidents being encouraged to "work it out between yourselves so it doesn't go on your record".

We KNOW what happens when police are under pressure to produce downward statistics in crime each year, or in this case downward statistics for accidents. Policing becomes less professional and more third-worldy, even criminal.

Some examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3mmuZsHmv8

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/ex-nypd-cop-we-planted-ev_n_1009754.html/

It's not what the cops want to do, it's what well-intentioned people who think policing should be subject to the same kinds of productivity and performance metrics that other industries are subject to inadvertently cause.

Telling cops they need to produce such and such numbers for this and that reason is a stupid idea who time has never existed in the first place. Telling them they need to prove by stats that the camera improve intersection safety is a big mistake.

The way to work this is to let them do what from their experience they feel will work and have the insurance companies by law turn over their statistics to the government or the universities who then data mines it on an ongoing basis to see what works for traffic safety and what doesn't and what's trending and what isn't.

Don't make the source of the data also the beneficiary of the data when it leans a certain way. Also don't punish them when it leans some other way.

The police don't cause crime so it's not theirs to reduce year over year. Society causes crime, the economy causes crime, bad parenting and poor family environment causes crime, lousy neighborhoods cause crime. Not policing.

The vast majority of police forces do what they can in the best way they've learned how and results are really pretty good in most areas. But the lions share of the credit or blame goes to the population who either is or is not inclined to follow the law in the first place.

Squeezing departments to produce numbers is a sure fire way to have them enact a quota system which is a sure fire path to corruption which is a sure fire path to contempt for cop on the part of the citizenry which is a sure fire way to increase crime as the years go by.

We need to do everything we can to produce and maintain a justice system that honorable and equitable and run like hell from anything that tends to corrupt that system.

Aurora

[neowolf]

I hope the Denver suburb of Aurora- which has red light cameras at every major intersection in the city, will do the same. I do everything I can to avoid driving through either city. Besides people slamming on their breaks at every intersection, the camera flashes at night are annoying and dangerous!

Re:Aurora

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I have wondered if it would be possible to overexpose the red light cams using some IR diodes to avoid getting tickets. the nice thing is if you are ever pulled over by a cop they won't see the light but the camera will. I know a number of states are going towards more automated license plate readers that operate in IR so it would for sure work for those ones but I don't know about the red light cams as those appear to operate in the visible spectrum as well.

Re:Even Better

[Total Cult]

In some cases, though, this is not pre-set.

Particularly here in the UK, a lot of traffic lights have (possibly capacitive) sensors buried in the road which detect the traffic passing over them. Lights will cycle early if no traffic is detected passing through a green, and/or if traffic is detected waiting at a red, especially at night when there is less traffic. That makes it hard to know in advance when they're going to change.

Another 2c from me: yellow times should depend on the speed limit.

Re:Even Better

[Garybaldy]

All the new fancy crosswalks with countdown timers for the pedestrians do exactly that. It allows me and others (i assume) to see how long before the light turns yellow. Allowing me to make better judgments.

Same thing happening across the pond.

[Skylinux]

Same shit different country.

Re:Even Better

[QQBoss]

Traveling through intersections in Beijing is an exercise in creative insanity. The pathings people follow seem to be made up on the spot, and don't follow the rules as laid down in the driver's manual that I have read. The one thing they did get right is putting countdown timers for the red and green lights on the worst intersections and you can generally figure things off the pedestrian timers when there isn't one for the drivers.

Now if they could just do something about the fact that red symbol plates are legally allowed to ignore all the rules...

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not about safety, it's about MONEY...

Again, govt cant make money without taking it from someone else.

short yellows difficult during ice storms

[peter303]

We had ice-packed roads in Denver last night again. It is not possible to break in three seconds without skidding, especially in a vehicle without fancy electronic brakes. You either have to drive rather slowly- 25 mph or less. Or go through the red light. I do some of both.

What helps a lot is 80% of the light have pedestrian countdowns, which at zero go to yellow. (some states go to red at zero) I can decide to start braking if the countdown is in single digits.

Re:short yellows difficult during ice storms

[Inda]

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.

Re:short yellows difficult during ice storms

[jo_ham]

If you can't stop in time then you're driving too fast for the road conditions, regardless of the timing on the light.

fewer accidents, but more rear-ends

[peter303]

One of the Denver TV stations (FOX) collected these statistics. The city council has commissioned a study. the increased rear ends are from more sudden-braking.

unclear parsing

[KingAlanI]

either or both?

Re:unclear parsing

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I can only assume both since they used four intersections with no camera enforcement as a control group. The drop in total number of accidents is more dramatic at the intersections where the cameras were being used than the ones where only the yellow light time was extended.

Re:unclear parsing

[KingAlanI]

so it sounds like a properly set up experiment, then.

Re:I don't care about saftey

[colinnwn]

I agree with you in principle. But red light cameras have been shown to increase accident rates. I don't want to punish someone at the expense of injuring someone else and increasing the problem the enforcement action was meant to solve.

There are also some people who are sociopaths and blow through orange and red lights. There are other people who just have a bad day and think they can't stop safely when the light changes yellow, and whether it was misjudging distance and speed or a short yellow, end up entering on red. That is annoying to others, but not truly dangerous.

A possible resolution would add some fraction of a second delay after the red turns but before the red light camera started firing. Or disable the red light camera flashes and deal with the fact that sometimes you wouldn't be able to read the license, or use a UV flash, so people can't see them activate.

even without turns as an issue...

[KingAlanI]

even without turns as an issue, sometimes you don't have enough time to break smoothly, but you don't have enough time to run the yellow either. depends on where you are when the light changes
that distance seems like it would be different depending on the yellow light timing, but the factor would still be there.

Re:Even Better

[bondsbw]

Mod parent up. I've also seen in other countries a flashing green signal that warns you that the signal will turn yellow soon, giving the driver more time to make a decision.

crosswalk/traffic light differences

[KingAlanI]

yes, that idea reminded me of the timers on crosswalks.
However, with crosswalks, you have more legal (IANAL) and practical latitude to "run the red":

if it's about to change, has just changed, there's nobody about to turn in front of you in particular
walk fast, run, ride a bicycle (timer geared for slow walkers?)
perhaps cross halfway while that half's clear, stand in a safe spot in the middle, then finish when the second half's clear (rather than having to wait for both halves to be clear)

some of this also works when not crossing at a crosswalk - down the road a bit can have less traffic, and sometimes the crosswalks are out of your way

Longer term studies show the opposite

[Freedom Bug]

Short term studies show that increasing the length of the yellow light decreases accidents, but longer term studies show that the effect disappears over time. As drivers acclimatise to long yellows, they run them more often, which is a dangerous practice.

What I learned from my Red Light ticket...

[JoshDM]

My wife got a red light ticket in South Florida. She ran a red light in a 40 mph zone. The rule is for every 10 miles, the amber (yellow) light stays on for 1 second, rounded up. This would mean the amber would lit and noticeable for 4 seconds.

Most normal people drive 5mph over the limit because police will never pull you over for going 5 miles over and many counties don't even have a fee for that amount, it's just a citation.

That would mean the amber should realistically be on for 5 seconds for a 36-40 mph zone. Had it been on, I think my wife would have noticed it. 4 seconds is too short for a 40 mph zone. Change the equation and you will see fewer red light runners.

Political future?

[sempir]

Denver auditor is recommending canceling the red light camera program unless the city can prove a public-safety benefit."

This man/woman has absolutely no future in politics!

Wait....

[PortHaven]

An intelligent government official?

Estimate 2.74 weeks until departure to the private sector.

Re:Wait....

[GeoGreg]

Eh... this is Dennis Gallagher. He tried to prove an epidemic of unreported absenteeism at the airport by looking at badge-swipe logs that were never intended as an attendance system. If you entered the building with your friend in the morning, stayed all day, and left in the evening, the system never saw you, and he decided you had been absent that day. Of course, he hadn't actually told the employees that they had better swipe their badges as if they were time cards. Needless to say, it caused a ruckus.

I wonder...

[iceaxe]

I wonder how resistant these cameras would be to a high powered air rifle firing pellets designed for hunting small pests. I'm pretty sure they qualify as pests.

They can do it.

[Trax3001BBS]

Many past articles posted to /. shows any preconceived result can be obtained with the proper scientific approach.

Redmond recently ended their program

[neile]

The city of Redmond, WA did a one year pilot study installing red light cameras at a few key intersections. The full study of how well they reduced traffic accidents is worth a read, but in a nutshell there was essentially no impact to the number of traffic collisions. 89% of the citations issued were for turning right on red without coming to a complete stop. The only place the cameras were useful was in the school zone.

Based on the above study the city decided to cancel the contract for the cameras.

Neil

Discouraging thinking

[DarkOx]

The problem with the cameras is its one more case of nanny/surveillance state discouraging people from exercising judgement.

There are times when you should run a red light. Most of them are because of things like driving at an unsafe speed for conditions that should NOT have been doing in the first place; but people make mistakes and don't realize how slick a road might be on occasion, and there is also the case where some a-hole is tailgating you.

The trouble is the camera does not care and drivers know it. If you choose not to stop when there is no traffic on the side streets and the guy behind you is two inches off your bumper the problem is not you! Now if a actual cop was there on the scene he would probably pull the guy behind you over and site him with reckless while you continue on your merry way; the camera on the other hand is going photo your plate and your getting a ticket.

So you have an incentive to just blindly obey the light even when its making you less safe.

Re:Discouraging thinking

[pyrr]

If there is a compelling reason to run the light, talk your way out of it in court. If you have a tailgater, the camera will catch them in-frame too. A properly-configured red light camera won't catch people by surprise (short yellow, instantaneous-tripping when someone enters the intersection as the light turns red), it'll only light-up on those who deliberately are running red lights after they've had ample opportunity to behave and really have no excuse for breaking the law.

The net of it is, people should be aware of stale green lights and be prepared to stop or accelerate slightly to get through the intersection before the signal changes. They should be driving for the conditions, too. Mistakes happen, but when the camera issues the ticket, it's not that costly of a lesson to learn. The problem I have with some red light cameras are those cities that use them solely to drum-up revenue, shortening the yellow phase to the bare minimum. That is unsafe and encourages drivers to slam on their brakes and otherwise do risky things.

As I babble about in my comment farther down, I think properly-implemented red light cameras are great. I'll freely admit that I push things a bit when I'm driving-- I frequently drive about 5-10mph over the posted limit (except in construction and school zones) and I don't stop for yellow lights if I think I can get into the intersection in time. But I've only been lit-up by a red light camera once, and I really would've deserved the ticket and knew it, since it was me just being impatient and exercising really poor judgement...but the ticket never came, I guess because I had the temp tag inside the tinted rear window and the camera just couldn't see it clearly enough for anyone to make out. That's one offense out of thousands of times driving through camera-enforced intersections with my driving habits.

Bikes can't trip the sensor

[tepples]

I imagine that these "stupid stoplights" are at intersections where one road has much more traffic than the other, but the general level of traffic is too much for a stop sign. Such intersections need a demand-actuated signal, which gives the road with more traffic a continuous green signal unless a vehicle is detected in an approaching lane on the cross street. But not all vehicles have enough metal surface to trip an induction loop, especially vehicles with two wheels. So well-tuned demand-actuated signals will have an occasional "nudge phase" every few minutes, where the processor assumes that a vehicle too small for the detector is likely to be waiting at the stop line and gives the primary road a red light anyway. Perhaps you happened to hit a nudge phase.

Dead red

[tepples]

Most cities are installing magnetic sensors at intersections to reduce "stupid stoplights", as you put it.

How do such cities handle cyclists? There are some induction sensors in my home town that I can't trip with my bike even if I lay it all the way down, and unlike Kansas and Idaho, Indiana doesn't appear to have a "dead red" or "malfunctioning signal" statute that allows smaller vehicles to proceed against a red light if the signal has clearly failed to detect the vehicle.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I never really noticed how Denver implemented them

[pyrr]

...but driving quite a bit nearby in Boulder, CO, I LOVE the red light cameras. They're one of the only things the traffic engineers and enforcement folks have done right.

The yellow lights are as long as they've ever been as far as I can tell, but there were a few problem intersections in town where 4-5 cars per lane would continue on through after the light had turned red. It was really out of control, frequently making folks who were turning left at a green arrow signal miss their opportunity to turn. The problem has been almost nonexistent since those cameras were put in around those intersections. They are very conspicuous and there are plenty of big signs warning drivers of the red light camera ahead, and they also don't trip unless someone enters the intersection a couple seconds after the light turns red, making it pretty obvious the city isn't out just to surprise motorists & drum-up revenue with tickets, but want to make sure that people just start heeding the signals. I can't even remember the last time I saw someone trigger one.

If they were evaluating the efficacy of the cameras here, I'd be attending the meetings and voicing my support. It's the way this sort of enforcement should be done, it targets only those scofflaws who misbehave because they think their hurry is more important than everyone else driving the roads and it's okay to break the law when they don't think there's a cop watching. Has it made the intersections safer? Almost certainly. Does it keep traffic flowing more smoothly? You bet. Does it reduce road rage? I'd wager it does.

Like that's going to happen.

[davolfman]

We are talking about a state that makes traffic stops with UNMARKED VEHICLES! Denver's respect for public safety is essentially nill.

Rolling-Right-On-Red

[hduff]

My impression is that while the public understands "running a red light" to be a car speeding straight through an intersection, most tickets at red-light cameras are issued for rolling-right-on-red.

The first act is very dangerous, the latter not so much.

Are there any statistics on the numbers of rolling-right-on-red tickets issued vs. straight through? How about fatality comparisons?

Re:Rolling-Right-On-Red

[GeoGreg]

As a frequent pedestrian in Denver, I can attest that drivers who roll right on red are often not looking for pedestrians approaching from the right, as they are focused on traffic coming from the left. It's not a safe maneuver.

Re:Even Better

[bored_engineer]

Not this: 1. Such a system would probably be a maintenance nightmare. 2. There are already too many signs providing information at urban intersections. Too many engineers insists on providing every tidbit. 3. I'm not sure that you understand how big lettering actually is for a road with a design speed of 45 mph. (I took a look at my sign design book, and for this instance, assuming that we treat it like a regulatory sign, we would want those digits to be 10" tall. Guide signs that use primarily symbols have an icon as tall as 24".) Even monochrome LED displays of this size would be prohibitive when you multiply that by the number of intersections even in a place like Anchorage. 4. It would be a moving thing that would distract drivers from other essential information at an intersections. We are, at basic, a hunting (as well as hunted) animal. Things that move within our vision grab our attention very quickly, without training to the contrary. 5. Signal controllers are extremely slow-moving designs. Like telecommunications equipment, they are heavily tested before they're deployed. Signal timing is complex and the safety considerations are, of course, huge. 6. Behavior. Even generally law-abiding drivers will likely find themselves speeding up to clear an intersection if there were such a clear indication of how long is left. What happens when the driver, who is now going faster, finds that she won't clear the intersection. Your safety problem just got worse.

Sorry, but I've heard this suggestion before, and it makes me shudder. Longer, well-design yellow phases, are proven effective in reducing overall crash rates, rather than one kind of crash as with red light cameras.

Re:Even Better

[bored_engineer]

Sorry. I didn't spend any time on the preview. This was supposed to be a nicely formatted list.

Speed limits & speed enforcement

[swb]

I seem to remember something in driver's ed about Speed Limits being advisory -- they were primarily supposed to inform you of the maximum safe speed for the road which was also the maximum legal speed. But, it wasn't a right, as there was a "basic speed law" that said that the punishable speed limit could actually be lower, depending on driving conditions.

My problem with speed enforcement is that it's not generally automated -- the police setup speed "traps" where people are known to exceed the speed limit. But in my experience, these traps are really just that -- traps -- places where the road conditions are such that the posted speed limit is too slow for driving conditions (visibility, road conditions, traffic levels, limited access disruptions) which subtly encourage drivers to speed AND the officers have a secluded place (blind spot) from which to "catch" speeders.

Ironically, the places where speeding is most dangerous are the places where its most difficult to have speed traps because of traffic, road conditions (small shoulders, limited visibility, etc).

And I've never heard of the police using accident statistics to justify their placement of speed traps. I'm also told by those in law enforcement that speed enforcement in many metro areas has nothing to do with road safety but is considered a crime deterrent (criminals apparently avoid areas with police presence) and field intelligence tool as it allows officers to "interview" motorists and possibly find other, more substantial violations or criminal behavior; a thinly veiled checkpoint.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[pixelpusher220]

I've never heard of the police using accident statistics to justify their placement of speed traps.

I suspect that's because increased speed leads to more severe and more likely fatal accidents and is a fairly settled area of knowledge.

Moreover, it isn't always the specific speed that's the problem but the differential between slowest and fastest. So if you have someone doing 20+ mph over posted, they are likely 10+ or more over the majority of the traffic and that will cause significant issues. Now have someone else doing 10 under posted and you have a 30 mph differential.

The faster you go, the less time you have to react to things you don't expect, like a slower but legal speed limit car pulling out in front of you. Maintaining a constant and relatively uniform speed on the road is much safer.

Obviously, out west with roads that are 50 miles exactly straight on flat level ground, this is a lot less of an issue, but those places also tend to be up to 70mph speeds these days as well.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[Culture20]

these traps are really just that -- traps -- places where the road conditions are such that the posted speed limit is too slow for driving conditions (visibility, road conditions, traffic levels, limited access disruptions) which subtly encourage drivers to speed AND the officers have a secluded place (blind spot) from which to "catch" speeders

The presence of a blind spot that may contain a car is a road condition that merits a lower speed limit for a section of road.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[swb]

I suspect that's because increased speed leads to more severe and more likely fatal accidents and is a fairly settled area of knowledge.

But if the higher speeds aren't resulting in more accidents, you're enforcing speed limits because you can, not because the stretch of road in question results in more accidents. Speed is irrelevant if accidents aren't occuring.

Yes, more speed will make accidents that happen worse, but then again, going 10 mph will be safer than 55, too.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[swb]

The blind spot is an area of ground off the roadway where the policeman can hide without being seen from a distance, it is not a road condition. The squad car is not on an area accessible under any normal driving conditions (ie, this is not the shoulder).

It's about hiding from drivers so they can't slow down ahead of time.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[pixelpusher220]

Speed is irrelevant if accidents aren't occuring.

Fortunately we're talking about *intersections* here where accidents can and do happen pretty regularly.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[pixelpusher220]

It's about hiding from drivers who aren't obeying the law so they can't slow down ahead of time.

fixed that for you.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[swb]

No, it's about entrapping drivers who aren't risking safety.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[pixelpusher220]

Maybe they are maybe they aren't risking safety...but they are still breaking the law.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[swb]

Another victory for the pedantic.

Re:Speed limits & speed enforcement

[pixelpusher220]

I prefer the term 'factually correct'.

If you want to argue about the speed limit on an open road fine, however this discussion isn't about speed limits on open roads.

At least the robotic cars will follow the law!

[sl149q]

To bring this back to yesterdays discussion of robotic cars (which temporarily hijacked the airbus article...)

Reading the above just points out why life will be so much safer once we let the robots take over. They won't be tempted to run yellow lights. They won't run red lights. They won't slam on brakes to avoid red-light camera. They'll follow the rules and generally we won't have to worry about them mis-interpreting them or not following them or ignoring them completely like human drivers do. :-)

Re:Where is your attention?

[PhxBlue]

Every time I'm looking for a red light camera I'm not looking for crossing pedestrians.

Make the decision to stop when you see the light turn yellow. Problem solved.

Every time I'm looking for a speedtrap I'm not watching the road.

Drive within about 5 mph of the speed limit. Problem solved.

Every time I'm watching for a cruiser sneaking up behind me (marked and unmarked) I'm not looking forward.

You shouldn't be looking forward 100 percent of the time anyway. Some of your attention should be on your rear- and side-view mirrors so that you have complete situational awareness.

If I were less concerned about getting a goddamed ticket I'd probably be a safer driver overall (even if it means I speed more or run more red lights).

If you speed more or run more red lights, you are, by definition, not a safer driver.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Bad drives out the good

[harvey the nerd]

Corruption has been being rewarded. Robbed of billions and trillions, many equivalent lifetimes, have we seen anyone proportionately punished? Long wait.

wow, stop a cash cow

[lsatenstein]

Stop the red light and 3 point flash picture..... Our city collects a cool million per year with the number of these cameras. I guess it is about 10k per camera per year.

Not just red-light cameras

[Kaemi]

Red light camera's have been around a while in Australia, but the only problem now is that they have turned them into speed camera's too. The combination of shorter yellows, and having to decide sometimes between risking getting flashed for speeding through the intersection on a ridiculously short yellow, or hitting the brakes and having to hope that the person behind you is paying attention and not trying to 'make it' can be a very difficult decision.

Fine things

[hicksw]

Consistency would be a fine thing, too.

Re:Even Better

[badkarmadayaccount]

Specify the maintenance issue. Fresnel lens would help the size problem, no?

Re:Even Better

[badkarmadayaccount]

Fresnel lenses would help with size, no? What would be the maintenance issues?