Red Light Cameras Raise Crash Risk, Cost

concealment writes with news of dissatisfaction with a pilot program for stoplight-monitoring cameras. The program ran for several years in New Jersey, and according to a new report, the number of car crashes actually increased while the cameras were present. "[The program] appears to be changing drivers’ behavior, state officials said Monday, noting an overall decline in traffic citations and right-angle crashes. The Department of Transportation also said, however, that rear-end crashes have risen by 20 percent and total crashes are up by 0.9 percent at intersections where cameras have operated for at least a year. The agency recommended the program stay in place, calling for 'continued data collection and monitoring' of camera-monitored intersections. The department’s report drew immediate criticism from Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, R-Monmouth, who wants the cameras removed. He called the program 'a dismal failure,' saying DOT statistics show the net costs of accidents had climbed by more than $1 million at intersections with cameras." Other cities are considering dumping the monitoring tech as well, citing similar cost and efficacy issues.

Comments

Why not

[bobstreo]

Just have homeless/unemployed people at the intersections with digital cameras?

Re:Why not

[Anonymous Coward]

This actually did happen in Korea several years ago:

Float back several years in time with me for a moment. There was once a time in Korea when the government got really serious about curbing traffic violations. This was probably due to ranking highly on all sorts of international statistic lists for traffic fatalities.

Anyhow, the Korean government’s solution was to implement a reward system whereby normal citizens would receive a monetary reward for submitting photos of other drivers violating the law. Brilliant idea right? Yeah, and it failed brilliantly too. Wanna guess why? The Korean government failed to take the following into account:

1. The number of false reports and staged photos was absolutely through the roof.

2. People began CAUSING traffic violations in order to profit. For example, they’d block a street momentarily so that an intersection would get filled up with cars during a red light, and then they’d have a friend photograph all the cars stuck in the intersection.

3. People began blackmailing each other. Instead sending the photos into the police, they started trying to sell the photos to the drivers of the cars being photographed while breaking the law, and it turned out to be even MORE profitable.

4. Korean people began quitting their jobs, buying expensive camera gear, and setting up elaborate photograph traps in areas where they knew they could make money. That’s right, people actually quit their day jobs because blackmailing or turning in their fellow citizens all of the sudden became more profitable than working in an office.

5. The government didn’t consider that they would receive hundreds of thousands of photographs, and without some type of standard or rules set in place, would be obligated to pay out insane amounts of money to the thousands of amateur photographers who suddenly materialized across the peninsula. The profits generated by traffic fines went to pay off the photographers, which means no profit for the government.

6. Traffic violators would see another person photographing them, and then they’d get out of the car and beat the shit out of the cameraman.

7. Men would take pictures of women violating traffic laws, and then demand sexual favors in exchange for not submitting the photos to the police.

Thus the “turn in your poorly driving neighbor” policy was scrapped almost as quickly as it started. And no, this isn’t fiction. Ask a Korean about it.

Re:Why not

[D'Sphitz]

You must have skipped over #1 and #2.

Re:Why not

[dlmarti]

Apparently you don't live in New Jersey; we employ the homeless to hold signs at all the intersections, advertising all of the furniture stores doing their weekly going out of business sales. For some reason that no one understands the stores never actually go out of business, its just one of those mysteries.

Re:Why not

[Anonymous Coward]

mother of god.. are they this incompetent? where is the next ship to South Korea? I can scam everybody there.. and have high speed networks..

Re:Why not

[MickLinux]

Actually, I prefer web cams placed all along the roads, each reachable from a city website. line the roads with stripes, so speed can be digitally measured, and keep the last day of footage for public review.

Then, when someone gets cut off, or sees reckless driving, they can post a pointer to the police. Police either confirm or deny claim -- as well as any OTHER infractions they see in the incident. Appropriate citations get mailed out [fine to license only, no points]. Citizen who pointed out the incident first gets 10%. Citizens whose claim is denied cannot register another claim for a week, by automatic lockout.

Now, the unemployed can freelance in traffic patrols, and the wealthy who flaunt the law can fund them. The poor who flaunt the law can stop driving. The reckless can learn a cheaper way to drive.

I think it'd be a win-win situation .

Re:Why not

[NJRoadfan]

They usually close and then reopen a few months later. Always in the same store front too.

Re:Why not

[ArhcAngel]

To hell with homeless/unemployed people. Denmark has a better solution (NSFW)

Re:Why not

[q.kontinuum]

if the women obeyed the traffic laws, there would be no way to blackmail them into sex.

So, lets just abandon the justice system. If anyone makes a mistake we will let the witnesses decide the appropriate action?

Re:Why not

[sabbede]

I like this idea! I see so many drivers flaunt the rules, usually in a dangerous manner, and I want to be able to punish them without having to first load and aim a gun.

Re:Why not

[RaceProUK]

Clearly you've never wanted to turn right in a UK box junction, where you can stop in the intersection (but only for that reason).

Re:Why not

[Silfax]

Usually under a different - but similar name

Re:Why not

[Ven1ger]

Interesting, this article was copied word for word in a blog post and yet I still wasn't able to come up with any other information anywhere about this particular event that is supposed to be true. If it was, then there should have been documentation available or a lot more discussion, but nothing found.

Just because something is in a blog, doesn't make it true. Considering that I have yet to find any relevant information on this with a simple search, this is probably just a made up story for some personal reason or just overblown to the point of absurdity. I've already checked with a couple of friends that are Korean nationals but they never heard or read anything about this before.

Re:Why not

[Shirley Marquez]

Except that it's a hoax. The video is the entire campaign. From speedbandits.dk (translated to English by Google):

"Speedbandits was a campaign from 2006, the Road Safety Council put entrepreneurs to get young drivers to slow down. The campaign consisted exclusively of a video clip, located on, among other things, Youtube. This phenomenon is called viral marketing.

The film is produced by a news report on a non-existent television station and shows the Danish population's alleged new, which should improve road safety: Topless girls standing by the roadside and holding signs with the speed limit."

Cost vs injury

[EdZ]

Hard to tell without access to the raw figures, but if the number of T-bone crashes has reduced, replaced by more rear-end incidents, is it possible that the injury rate, or at least number of serous injuries or fatalities, has decreased? Even if the net cost in car damage increases, that would still be a win in my books.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it still a win in your books when the cities shorten the yellow to generate more tickets?

Re:Cost vs injury

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

is it possible that the injury rate, or at least number of serous injuries or fatalities, has decreased?

I'm as anti-traffic-camera as they come, but I have to agree that this is prime territory for "lies, damned lies and statistics." How do we know that the increase in accidents wasn't due to some other factor and the cameras actually mitigated it? What happened in the bordering towns that didn't deploy cameras? Where there any other changes, like increased number of drivers on the road, etc?

Re:Cost vs injury

[interkin3tic]

Same issue with cities shortening yellow lights: you get increased T-bone collisions. But naturally cities are loath to lengthen the lights, because that reduces their income. At least in this case, safety aligns with what cities are going to do anyway.

Re:Cost vs injury

[IndustrialComplex]

T-bone crashes aren't the type of crashes prevented by red-light cameras to any significant degree.

A T-bone crash can only occur a few seconds into the light when the other lane of traffic has already begun to pass through the intersection. No driver WANTs to run a true red-light. Those times you see someone blow through a red-light that wasn't just someone squeaking through or missing a yellow? Those mid-red light runners completely missed that there was a redlight there at all! They didn't run the red-light because they wanted to, they ran the red-light because they weren't paying attention.

So what effect does a red-light camera have on people who aren't paying enough attention to see that there is a red-light there in the first place? Well, as we can see by these numbers, not much of an effect at all.

I'd be willing to be that there are fewer T-bone style crashes, because of an increased number of people stopped at the intersection, providing something else for the inattentive driver to see (or as the numbers suggest, rear-end)

Re:Cost vs injury

[artor3]

According to this article, which references the same study, the cameras actually seem to make things much better.

On the two intersections where the cameras have been in place the longest, t-bone accidents are down 86%!! And this isn't a revenue stream either, as the number of tickets issued, while spiking initially, drops off substantially as drivers get used to the cameras.

Of course, the article submitter wanted a good ole fashioned anti-government hate-fest, and was happy to massage the numbers accordingly. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, indeed.

Re:Cost vs injury

[IndustrialComplex]

So what happens at intersections without red light cameras? Oh, the light turns red and two to three additional cars still finish their left turns on RED. Ideally, every intersection should be photo enforced.

So miniscule fraction of drivers performed what is really not that dangerous of a maneuver, more inconsiderate than dangerous, and you want to have red-light cameras at every intersection as ideal?

A single police cruiser, for 2 hours rotated around problem intersections could not only cite the drivers, but he could also cover the entire gamut of other traffic offenses which could occur, many of which are much more dangerous than simply doing a yellow-light car conga line. The best part is, after those two hours, the police officer could do all sorts of other police work. Heck, even during those two hours, the officer could respond to actual important calls.

Your entire response reeks of someone who either can't handle another person behaving slightly out of configuration, or the best satire/troll that has ever reeled me in.

Re:Cost vs injury

[rolfwind]

Hard to tell without access to the raw figures, but if the number of T-bone crashes has reduced, replaced by more rear-end incidents, is it possible that the injury rate, or at least number of serous injuries or fatalities, has decreased? Even if the net cost in car damage increases, that would still be a win in my books.

Then why don't you look at the raw data instead of pure conjecture? And no, you are wrong.

http://www.atsol.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012NJDOTrlrfinalreport.pdf

Pay attention to tables 4, 5, and 6.

Re:Cost vs injury

[0123456]

Here's how speed cameras used to work in the UK when I lived there:

Road would have a big crash when there hadn't previously been one for years.
Government would install a speed camera.
Police collect fines from people driving past the camera who don't know it's there.
Locals either take a different route away from the camera, or hit the brakes just before the camera, then accelerate back to their normal driving speed just after it.
No more crashes. Wow, it worked! Except in most previous years there hadn't been a big crash at that spot either.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

No, what is needed are not cameras. What is needed are some combination of:

• Stripes on the pavement to indicate that at the speed limit, you should not stop if you are past this point. This reduces the guesswork that currently makes it difficult to assess whether to enter a light or not.
• Countdown timers on lights to indicate how long the driver has before the light changes to yellow. Again, this reduces the guesswork.
• Longer yellow cycles. Studies consistently show that above a few seconds, drivers do not ever adjust to longer yellow cycles. Thus, lengthening the yellow cycle by only a couple of seconds reliably and reproducibly reduces red light violations to near zero.

Any one of these would result in a far, far greater reduction in traffic light violations and the resulting collisions than any camera system possibly could. The combination of all three would almost (if not completely) eliminate the problem entirely.

The whole rear-end collisions thing is bunk with respect to the cameras. The at-fault is always the driver who is following too closely to the vehicle in front of them so they can't stop in time for the braking vehicle--not the stationary red light camera.

Technically, yes, but the fact of the matter is that increasing the probability of a driver slamming on his or her brakes increases the probability of a rear-end collision, which is a simply inexcusable thing for law enforcement to be doing, given that there are so many better ways of solving the problem in question that do not result in such a negative side effect.

Therefore, given that red light cameras are significantly less effective than alternative techniques, the only real reason to consider them is revenue generation. And if that's the government's only purpose for enforcing traffic laws in a given community, its leaders should resign.

Re:Cost vs injury

[slothman32]

I am also anti-traffic camera.
I am against any kind of public camera as well.
Even if a camera is cheaper/easier/whatever than an actual officer I am still for the person.

P.S. I wonder what Maori or any people who think cameras steal their souls do in a city like London?

Re:Cost vs injury

[Genda]

Actually the result is simple physics. A person is close to the intersection, it goes yellow. Normally he'd just gun through the intersection and be fairly certain to make it through before it changed. But with the camera, he needs to be sure, so he slams on his breaks and the poor bugger behind him eats a bumper. Almost happened to me a couple times.

These collisions can be expensive, but do result in reducing the t-bone accidents cause by one guy running the yellow and another jumping the green (which by the way happens way more often than you'd think. There are a lot of folks out there who think stopping at lights is optional.

Re:Cost vs injury

[thebrieze]

Would mod you up if I had points..

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

For those folks who don't want to take the time to read the article, briefly put, the number of T-bone crashes decreased, but the average severity of those crashes increased, presumably because of people racing to try to get through the light so that they wouldn't get ticketed, failing to do so, and thus being at an unsafe speed at the time of collision.

Thus, even the costs associated with T-bone crashes increased, and although this study did not break down the cost into medical and non-medical costs, one can reasonably assume that although the injury rate decreased because the total number of accidents decreased, the severity of injuries was probably greater, resulting in increased medical costs. That's just not a very good trade.

Red light cameras do not merely encourage positive behavior. They equally encourage both positive behavior and far more reckless behavior, and on average, make things worse according to nearly every metric. Increasing yellow light times (by starting the yellow cycle a second earlier) make things better by nearly every metric. Why don't we do this? Greed. Write your legislators and demand a ban on red light cameras and a return to more reasonable yellow light times.

Re:Cost vs injury

[hduff]

So what effect does a red-light camera have ...

It increases government revenue by ticketing mostly people who make rolling-right turns on red, a practice that does not result in traffic fatalities for the most part.

Re:Cost vs injury

[icebike]

Is it still a win in your books when the cities shorten the yellow to generate more tickets?

You've probably hit on the principal reason for the mixed results. The systems were designed to serve one purpose, but the money was just too good to pass up. The system was perverted to serve a different purpose.

People are so worried about entering an intersection on red that they are causing rear-end accidents by sudden stopping when the safest thing to do is just to roll across the intersection. Most intersections have an all-ways-red interval to handle the guy who enters on what he thought would be a late yellow, but actually was red due to a shortened yellow.

If cameras were not allowed to trigger until the crossing lane's lights were GREEN, and there were statutory yellow durations and statutory all-ways-red durations, it would eliminate all this yellow shortening nonsense, and maybe the cameras would catch the scoff-laws they were intended to catch.

Re:Cost vs injury

[TheGratefulNet]

There are a lot of folks out there who think stopping at lights is optional.

my friend had this strange habit; when we approached an intersection he would speed up and plow thru the red lights. I would ask him why and he would say 'relax, my brother does this all the time'. every time, the same thing: running past a red light and telling me not to worry. it all worked up until we came to a green light and, yes, he slams on his brakes. when I ask why he does *that*, his reply was 'look, my brother could be on that road!'

Re:Cost vs injury

[Dahamma]

Actually, it's damn lies in the slashdot summary, too. From TFA:

"The DOT’s report noted that two intersections in Newark have been part of the camera program for two years, and that 24 others in six communities have been recording violations for at least one year. At the Newark sites, the report said, crashes in the latest year were down by 57 percent from the “pre-camera year,” with decreases of 86 percent for right-angle collisions and 42 percent for same-direction crashes.

It said the number of citations issued at the Newark intersections fell by 85 percent over the two-year period. “

So, crashes are up a total of 0.9% in a year, but the intersections that have had cameras for 2 years are *way* down, as are citations. So, it's also very possible (though still a hypothesis) that it takes a year or so for locals to get used to the concept of cameras, at which point they really start proving their worth.

And even in the "new" cameras, an increase of only 0.9% means while there was a slight increase overall, it's practically a given that a collision from behind because someone couldn't stop fast enough in reaction to hard braking is going to be less dangerous that T-boning someone trying to beat the light...

Re:Cost vs injury

[nickybio]

the only real reason to consider them is revenue generation.

Most definitely this. Red light and speeding cameras alike are there to make money for the local goverment, the camera contractors, and possibly other slimy bastards that have their hands in the pot. No, I don't have a source for this, but it's obvious.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Scarred Intellect]

Stripes on the pavement to indicate that at the speed limit, you should not stop if you are past this point. This reduces the guesswork that currently makes it difficult to assess whether to enter a light or not.

Can you expand on this? Are the stripes for a 3000lb car with 4 wheel anti-lock brakes in ideal conditions (dry pavement)?

Maybe they're for a 3500lb car with drum brakes all around and potentially locking up tires in slippery conditions.

Am I liable, then, if I miss the light because in my 6500lb truck with 2000lbs of cargo I began braking at the line and didn't stop until the intersection (assuming I don't know about such things as increased stopping distances with increased weight).

What if it's raining and I stop at the line but cannot stop in time, and slide into the intersection, causing an accident? Is it my fault? I started stopping where I was supposed to. It is my fault? Then why have the lines if they cannot be relied upon?

While not a bad idea, stripes as you describe is not a solution much like banning talking on cell phones while driving is not a solution much like back-up cameras and blind-spot detectors are not solutions. The solution is more strict driver education and drive tests, where we ensure drivers are much more competent than they currently are.

I've been driving for over 10 years, and have never seen a traffic accident at a stop light, so I wonder if it is even worth changing; are the statistics really that bad?

Your second line: "Countdown timers on lights to indicate how long the driver has before the light changes to yellow." makes way more sense. There's some traffic lights on state highways up here in Washington (outside Moses Lake, north of Wenatchee on 97, and more I'm sure) that have additional signs in front of the lights. They warn about the light beginning to turn, and are timed for the speed limit. If it's not flashing when you pass at the speed limit, you're good. If they're flashing, then even a heavy haul (>100,000lbs) has time to stop. Those are cheap and effective.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Dahamma]

The problem isn't "running the yellow", it's running the red. If it's still yellow it's not against the law. But yeah, I would bet the increase in "same direction collisions" they noticed (which basically was the same as the decrease in right angle collisions) was due precisely to the person behind not paying attention to someone slamming on the brakes...

And I'd be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of accidents are just due to running a red, not "jumping the green". In my current commute I probably see 10 people a day run red lights (especially on left turns), but I have yet to see a single "green jumper". Funny thing is, I swear at least once a week someone runs a light right in front of a cop car, and I have also yet to see that cop actually give a crap and ticket them. Man, if I were the cop I'd make sure they got a ticket just for being so clueless... but I guess that's the point, they know most police don't really care unless they are specifically given that job.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Jstlook]

My understanding has always been that the road has a dotted white line regularly, and at an intersection that dotted line changes to solid at the point where it is still feasible to make it through the light without gunning it (given driving at the speed limit, of course).
Of course, I've also read (and seen) the reports of cities not getting enough revenue off of the red light cameras that they shorten the yellow lights.

Re:Cost vs injury

[viperidaenz]

Maori don't care about anything but Treaty of Waitangi land/water/foreshore/radio spectrum/air space claims.

Re:Cost vs injury

[bored_engineer]

Because of issues with maintenance, wildly different stopping distances for various vehicles, seasonal conditions and liability, the transverse stripes that you recommend are probably a non-starter.

I've seen this suggestion of countdown timers in place of yellow lights, and thought it intriguing. There would be some difficulty in attempting it, though, as current controllers aren't designed to handle this feature. The signal head also needs to be changed, as I don't think the space currently available in signal heads is large enough. (Alaska currently requires that speed limit signs (R2-1) have numbers ~14" high for installation on an expressway. I think that this is about to get slightly larger with new standards due "any day now.") Another issue that designers face already is the perception that we already present drivers with too much information, particularly at intersections.

Increasing the yellow cycle can have a drastic reduction on intersection capacity, particularly at intersections already operating above capacity. A clear safety issue, though, is definitely justification for making such a change, though.

Something that does work, and is used in limited cases, is advance warning flashers. These turn on a sufficient distance and time ahead of the yellow light that the driver is nearly certain to have to stop if the yellow flashers are visible to them. They present a problem with closely spaced intersections, though.

Re:Cost vs injury

[viperidaenz]

I'm too lazy to RTFA. If that's a 0.9% increase in number of accident as opposed to accidents per road user it is probably a good thing, there are more and more road users every single day. If you doubled the number of road users, expect the number of accidents to more than double.

Re:Cost vs injury

[viperidaenz]

Stripes on the pavement to indicate that at the speed limit, you should not stop if you are past this point.

Do they move the stripes when its raining, snowing or otherwise not ideal conditions? What about the large difference in stopping distances between different vehicles?

Longer yellow cycles also decreases traffic flow, increasing congestion. You may as well increase the time all traffic lights are red.

Re:Cost vs injury

[viperidaenz]

Flashing traffic lights typically means "obey uncontrolled intersection give-way rules". Whats wrong with that? It's a pain in the ass sitting at a red traffic light at 3am with no other vehicles in sight.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Dare nMc]

> Increasing yellow light times
Does reduce the amount of green light time, which decreases the number of cars that can pass through the intersection, which increases the traffic congestion, which increases the desire to run the red light...
The citys with the worst congestion are the ones with the most red light running issues. There is a formula for speeds traveling... that gives the optimal yellow light time. If that is being followed, then driver behavior change is the one to encourage.

Re:Cost vs injury

[viperidaenz]

So what effect does a red-light camera have on people who aren't paying enough attention to see that there is a red-light there in the first place? Well, as we can see by these numbers, not much of an effect at all.

The ones that make it through unharmed get a reminder of the financial incentive to pay attention.

I'd be willing to be that there are fewer T-bone style crashes, because of an increased number of people stopped at the intersection, providing something else for the inattentive driver to see (or as the numbers suggest, rear-end)

If true, this is a good thing. A rear-end collision is less likely to injure or kill the occupants. A T-bone is much more likely to kill someone. Fewer cars have curtain airbags and there is no "side impact crumple zone".

Re:Cost vs injury

[dasunt]

No, what is needed are not cameras. What is needed are some combination of:

One thing you missed: Better traffic lights.

Traffic lights do contribute to delays of traffic flow. They slow down traffic, and the contribute to useless delays, as anyone who has sat at a long red light, waiting for cross traffic that doesn't exist.

I'd argue that any large country (I'm looking at you, US) has an incentive to improve traffic light. Right now, the most common intelligent traffic light has ground loops to detect when cars are at the intersection. In this day and age, couldn't we do better?

Imagine a traffic light that could "see" traffic approaching from a distance. It could also see traffic backed up to the light. Instead of turning red when a car or two is approaching and the cross traffic is non-existent, it could remain green. Instead of turning green when traffic is backed up to the light, it could let other traffic, which is clear to continue, go.

Just imagine the time and fuel savings!

And finally, I'd have to say, in this day and age, sometimes intelligence is overrated (even though this negates the above). As a young adult, the traffic lights in my town sensibly shifted to blinking yellow and red at late hours when the traffic was light. The most common through traffic would get blinking yellows. The underused cross streets would get a blinking red. Then, years later, they replaced the traffic lights with a more modern type that would detect when a car was waiting and change the light. This was useless in a small town - approaching from a cross street would result in a longer delay (as the other light would go through a yellow/red change), and if you were on the main street when a car had to cross, you'd have to wait for the red/green change for just one vehicle.

Really, considering how much time Americans spend on the road, and how much time is lost, small improvements result in a big gain in time not lost and gas not burned.

Re:Cost vs injury

[NIK282000]

That sounds like logic! I wont have any logic when it comes to traffic control and regulation, its obscene!

Re:Cost vs injury

[Anonymous Coward]

Missouri state law prohibited yellow light timings below 3.2 seconds for decades.

A few cities installed red-light cameras. The contracts forced the yellow light timing to be under 4 seconds. The lower, the better, according to the private companies that ran them. Then they got caught, in every location they installed them in the entire state, with yellow light times below 3.2 seconds. It seems that the local governments decided to override MODOT's carefully studied light timings with their own.

The legislature responded by passing a law prohibiting 1) yellow lights with less than 4 seconds, and 2) contracts that specify detailed values for anything that falls under the umbrella of public safety without the express approval of an engineering and survey team. They almost got it worded to prohibit mechanical enforcement entirely. Almost.

Then some dumb-ass poor suburb decided to put up a speed camera on a highway that traverses but doesn't exit to their little postage-stamp-sized town. MODOT removed it due to improper signage and failure to perform the legally-mandated engineering survey, and the highway patrol backed them on it.

It's the local-level twats that get on these power trips and invite profit-seekers to hurt people for money.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Concerned Onlooker]

"People are so worried about entering an intersection on red that they are causing rear-end accidents by sudden stopping..."

That's a basic misunderstanding of safety. The people tailgating are the ones causing the accidents.

Re:Cost vs injury

[bjdevil66]

This is a common argument, but the numbers don't play this argument out. The number of fatalities and/or major injuries either stays the same or goes down without the cameras in the intersections.

The ONLY argument from this T-bone point of view is that it cuts down on T-bone accidents which saves several thousand in total costs (medical, etc.) per accident, which is true and sounds great... Until you realize that the savings are reaped by the insurance companies. (It's just another reason that insurance companies lobby for traffic camera technology.) We get the cameras and increase in accidents (minor or not - all those deductibles add up for the average Joe), and insurance companies save money.

Arizona and the Phoenix metro area has seen it all when it comes to photo radar technology. The statewide speed camera program on highways. The red light cameras coming and going. The multiple holdout cities that won't give up their photo radar tech (Phoenix, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Chandler, Superior, etc.,) despite overwhelming evidence that they're a wash (or worse) when it comes to safety AND revenue. (Finding a city councilman who regretted signing draconian camera contract that were supposed to bring in revenue but ended up costing them money in court costs, unpaid tickets, and minimum monthly usage fees - all because they were duped by slick camera company salesmen, selling "safety and easy money"). We're even the home to ATS (a huge camera tech company), and we have Austrailia-based Redflex here in force as well. We've had their lobbyists single-handedly keep photo radar from EVER coming to a statewide vote. We've had the cities intentionally shorten yellow times and break their own laws (Paradise Valley). We've had commission-paid, lying photo radar ticket servers causing all kinds of trouble. We've had people pretty much ignore tickets and throw them in the trash, undermining law enforcement efforts. We've had court systems backlogged with photo radar cases... We've even had one photo radar van driver murdered in cold blood by a "patriot". (And the photo radar company (Redflex) keep from the public just how much information it had about the murder simply to hide how much it was recording in public and around the van for political/PR reasons.)

We've seen just about everything you can imagine... So - No matter how frustrated you may be about "crazy drivers" (whomever that is), you don't want photo radar in your neighborhood. It's never the solution you hoped it would be, and the side effects aren't worth the alleged "cure"...

Re:Cost vs injury

[MickLinux]

I attended a chesapeake city feedback meeting where they introduced the red light cameras. Under Va state law,

1] they are only allowed one camera for each 50000 [or whatever] residents. so they have to pick their intersections where they think it will do the most good.

2] they have to post signage

3] if you enter the intersection something like more than 1 second after it goes red, then you get a ticket.

4] the big concern IS T-bone wrecks, and just by placing plain cameras at known problem sites, they got footage of some extremely egregious violations and horrific wrecks.

So all in all , I suspect that if they got a 0.9% increase in total wrecks, and a, 3%, say] decrease in the horrific wrecks, they'd count it a good day's work.

BTW, I'm surprised that 0.9% has statistical significancee

Re:Cost vs injury

[KingMotley]

Last I checked, the actual formula for determining the yellow light time gave an absolute minimum number of seconds, and a recommended number range. I only know this because I got a red light ticket. It showed everything in video with numbers showing when the light turned yellow, where I was at the time, and where I was when it turned red, as well as the length of the yellow. I looked this up because I felt it was unsafe and nearly impossible to stop safely at that intersection, and I was correct. They changed the yellow duration to 2.01 seconds, exactly .01 seconds longer than the absolute minimum number of seconds required by law, and even that was suspect because of the size of the intersection I believe it would have required a 2.25 second yellow, in which case I would not have been fined. I also noted that if I paid the ticket by mail it didn't go on my record, but if I contested it, then it would be considered a moving violation and an insanely higher fee.

And I also realized that even if I won, I would have paid over 20x the cost of the ticket (and probably much more), so I just paid it and wrote a nasty note on the comment section of my check.

Re:Cost vs injury

[KingMotley]

Oh, and I should also note for all you city planning bastards out there, that it was near a place I regularly spent thousands of dollars per year. After that ticket, I have never been back, so the city lost more in lost sales tax alone than they made on their bogus ticket the first year, and now they continue to lose it many times over.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Anonymous Coward]

If cameras were not allowed to trigger until the crossing lane's lights were GREEN, and there were statutory yellow durations and statutory all-ways-red durations, it would eliminate all this yellow shortening nonsense, and maybe the cameras would catch the scoff-laws they were intended to catch.

Please do not promote 'all red' in any intersection not signalling pedestrian traffic. Traffic moves slow enough. It is a waste of time because it would take a second or two to hit some johnny-turn-lately and we all are going to see them their anyway. A yellow of standard duration should suffice.

I wish the cameras were useful for increasing the flow of traffic. We could give instant-on greens and do cool shit like relighting the left-turn signal as some intersections do mid cycle.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

Stripes on the pavement to indicate that at the speed limit, you should not stop if you are past this point. This reduces the guesswork that currently makes it difficult to assess whether to enter a light or not.

Can you expand on this? Are the stripes for a 3000lb car with 4 wheel anti-lock brakes in ideal conditions (dry pavement)?

Neither. The stripes would be set so that the amount of time that it takes for a vehicle (any vehicle) to travel from that line to the intersection at the speed limit is a fraction of a second less than the time it takes for the light to change from yellow to red. If you're significantly before that line, you need to stop.

The yellow length should be set in such a way that takes into account the things you mention. If it isn't, the intersection is not safe.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

The only solid lines I've seen at intersections are the ones that begin about ten feet after the start of a turn lane. I suppose they might do what you're describing in some places, though. Same basic idea as my line suggestion, but a bit too subtle for my taste, since most people are looking at the road in front of them, not at the dotted line to the side.

Re:Cost vs injury

[icebike]

I don't need to promote it, it's already the standard.

Re:Cost vs injury

[anagama]

That's the issue right there: revenue.

I live in a border county with Canada. They've started installing signs about a hundred yards ... well, meters ... in front of stoplights on major streets. The signs have two yellow flashing lights that flash and a message that says "be prepared to stop when flashing" -- in other words, the warning sign starts flashing and by the time you reach the intersection, the stop light has gone red even though way back when you noticed the warning sign, the stop light still showed green. So you know that even if the stop light is green, if the warning sign is flashing, it'll be red by the time you get there so slowing down is a good idea.

I suppose it will be some time before we know if the warning signs cause people to gun it for the intersection, or if it works as intended. I hope it is the latter because it is 1) unintrusive (no data collection), 2) directly aimed at the issue rather than a backdoor means for private profit at public expense, and 3) pretty darn simple (pole, board, paint, light bulb, timer).

Re:Cost vs injury

[fafalone]

No driver WANTs to run a true red-light. Those times you see someone blow through a red-light that wasn't just someone squeaking through or missing a yellow? Those mid-red light runners completely missed that there was a redlight there at all! They didn't run the red-light because they wanted to, they ran the red-light because they weren't paying attention.

Or it's the middle of the night and they have an unobstructed view of approaching vehicles and don't feel like stopping and/or sitting there for 2-3 minutes on a deserted road. Sometimes it's perfectly safe to run a red light.

Re:Cost vs injury

[harryjohnston]

It seems to me that the problem here isn't the red light cameras. It's the fact that you let corrupt local politicians control the traffic lights.

I kind of understand why (many) Americans aren't keen on the federal government taking more responsibility. But surely traffic safety could and should be the responsibility of the state governments?

I wonder whether similar data is available from nations where traffic lights aren't in the hands of the city council?

Re:Cost vs injury

[bored_engineer]

That distance, the point at which it changes to solid white, is somewhat arbitrary and varies by agency. The solid white line is only to discourage drivers from changing lanes, and is definitely not coordinated with signal timing.

Re:Cost vs injury

[bored_engineer]

traffic light has ground loops to detect when cars are at the intersection. In this day and age, couldn't we do better?

Yes. I started design on new detectors for an intersection that uses a small wireless puck embedded in the road for signal detection. We also use video detection, though we have problems with detection of white cars when there is snow on the road. I'll be working on another design in about 6 months that will install radar detection along a major thoroughfare.

Inductive loops are still commonly in use because they're well understood and reliable. Every signal controller made today can connect to the loops, while some will require special interface adaptors to work with the newer techniques.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Lord_Jeremy]

Reminds me of something I heard very often from two wise men: Don't drive like my brother!

Re:Cost vs injury

[bored_engineer]

The way the cost of an accident is figured by engineers doing a safety study is pretty strict. Each of the types of accidents: non-injury, injury and fatality, is assigned a cost. The way the costs are generally assigned, two injury accidents will be weighted much more heavily, even if the cost of the injuries was minor. On a statistical basis, though, it is an effective technique.

p.s. You can see how they assigned costs in Table 1 on Page 4 of the report.

Re:Cost vs injury

[SydShamino]

City intersections with crosswalks often have countdown timers for the pedestrians. Most of the time the timer light changes to yellow just as the timer reaches 0, so it does exactly what you propose.

And yes, watching those does help me prepare to stop when I need to.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

Sometimes, yes. However, those signs are A. way too small to read clearly from sufficient distance on roads with 40+ MPH speed limits, and B. not always timed to coincide with the end of the yellow, thus frequently causing people to incorrectly slow down, which causes unnecessary traffic backups.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Roachie]

Do you mean to tell me and the rest of Slashdot Nation that there is a government that is engaged in law enforcement activity designed to actually improve public safety by helping people obey the law instead of collecting revenue via the 'gotcha system'???

Where do you live Bizarro World?

Re:Cost vs injury

[locopuyo]

They have these all over in the rural areas around Minnesota and Wisconsin. I think they are mandatory for stoplights on highways over a certain speed limit.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Dahamma]

Depends where you are, but yes, going through on yellow is usually legal, so long as you're through the intersection before the light turns red.

They call that a "permissive" vs. "restrictive" yellow law. Permissive means you just have to enter while it's yellow, restrictive means you need to be through.

And then there are vehicle codes like in CA, where it's so vague no one really knows how to interpret it... (though because of that you are pretty safe if you "enter the intersection on yellow with caution", which is basically permissive... just don't accelerate to go through since that has been legally interpreted as *not* "with caution"...)

Re:Cost vs injury

[dotgain]

I've seen countdown timers on [...] some pedestrian crossings in [...] NZ, they are quite effective. No they're not. NZ pedestrians do not give a fuck, and are as good as cattle on the road.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Another, completely]

Ok, I took the time to read the one referenced by artor3 and the one from the original post, and I don't see where either said the severity of right-angle collisions increased. Both said the total cost of all accidents, including rear-end, went up, but didn't have any more detail.

Even if the average severity had increased, that could just mean that the accidents prevented were usually the less severe ones. Is there another article, or is the original report available the actual breakdown?

Re:Cost vs injury

[adolf]

Imagine a traffic light that could "see" traffic approaching from a distance. It could also see traffic backed up to the light. Instead of turning red when a car or two is approaching and the cross traffic is non-existent, it could remain green. Instead of turning green when traffic is backed up to the light, it could let other traffic, which is clear to continue, go.

Already being done, and has been for years at least in my small Ohio town and in other (mostly larger) nearby cities. There are stated plans to implement such a system at every intersection that is not simply timer-based.

They work great when they're set up to my liking, but either age, maintenance, or (most likely) an intentional desire to slow the flow of traffic seems to make them work less-well as time goes on.

For instance: There is a particular intersection in my town with five roads leading into it. When the video-based system was first installed, one could approach in any direction and as long as there wasn't other traffic, it would see you coming and the light would *always* be green by the time you got there if approaching from a side street at a reasonable speed.

A few seconds after passing through, the light would go to yellow and red, and return to its default state of allowing traffic on the main drag. (Presumably, "a few seconds" would increase if there were more than one car going in the same direction, but I only get to drive one of them at a time...)

It was very nice; folks hardly ever had to wait for anyone else during off-peak hours.

Lately its configuration is such that if approaching from one of the side streets and the light is red, you have to stop and wait for it turn green. This doesn't seem to be any better than an inductive loop in the pavement, and thus the current implementation is a waste of money (IMHO).

(This topic comes up every year or two on /., and I'm continually amazed when folks don't know that such systems exist.)

Re:Cost vs injury

[adolf]

(posted separately because it is an entirely different thing)

And finally, I'd have to say, in this day and age, sometimes intelligence is overrated (even though this negates the above). As a young adult, the traffic lights in my town sensibly shifted to blinking yellow and red at late hours when the traffic was light.

This. We used to have lights that behaved in this fashion all over the place. It worked fine, and it was more-or-less free to implement.

ISTR that they did sometimes go a little wonky after a power outage, but meh: Getting a self-setting clock is trivial and cheap, these days on these scales. (And other, smart, video-controlled lights also seem to go wonky after a power outage here, so double-meh.)

There's no good reason (outside of different variations on intermittent "stadium traffic") where this can't work, and work well, for most straight-forward intersections that have little off-peak traffic.

Time-based 2-way stops FTW.

Re:Cost vs injury

[gnasher719]

> Increasing yellow light times
Does reduce the amount of green light time, which decreases the number of cars that can pass through the intersection, which increases the traffic congestion, which increases the desire to run the red light...

That's actually not how it works.

Where I learned driving, the rules were like this: Green light means you can drive. Yellow light means you have to stop if it is safe to do so (and you don't stop if it is unsafe). Red light you stop - the traffic light needs to be set so that someone driving at the speed limit and too close to stop when the light turns yellow shouldn't see a read light.

The traffic light in the other directions must be set up so that if everyone follows these rules or violates them only slightly, everyone should be safe.

In the USA, it seems you get a speeding ticket if you are not through the crossing when the light turns red. And that opens time for manipulation: If you make the yellow phase shorter by a second, and the red phase longer by a second, keep green the same, then if everyone drives unchanged, the crossing is exacly as safe as ever, exactly the same amount of traffic gets through, but you get more tickets. "Best" case you make the yellow phase so short that it is impossible to get through the crossing before the light turns red, and everybody who reaches the traffic light just when it turns yellow has no chance to avoid a ticket.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Anonymous Coward]

... while there was a slight increase overall, it's practically a given that a collision from behind because someone couldn't stop fast enough in reaction to hard braking is going to be less dangerous that T-boning someone trying to beat the light...

I'm a motorcyclist, jerkface.

Re:Cost vs injury

[thegarbz]

And yet the person behind didn't leave enough space. I suppose it's still the person in front's fault if a kid runs out on to the street?

I'm not sure where you live but here the person behind is ALWAYS at fault if he rear-ends a car. Driving down the road, nothing to be seen, step on the break as hard as possible putting faith of god in my ABS system and the guy behind me hits me? He's at fault. Guy behind doesn't have ABS and I do? He's at fault. Snow on the road? He's at fault.

The fundamental reason behind this is that the guy behind was not leaving enough room to react to a very sudden change in the conditions ahead, aka tailgating. Also tailgating doesn't mean you're riding the guy's bumper, no it means different things at different speeds. In Germany at 100km/h if you're within 50km of the car in front you're tailgating. (Speed in km/h)/2 = (distance in m) in space you need between the car in front of you.

Not that it matters because if you weren't tailgating and you still manage to hit the car in front you're likely asleep at the wheel and guess what, still your fault.

People should be following for the worst case, not thinking about which intersection is safe.

Re:Cost vs injury

[hawkinspeter]

It's simpler if everyone always uses the same following distance i.e. the distance in which you can stop if the other driver has to make an emergency stop. It sounds like you can't tolerate people stopping suddenly unless you're expecting it - you're a bad driver, please get off our roads.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Dahamma]

And in what part of a low speed rear bumper collision vs. a high speed T-bone is the latter BETTER (from either position) on a bike? Please elucidate.

Because I have (had) friends who have been involved in similar situations on bikes. One (who was hit from behind on the highway, not an intersection) broke his collarbone but is fully recovered. The other (hit from the side in a high speed collision) did not recover. Jerkface?

Re:Cost vs injury

[Solandri]

Ah yes, the safety argument. Do you want to know what else would reduce T-bone accidents? Increasing the length of time after a light turns red, before the cross light turns green. That's a helluva lot cheaper than installing a red light camera and the enormous technological and bureaucratic overhead needed to operate them. But it's income first, safety second, so the dirt cheap and more effective but zero revenue solution is passed up in favor of the expensive and less effective but positive revenue solution.

Re:Cost vs injury

[gTsiros]

that's exactly his point.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Sardaukar86]

Maori don't care about anything but Treaty of Waitangi land/water/foreshore/radio spectrum/air space claims.

Not true! They're also quite concerned about promoting their culture and - confusingly - savagely attacking anyone who dares reference or acknowledge said culture (the vile thieves, they have no respect for Maoriora!)

Oh, and blaming 'The White Motherfuckers' for 'keeping the Maori down'.
OT: For those that aren't aware, Maori Party MP Hone Harawira graced us with this phrase from an e-mail sent in 2009:

“White motherfuckers have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries, and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullshit.”.

Grotesque as this may be, the real problem is that he got away with it. Apparently in New Zealand the only people who can be racists are the ones with white skin; everyone else is, of course, oppressed by The Man.

/soapbox

Re:Cost vs injury

[Xest]

Yes, it's sounds like the real problem here is that these areas of the US are suffering from a major tailgating problem above all else.

All a red light camera does is catches people who run a red light. I was always taught that when approaching traffic lights, approach them as if they're going to change and that's exactly what they do. I've never had a problem stopping for a red light, not once and neither have I had anyone go into the back of me at traffic lights.

From the comments on this thread it sounds like people in the US race up to lights and then slam their brakes on and everyone behind them tailgates as that's the only reason red light cameras would increase crash risk and cost. If that's the case then it sounds like there's a more fundamental issue here - that driving test standards in the US simply aren't high enough, and policing of bad driving isn't done well enough.

Maybe the US does need more raised roundabouts, you have little choice but to slow down coming up to them, otherwise you crash right into them and have to explain to the cops how the fuck you managed to land your car in the middle of a roundabout. That way people who drive like idiots automatically get caught because with a bit of shrubbery on the roundabout too it makes it hard for them to get away from the scene, assuming their car is even in good enough state to do so still. They soon learn.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Half-pint HAL]

Yup, my first reaction was "you're trying to change public behaviour -- it doesn't happen overnight." People are in bad habits with regards to traffic lights, and they're learning a new behaviour -- there will be a rough transition. If the long term effect is less injuries, is a few junked cars not a price worth paying...?

Re:Cost vs injury

[Sardaukar86]

No, what is needed are not cameras. What is needed are some combination of:

Love your suggestions, all common-sense approaches that would cost next to nothing to implement. Do you know of somewhere any of these measures are in use? I'm guessing you're probably talking about somewhere Nordic as they tend to be a fairly practical lot.

Technically, yes, but the fact of the matter is that increasing the probability of a driver slamming on his or her brakes increases the probability of a rear-end collision, which is a simply inexcusable thing for law enforcement to be doing

Now here I disagree, because to my mind observing a safe following distance is similar to indicating; Contrary to common belief, it's actually very easy. What's more, it's considerate. It's also significantly safer than tailgating and if people tended to follow at a safe distance we'd all feel a great deal more comfortable on the road. I suspect we might even be statistically safer by some degree.

Why don't people indicate? I've never understood it. It takes so little effort!

Hell, I enjoy indicating in the same way I used to enjoy changing gears when I drove a car with a manual gearbox. It's part of the game, it's fun and it satisfies my deep geek-seated feeling that the world should be fair.. and I want to play fair!

Re:Cost vs injury

[Sardaukar86]

I've seen countdown timers on green traffic lights in China and some pedestrian crossings in Australia and NZ, they are quite effective.

I agree they work very well indeed, from the perspective of the driver and the pedestrian. Predictability is good!

Re:Cost vs injury

[http]

From the perspective of a former cycle courier with almost a decade of experience: If everybody followed the letter of the law, traffic in cities would come to a grinding halt in short order.
You just go ahead and follow the rules. You'll find people cutting in front of you (and then slamming on their brakes) in short order, and myriad horns blaring at you as you wait for pedestrians to leave the crosswalk (or, depending on your jurisdiction, leave your half of the roadway if a two-way street).
The laws aren't there to tell people how to drive. They're there to have a system of blame in place when something unforseeable and hazardous happens.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dintech]

because of people racing to try to get through the light so that they wouldn't get ticketed, failing to do so, and thus being at an unsafe speed at the time of collision.

How is this insightful and why the fuck are they trying to get through the light? That's retarded and so are you for justifying accidents this way. In the UK people who speed up to get through on yellow lights are called 'amber gamblers'. As a safety measure however, the lights on the tangential flow don't actually go green for a few seconds after the lights go red precisely to prevent these asshats killing someone. You take the risk, you get your ticket and it's right that we ticket them while providing safety to other road users.

It sounds like these new US stop-light safety features are in their infancy but showing some promising signs of improvement. It may need driver education and tweaking in some locations. Things like yellow light times appropriate to traffic speed, sufficient distance from the light to the junction to prevent rear-end accidents pushing cars into the intersection, or to slow down after overshooting a red light. Putting your foot down into cross traffic is only an option for people who probably are too inattentive or irresponsible to be on the road anyway. In addition, rear-ending a car because you're tail-gating and not paying attention to the lights is clearly the rear drivers fault.

Red light cameras do not merely encourage positive behavior. They equally encourage both positive behavior and far more reckless behavior, and on average, make things worse according to nearly every metric.

That's like saying laser pens encourage dazzling 747 pilots. You don't HAVE to be a total asshole on the road. There will always be dangerous drivers trying to persist in their bad habits regardless. Then additionally there are the vocal reckless pricks such as yourself trying to convince everyone and anyone that it's justifiable. We should be doing everything we can to make it as unappealing as possible for this behavior to continue. Please hand in your license on the way out...

Re:Cost vs injury

[Half-pint HAL]

That's a slippery slope. "It's safe this time" breaks the habit of obeying the lights, and increases the risk of the driver making a bad decision later down the line. The proper approach to quiet times is for the lights to be timed to go flashing amber, which isn't the drivers' choice.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Half-pint HAL]

The ONLY argument from this T-bone point of view is that it cuts down on T-bone accidents which saves several thousand in total costs (medical, etc.) per accident, which is true and sounds great... Until you realize that the savings are reaped by the insurance companies. (It's just another reason that insurance companies lobby for traffic camera technology.) We get the cameras and increase in accidents (minor or not - all those deductibles add up for the average Joe), and insurance companies save money.

So the whole goal of reducing accidents in your book is to save money? Me, I consider road safety a matter of life-and-death. Your mileage may vary.

Re:Cost vs injury

[swillden]

Right now, the most common intelligent traffic light has ground loops to detect when cars are at the intersection.

This is probably locale-dependent, but in the West and Mountain West, the most common intelligent traffic lights use cameras mounted on the support arm to detect the presence of traffic, not magnetic anomaly detectors under the road.

Re:Cost vs injury

[hawkinspeter]

You seem to have trouble reading as well as driving. I clearly defined the correct following distance as the distance in which you can stop when the driver in front does an emergency stop.

Obviously (to everyone except you), this will vary according to your vehicle, speed, road conditions, visibility etc.

My advice to you is that when you see a car violently swerve in front of you - brake so that you don't run into the back of them (then you can berate the driver for being an asshat).

Re:Cost vs injury

[sabbede]

Yellow duration is generally based on the formula: Seconds Yellow = speed limit/10 If a municipality changes this, you could probably fight a ticket based on it. I would. Traffic law should not be used as a revenue generating tool. That violates the very concept of the rule of law. Anyhow, if you are in the intersection when the light turns red, you ran the light and I hate you and want you punished. I just don't want the money to go to the municipality, as that encourages them to misuse the law.

Re:Cost vs injury

[mog007]

In Germany at 100km/h if you're within 50km of the car in front you're tailgating.

Forgive my American units ineptitude, but unless you're in the Antarctic, isn't it practically a certainty to be within 50 kilometers of another car in any populated country?

Re:Cost vs injury

[RaceProUK]

"People are so worried about entering an intersection on red that they are causing rear-end accidents by sudden stopping..."

That's a basic misunderstanding of safety. The people tailgating are the ones causing the accidents.

No, you are suffering from a basic misunderstanding of how people react to revenue camera intersections and shortened yellow times. They slam on their brakes at a disproportionately higher rate than at intersections with appropriate yellow light times. You cannot expect people to use one following distance for some intersections and a different following distance for others.

UK law makes it very simple - the guy behind is at fault. If you keep the advised separation (2 seconds), you will have plenty of time to safely react to even the harshest emergency brake.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Silfax]

The only thing that is certain to increase is the number of tickets (i.e. municipal revenues). Anything else is just an unintentional side-effect

Most of the tickets generated seem to be for failing to stop for $number_of_seconds before making a right on red. NJ state law does not define a specific $number_of_seconds and local towns have made it whatever they feel like making it.

FWIW I have seen the photo flashes going off when there was no vehicle in or even near the intersection. No idea what they trying to ticket - low flying birds perhaps?

Re:Cost vs injury

[Silfax]

In Germany at 100km/h if you're within 50km of the car in front you're tailgating. (Speed in km/h)/2 = (distance in m) in space you need between the car in front of you.

I think you meant 50m, not 50km - at a 50km following distance, you would never see another car.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Enigmafan]

Lately its configuration is such that if approaching from one of the side streets and the light is red, you have to stop and wait for it turn green. This doesn't seem to be any better than an inductive loop in the pavement, and thus the current implementation is a waste of money (IMHO).

The reason 'they' do this (well, in the Netherlands) is; if local people grow accustomed to the fact that they can always count on the light being green when they are at the intersection, they will after awhile expect it to be green. By delaying the green, people will slow down before they have reached the intersection, which is safer.

Don't know if this is actually true, but it's the rationale given.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I've always said that barbecuing and serving drinks out of the back of your car while driving are no way to go through intersections, son.

Re:Cost vs injury

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

This points out the problem, outsourcing the cameras. The private company has a profit motive pure and simple while there is at least a chance the city is concerned with safety. Maybe a small chance bet a chance.

The private sector has no business enforcing the law.

Re:Cost vs injury

[delt0r]

You know a lot of countries do have legal limits on yellow/red times. I find it odd that the US does not?

Re:Cost vs injury

[hawkinspeter]

In Bangkok, they have timers on their traffic lights, but I think that's when the traffic is stationary at a red light so that they know how much longer they have to wait. I can't remember if they have a timer for when it's on green though. However, traffic in Bangkok is probably not a good example for anywhere else in the world.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

In a region of crappy drivers I'm sure it seems that way. In the Northwest, we do in fact follow the rules. We make complete stops at stop signs, we don't follow closer than we can stop, we allow merging without being forced, and yes, we wait for pedestrians to leave our half of the roadway.

And not only do we have less accidents than other regions, we also have less congestion. And if you're cutting in front of people and slamming on your brakes, you'll simply go to jail.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

If you aren't sure if you're leaving enough space, you're not. And if you're not sure of the road conditions, park and let somebody with a clue drive. Or slow down.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

They drive that way in NJ, the place in the story, and most of the northeast, but don't blame the whole country. It is mostly a regional problem.

Here in Oregon we have a few traffic light cameras, and we don't have any of these problems with them. We do have the whiners who hate following traffic rules, though. The whiners are the national problem.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

It could also be that they're not being used as revenue generation, but revenue cynicism is a common theme of ticket-whiners and anarchists.

Unless it is a small town with more people driving by than are in the town, they're going to lose money on writing tickets because of the overhead. It only takes one guy with a lawyer to make up the cost of 1000s of tickets paid promptly.

And, for practical reasons, ticket revenue generally goes to the general fund, not directly to law enforcement, so you don't see the loss you just see $x revenue from tickets in a column. So a low-information person who notices the smallest bit of information from news stories will get a false picture of the local budget and tickets.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

In Oregon cops will do U-turns in traffic to ticket somebody running a red, it is a high-fatality violation.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Bill_the_Engineer]

So basically what you are saying is that cameras don't cause crashes - people do.

Personally I'd rather have the cameras and give people time to learn how to drive. If more people have accidents because they drive like assholes, then why should I care?

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

It is not only dangerous, it is deadly, and most of the country knows it.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

Gramps, the light can't adjust the yellow length based on the weight and brake condition of approaching vehicles... you're not watching Star Trek you're on slashdot, take your meds and get out on the porch to protect the lawn.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Bill_the_Engineer]

True.

However as a taxpayer, I like the additional revenue without the cost of having a cop manually giving tickets. I mean lets get to the real meat of this controversy which is -- MONEY.

If I can pay less taxes by having the city make money off of drivers who can't follow some simple traffic rules then it sounds like a win.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Jesus fucking christ. If the driver is so stupid that we have to post signs that tell him in detail how to drive then it would be better, for all concerned, to revoke his drivers license and make him use public transportation.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Xest]

It's funny you mention that, when I was in Arizona on holiday some years back our tour guide around Sedona on a pink jeep tour told us she found the sometimes scary situations she got into with her jeep relatively stress free, having come from New Jersey where the driving was horrendous.

Re:Cost vs injury

[interkin3tic]

That's quite simplistic and mostly bandied about by antigovernment nutjobs

And actual studies of traffic. I can see how you could take my post as arguing cities didn't need money, but only if you make wild assumptions. I'd much rather they simply raise taxes: no one dies that way.

As far as lengthening lights, they don't want to do it, because it's inefficient. Ideally, nobody will be using the extra time, except rarely, and if they're traveling the speed limit, they will usually have sufficient time to stop.

In an ideal world where no one runs yellow lights or speeds? What's the point of discussing such a world? Do you think we live in that world?

Re:Cost vs injury

[tguyton]

We have tons of these in my town as well, and it works fine for me because A - for roads with higher speed limits I can at least see one versus two digits left on the timer when I am far enough out for it to make a difference, and B - I'm extremely familiar with the intersections I drive on a daily basis and know the timing well. I've not noticed any issues at any of the intersections with people slowing down too early due to the timers. I'm sure there are plenty more people like me who know the roads well for whom the timers are a reasonable benefit, and I'm sure there are also plenty of people who don't pay attention to them in the slightest. Either way, the effect seems to be a net positive.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Rich0]

The problem with this kind of logic is that you're basically saying that we should pretend we live in some imaginary world where either most people aren't idiots, or where those of us who are not idiots can just get the idiots to stay at home all day and out of sight.

Face it, most people are idiots, and since we live in a democracy that means that they will continue to elect people to office who promise to treat them well.

That means you're better off accepting the inevitable consequence that the road will be full of idiots, and find some way to mitigate that problem.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Plumpaquatsch]

Talking about paying attention: "As such, it is important to remember that safety trends are never established over a single year, and as such additional sustained analysis is needed before concrete conclusions can be drawn."

Also of note: same direction crashes increased on all intersections, not just those with cameras.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Plumpaquatsch]

Write your legislators and demand a ban on red light cameras and a return to more reasonable yellow light times.

Better idea: make red light running a capital offence.

Re:Cost vs injury

[torkus]

And not only do we have less accidents than other regions, we also have less cars

There. Fixed that for you. You simply cannot expect every car in/around NYC to leave a proper following distance and follow all the other myriad of traffic rules all the time. Traffic would come to a complete halt.

Sure, in rural no-mans-land where traffic means waiting for a tractor to cross a road...it's workable. It's still a waste of time and resources to make a full stop at every stop sign when it's clear no one is around.

Re:Cost vs injury

[beerdragoon]

We've had these signs for a decade in BC. The problem is that some people actually speed up when the warning lights start flashing. Basically all it has done is give people a heads up that they need to start accelerating now if they want to make the light up ahead. The end result is people speeding through the intersection far faster than they would be if they had just run the amber light.

Re:Cost vs injury

[ios and web coder]

we also have less congestion

Then I guess you don't live in Seattle.

That is some of the worst traffic I've ever experienced, and I live in New York.

Re:Cost vs injury

[X0563511]

Left-turns should always be yields, not stops, when through-traffic has a green.

Fucking bastards. Not a car in sight but you aren't going anywhere!

Re:Cost vs injury

[danomac]

Yes, but this would also be the safest. They could have bald tires on a snowy road and still have enough time to stop (barely!)

Re:Cost vs injury

[canadian_right]

Stopping suddenly should never cause an accident. You should always stay far enough away from the car in front of you so that if they slam on their brakes you can still stop safely. If you are closer than that you are tailgating. What this study is really saying is that lots of drivers in New Jersey tailgate.

Red light cameras have cut down accidents in BC. They did not shorten the yellow, the cameras are obvious, and there are generally warning signs. The law here is that if you rear end someone it is your fault, 100% no exceptions. This law helps keep tailgating down some.

The flashing yellow warning lights before intersections are only for highways. They are timed so that you cannot make it through the light if you are travelling at the speed limit if they turn on and you are close to the sign. If you are already speeding you might make it through if they just turned on. So yes, some people do speed up, but in general I feel they make highways safer.

Re:Cost vs injury

[X0563511]

What about a kind of beacon or reflector that could be issued to drivers?

Re:Cost vs injury

[Bill_the_Engineer]

That means you're better off accepting the inevitable consequence that the road will be full of idiots, and find some way to mitigate that problem.

I thought the way to mitigate the problem was to revoke the drivers license and have steep fines for driving without a valid drivers license.

Re:Cost vs injury

[digitalsolo]

From the perspective of a former cycle courier with almost a decade of experience: If everybody followed the letter of the law, traffic in cities would come to a grinding halt in short order. You just go ahead and follow the rules. You'll find people cutting in front of you (and then slamming on their brakes) in short order, and myriad horns blaring at you as you wait for pedestrians to leave the crosswalk (or, depending on your jurisdiction, leave your half of the roadway if a two-way street).

If -everyone- was following the letter of the law, none of what you just described above would be happening. The problem is as soon as a few people choose not to, the entire system falls apart. This may have been your overarching point, but your first sentence seems to contradict that.

Re:Cost vs injury

[digitalsolo]

That is similar to here (Indiana); yellow means to clear the intersection. Generally this is taken to mean you can continue through a yellow light if you are already moving, as long as you do not accelerate through the light. If the light is yellow and you are stopped (say a turn lane) but have not yet broken the "plane" of the intersection, you are not permitted to go, if you are already in the intersection but stopped (again, turn lane) you are allowed to finish the turn.

With rules like this, it's a wonder to me that the massive volume of idiots around don't all run into each other more often, honestly.

Re:Cost vs injury

[operagost]

The people tailgating are the ones causing the accidents.

That's an easy thing to say, but people running lights were causing the problem before. So now the tailgating has become evident. What's your solution for this? A pie-in-the-sky drive-by-rail system? Or perhaps outlawing cars and making everyone use buses (hope they don't tailgate)?

Re:Cost vs injury

[gorzek]

I live in New Jersey and have seen these, as well. I've also seen them in the Columbus, Ohio area. I like them. It saves me the trouble of watching that light half a mile ahead, wondering if it's going to suddenly flip yellow and I have to make that snap judgment about whether to hit the brakes. When it's flashing to tell me the light will be going red soon, I let off the gas and just prepare to brake toward the light once I get closer.

I've not seen too many people try to gun through, though there are those who will do it regardless.

On the whole, I think they're a good idea.

Re:Cost vs injury

[operagost]

I've never had a problem stopping for a red light, not once and neither have I had anyone go into the back of me at traffic lights.

I have. There is an intersection near me that has the following characteristics:

1. Irregular four way (the cross streets don't meet in the same place, so there is a right turn lane with a YIELD;
2. At the bottom of a hill;
3. With limited visibility from one direction coming down the hill;
4. And a yellow signal that is less than 3 seconds long (which is probably a law violation)

Everyone knows about these problems, but they don't implement the fixes (a "RED SIGNAL AHEAD" sign coming down the limited visibility direction and a longer yellow would help greatly) because they're the government and they don't have to.

Re:Cost vs injury

[operagost]

Oh, BTW your needless roundabouts are wearing out people's breaks and wasting fuel. Why do you hate the planet?

Re:Cost vs injury

[bossk538]

Exactly. In Manhattan (I suppose elsewhere as well), you are not supposed to enter an intersection if there is no room on the other side to avoid gridlock. In the aftermath of Sandy when there were no subways running, many people decided to drive into work, and everyone decided to ignore this particular rule with the predictable result of traffic grinding to a halt. So instead of about 10 minutes to get to where you were going in Manhattan, which would have been easily accomplished without gridlock, it took hours.

Re:Cost vs injury

[operagost]

Driver swerves in front of you from side street. You hit him square in the back and according to the law, it's your fault.

Re:Cost vs injury

[operagost]

See, that's why red light cameras are great: a computer issues a ticket through the mail for very little overhead. No police needed. So we have paid fewer cops on the street to protect us from real crime (and the ones there are sneaking around in unmarked cars looking for moving violations instead of being a deterrent) and lots of revenue.

Re:Cost vs injury

[operagost]

Meh. The US Vice President told a bunch of black folks in a church that the Republicans were trying to put them back in chains.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Dare nMc]

> if you are not through the crossing when the light turns red.
While traffic laws very state to state, this part is universal, you must enter the intersection on red to get a ticket for violating a red light. what varies is what is considered entering the intersection. In Arizona this line is where you enter the other lane, often in the city the line youa are required to stop at is behind a crosswalk, and can thus be 6 foot behind the line where you must not cross on red. This causes the confusion when people see the ticket pictures. It is a pain cause the line your deciding if you can stop at, is not the same line that says your safely in the intersection.

Re:Cost vs injury

[RaceProUK]

Way to totally misread what I wrote. In your scenario, the driver pulling out is clearly at fault, as he has to merge with a different flow of traffic. If you actually applied context, you'd see that too.

Re:Cost vs injury

[J-1000]

I agree with everything you wrote there. A common, mind-numbing problem many stoplights have is that after they lose power for a period of time, a huge grid of them start blinking red! Why would the default be a blinking red? The default should at the very least be configurable and not a 4-way stop. Your mention of stoplights that "see" is far better still, of course.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

This needs to be modded up. Even in a fairly non-congested city like Columbus, OH where I live, it still gets congested enough that you just can't simply follow the letter of the law because traffic would go nowhere. Safe following distance is always the first thing to go, and it's not just out of stupidity, it's also out of necessity - and that's when it's not rush hour.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

Wrong. The reason it doesn't work that way is because there's just simply too much traffic for the size and number of streets. If you could actually force people to drive that way in a big city like NYC or Chicago you'd have traffic at a crawl ALL THE TIME rather than just rush hour.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

You're on a street with two lanes going in your direction. Traffic light ahead of you is read with cars waiting. You're slowing down as you're closing in on the stopped traffic in your lane. Suddenly a car in the other lane cuts over into your lane because the traffic in his lane is stopped farther back, and he can't see the stopped traffic in your lane. Now he has to slam on the breaks. You slam into his rear end. Obviously you are at fault, because you just rear-ended him. You should have been anticipating him to cut you off at the last second.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

I hate typos.

Re:Cost vs injury

[RaceProUK]

Again, way to misread my words. Are you creating unrelated scenarios just so you can feel superior for 5 seconds?

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

Clearly you've never lived in a big city, or you'd realize that driving at a safe following distance is often simply not possible.

Re:Cost vs injury

[digitalsolo]

Prove it or state that it's your opinion. Randomly stating that you're correct does not, in fact, make you correct.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

Now here I disagree, because to my mind observing a safe following distance is similar to indicating; Contrary to common belief, it's actually very easy. What's more, it's considerate. It's also significantly safer than tailgating and if people tended to follow at a safe distance we'd all feel a great deal more comfortable on the road. I suspect we might even be statistically safer by some degree.

The problem is that I have little choice in the matter when it comes to whether someone is tailgating me. Even if their insurance does pay for the damage, it still causes me an inconvenience (and possibly injures me) if I stop to avoid getting caught by a red light camera and the guy behind me doesn't.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

Who said anything about adjusting? The yellow light must, by definition, be long enough so that after the driver has had a moment to notice the light, a driver driving the heaviest, hardest-to-brake vehicle that is likely to travel the road in question either has time to stop safely or, if the vehicle is too close to stop safely before entering the intersection, has enough time to safely roll through the intersection at the speed limit before the cross direction turns green. Period. Any intersection with a shorter yellow light is a fundamentally unsafe intersection, and should result in jail time for the traffic engineer who set it up.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

Small self-correction: not just at the speed limit, but rather at all speeds that are typical for the road. So if vehicles frequently drive ten over or under the limit, it has to be long enough to pass the above test at ten over or under as well.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

It's a lot easier to demonstrate than you think. Of course, if you want actual proof you'll have to go find another universe because such a thing doesn't exist in this one.

Let's say there are 10 cars per minute driving through a stretch of highway containing an on-ramp. Now let's say 10 cars are trying to merge into in from that on-ramp every minute. Not a problem. They find spaces in the traffic and merge, and the flow of traffic continues. Now let's double that, and we have 20 cars driving by per minute, and 20 merging per minute. Probably still not too bad. Double it again. And again. Before long, we've hit a point where a merging driver has no choice but to squeeze in where there's not adequate following distance. Now he has to keep speed down so he stays far enough behind the car he merged in behind, and the car he merged in front of has to immediately slow down to maintain safe following distance. But because it's a busy highway, the flow of merging traffic continues, and the only way to keep maintaining safe following distance is for cars already on the highway to keep slowing down, and keep slowing down, and keep slowing down. Now all of a sudden everyone is driving at 5mph because that's the only way to maintain a safe following distance. I could do a quick graphical simulation for you, but I really can't be arsed to spend that much time on something this obvious.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

I didn't misread anything. I just demonstrated how your statement is either incomplete or false.

UK law makes it very simple - the guy behind is at fault. If you keep the advised separation (2 seconds), you will have plenty of time to safely react to even the harshest emergency brake.

In my scenario, you were behind the other car. You kept the advised separation. You did not have sufficient time to react to the harshest emergency. Thus, your statement is incorrect.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Sardaukar86]

The problem is that I have little choice in the matter when it comes to whether someone is tailgating me. Even if their insurance does pay for the damage, it still causes me an inconvenience (and possibly injures me) if I stop to avoid getting caught by a red light camera and the guy behind me doesn't.

Sorry, you are of course quite right. What I was getting at (and failed to elucidate) was that the problem of tailgating is significant, can easily cause injuries and likely a lot of inconvenience as you point out. My point is that the problems are quite easy to avoid and that there is no excuse for either behaviour.

Despite this, tailgating and failing to indicate are not punished by law enforcement officers for whatever reason. I suggest that these two offences are the low-hanging fruit that with proper enforcement and the backing of a suitable awareness campaign may make the road a great deal more pleasant to drive on.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

And that's exactly why roundabouts are so much better at any busy intersection. The only reason they still somewhat suck in the US is because of old or stupid drivers who aren't used to them and/or can't figure them out.

Re:Cost vs injury

[RaceProUK]

I was replying to this post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3278431&cid=42114519), which has as much to do with your scenario as Kelsey Grammer's left sock. Instead, you decided to take mty post out of context in some vain attempt to make yourself all smug and superior.

Definition of context, sine you clearly don't know what it means.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

There is no end to the idiocy you display.

But without getting too deep into the BS, you're mixing claiming that it be long enough to account for the worst conditions, the heaviest vehicle, and the worst brakes. So, a heavy vehicle on ice that can't stop anyways.

But perhaps worse, you mix an absolute worst case on one part with a "typical" speed on the other.

The mixed units pretty much explains it all... once again, take your meds, gramps.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

It is an advantage, for sure. But it isn't a money-maker. It simply reduces the cost of enforcement.

Re:Cost vs injury

[digitalsolo]

Your example is rife with not necessarily valid assumptions. I'd explain it, but I can't be arsed to spend that much time on something so obvious.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

Sorry to spoil your "it isn't our fault we can't drive" parade, but Portland, OR metro region is the same size as Columbus, OH, and doesn't have a bunch of congestion. Actually it is easy to drive in Portland. Even Seattle is not bad.

The mistake you make is thinking that when most people ignore the laws, and a few follow them, you're blaming the few. Yes, it is true, in places that have bad congestion, most people don't follow the traffic laws. And those people tend to get negative feelings towards people who follow the rules. But your mistake is correlating following the rules with congestion. It is only the places where people commonly break the rules that have it that bad. Following traffic rules is simply more efficient, in addition to being safer. True, that efficiency isn't gained unless enough people follow the rules.

You cut somebody following the rules off, thinking how stupid they are to be in your way, and the next thing there is solid gridlock because idiots didn't wait until their turn. In a city where people try to follow the rules, you NEVER EVER have gridlock traffic jams.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

Prove it or state that it's your opinion. Randomly making up bullshit does not, in fact, make you correct. It does, however, make you a troll.

Re:Cost vs injury

[bzipitidoo]

Revenue cynicism and whiners is it? You are trolling. There is such a thing as objectivity, which can be applied to determine whether a complaint is fair or not. In this case, we have documented evidence of yellow lights being shortened below what little we do have in the way of standards. This cheating is quite common. We also have many cases of cities abandoning their red light camera programs when they prove unprofitable.

Enforcement should always be the last resort for dealing with a problem. If a problem can be fixed without resorting to heavy penalties, we should do so. Moralizing about it is especially touchy. And there is a simple fix-- come up with a fair standard for the length of the yellow, and stick to it. While we do have some minimums that aren't good enough, you'll notice we have no maximum. We could make the yellow light last 10 seconds or longer if we wanted. As far as I know, no light has ever been set so, why is that?

That we don't have a fair standard is all the evidence a reasonable person needs to know what this is really all about.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

Then you should have made your context clear in your post rather than making a blanket statement. But that aside, there's plenty of situations in big cities where it's simply not possible to maintain such a following distance that you'd be able to avoid rear-ending someone who suddenly mashed the breaks to the floor. Well, not without causing other worse traffic hazards anyway. Often, the safest course is in fact to use your best judgement and maintain a following distance that's only safe enough with typical driving behavior. With so much traffic on the road, it's simply not possible to account for everything, no matter how good a driver you are.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

Wow, what an irrelevant and aggressively incorrect post.

It's really very, very simple.

Fact 1: When the amount of traffic sufficiently exceeds what the road infrastructure is designed to handle, you're going to have slowdowns and gridlock.
Fact 2: You can, to a point, reduce or eliminate the slowdowns by having drivers pack in tighter than the letter of the law dictates.

That's really all there is to it.

Re:Cost vs injury

[RaceProUK]

Then you should have made your context clear in your post

And there I thought the parent post was sufficient context. Oh well. From now on, just for you, I'll define the complete context of all posts I make, even if it means writing the equivalent of War & Peace each time.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

Yes, it's sounds like the real problem here is that these areas of the US are suffering from a major tailgating problem above all else.

No, there's two real problems, and that's not it. Problem number one is simply too many cars on the roads. This could be alleviated by better public/mass transportation, but that's expensive. It could also be alleviated by building bigger and better roads but that's also expensive. Problem number two is that most police departments are a lot more concerned about revenue than safety.

Re:Cost vs injury

[eth1]

Funny thing is, I swear at least once a week someone runs a light right in front of a cop car, and I have also yet to see that cop actually give a crap and ticket them. Man, if I were the cop I'd make sure they got a ticket just for being so clueless... but I guess that's the point, they know most police don't really care unless they are specifically given that job.

I do a lot of volunteer work with my local PD, and so I've had a chance to talk to them about this very issue. What they told me is that it's extremely difficult to SAFELY enforce red light-running if they're not specifically staking out the intersection to do so.

They have to be able to see the light that the car ran, at the time they entered the intersection, or they likely can't get the ticket to stick in court ("It was green in this direction, so it must have been red for them" isn't good enough). If they can see that, they're on the wrong side of the intersection to catch them, which means they have to run the light themselves with lights/sirens, which, at a busy intersection has a fairly high chance to cause an accident itself. I've actually been in the car with them, while they're practically pulling their hair out and cursing because someone blatantly ran the light, but they can't get them, or can't get them without unduly endangering others.

Re:Cost vs injury

[digitalsolo]

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the definition of troll. Pointing out that you are randomly spouting off your opinions as facts doesn't make me a troll, it just makes you, well, less than thorough. By all means keep digging though.

Re:Cost vs injury

[DeadCatX2]

I'm surprised that 0.9% has statistical significance

Seems like you don't understand how statistical significance works.

Hint: it has to do with the size of the error bars.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

To the best of my recollection, I never said anything about the worst weather conditions. I said the worst vehicle that typically drives on the road, based on the entire range of speeds that are typical for the road. Driving in adverse weather is a different matter entirely and falls outside the range of things you can fully compensate for in the worst case. That said, as a driver, you are required by law to drive more slowly under conditions that would increase your stopping distance, which means that if you are driving at a speed where you are unable to stop between when the light turns yellow and when it turns red, you were driving at an unsafe speed and can be cited for it.

Re:Cost vs injury

[bzipitidoo]

Sometimes lights malfunction. Sometimes the sensors fail to detect a vehicle. I've had that happen to me a few times. Late at night once I spent over five minutes waiting for a light to change. In all that time, I saw just one other car on the crossing road. Finally another car came up beside me and the light still did not change. The other fellow finally ran the light.

Are you going to wait at a red light at an empty intersection for 10 minutes? 15 minutes? At what point do you decide it's not working correctly? Blind obedience means you wait there until it turns green, even if it takes all night.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Endo13]

You're more subtle than most trolls, I'll grant you that. But this is where it ends. Sorry, I'm done feeding the troll.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Dahamma]

Interesting to hear that perspective - and yeah, I suppose many times it's just not worth the risk if no harm was done. Though I have in several cases seen multiple cars go through left turns so red that the other direction had been green for several seconds and cars had to stop/wait. With a police car at the front of the line. And still nothing. I'm pretty sure there is a bit of "it's the end of my shift, why would I want to get involved in that" mentality (especially, and also ironically, that one of the worst intersections is literally a block from the main PD building...)

And while traffic enforcement cameras do seem kind of creepy, honestly, things are so bad in my area I would be 100% in favor of red light cameras at selected intersections...

Re:Cost vs injury

[thegarbz]

Jeesh you Americans and your imperial ineptitude.

Oh yes 50m ;-)

Re:Cost vs injury

[thegarbz]

If you pull into a gap which puts the car behind in a position of tailgating then what you're doing is called cutting-off the traffic. Also illegal in most of the western world.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Aighearach]

Fact 1: When the amount of traffic sufficiently exceeds what the road infrastructure is designed to handle, you're going to have slowdowns and gridlock.

You call me "aggressively incorrect" and then follow it with this stinker of a lie? Gimme a break. If your roads exceed capacity, and people follow the rules, they'll be sitting in their driveways unable to get onto the street before you'll have gridlock. You'd have speeds decrease with no end without gridlock. Gridlock is a very specific problem that can ONLY happen when people break the rules.

Fact 2: You can, to a point, reduce or eliminate the slowdowns by having drivers pack in tighter than the letter of the law dictates.

That's really all there is to it.

That is a wild theory, not a "fact." It is also totally wrong. Ignoring traffic rules causes the same number of drivers to have more congestion, and even whole categories of obstruction like "gridlock" that are entirely prevented by the rules.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Half-pint HAL]

That's different. The important habit is to stop at the red light. Once you've stopped, you can take a rational decision. But the act of stopping has to be automatic -- without thinking. If you try to make the decision before you stop, you will increase your average reaction time to lights, by getting in the habit of deciding.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Rich0]

That means you're better off accepting the inevitable consequence that the road will be full of idiots, and find some way to mitigate that problem.

I thought the way to mitigate the problem was to revoke the drivers license and have steep fines for driving without a valid drivers license.

Hence the first part of my post: "The problem with this kind of logic is that you're basically saying that we should pretend we live in some imaginary world where...those of us who are not idiots can just get the idiots to stay at home all day and out of sight."

We don't live in that world. The idiots outnumber both you and I, and to be honest I'm a bit concerned that you might be one of them, just like every other person I've met. :)

Sure, getting everybody off the road but myself (and I'll let you drive as well as long as you stay on the other side of the country) would solve the problem. However, that could be a tough sell to the politicians.

Re:Cost vs injury

[quacking duck]

I was almost hit by a "rolling right on red" driver. The 2-second all-way red was already over, I had the green light and white walk sign, the driver didn't give a damn that he'd already faced 2+ seconds of red and kept going. The slowest he got during the turn was probably 20 km/h and there was tire squeal as he turned. Thank goodness I don't (usually) blindly go ahead on a walk signal, and saw that with his approach speed there was no way he'd stop in time if I stepped onto the road. My not stepping ahead was apparently interpreted as my giving him permission to run the red.

A red light (or stop sign for that matter) is NOT an optional stop for right turns. It's full-stop, proceed if clear.

In short: Fuck them, government can make as much revenue from those drivers as they like.

Re:Cost vs injury

[quacking duck]

Thus, even the costs associated with T-bone crashes increased, and although this study did not break down the cost into medical and non-medical costs, one can reasonably assume that although the injury rate decreased because the total number of accidents decreased, the severity of injuries was probably greater, resulting in increased medical costs. That's just not a very good trade.

>

I would contest that assumption.

The more deadly T-bone is a) impact from redlight runner at high speed b) into the SIDE of a car, where there's no front-end-sized crumple zone and side-impact airbags are a recent thing, so older cars don't have them.

There's T-bones where the just-accelerating car hits the side of speeding redlight runner, but this doesn't happen as often (the speeder's side is exposed for less time) and if it does, the green-light driver is does not suffer as great an impact, even if they're subsequently hit by a neighbouring car when the impact knocks them into their lane (both were accelerating from stop). The red-light running car might then spin out and/or crash into something else, of course, but that's much harder to say with certainty.

Meanwhile, cars have been built and tested for front and rear end collisions for decades. You have a large crumple zone in the front, a fair amount in the back, plus seats and headrests to cushion a rear-ending. A tailgater slamming into a braking car in front of them will be less damaging for occupants of both, compared to a T-bone where the victim is much more likely to suffer a greater injury than the redlight runner.

This is not an argument for or against redlight cameras, merely comparing effects of crash types. If it had to happen to me, I'd prefer a rear-ending over a side-impact any day.

Re:Cost vs injury

[LunaticTippy]

A traffic engineer told me that many lights have this behavior for safety. There may be intermittent power and lights out nearby and this helps make drivers more aware. There are few things as dangerous as a high speed intersection with traffic lights out at night.

Re:Cost vs injury

[metaforest]

Easier to deal with is the 2 second rule. Watch for a road feature, discoloration, crack, paint line... etc. When a noticeable feature is revealed from beneath the car ahead of you, begin counting... One-one-thousand, two--one-thousand. If the feature you are paying attention to disappears below your hood, you are too damn close. This works at all reasonable driving speeds. At very low speeds ( 6 mph) you should be able to see the road and the point where the rear tires of the vehicle in front of you contact the road. This is also true if you are stopped in traffic. Cant see their rear-tire patch? You are too damned close.

Personally I like to keep a 2.5 second gap at speeds greater than 45mph, incase the car(s) ahead of me drop something into the road. I've been doing this for so long it is automatic. I have never even come close to hitting a car in front of me, even when in on case the car ahead of me crawled up onto the Jersey Barrier... causing it to decelerate much faster than expected. I had more than enough time to check mirrors and get out of the lane.

Re:Cost vs injury

[Raenex]

The slowest he got during the turn was probably 20 km/h and there was tire squeal as he turned.

That's not a "rolling stop". A rolling stop means that you almost completely stop while checking the intersection. You can safely do that while not coming to a complete stop. The situation you described was somebody driving recklessly: going too fast and ignoring the crosswalk.

related to yellow-light shortening?

[Trepidity]

There have been a number of scandals, including in New Jersey, where installation of cameras was found to coincide with, or be followed shortly thereafter by, shortening the yellow-light duration, presumably to make more money from the resulting tickets.

This article implies that the cameras themselves are at fault, but I wonder if the shortened yellow-light duration is actually the primary culprit.

Re:related to yellow-light shortening?

[qeveren]

Florida was doing this, too, IIRC. They've gotta knock that dishonest bullshit off.

Re:related to yellow-light shortening?

[leon.gandalf]

the real problem is people are just too fucking stupid to know that you stop if safe to do so for a yellow light. You do not stomp on the gas.

Re:related to yellow-light shortening?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they? The dishonest bullshit makes them rich and they keep getting away with it.

Re:related to yellow-light shortening?

[Anonymous Coward]

the real problem is people are just too fucking stupid to know that you stop if safe to do so for a yellow light. You do not stomp on the gas.

Yes, it is always the people who are stupid, not the fucking engineering. Perhaps people stomp on the gas because the yellow duration has been shorted and they wouldn't stop in time? And perhaps the timing for a safe stop distance is based on a far slower speed than people actually drive?

If your core design assumption is that people are fucking stupid and need to be punished so that they will stay in line with the system that is implemented, then you are a shitty fucking engineer. Roads are a tool tool to transport people, not your science project on social obedience.

Re:related to yellow-light shortening?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you put a yellow light in a 45mph zone that lasts half a second, it's never safe to stop. (45mph = 66ft/s, stopping distance at 45mph is ~100ft not counting reaction time, so if you react instantly, you'll still have ~70ft left to go before you come to a stop on the other side of the intersection after the light turned red.

already happened in my area

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, it was the low revenue (low three-digit range after five years of handing out fines) that forced the decision. With red light cameras, the private contractor is the real winner. Everyone else, from local citizen to local government only loses.

http://www.pe.com/local-news/san-bernardino-county/san-bernardino-county-headlines-index/20101205-loma-linda-red-light-cameras-switched-off.ece

Re:already happened in my area

[damienl451]

Why raises the question. If it's so profitable for the private contractor and is a big loss for the city, why don't cities in the US do what most other places do and get rid of the middleman? Especially when I see that the company referenced in the article actually touts "maximizing prosecutions" as a benefit of the system, when the only reason for red-light cameras would be improving safety. A well-designed system is one that results in as few prosecutions as possible. The ideal number of prosecutions is close to zero because that would mean the camera is doing its job of preventing people from doing dangerous things and that only the worst offenders are prosecuted. Here (European country), it's all done in-house by the police, with stringent legislation (minimum yellow time based on the speed limit for the road, safety margin) that ensures that only people who deliberately run the red light get caught. I've never been in a situation where I *had* to run the red light because the yellow phase lasts long enough for everyone to either be able to stop safely or to cross the stop line before the light turns red.

Note that I'm not against outsourcing if it's really more cost effective. But if it ends up wasting money, it's not a good idea.

Works fine here

[wimg]

Works fine in Belgium, where there's hundreds of cameras and we see a steady decrease in the number of casualties at those lights. But maybe that's because there are so many, people actually start slowing down well in advance and don't hit the brakes as soon as they see a camera...

Re:Works fine here

[damienl451]

I agree, they don't. The yellow light has to be on for at least three seconds under 50 kph (31 mph), 3s to 4s between 50 kph and 70 kph (43 mph), and 4s-5s above 70. The Flemish region, where the vast majority of the red light cameras are, always uses the largest of these values. And 4 seconds is a long time in a car. With a 4 second yellow light, there really is no way to run a red light unless you were able to stop safely and chose not to. Impossible.

Re:in New Jersey? really?

[Anonymous Coward]

along with the asian truck drivers

Racist much?

Re:Honestly...

[qeveren]

What honest excuse do you have for running a red light? It isn't like you don't get plenty of warning that the thing is going to change.

Bad driving != Legit reason to can red-light cams

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people should actually obey the Orange light (which at least in my country is 'Stop if able to') rather than treating it like the best time to put the foot on the gas.. Maybe once people do that they won't be screeching to a halt causing rear ends because they didn't intend to stop until the noticed the camera watching. Poor driving behavior is probably the primary cause of the increase, the cameras just force the issue to surface.

Sure, there's more accidents...

[qeveren]

But how has this affected the severity of collisions at red lights? If the rate of accidents goes up, but the rate of injuries goes down, I'd call that a win.

You want lawsuits ...

[Taco Cowboy]

...regarding ...

* 1. exploitation of homeless/unemployed people and putting them in harm's way ?

* 2. drivers getting into accident due to the distraction by the appearance of homeless/unemployed/unkempt people at busy traffic intersections?

* 3. little girls in cars got spooked by homeless/unemployed/unkempt people taking pictures of them?

 
If your answer is "YES" to all of the above questions, then, sure, go ahead, start distributing digital cameras to homeless/unemployed people and putting them in the middle of busy traffic intersections.
 

Re:You want lawsuits ...

[Spy Handler]

1. It's not exploitation if the homeless/unemployed person does this voluntarily for a wage (aka a job).

They wouldn't be in harm's way if they're positioned somewhere sensible where cars don't travel, such as a sidewalk.

2. Drivers get into accidents for all kinds of stupid reasons. Cops sometimes appear at busy intersections, as well as hookers, protesters, news cameramen, fruit vendors, etc. I don't see any outrage to ban these.

3. Little girls in cars, oh my... won't someone please think of the CHILDREN!

Re:You want lawsuits ...

[homey of my owney]

The City of Albuquerque recently cancelled its Red Light camera program after a vote resoundingly said to get rid of them.

Re:You want lawsuits ...

[gnoshi]

1. It's not exploitation if the homeless/unemployed person does this voluntarily for a wage (aka a job).

To dig into the ideas of 'voluntary' and 'exploitation':
Would it be exploitation for me to find unemployed women who are falling behind on their rent and have no savings, and then offer $5k for sex? Or to offer domestic abuse victims enough money for a refuge if they stand almost naked on street corners with the words 'Loser' painted across their body? Or to give a junkie enough cash for heroin if they will paint their body with their own shit?

If the answer is no because the actions are voluntary, then I think you and I have different conceptions of 'voluntary'.
If you think that these actions are involuntary, in contrast to the homeless/unemployed person, then I think you need to consider how free a homeless and unemployed person are to reject what may be their only source of income.

Re:You want lawsuits ...

[Silfax]

They wouldn't be in harm's way if they're positioned somewhere sensible where cars don't travel, such as a sidewalk.

Bah - the article is about NJ, the sidewalk is considered to be the passing lane.

Do they have any liability waiver?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is just a matter of time before someone is going to sue the traffic camera company. Especially when reports like this come out. So what kind of liability waivers these companies are getting from the cities? We already know the city officials are a bunch of chimps who get just peanuts while bulk of the collection goes to the traffic camera company. They are not known for their skill in negotiating with these companies. It is very much possible these companies have full immunity and all the liability will fall on the city and its tax payers.

I was in one of those crashes (but not in NJ)

[Anonymous Coward]

It was raining and I was driving in an unfamiliar city that I'd heard had some new red-light cameras. The light turned yellow at just that time when you know you can make it through if you give just a bit more gas. If I'd done that, everything would have been just fine EXCEPT, I might have technically run the red light. Since I didn't want to possibly get a ticket, I hit the brakes and the guy behind me hit me.

Re:in New Jersey? really?

[Anonymous Coward]

New Jersey drivers are definitely the worst I have seen anywhere in the US (and that includes Los Angeles). But I haven't driven in Washington, DC, which is supposedly the worst of all.

Simple way to improve intersection safety

[fiannaFailMan]

Roundabouts.

They also improve traffic flow and eliminate the need for 4-lanes in each direction to store stopped idling cars.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[ionix5891]

Oh god no! In ireland all we have are fucking roundabouts, and are now being replaced by traffic junctions and traffic flows much better at rush hour

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[beeudoublez]

What was it about the roundabouts that caused traffic to not flow as well compared to the new traffic junctions? I've only heard success stories (aside from people learning how to use them.)

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[alcourt]

They are also correlated (according to the state transportation official I talked to who was pushing one in my area) with higher car on pedestrian injuries, and are more likely for new drivers to have loss of control accidents compared to more traditional intersections. These loss of control accidents often end up with the vehicle striking the very areas pedestrians are expected to stand, waiting for minutes for a break in traffic to safely cross.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Roundabouts are a bit like transistors. When a heavy flow starts in one direction, the side directions are blocked indefinitely until the flow lightens, but both directions of flow stop or slow down before entering because they are unsure as to the behavior of the car in the circle (is it going to exit? continue around?). Thus they act as bottlenecks.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[mug funky]

ever see what happens when you have say a north-south and east-west intersection with a roundabout and traffic is slightly higher on the north-south axis? east-west grinds to a complete, unbroken halt, and traffic doesn't even have to be particularly heavy due to the fact that accelerating from 0 takes much longer than coasting through at a leisurely pace.

a lot of roundabouts in my area have traffic lights installed on them to try to even out the flow in both axes. go figure.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[beeudoublez]

Interesting, thanks

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[alostpacket]

Look kids! Big Ben!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgX6qlJEMc

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[mhotchin]

Very busy street cross not busy street. If you arrive on the not busy street, there's never a gap in traffic for you to safely enter the round.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[TechyImmigrant]

> I can assure you that no one in this country knows how to use a roundabout.

I do, but I'm a transplant from the UK.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[Scarred Intellect]

Roundabouts are great.

Drivers are not. I recently drove past a guy in a truck that stopped in the right lane (I was in the left, each direction had two lanes coming into the roundabout) to wait for a vehicle that was 90 degrees out...at least in America, too many drivers don't know how to use roundabouts. I don't know how many times I've almost been run over on my motorcycle in a roundabout...

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[bored_engineer]

Roundabouts have downsides:
a. They aren't appropriate where a large, heavily-travelled street intersects a smaller street. The large intersection will so overwhelm the intersection that traffic from the lesser street can't enter;
b. They take much more space than a conventional intersection;
c. They are much more expensive.
There are a few more reasons that I can list, but the point is that they're not a universal solution. Where they're appropriate, though, I really favour them.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[bored_engineer]

. . .And those areas are probably a great example of when roundabouts fail. If there's a high bias of traffic on one of the intersecting streets, traffic from the lesser street won't be able to enter the intersection.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[ortholattice]

When a heavy flow starts in one direction, the side directions are blocked indefinitely until the flow lightens

Implement an (enforced) every-other-car merge rule at each entry point. Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[bjdevil66]

That's assuming that the drivers actually use the roundabouts correctly. Here in AZ, I've seen drivers regularly go the wrong way - either to avoid going all the way around or simply because they don't know which way to go (especially when roundabouts are put in intersections that were never designed for them).

A better solution is just lengthen yellow lights a second or two. That has repeatedly been proven to reduce accidents at intersections - FAR MORE than any red light camera system has ever done. (The problem: longer yellow lights don't bring in revenue.)

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[harryjohnston]

Surely roundabouts are cheaper than traffic lights?

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[ballpoint]

Are you 100% sure you'll never do them homely clockwise ?

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[bored_engineer]

In general, no. Grading and drainage for a roundabout are much more extensive than a typical intersection. The areas paved with both flexible and rigid pavement are much larger in a roundabout. There's more lighting in a roundabout. Because of a current shortage in experience, design costs can be significantly higher. Right-of-way and relocation costs are generally significantly higher because of the large area involved. If your roundabout needs to accommodate large trucks, it can all get much worse.

If you were designing two intersecting roads, where there were no separate right-of-way costs, the roundabout would still be the more expensive intersection.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[harryjohnston]

I'm thinking some of these factors (particularly the shortage in experience) may be specific to the US? I don't think our roundabouts typically take up much more space than lit intersections, although this may be because only the busiest, most important intersections are lit. We have more roundabouts than traffic lights, so I assumed the former were cheaper, but I don't really know. I'll see if the city council can tell me. :-)

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[TechyImmigrant]

We all live with danger. The challenge is to face it like a man.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[bored_engineer]

I should back up a little. My original objection was to a blanket statement about the benefits of roundabouts, and that was the general tenor of my responses. I don't think that construction costs (the real driver) or maintenance costs will be significantly different between New Zealand and Alaska will be appreciably different. The real savings, for a well-placed roundabout, is not to the operator, but to the user. The savings in a roundabout comes about through reduced fuel usage, less time lost, fewer accidents and resultant loss of property and livelihood.

Then again, maybe roads down there are cheaper because you drive on the wrong side. :-) If you do ask your city council about the relative costs, I'd love to hear the answer: rex@stuckoutside.spamreduction.net. (There's an obvious bit that ought to be removed from that.)

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[ameen.ross]

If everyone would just use their freakin' indicator, that would reduce the problem severely. I can't stand the selfish people who don't use their indicator, or only use it when they've already changed direction, IE too late.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[abigsmurf]

Which is why the busier roundabouts are signal controlled.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[danomac]

Yes, I've seen this first-hand. They have a roundabout at the end of the offramp from the freeway, which is about two blocks from the arena.

There was so much traffic it was backing up onto the freeway. So they had cops come and basically stop traffic from the town trying to get to the arena. So the town traffic backed up a couple of kilometers.

They just can't handle high volume traffic. I wouldn't have believed it until I saw it with my own eyes - these roundabouts function normally 99.99% of the time, it's only when there's an event at the arena that it fails miserably.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[fiannaFailMan]

Sounds like a candidate for a part time signal controlled roundabout then. Only activate the signals at busy times like when there's an event at your arena.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[fiannaFailMan]

Sorry, but the facts are out there. The number of collisions at intersections is reduced when roundabouts replace stoplights. There are still some collisions, such as sideswipes that you describe, but there's no T-bone collisions at high speed which are lethal. And yes, it replaces stop-and-go traffic with a more gentle trickle. Do you actually prefer to spend ages sitting idling at red lights just so you can spend a few seconds gunning it to the next red light? Maybe you do, but that doesn't help road safety or emissions.

Re:Honestly...

[loufoque]

You don't.
Most red lights with cameras do not stay yellow for the normal duration, so that they can actually catch you running a red light.

Red light cameras increase both crashes and safety

[Ichijo]

The Department of Transportation also said, however, that rear-end crashes have risen by 20 percent and total crashes are up by 0.9 percent at intersections where cameras have operated for at least a year.

That isn't surprising. 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.

Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth..wants the cameras removed.

That would be an extremely bad idea. "In the immediately aftermath of the [red light camera] law's expiration, the risk of someone running a red light at an intersection was three times higher than it had been when cameras were on."

If safety is the goal, they should keep the red light cameras and lengthen the yellow light duration. "An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, evaluated effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing by about a second and then introducing red light cameras. While the longer yellow reduced red light violations by 36 percent, adding camera enforcement further cut red light running by another 96 percent."

Re:So...

[norpy]

If you rear end someone you are by definition following too close and the accident is your fault. That means that if you get rear ended the person you should be suing is the one that dented your ride.
At least that is the law where I live (not in the US)

Re:Honestly...

[runeghost]

Being human. Our attention drifts. We get distracted. No one (not counting Google's driverless car) is a perfect driver. Close calls are going to happen. The only question is when they do, do we want drivers motivated by safety and situational awareness, or terrified that their (likely mandatory) car insurance bill is going to go up by hundreds of dollars a year?

How to instantly solve the problem

[DaveV1.0]

Don't drive like a dick. Problem solved.

Re:How to instantly solve the problem

[IndustrialComplex]

Tell that to the guy behind me.

Sure, I'm not at fault, but I'm still delayed, my car is broken, I'm potentially injured, I hope he has insurance too.

Re:How to instantly solve the problem

[DaveV1.0]

If the guy behind you wasn't driving like a dick, then everything you said wouldn't come to pass. The answer to the problem is "Everyone, stop driving like dicks."

Re:How to instantly solve the problem

[IndustrialComplex]

Oh, well it's cool you solved the problem. You probably should hurry over to Syria, tell them to just 'stop shooting each other'. I'm really surprised they didn't figure that out yet.

Re:Bad driving != Legit reason to can red-light ca

[leon.gandalf]

It is poor driving skills that leads to running red lights as well as poor driving skills that leads to the rear end collisions. Not to mention the mass of accidents caused due to people being just far to fucking ignorant to abide safe following distances. But I think you got it with the assessment that the cameras just make it obvious, not cause it.

Dont blame the camera. Blame you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, people are driving unsafely and violating the law. Stop for the red light, and morons who are tailgating rear-end them. Don't stop, and morons who run the red light sideswipe someone. The bottom line is that people want to drive however they feel like driving, and they are mad when they can't. People need to grow up and behave like civilized human beings.

Light Counter?

[stabiesoft]

I've often wondered why a timer is not displayed in the green/yellow. They are almost all LED now, so it would not be that hard to have the number of seconds left (full on is >=10) in inverse video. (number is dark on a green/yellow foreground). I know I will look to see if the walk sign has a counter going when the light is green to give me an indication if a yellow is likely or not. Knowing how many seconds are left on the yellow/green would give me nearly infinitely more info than just the 3 lights.

Re:Light Counter?

[Anubis IV]

This. I've been wondering the same thing since they introduced LEDs.

One change I'd suggest is to make it some sort of a progress indicator, rather than an actual countdown using numbers, that way it's more understandable to everyone and more discernible from a distance. For instance, light the LEDs in a filled circle at the center of the yellow light, that way people can always tell it's a yellow, but then have the unlit outer ring of LEDs get filled up in a sweeping motion that goes around clockwise, that way we can tell both how quickly it is going and how much time we have left, without having to making out the number or parse it. Doing that would make it easier to see at a distance, and it'd also mean that even if you missed the first half of the yellow, you could still tell how fast it's going, giving you an idea of whether it's a fast or a long yellow light for future reference.

I'm not sure that I'd do it with greens, however, since I know plenty of intersections that stay green for several minutes at a time (making both of our ideas a poor choice), and I'm pretty sure I've even seen some at night that default to staying green until they detect a car at the cross street, meaning that a countdown or progress indicator would be irrelevant.

Re:Light Counter?

[0123456]

Bollocks. Most of the stop lights here have flashing lights on the pedestrian crossings that flash about a dozen times before the lights change, so I have a very good idea of when the light is going to change; that means I can either start to brake because I know I'm not going to get through the light, or I can ignore the light because I know it's not going to change, or accelerate so I'll be through the light before it does change. I hate the lights here which don't have pedestrian crossings because I can't tell whether I'm going to have to stop.

Of course the correct solution would be to rip most of them out and replace them with roundabouts.

Re:Light Counter?

[MarioMax]

A brilliant idea for sure, but couldn't you get nearly the same results by implementing crosswalk timers and for less cost?

Re:Light Counter?

[PPH]

Already done. In Amsterdam and a few other cities, along major arterials they have speed signs that give you the minimum speed needed to make the next green light. They step up in 10 kph increments until they reach the speed limit. Then they display a bar, meaning "you aren't going to make it".

Its old tech, predating LEDs (just done with a row of incandescent illuminated numerals.

Re:Light Counter?

[bored_engineer]

Of course the correct solution would be to rip most of them out and replace them with roundabouts.

Not really. There are entirely too many intersection where they would operate poorly to consider roundabouts as a blanket solution.

Re:Light Counter?

[bjdevil66]

I can't cite the study, but an experiment was done with yellow light timers, so people could see how long they had. The unexpected side effect was that knowing exactly how long they had to get through was a BAD thing. People used that knowledge to SPEED UP and take chances they wouldn't take without the yellow timer.

I will say, however, that the green light countdown timers are much better, IMO. There's no point racing up to an intersection if you know it's going to turn yellow before you could possibly get there, and it's nice to know how long to have to get your butt across the intersection on foot.

Re:Light Counter?

[abigsmurf]

Three issues:

Expensive
Dangerous - encourages people to stare more intensely at the traffic lights rather than the road itself. People may speed up if they notice the traffic light has 5 seconds from a distance left.
Not possible for a lot of lights. Lots of signals have their timing controlled by external factors like cars waiting or prioritised busses.

Re:Light Counter?

[FhnuZoag]

This is actually done in many countries. When I went to Beijing, all the traffic lights had basically progress bars to indicate time until the next light change. It's really fantastically helpful, and should be used more widely.

Re:Light Counter?

[hand_of_lixue]

Solid Green (any duration)
Green Countdown (10 seconds)
Yellow Countdown (10 seconds)
Solid Red (possibly pulses during the "all-red" segment, but I doubt that information actually results in better drivers)
Red Countdown (10 seconds)
Loop

Red countdown would be a sweep in the reverse direction, to make it distinct and draw attention from drivers at idle - it's purpose is to let people "zone out" a bit more when stopped at a long red. Because, let's be honest, most people do.

All three countdowns are the same length, that way the driver only needs to calibrate to a single length - by having multiple countdowns, the driver has even more information, and more opportunities to calibrate to the timing of the light. Ideally all lights in an area should have the same countdown length, and there'd be a minimum standard length nationwide.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[the eric conspiracy]

So we save $50,000 per year for each camera.

The same cameras cost about $2000 per day to operate.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/council-votes-out-these-red-light-traffic-cameras-after-2-years-but-why/

Sorry but a program that costs 14 times more to operate than it saves is not effective and needs to be discontinued.

Scrap signs altogether!

[mcrbids]

There's a movement growing rapidly in Europe to reduce traffic signs and lights, and they are finding that removing signs and lights can cause a rather dramtic reduction in accidents. A number of cities have done away with traffic lights and signs entirely with surprisingly good results. (EG: average trip times drop dramatically, accident rate plummets, people report greater satisfaction, etc)

I'm not saying that we should do away with all signs everywhere, but there is sufficient evidence available that the "common sense" utility of the traffic sign or a traffic light is clearly unproven.

Re:Scrap signs altogether!

[OhANameWhatName]

but there is sufficient evidence available that the "common sense" utility of the traffic sign or a traffic light is clearly unproven

Please stop using the term 'common sense' in relation to governments, my brain is in danger of melting.

Re:Scrap signs altogether!

[linatux]

I've travelled through areas where the number of signs causes real information-overload.
Many are highly reflective, reducing visibility at night. Most street-lights I've see could use much better covers/reflectors too, to reduce the amount of light going directly into the drivers eyes.

More than all that though, if you pull most of the signs people will have to think about what they are doing. Scary when you're not used to it, but it makes sense that drivers who are thinking about what they are doing will do it better.

Start holding people accountable for their actions & pretty soon everyone will be paying attention to how they drive. Another good step toward achieving that would be to stop calling crashes 'accidents'. There are true accidents out there, but most crashes are the result of inattention or plain bad driving.

Re:Scrap signs altogether!

[cyberchondriac]

While they're at it, they may as well have any car manufacturers who make cars for the US remove the turn signals in the cars as well. American drivers don't fucking use them anyway, apparently they're considered optional now. Except by maybe me and two or three other people in a 50 mile radius.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[Ichijo]

How much does each red light camera earn each day in moving violation fines?

Re:in New Jersey? really?

[rockout]

Death and taxes already mentioned, the third "only sure thing" is that no matter where you're from, the drivers from the different places are the "worst ones". Somehow, jackasses from State X are always vomiting out that "Those assholes from State Y can't drive!" and meanwhile, the reverse is also true. Congrats, Archie Bunker.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[alen]

Maybe people need to learn to gently stop and not on a dime like a race car driver?

Cherry-picking much?

[Guppy06]

noting an overall decline in traffic citations and right-angle crashes

So while the collision rate is up, the rate of the most dangerous collisions are down. I suspect there's a similar decline in deaths and injuries.

the net costs of accidents had climbed by more than $1 million

That's insurers' problem, and has no real effect on the state treasury. And having the cameras makes it easier to pin down blame and liability.

Re:Cherry-picking much?

[IndustrialComplex]

That's insurers' problem, and has no real effect on the state treasury. And having the cameras makes it easier to pin down blame and liability.

No, that's the problem of everyone who pays insurance premiums. And liability in a rear-end collision at an intersection is pretty easy to determine even without cameras.

Re:Cherry-picking much?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

That's insurers' problem, and has no real effect on the state treasury. And having the cameras makes it easier to pin down blame and liability.

Also the problem of the people who - doing the correct thing - are getting rear-ended and likely injured. The fact that we know who's at-fault and who should be liable doesn't change this, nor does the fact that it's not funded by the taxpayer.

Follow the money

[speedlaw]

If this technology cost money, it would never, ever be installed. Unfortunately, it works "best" in places the signal intervals are incorrectly set. In NYC, it is very good at giving you "gridlock" tickets, if the car in front of you stops and you get caught in the "box". They are called scameras for a reason. And no, I don't run red lights, even at 3 am, thank you.

Re:Follow the money

[mjwx]

If this technology cost money, it would never, ever be installed. Unfortunately, it works "best" in places the signal intervals are incorrectly set. In NYC, it is very good at giving you "gridlock" tickets, if the car in front of you stops and you get caught in the "box". They are called scameras for a reason. And no, I don't run red lights, even at 3 am, thank you.

In Australia, red light cameras require you to set off two sets of induction loops, the first before the stop line, the second after the stop line.

The only people who call them "scameras" are the people who cant drive properly.

In NYC, it is very good at giving you "gridlock" tickets, if the car in front of you stops and you get caught in the "box".

If you have to stop in the middle of an intersection, you're doing it wrong (not looking more than one car ahead of you).

Re:Follow the money

[aybiss]

Also in Australia, red light cameras are now becoming speeding cameras too, reducing the urge to hit the gas when the light goes yellow.

Re:Follow the money

[speedlaw]

In the US, they snap over one loop. We don't have this level of sophistication. By the way, AU is a camera hell only exceeded by England-you have speed cams, average speed cams, etc. I don't look to AU for anything automotive, save a few V8 Holden models.... It is also quite clear you've never driven in NYC traffic-you can get caught out while looking a few blocks ahead..only takes ONE Livery car drive or truck delivery who blocks the whole road without warning and does not care....

Re:Honestly...

[raydobbs]

Let me see - sliding on black ice at the intersection - even though you have your foot on the brake peddle, and it to the firewall - you go sliding through the intersection, triggering the camera? Ambulance behind you flips their lights on just as you approach a yellow light - but for whatever reason, their lights don't trigger the override? You prepare to slow down to a stop, but the person behind you appears out of control - and there is no cross-traffic, so you run the light to prevent a collision?

Those were just the few I could think of in a few second, but sure - mod my ass down.

Re:Honestly...

[ZorinLynx]

Now that we have the tech for it, lights should probably have a countdown timer for the last ten seconds that is visible to traffic.

10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...*yellow comes on*...2...1... *RED*

This will also allow drivers who are further away a chance to let up on the gas (it's going to turn red, might as well coast to it).

This is already effectively in place in some intersections, due to the crosswalk lights that have countdowns, but it's not universal, and the crosswalk countdown doesn't always indicate the behavior of the light for traffic.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[mflorell]

The IIHS study you cite in Philadelphia was for only 2 intersections, it was for a very limited time period, and they don't mention it in the study but crashes went up after installation of red light cameras. It is another in a long line of invalid and unprofessional studies that the IIHS has done on red light cameras. The 2007 Virginia DOT red light camera study is one of the most comprehensive studies done on the subject, and it also found crashes went up after cameras were installed.

It's not about the money.

[paiute]

(It's about the money.)

Re:Honestly...

[mjwx]

What honest excuse do you have for running a red light? It isn't like you don't get plenty of warning that the thing is going to change.

B-B-B-But I need to get there faster...

and other such bollocks.

The problem you've got in New Jersey is not red light cameras. It's poorly trained, inconsiderate and selfish drivers.

If you're getting a lot of rear enders you have two problems. Drivers are not looking ahead of the car in front of them and drivers are not maintaining a minimum safe distance (In Australia, this is defined as "enough distance to stop in an emergency without impacting the vehicle in front of you" so he should be able to slam on the brakes and you should be able to do the same without hitting him).

What about injuries and fatalities?

[HtR]

I'm more worried about the injury and fatality rates, rather than the cost of the accidents.

I remember reading about a similar study about somewhere in Canada (sorry - don't remember the details) that said that while rear-end crashes were up (because of people hitting their brakes hard to avoid going through the intersection), the number of "T-bone" or right-angle crashes was down (because of less people going through on an "early red"). This study noted that the number of accidents didn't change much, but that injuries and fatalities were way down, because the T-bone accidents tend to be more dangerous.

The article quoted in the summary does mention that right-angle crashes are down in this report as well, but doesn't address injuries or fatalities.

Re:Honestly...

[D'Sphitz]

Light turns green, you are turning left. You pull into the intersection and wait for the oncoming cars who are going straight. Light turns yellow, but rather than hitting the breaks the oncoming idiots are accelerating to make the light. Light turns red, you are still in the intersection. It's happened to everyone, I'm sure including you, many times. Would justice have been served if you got a ticket, several hundred $ fine, and 3 years of jacked insurance rates for every time that has happened? Or you could have gone to court to put your word up against a photograph of your car sitting in an intersection (nevermind that the camera nor the court have any idea who was actually driving).

Also, there have been many cases of yellow lights being shortened to increase violations and fines (revenue) at red light cameras. So no, you don't always have plenty of warning.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[IndustrialComplex]

Earn?

Honestly we shouldn't ever use law enforcement as a revenue generation tool. It creates perverse incentives for the government.

If we could be trusted to develop fair and reasonable laws without corruption, then maybe, but just like well run Communisim, I think that's something that only exists in theory.

right angle crashes are worse

[bouldin]

So, right angle (aka t-bone crashes) are down, but rear- end collisions are up? That doesn't sound so bad.

Right angle crashes can kill people. Rear-end collisions are fender benders.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[Ichijo]

The IIHS study you cite in Philadelphia...they don't mention it in the study but crashes went up after installation of red light cameras.

That's consistent with the Federal Highway Administration study that I cited. Yes, crashes increase, but their severities decrease, saving $50,000 per year in medical and repair costs.

Don't run yellow lights

[aybiss]

I have noticed that many drivers speed up when the light is yellow. This fundamentally retarded action (why weren't you going the correct speed already?) no doubt accounts for the fact that rear-endings have increased.

Re:Don't run yellow lights

[harryjohnston]

According to a study I think I remember reading a while back (!) this is the primary cause of people running red lights; they're simply going to fast to stop. It makes me wonder if there isn't some way to implement a "yellow light camera".

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[Ichijo]

If we're going to be concerned about the taxpayer burden of the administration costs of the red light cameras, then it only makes sense to subtract the fines.

Re:But impossibly short orange/yellow lights are.

[MarioMax]

Although shortened yellow light are in and of itself a major problem, it doesn't make up for the amount of poor skilled drivers in areas where the yellow light is a reasonable length and they ignore safe driving practices anyway.

Why isn't anyone asking the *important* question?

[OhANameWhatName]

The real question you want answered is whether revenues are better with the cameras or without. If they make more money than they cost, they're a good thing. If they make less money than they cost, they're a bad thing.

The real problem is that they're run by government. They should be contracted out to private companies to make the most of free market economics.

Re:Honestly...

[MightyYar]

I'm in PA, but here the red light cameras almost never are set up at dinky little lights as you describe. Here, the cameras are only at intersections with a dedicated left-turn arrow. If you get caught in the middle of the intersection with one of those, then you probably need a ticket.

Also, the tickets carry no points.

Re:Honestly...

[IndustrialComplex]

What honest excuse do you have for running a red light? It isn't like you don't get plenty of warning that the thing is going to change.

Most infractions are not for the blatant 'solid red' light runners, but more for the people who simply made slight errors in judgement. Maybe they did try to 'beat the light', or maybe they just leisurely traveled through the intersection and took a bit longer than the yellow. The thing is, opposing traffic doesn't even have a green light yet, so the only real 'danger' these people pose is the danger that they may delay opposing traffic slightly and increase traffic. Not great, but certainly not T-bone style collision risks.

I'm a pokey driver, I've never received a speeding camera ticket or a redlight camera ticket (And hopefully I can keep it that way), but I HAVE encountered intersections where I've entered the intersection on a Green, watched it turn Yellow just as I enter, and turn Red before I clear the other side. And it isn't like I was doing 20 in a 50mph zone or entered before the intersection cleared. This is just me, driving carefully maybe 10mph below the limit, and having it go from green to red before I pass through. On some intersections, that would be a ticket, and that's appalling to me. Hell, they are forcing you to either break one law (speed) or another ('run' a redlight) Some of the longer intersections I've even proceeded through at the speed limit and still noticed that the light turned red.

So do I speed through, minimizing my time in the 'danger zone', and brake after, or do I brake too early, and unnecessarily disrupt the traffic flow and put others in danger?

These money making schemes really degrade the quality of life, and pervert the purpose of these laws. And it's all the more grating to me when a police officer can do the job better, and actually use some judgement in determining if someone is actually driving in a dangerous manner.

Traffic cameras are just school 'zero tolerance' polices put in place to line someone's pockets.

Re:The right way to use red light cameras

[IndustrialComplex]

2. No visible flashes to distract or blind drivers.

Those bug the hell out of me. Bright flashes on the opposite side of the highway as I'm driving. Great, now I've got after-images floating in my vision.

Oh yeah, while I was wondering what the hell that flash was, oh yeah that guy on the other side of the road was driving too fast, yeah I guess it looks like he is driving pretty fast...
^^^
The above thoughts contributed nothing to the safe operation of my vehicle.

I've got similar complaints about 'LED' style billboards that cycle images. Those bastards should be limited to one image per 24 hour period or banned outright. It's impossible to not at least glance away from the road when a giant 50' jumbotron switches images in your peripheral vision. It's like telling some to not read the next word: Soup.

Re:Honestly...

[dgatwood]

The problem you've got in New Jersey is not red light cameras. It's poorly trained, inconsiderate and selfish drivers.

Don't forget pissed off drivers. When you've just hit the last eight lights in a row red, most people find themselves a lot more motivated to try to make it through one, because doing so means that they'll probably make it through the following one or two lights on green. There's only so much that most people can handle, and once people cross that threshold, their driving becomes markedly worse. Unfortunately, our nation's traffic light management sucks harder than a Hoover, so this is a much more common problem than it should rightfully be in any sane universe.

do you want it to be like a NFL review?

[Joe_Dragon]

do you want it to be like a NFL review? there they have to see if you broke the plane.

At the very lest have all of theme with the same min yellow time for intersection type / speed limit / and the same right on red rules.

Also very be lose on arrow tickets as well.

Re:T-bone vs read-end

[aXis100]

Bullshit.

If poeple maintained the correct stopping distance, there would be no issue with braking suddenly. The fault is entirely the follwoing driver who is not paying attention or following too close.

Re:Honestly...

[ljw1004]

There's never any need to avoid a "wreckless" driver (since he doesn't get involved in wrecks).

Avoiding a "reckless" driver, however... that makes sense.

Re:Honestly...

[nitehawk214]

What honest excuse do you have for running a red light? It isn't like you don't get plenty of warning that the thing is going to change.

Anytime you make a left at any busy intersection that does not have a turn arrow. Or have someone tailgating you when the thing goes yellow. I am not slamming on my breaks in front of a truck no matter what the light says.

Though if they only put the cameras on proper intersections with turn lanes and arrows, actually had timing on the intersection depends on load, allowed enough time for the left-turners to actually get through the intersection, did not make the yellow impossibly short, and actually ticketed tailgaters with the cameras when the situation arises, it could work out.

So in other words, it won't work out. Instead the police will use these as cash-machines and ticket everyone without any acknowledgement of circumstances.

Re:But impossibly short orange/yellow lights are.

[dgatwood]

Show me somewhere in the U.S. where the yellow lights are a reasonable length, and I'll show you an intersection that has almost no red light violations. In study after study, this has been proven. If people are running red lights with any regularity, it is always because the yellow cycle was too short. Therefore, these lights only serve to punish people for failing to work around the city's poor traffic engineering.

Of course, this ignores the occasional driver who runs a red light because he or she isn't paying attention, but those drivers aren't affected by the cameras anyway. (Well, they're punished by them, but the cameras aren't a better deterrent than the "Oh, s**t! I just ran a red light!" realization that such drivers already have.)

Re:Honestly...

[nitehawk214]

The counter would have to be pretty big to be seen from far enough away to be useful in a car. I dont often drive through ones with the crosswalk counter, but there is no way I could read one of those from 10 seconds away. Also, that would add extra distraction for drivers. Instead of just passively looking at the light status, you have to read the number, instead of watching out for pedestrians and whatnot.

Re:T-bone vs read-end

[IndustrialComplex]

So the real problem is people approaching the intersection too quickly. Before cameras, they just went right through, causing right-angle collisions. Now they scared of the fine and breaking quickly, causing read-end collisions.

I'm not comfortable with having 1/10th of a second to decide if I need to decelerate my vehicle from 45MPH to zero or if the 0.25s it takes me to approach the intersection is too long for me to proceed through the arbitrary length of the intersection before the unknown duration yellow light changes to red and nails me with a $200-$400 ticket.

Now, my only options when I see a yellow light are:
1. Too close to stop safely: ACCELERATE to avoid taking too long
2. Unsure of yellow duration: STOP NOW ASAP don't want to risk going slightly past that white line.

Before I had the option:
1. Too close to stop safely: Decelerate and proceed cautiously. If it turns red, that's ok because I have enough room, and I'm taking my time to make sure no pedestrians are crossing against the light. I'll also be out of the intersection before opposing traffic starts so I'm not inconveniencing them.

2. Unsure of yellow duration: Stop the car, using care not to decelerate too quickly. I may stop just slightly beyond the white line, but I'm not in the plane of traffic, so no one is impeded. The car behind me could also decelerate safely.

If I made a mistake on 1 or 2 in the non-traffic camera situation, there is always the potential for a police officer to pull me over and let me know it was too far out of bounds. Strangely enough though, that has NEVER happened. Why, it's almost as if I'm a cautious driver, without a single citation for running a redlight or a speeding camera despite living in DC, yet the cameras have modified my behavior to be much less safe (for you), but much safer for my wallet.

Well-established

[Curunir_wolf]

This seems like pretty old news at this point. Red-light cameras are put in place by private companies promising revenue. It was never about safety, and study after study has shown increased hazards at intersections where they are installed.

As usual in these cases, people need to remember to follow the money. One person you've never heard of, but should be thanked for exposing this issue, is Shawn Dow of Arizona. He has been all over the country teaching activists how to fight these things and make local legislators afraid of the people, instead of kow-towing to the rich lobbyists. He's been beating up on politicians (figuratively) for years, and winning.

Re:Well-established

[bjdevil66]

One person you've never heard of, but should be thanked for exposing this issue, is Shawn Dow of Arizona.

I second this. He has single-handedly made a bigger difference in educating people about photo radar than most anti-camera people would ever dream of doing.

Re:So...

[PRMan]

To my knowledge, it's the same in all 50 states.

Re:Honestly...

[xSquaredAdmin]

They have a number of those in my city, and I love them. The numbers are big enough that I can see it from a distance and when the counter hits 0 the light goes yellow. I wish they'd put them in more intersections around here.

Re:Honestly...

[Immerman]

It doesn't have to be numbers - most modern lights are LED arrays anyway - have an expanding "pie slice" turn yellow during the last 10 seconds of the green, then remain wholly yellow for a few seconds before turning red, since if the timer runs through yellow then no doubt drivers would adapt and we're trying to make things safer.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[mflorell]

The 2007 Virginia DOT study showed that there was an overall increase in total crashes of 23% and an injury crash increase of 17% after the installation of RLCs at intersections. The study concludes that: "the cameras are associated with a net increase in comprehensive crash costs".

The 2005 FHWA study that you keep citing uses data from over a decade ago, and also showed a 10% increase in the fatality rate after red light cameras were installed. The data that the FHWA used was also anonymous, so there is no possibility of verifying the data or analysis by a third party.

Re:Honestly...

[Immerman]

Try this - wait for a gap safely stopped before the intersection - when you see a gap approaching time your entrance to the intersection so that your vehicle already has some momentum when the gap arrives, allowing you to get through it faster. It's not foolproof and sometimes you'll still end up stuck in the intersection when a gap unexpectedly closes, but I can't think of a single time when a gap unexpectedly opened that I would have made it through if parked in the middle of the intersection.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[rahvin112]

And how much is a life worth? FHWA instituted the red-light campaign because running red lights now generates more fatalities than freeway accidents. Right-angle crashes are about 90% more likely to cause injury and death because cars have almost no protection from side impacts and SUV bumpers are the same height as the head of someone riding in a passenger car. These head injuries are almost always fatal.

Re:Honestly...

[MozeeToby]

Most red light cameras take a picture when the light turns red, then another when they detect motion. If you are are in the intersection for the first picture, they don't issue a ticket even if you're in the picture for the second. The real problem is your second point. Just like an IP address doesn't identify a person, neither does a car.

Re:So...

[Lord Kano]

No, you can't. Cities have sovereign immunity. In other words, they are immune to the consequences of the stupid bullshit that they do.

LK

Let anarchy rule!

[capt_mulch]

I live in the Solomon Islands - Honiara to be exact (think Marines, think Guadalcanal). There are no traffic lights here, and the traffic cops are almost non-existent (except for carrying out road-side audits for licensing and registration). Anarchy more or less rules - there's lots of traffic, though most of the time it doesn't move very fast. At times, the traffic and pedestrians mix (next to the markets). There are very few accidents here. People learn to rely on their own skills and judgement, and NEVER trust the person in the other vehicle. Sort of like open source traffic management...

Re:T-bone vs read-end

[marka63]

Firstly once you have entered a intersection legally it does not matter if the light goes red. Running a red light is entering the intersection on red not being in the intersection on red. Cross traffic is required to give you right of way to clear the intersection.

Living in a city with lots of safety camera that detect both speed and running the red light infractions you get used to them and treat the intersection the same as any other. You approach within the speed limit and you stop on yellow if you can.

Re:Honestly...

[viperidaenz]

Who said you remove colour from the lights?
Green: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3
Amber: 2, 1
Red: 0

New traffic lights are all just LED arrays anyway, won't cost much more.

Just don't count down the red light, as that'll encourage drag racing in teenagers.

Re:Honestly...

[viperidaenz]

You insurance will go up by hundreds a year if you are the cause of an accident. You'll also have to pay your excess as well and risk injury or death of yourself, your passengers of those you hit.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[nedlohs]

So because making a change has a short term cost we should never make it even though it has a long term gain*?

That seems remarkably short sighted, you must hate the concept of getting an education and taking short term financial opportunity cost for a long term financial gain.

* assuming the "net costs of accidents had climbed by more than $1 million at intersections with cameras" claim is true.

Re:So...

[Smauler]

The trouble with this theory is that if everyone did leave the required stopping distance, you'd get 1/2 (at most) the number of cars on the road. Traffic congestion would become impossible.

I drive a truck in the UK - they're all limited to 56mph. So when you overtake another truck doing 1mph less than you, you don't leave the stopping distances. If you do leave the distances, you get loads of people undertaking you because you're miles behind the other truck. Also, good luck judging the truck you've overtaken's stopping distances when pulling back in, and if you don't do it quickly enough plenty of cars will undertake you.

Much safer not leaving stopping distances IMO - To be honest the notion is a little silly - how is the truck in front of me going to stop immediately? If they can't, why am I leaving a full distance to stop?

Re:in New Jersey? really?

[billrp]

Except if you ask New Jersey drivers, they will all tell you they are the worst.

Re:Honestly...

[BlueStrat]

I am not slamming on my breaks in front of a truck no matter what the light says.

Yeah, no shit. Where I'm at there's a major gravel quarry in the area, which means there are huge double-trailer gravel haulers running the main roads. You have one of those monsters close enough to count the folds of skin on the jaw on that Mack bulldog hood ornament in your rear-view mirror on a 50mph two-lane approaching a traffic light...well, let's just say the old adrenaline levels get a little "bump" if that light turns yellow as you get close, and you start desperately looking at cross-traffic to see what your odds are. Now imagine you're not driving a car, but riding a motorcycle. :-O

Since the topic involves vehicles, I had a chuckle at this recently.
---
I saw a Vespa hit a Prius at the traffic intersection today.

There was glitter _everywhere_.
---

Strat

Re:Honestly...

[Culture20]

Dragstrip countdown lights; much easier to see.

That could be done

[formfeed]

Is it still a win in your books when the cities shorten the yellow to generate more tickets?

.....

If cameras were not allowed to trigger until the crossing lane's lights were GREEN, and there were statutory yellow durations and statutory all-ways-red durations, it would eliminate all this yellow shortening nonsense, and maybe the cameras would catch the scoff-laws they were intended to catch.

And that's how they work in other countries. There is a minimum for yellow, and it depends on the speed limit of the road.

If there were laws that introduced your suggestions and made cities also liable for accidents at intersections where the yellow phase is too short, then traffic cameras would make intersections safer.

Re:Honestly...

[bjdevil66]

What honest excuse do you have for running a red light?

When cities like Paradise Valley, AZ intentionally shorten yellow lights at red light camera intersections, solely to increase the number of citations and increase revenue. This video was picked up by the local news stations and it was reported on widely, and as a result Paradise Valley officials quickly and quietly (within 24 hours) restored the yellow light time to a longer duration (4+ seconds). The city ultimately refunded all paid citations (and threw out the rest) over a six week period that this was going on during May and June of 2009. I don't remember the exact number, but it was upwards of six digits in fines collected...

I might run a red light

[PeterM from Berkeley]

If, for example, it was broken and never changed. I'd look both ways to check safety and then I'd run the light.

I think this is even legal.

Best,

--PM

Still a safety benefit.

[formfeed]

So what effect does a red-light camera have on people who aren't paying enough attention to see that there is a red-light there in the first place?

Instead of ticketing they could take them off the road for a while. So I can drive in safety while they sit at home texting or drinking.

Re:Honestly...

[dbitter1]

Wow... you must not be from the Red Light Camera capital of the world, Chicago! Here, everyone* knows the valid legal defenses against a red light ticket:

1. Defendant issued ticket by another means for the same issue (double jeopardy, like if an officer gives you a ticket for blowing the light, the camera won't make another one stick)
2. Had to go through light to yield to emergency vehicle, or was part of a funeral procession.
3. Vehicle was reported stolen during time of citation**
4. Defendant was not owner of vehicle during time of citation**
5. Facts alleged in violation are inconsistent or do not support a finding that the Chicago municipal code was violated, which "may" include "weather related" defenses.

* Everyone that fights them, that is... I guess the sheep don't.
** This doesn't often work, the city picks on the poor and defenseless for all kinds of things***
*** Like a person parked racked up over $100K of tickets... despite not actually owning the car: http://theexpiredmeter.com/2012/11/fox-chicago-covers-100000-parking-ticket-story/

Re:Honestly...

[dbitter1]

Here in Chicago, we have a lot of lights that do not have left turn arrows... just red, yellow, green. Most of the urban intersections don' t even have dedicated turn lanes. If you DON'T get in the intersection during most of the day, you aren't turning. Period.

Not that I'm defending them- I hate them- but the red light cameras don't care and won't get you for this... if any part of your car is past the white line when the light goes from yellow to red, the ticket will not be issued. However, if you are trying to cheat and sneak out, then you get the $100 love note from the city in the mail.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[the eric conspiracy]

I'm sorry but this is distorting the statistics and neglecting problems with the vehicle fleet that cause fatalities at ALL intersections, whether or not there are stop lights present.

According to the FHWA red light running accounted for less than 10% of deaths at intersections in 2008. And this number is roughly 2% of the total traffic deaths in the US.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/

The primary way to make stop lights safer is to increase the yellow time and have a period where all the lights are red. But this ISN'T done with most red light camera installations because it reduces revenues to the point where the red light camera revenues don't pay for the operation of the cameras.

In NJ there have been several cases where red light cameras have been found to be operating at traffic signals with yellow light periods shorter than the basic requirements. There was recently a state-wide shutdown of red light cameras because of this problem.

http://brick.patch.com/articles/red-light-cams-shut-down-over-yellow-light-length-concerns

Then of course there is the history of municipalities intentionally shortening yellow light periods for profit:

http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

Green Light Feedback

[Luthair]

I'd really like to see a graduated green light implemented that would provide drivers with a better idea how much time is remains before changing. Perhaps a (few) additional ring(s) which would switch off in 5 or 10 second increments.

Anecdotally it feels to me that an awful lot of people don't even bother trying to stop, I frequently see people entering lights on red.

Re:Honestly...

[ballpoint]

Or color-slide the bottom green gradually to yellow over 5 seconds or so, then add the middle yellow (optionally flashing rapidly), finally switch to top red. Add red+speed camera to discourage gunners and collect evidence for the few remaining t-boners.

Re:Honestly...

[SydShamino]

You don't have to be able to read the crosswalk timer, you just have to recognize that it contains more than one digit.

1X = I have time to make the light

_X = if I'm not close enough to see what X is, I won't make the light and better slow down

Re:Honestly...

[SydShamino]

Well, if everyone managed to successfully avoid a reckless driver, he or she would be "wreckless" too, right?

Re:Honestly...

[SydShamino]

At least where I live, it's 100% legal to pull into the intersection and wait for oncoming traffic to clear before making a left turn. If oncoming traffic does not clear until their and your light turns red, you make your turn after your light is red. 100% legal - the light was green when you entered the intersection, and you can enter an intersection that you can't exit due to oncoming traffic. (You can't enter an intersection you can't exit due to traffic flowing in your same direction - that's not legal.)

Red lights are not the problem...

[erp_consultant]

Distracted drivers are the problem and cameras are not going to fix that. Cellphones are at the top of the distraction list. If the government wants to do something constructive here they should ban cellphone use in cars - full stop. But that's not going to happen as long as AT&T and Verizon are allowed to lobby congress and throw money at their reelection campaigns.

Re:Honestly...

[Immerman]

color-change though is much harder to judge than a discrete transition, not to mention it confuses the meaning of simple unicolor-lights. Come to think of it even the pie-wedge will do that, perhaps just an outer ring of red LEDs around the green that "fills up" angularly during the countdown with them all turning off as the yellow comes on - high contrast while leaving the green lamp itself clear and unobstructed, or perhaps a ring around the inactive yellow which then turns on when the ring is complete. And I'd stay away from blinking lights as well - they already have their own well-defined meanings.

Re:Honestly...

[Immerman]

Overkill I think - we're not looking for instant-response, just letting people know whether they should be alert for an imminent transition to "caution" or can keep their eyes on traffic. For that matter even just a single-stage transition might do - say light the yellow lamp five seconds before the green goes out. If both are lit you can proceed as for green, but know that it's turning yellow at any moment. With luck the "dually mode" would even take over as the "speed up on yellow" signal and people would actually slow down for yellow only (Yeah, I'm not really buying it either)

Re:Honestly...

[Immerman]

Okay, I can see how the "I'm blocking traffic bitches" factor would get you that post-red left turn, and the camera rules would certainly reinforce the behavior.

I will offer the advice of my father who, once upon a time, did deliveries in Chicago. Don't make left turns. Three right turns have the same effect and are often much faster. If I remember correctly UPS recently adopted that policy in cities and saved something like 20% on fuel, though in fairness that may include extra benefits from planning routes with that in mind, which individuals have less leeway to do.

You forgot another category

[aepervius]

"Those mid-red light runners completely missed that there was a redlight there at all! They didn't run the red-light because they wanted to, they ran the red-light because they weren't paying attention."

Driver which decide that because it is night, right of way ,s tops, and red light are fully optional. I have been nearly killed by enough of those idiot, compared with day when it happens exceedingly rarely. Now red light camera could be useful at a few intersection i know of, where fucking driver thinks that because there seem to be no driver on the other side then it is free for all despite the red light. And I am not even counting the idiot which think because I am on two wheel , right-of-way & stops suddenly stop counting.

Wow, a slashdotter with a brain

[SmallFurryCreature]

The summary is wonderful in its simplicity and one-sidedness. Red light drivers KILL pedestrians, cyclist and other drivers. Now the same people are rear ended. So? Assholes get hurt instead of assholes hurting others. The only way you hit someone who breaks suddenly for a red light is if you are to close and you yourself were ignoring the orange light.

And the only way you get suddenly stopping for a red light is if you don't slow down on orange.

The only issue here is that some people shouldn't be driving cars.

Re:Honestly...

[Half-pint HAL]

Except that "green+yellow" means "get ready to go" in some parts of the world (eg the UK) and it's potentially fatal to have the same signal meaning two different things, giving that we learn to process these things implicitly.

Re:Honestly...

[damienl451]

Then, perhaps it's the rule that you have to clear the intersection before the light turns red that needs to be changed. Just introduce a slight delay before the other lights go green (all-ways left) to allow people to turn left, problem solved. That's how virtually all lights work in European countries that I've visited. You stop in the intersection and you wait until there's an opening. No opening? You just wait for the red light and you exit the intersection before the light turns green in the other direction. You can't? Then you probably shouldn't have entered the intersection in the first place. You should have realized that there were already too many cars for all of them to clear the intersection in time and that it was ok to wait at the stop line for the next cycle. Plus, red-light cameras in these countries only capture people who cross the stop line on red, not people who are already in the intersection.

Of course, it doesn't mean that it can work in the US. But it reflects poorly on US governance that something that works pretty well in advanced democracies is impossible there. And that the main concern is corrupt local authorities taking advantage of drivers, which sounds more like what happens in a third-world country ("you broke this traffic law, please pay a 'fine' to me in cash or you'll be taken down to the station").

Re:Honestly...

[Half-pint HAL]

In the UK at least, there's two types of intersection: "hatched" and "unhatched". A hatched intersection is shaded (hatched) with yellow lines, and you're not allowed to enter the hatched area until and unless you have a clear path to leave it again. In theory. Most of the time, people ignore the hatching entirely....

Re:Honestly...

[damienl451]

But that's true for every traffic violation. The only way to make sure that the owner is the driver would be to stop every single vehicle that is seen breaking the law, which might very well be much more dangerous (high-speed chases don't always end so well and people sometimes react bizarrely when they feel threatened and/or are intoxicated).

I think it makes sense to say that the owner of the car is presumed to be the driver. It'd be too easy to claim that a friend happened to borrow your car but that, of course, they won't say they were the ones driving. The way is see it is this:
- You were driving the car: no problem if you got a ticket
- Your spouse was driving the car: then, figure it out amongst yourselves. I mean, they'll really let you get a fine and a bad driving record when they were driving? If so, you got bigger problems that a ticket.
- Your child was driving the car: see above.
- A friend was driving the car: just write down their name on the form. Or don't lend your car to friends you can't trust.

Re:So...

[abigsmurf]

I drive a truck in the UK - they're all limited to 56mph. So when you overtake another truck doing 1mph less than you...

I would just like to say I seriously hate you for doing this. You're saving a tiny, tiny fraction of your journey time in return for delaying hundreds of other cars by a large margin and creating traffic jams. Not to mention you make it incredibly difficult for people who need to pull in for their exit.

You say you don't need to leave stopping distance because it's hard for the lorry in front to slow fast? Your brakes are just as bad! If he brakes hard, you'll stand no chance of reacting fast enough, you'll hit his trailer, causing him to lose control, jackknife and take out a couple of lanes.

You can leave the 2 seconds, if someone's stupid enough to squeeze between two lorries, you can ease off the accelerator and give him 2 seconds. If it's possible for me the leave 2 seconds on the M25 every day getting to work, it's possible anywhere.

Re:Honestly...

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

True story, that big old gas tanker assumed I was running the yellow and he was going to run the red. I looked up into my mirror and decided to run the red and move out of the way. The girl in the passenger seat screamed at me about the light until the truck flashed by. Downhill intersection but that truck was never ging to stop.

Sure give me a ticket.

Longer yellow lights

[LoRdTAW]

One of my biggest complaints about any traffic light is the sometimes ridiculously short yellow lights. Near my home there is a traffic signal on the main road that only changes if a car is present at the intersection waiting to turn. The yellow light is barely 2 seconds, no where near enough time for a vehicle traveling 30MPH (~48km/h). I have seen heavy trucks rolling along when that idiotic light changes and the truck has choice but to roll right through that intersection, your not stopping 20+ tons rolling along at 30mph in 2 seconds.

I always wanted a 4th "warning" light before the yellow, I have seen them somewhere in Europe, maybe it was the UK. At most city intersections the flashing "don't walk" for pedestrians usually precedes the yellow light so if your in a heavy vehicle you can determine that you need to reduce your speed and anticipate a yellow -> red light. But outside of cities there are few sidewalks and even fewer pedestrian signals. The 4th signal can be simple to add and does not require replacing existing lights. You illuminate the yellow light while the green light is still lit, or flash the yellow light. Then the green light goes out, yellow steady and finally red. Gives a nice warning to drivers further down the road to slow down. Maybe even try to establish a standard time length for the 4th signal, say 5 seconds until yellow.

Re:Depends on where they put the camera

[Aighearach]

I've been nabbed by a particular camera in brooklyn twice (pathetic, I know) due to where they put it.

Liar, you were nabbed for running the red light not for them placing the light in one place or another.

Devil's Advocate

[TheSpoom]

Wouldn't these accidents be prevented by simply not informing the public where the cameras were installed, and camouflaging them?

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[Rich0]

Not really relevant. You're making violators pay $600k per year in fines to save $50k/yr in damages. Due to perverse incentives for things like yellow-light shortening it is hard to really consider the violators guilty of much of anything.

If you instead just lengthened the yellow lights a bit chances are you'd save far more in costs, and there would be no overhead beyond the cost to set it up.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[Rich0]

When a light turns yellow and it has a camera mounted I'm confronted with a choice - stop or continue. I need to consider the fact that many jurisdictions shorten yellow lights on intersections with cameras. All of this leads me to make a decision to stop when I would otherwise tend to continue. If I'm making this decision absurdly close to the intersection, then I'm going to have to use the ABS to accomplish this, and anybody following me will need to do the same.

Re:So...

[gl4ss]

56 vs. 57mph overtaking is brutally stupid and pointless endeavor on any scale unless you're on a road that goes straight around the entire globe.

if the truck in front of you can't stop immediately, then of course you could have a shorter distance and still be able to stop- that would mean you were having a stopping distance. long enough.

Re:Honestly...

[Immerman]

^%$#@! it! So much for a simple fix.

Then again - how many UKers,etc actually drive in the US, and how often would they be *stopped* at a green light when the G+Y comes on? And if they were approaching a G+Y then their first instinct would be to slow down so they don't enter the intersection before the change, which would be compatible with realizing it's turning red instead (because they did take the time to actually learn what American lights mean before they started driving here, right?)

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[cyberchondriac]

The IIHS study you cite in Philadelphia...they don't mention it in the study but crashes went up after installation of red light cameras.

That's consistent with the Federal Highway Administration study that I cited. Yes, crashes increase, but their severities decrease, saving $50,000 per year in medical and repair costs.

But that's got to be at least slightly offset by the more frequent traffic jams these increased fender-bender type accidents cause: other drivers' time, wasted fuel/idling cars, not to mention bringing out the cops and EMTs more, possibly towtrucks..IOW, the logistics, not just the direct costs regarding only the two cars and their drivers involved in the accident.

Re:Red light cameras increase both crashes and saf

[danomac]

They're just treating the gas and brake pedals like a switch, not a rheostat. Just like driving games.

Gas full on or off & brake full on or off. I got pretty good at those games, but in real cars the ABS gets in the way! :-)

Flashes

[gravis777]

I wonder if this also takes into account drivers who are temporaraly blinded at night by the flashes of the camera. Shoot, even on the highway, I am sometimes temporaraly blinded by a flash at an intersection on the access road. I would file a complaint, but don't know who to file it with.

Quit bitching and moaning

[penglust]

So far the comments have been a lot of bitching and moaning about the cameras. The real problem is the people driving do not read the actual laws. While they vary some from state to state, at least most I have seen indicate the yellow light is to warn you the red is commong and your ARE REQUIRED to be out of the intersection before it turns red. People tend to conveniently forget about the last part.

Here is Oregon it is so bad that cross traffic has to wait after the light turns green to ensure it is safe. Except for lights where cameras are known to exist.

I lived in Germany for a few years and worked for a software company there. Another American in the company was on the Autobahn sometime after 2:00am not staying right with no traffic on the road. The law in Germany plainly states you stay right unless you are passing, witch by the way is the law in many states here. This was 1993 and he got a ticket costing over $400 dollars. Guess what, he followed the law after that.

That is the reason for the cameras. Dick heads thinking they are more important than the other people on the road are the problem. Red light runners are right there with the ass holes that pull into the intersection and block traffic in the other direction when the light changes.

Read the law, get over it.

In Colorado

[Radec]

Tickets are not valid unless they are personally served within 90 days.

Re:T-bone vs read-end

[IndustrialComplex]

Firstly once you have entered a intersection legally it does not matter if the light goes red. Running a red light is entering the intersection on red not being in the intersection on red. Cross traffic is required to give you right of way to clear the intersection.

You may be correct. I'm wary to assume that this is the same for all jurisdictions, but let's assume that you are correct.

People don't know this. I sure as hell don't know the exact metrics by which a machine will trigger the camera, and I'm not wealthy enough to want to risk finding out. I'm sure most people are the same way.

Consider the behavior near speed cameras. People will be driving along at a safe speed. Perhaps even under the speed limit. But the instant someone glimpses that speed camera, brake lights turn on. It doesn't matter if they were doing 10 over, or 10 under the limit, the typical response to seeing any sort of automated ticketing device is to hit the brakes. The same thing has happened for years when drivers pass a hidden police car. Regardless of their current speed, the natural tendency is to respond to the threat as conditioned, and for good or ill, we have conditioned drivers to brake when they see a police car.

Living in Northern Virginia, I've received parking tickets from live human beings while I was literally walking to the multi-space meter from my car! It took 6 months before my court date, which took 4 hours, and even with my receipt from the multi-space meter, I was told that I probably just ran up to the meter when I saw the metermaid approaching. I guess you are supposed to drive on the sidewalk up to the meter and pay without leaving your vehicle before driving to your spot... Thankfully I noticed that the parking lot for the Arlington Court house was only 3 hour parking when I entered the building (notice that the court session lasted 4 hrs). The metermaids who finished court early had begun rounds in the court's parking lot.

So while I'd like to believe you that all jurisdictions are uniform and follow your reasonable standard. My experience with revenue generation through fines has been anything but reasonable.

Which is "cheaper" - rear-enders or right-angles?

[davidwr]

The best metric isn't total accidents. It's total costs.

Damages include:
Loss of life,
Direct damages from injuries and direct property damages,
Opportunity costs e.g. loss of productivity due to injuries or temporary lack of transportation,
and more.

If we trade 1000 high-cost accidents for 1100 low-cost accidents, it might be a good trade.

Re:Honestly...

[KozmoStevnNaut]

This really shouldn't be an issue. Traffic law states that if you are in the intersection when the light turns red, you must exit the intersection as quickly as possible. It ALSO states that you cannot enter an intersection before it is cleared. Therefore, left turners who are unable to turn left before the light changes must leave the intersection before any other traffic from any direction enters it.

It's one of those simple basic rules that almost everyone ignores and intersections tend to suck because of it. I've seen plenty of people stuck in the middle of busy intersections because of it.

Re:Honestly...

[Half-pint HAL]

p>Then again - how many UKers,etc actually drive in the US,

Enough. Tourists, workers etc. Not to mention American tourists in the UK.

(because they did take the time to actually learn what American lights mean before they started driving here, right?)

Not good enough. Traffic signals have to be automatic -- second nature. Interference can be fatal. I learned how to ride a French bicycle -- the brakes are the other way round from UK ones. I learned, but when travelling fast, my instincts were all wrong. No matter how well I "knew" the brakes were switched, internally I wanted to do things the other way. This was dangerous. I swapped the brakes. Unfortunately an individual can't do that with traffic signals.

Re:Honestly...

[Immerman]

Traffic signals have to be automatic -- second nature. Interference can be fatal.

Which is why I pointed out that the reflexive reactions would be compatible - UK drivers would doubtless be annoying since they interpret G+Y as effectively "Red about to turn green" instead of "green about to turn yellow" and slow down when everyone else wants to speed up, but they won't be likely to cause fatal accidents. Americans in the UK could be an issue though, but you guys would have to be crazy to let us drive anyway - most of us can barely navigate our own streets without killing someone, put us on the opposite side of the road as gawking tourists and throw in some confusing lights (G+Y... Green means go, right?) and you've got a recipe for disaster.

I don't think your brake anecdote translates directly - control is something much more reflexive and with a much tighter feedback loop than interpretation. Your brain is wired to most of the time simply say "do this" (walk this way, turn, brake, pick that up, etc) and have your subconscious systems do so without further intervention - as such changing the effects of the reflexive actions can be a serious problem, especially since as things start going wrong you reflexively correct, which makes the problem even worse. Consciously intervening in a subconscious feedback loop is a challenge, especially in a crisis situation where your brain isn't at it's best. Reinterpreting road signs/light is far easier, not to mention it's really only an issue when there's nobody in front of you, you get plenty of reinforcing feedback when the guy in front of you slows down/speeds up when you weren't expecting it (you do pay attention to what other drivers are doing, right?)

Premature Adjudication

[Occams]

If this were an experiment, could it support the hypothesis that red light cameras cause accidents? We would need some scientific method and statistical analysis to support that conclusion. Were all the other variables controlled? Was the rate of increase in accidents zero before the experiment, was traffic, and hence risk increasing, was the duration long enough to show the trend. Anyway, let's suppose it did prove that many bad drivers can ignore stoplights and avoid accidents, I am still in favor of catching these bastards each and every time that they do it and punishing them hard. Zero tolerance works. Crack down consistently on trivial offenses and you will get fewer serious ones. These are most likely the same drivers who exceed the speed limit and change lanes unsafely in their passion to save a few minutes off their commute. They are happy to risk your life, and also that of your family. Catching them for those more serious offenses often requires dangerous driving by cops. It is better to catch them when they are going slower and under conditions that are easier for gathering the evidence. An automated camera is the perfect way, because it is fair, consistent, and safe, and produces incontrovertible evidence. I am OK with it being a revenue raising tax too. Bad driving costs us all money, so let the ones who do it pay. We need more red light cameras.