Slashdot Mirror
Florida DOT Cuts Yellow Light Delay Ignoring Federal Guidelines, Citations Soar
New submitter zlives writes in with news that Florida's DOT changed some language in their yellow light timing regulations, leading to a decrease in the yellow delay. Especially at lights with red light cameras. "From the article: 'Red light cameras generated more than $100 million in revenue last year in approximately 70 Florida communities, with 52.5 percent of the revenue going to the state. The rest is divided by cities, counties, and the camera companies. In 2013, the cameras are on pace to generate $120 million.' I wonder what the camera company cut is?"
At least one area has promised to undo the reduction now that they have been caught.
This has been proven to put the public at risk of property damage, of injury and of loss of life.
The people who made this decision need to be removed from office at the very least and potentially criminally prosecuted for endangerment [of a child].
There must be sufficient time for a fully loaded semi-trailer to react to the change, and safely come to a stop, or proceed through the intersection, from at least 5mph under to 5mph over the posted speed limit, in wet road conditions, or it's not safe. These cities are risking your safety to raise more money from bogus fines.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
The #1 thing you can do to reduce collisions in an intersection is lengthen the yellow. Go ask AAA, they've got plenty of data on it.
Shit like this, and this is not the first time it happens, proves that traffic cameras are 100% NOT about safety, they are about money.
Wont someone think of the kickbacks?
Despite other states being the fattest or the poorest or the most violent, Florida still manages to be the worst state in the union in it's own special ways. Someone link us to that .gif of Bugs Bunny cutting Florida loose from the rest of us.
For stupidly small lengths of yellow lights it becomes nigh impossible to stop in time. Not only does this cause more unintentional red-light-running, it also increases wear on vehicles from hard braking. If they actually cared about safety and the environment, they'd lengthen yellow light times to give people more warning. Sadly, money drives their motivations (pun intended).
(((dB)))
Agreed. What I want to know is why nobody has made a case that justifies their banning. I know I've certainly been in situations where I was forced to stop at a yellow I would have otherwise ran not because I wanted to beat it, but because I wasn't comfortable with the driver behind me and their capability (and willingness) to stop their car in time.
I've been in only two crashes in areas with stoplights. Both times I was rear-ended at a red. And this in places without the cameras. I can only imagine how bad it is at intersections with them.
Lots and lots of old people who should not be driving at all !! And being the dick state, what would you expect from the dick state ?? I hate Florida if you could not tell !! It is a terrible, terrible state with terrible, terrible people, and being next door to Alabama has nothing to do with that.
You sue red lights!
And law enforcement wonder why they aren't respected. They say they are all about safety.
It's all about the Benjamins Baby.
The yellow light has a countdown telling you when its going to be red. Its a monotonically decreasing number that is predictable. Unlike the random ones in random places in the USA.
Doing this *endangers* the public. Switching from yellow to red too quickly for drivers to safely stop will end up causing accidents, either from slamming on their brakes or paying more attention to the light instead of the road. The point of the traffic lights is to regulate traffic flow and keep the public safe. Adjusting the time so that fewer drivers can safely stop and need to have lightning reflexes and be staring at the light instead of the road will lead to more accidents.
I smell a lawsuit brewing which will undo all the revenues. $120 million dollars? Well, now the lawyers for the next person to get run over at one of these modified lights can sue the government for on account of the timing adjustments to "increase revenue". And you just know some lawyers out there are going to advertise their services in these areas...
The trick is to prevent people thinking of this as revenue. It's indication of a problem. You don't want that indicator to go up. Perhaps state or federal law should pressure local governments to make that indicator go down.
San Diego (and several surrounding communities) recently discontinued it's red-light camera program, citing inflated fines to motorists with minimal payouts to the city, and and *increased* accident rate after installations of the cameras.
We also had the short-yellow problem several years ago when they were first installed, which was quicky fixed after public outcry.
Our new mayor is a jerk. But in this case, at least he is being a jerk to folks that deserve it.
The purpose of government throughout all human history, and most nations currently, is to allow the power-hungry a method to increase their power using the legal monopoly on offensive force by government.
This example, one of many, shows those "few modern" governments that don't do this...do.
Highway robbery, rent-seeking in exchange for money, rent-seeking in exchange for votes, this is the norm, not the exception.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
People (proper) have made the case but were simply rejected. The People (the people the government works for) have a far bigger influence on this than the governed.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
As in you'll hit more pedestrians when they are put in:
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/916832--red-light-cash-soars-even-higher
"Analyzing collision records, The Record studied 16 intersections before and after camera activation, for an average of almost three years of operation.
Before cameras, the intersections saw 70 people injured in 213 collisions. After cameras, the intersections saw 106 people injured in 280 collisions. Traffic stayed steady."
They're an unsafe nuisance.
Just one more step on the gradual transformation of traffic laws from deterrent to revenue source.
Like any government agency, police departments don't exist with the main priority of protecting and serving. Their primarily purpose is to generate revenue.
Here's a better idea that wouldn't make as many people angry. Keep long yellows and remove the redlight detection. Instead, just have a camera. It takes pictures of every plate. Each hour it plays a lottery between the plates. Whoever's plate gets pulled out gets the $138 ticket.
Sounds a bit ridiculous, but the politicians would still be getting their kick backs from the manufacturers of the lottery system, the state would still be getting income without all the bad publicity of raising taxes, and drivers would be happy not crashing into the person that slams on their brakes to stop at the light the instant it turns yellow. It's a win for everyone
That's an unfortunate reality, but nonetheless, it is the reality we live with these days.
Brake hard, brake often. And if you are rear-ended at an Intersection in FL, remember that the State has hundreds of millions of dollars in the pot. Sue appropriately.
It does not matter if the intersections actually has a red light cameras, nor does it matter if the length of the yellow at that particular intersection has been decreased. It is the threat that counts.
No, their primary purpose is to assert the force of government.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The people who made this decision need to be removed from office at the very least and potentially criminally prosecuted for endangerment [of a child].
I bet you that they have immunity of some sort. That is the problem
If people who make such decisions knew it could really bite them in the ass (as in fines and jail), they would think twice or thrice on these decisions.
don't drive so close behind someone
aren't you supposed to be 2-3 seconds behind someone?
This pisses me off so much. Research studies have shown that increasing amber delays is one of the best ways to reduce both fatal and non-fatal collisions at intersections.
These municipalities think that more red light camera revenue = more money = great and glorious government. They forget two things:
- Fines, cost of repairs, and insurance premiums eat away at their citizens' bank accounts. Less money = less spending = less sales taxes, and a lot of angry, pissed off citizens.
- It's not a zero-sum game within the closed system of citizens and the government. The vendors get a lot of those fines.
So the net result is a slower economy, tax revenue is not nearly as high as expected, and vendors line their pockets.
(I recently worked for years in the highway safety sector, and one of my colleagues, a former cop, did a research paper on this subject. He started the research with a high opinion of red light cameras, but found that red light cameras had no significant effect on fatalities while significantly increasing non-fatal collisions.)
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Give it a rest. You've been here long enough to realize generalizing isn't productive.
It's been proven in multiple studies that reducing the yellow light time causes more accidents. The Florida DOT decided to increase risk to citizens in exchange for more revenue. Everyone who approved of this idea should be fired and have criminal charges brought against them.
It should _never_ be okay for the government to endanger citizens in exchange for money. That's exactly what happened here.
Since the studies show the converse is true (lengthening yellow light times leads to less accidents); shouldn't the NHTSA mandate minimum yellow light times at least?
The whole red-light-camera thing needs to go away. The temptation to abuse it is far too great, as has been demonstrated all over the US.
They should be sued for every single accident then.
The problem with that is in a lot of cases if you follow at a safe distance, somone will merge into your lane in between you.
I worked as a traffic accident investigator for a few years. Part of my job was figuring out the timing of traffic lights and if they were the cause of an accident. Shortening yellow lights kills people, old people and big trucks dont stop very fast. This is the Florida government killing people for money.
The really sad part is if they were really clever they would shorten the yellow 1/2 a second but keep the whole intersection red for a 1/2 a second. That way they could rip off Floridians without killing them.
AdFuel
How is the weather up there?
Down here, in the real world, those who have power are basically never punished for all the harm they cause. Punishment is only for poor unimportant people who push back.
This doesn't protect you from being rear-ended yourself because you had to stop short for a red light and somebody is tailgating you. Moreover, if there is a significant amount of traffic, leaving 2-3 seconds of space jut means somebody's going to change lanes and cut into that space. You can only control your own car.
I object to the word generate used in this context. The proper verb is capture, as in:
Red light cameras captured more than 100 million in revenue....
Even the money that could even be farcically referred to as generated - the money taken from tourists - was really captured from the Florida businesses where it otherwise would have been spent.
Full disclosure, 4 years ago we here very nearly hit square on by someone blowing through a "yellow" light. Instead of killing both me and my wife (our sedan vs her lifted SUV), she just ran over our hood. If we had been 2 feet further into the intersection, I would most likely not be here typing this message.
So what your saying is that you were in the intersection while she had a yellow light? Sounds like you deserved it.
in Missouri the state supreme court ruled against Springfield, MO for the installation and operation of red light cameras. Unfortunately, this fact is not well known and there are other operations in the state. If you get a red light camera based ticket in Missouri, don't pay it.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3067.asp
You ALWAYS challenge a ticket. Even if it's a waste of your time and money, it's also a waste of the court's time and money.
If enough people contest their tickets, they might just create a DDoS on the system that causes it to be more expensive for the system than it's worth.
Fscking Shill.
Well, how about a 2nd Amendment solution to the cameras?
Where is Sarah Palin when we need her?
Come on Sarah, this is your chance!
Then allow a gap to form between you and the new person ahead of you. It's not uncommon for people to do that but it's not like there's going to be a constant stream of cars forcing you to stop.
No. "Yellow" as in the light was already red, and had been green for me long enough to be halfway through the intersection.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
The incentives get very perverse very fast
Brave AC!
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
At least if they tried this shit in the UK, those citations would be deemed illegal if challenged in court, for you USA folk, just challenge it in a FEDERAL court and watch them cower real quick.
Fines and seizures should go directly into prevention programs. As crime increases so do the programs we know work.
Why argue, they can do both quite effectively.
what about endangerment of the rest of us? killing an adult is just as bad as killing a kid
Where do you live, rural Alaska? In many urban areas, if you do that you will in fact get someone merging into that space about every 5 seconds.
It sounds like an economic decision.
We should abandon the feudal notion that a government can only spend what it takes in. Money is created all the time for banks, create it for government services too. Then make public safety decisions without economic pressures.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
WORD -this happened to me in Italy several year ago.
I was in Florence in the summer and went through a 'no congestion' zone more than twice in 20 minutes or whatever the time limit was
apparently in the winter when tourism drops they just have people review video footage or something because 6 months later I got a $150 charge from the rental company
Since they didn't notify me I first thought it was a fraudulent charge, so I contested it at first and then they sent me the date and time of the infraction and I realized what had happened...
-I'm just sayin'
(I recently worked for years in the highway safety sector, and one of my colleagues, a former cop, did a research paper on this subject. He started the research with a high opinion of red light cameras, but found that red light cameras had no significant effect on fatalities while significantly increasing non-fatal collisions.)
I'll ask you since I'd like to know: I've heard that one of the most positive innovations for traffic lights is the inclusion of a "timer bar". A bar light along side the normal traffic signals indicates how long the single has until it changes. I've heard that the places it was tested vastly reduced the number of collisions and injuries. Is there any truth to that?
The "reason they haven't been implemented" is supposedly because they vastly reduce people running red lights while being significantly more expensive, and so vastly reduce red light camera revenue while raising operating costs. Having worked in a government office, I'm willing to believe that the "more expensive" portion alone was enough to make municipalities avoid them. I'm just curious if there's any truth to it.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Yes, and all of these these generate even more revenue for the government. So it is a win/win.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1) The difference in light duration is a load of shit. Two cities right next to each other will set their durations differently. If you're in an area that has long yellows and you're proceeding as you would in City A, but that was two blocks ago and now you're in City B with shorter lights... hey, fucko, you just ran that red because our yellow is about six seconds shorter.
2) City A has a ten second yellow. City B has a four second yellow. You see the light turn yellow and being from City A you think "I'm close enough to make it through this intersection safely, as allowed by law." Four seconds later the light goes red. You're 100 feet from the intersection. You have two choices. Either dangerously jump on your brakes and hope your car slows down in time, or get a ticket. Neither of these is an acceptable outcome.
3) If they had a yellow light, you had a red light. You were in the middle of running a red light when you got hit? Sounds either like you're an idiot or a lying piece of shit. The third alternative is that you were trying to turn right on red, in which case YOU would be at fault. In other words, there's no way you're the innocent party in this situation.
4) There's no such thing as "running" a yellow light you fucking moron. Yellow lights mean "proceed with caution" not "FUCKING STOP, YOU WANKER".
Conclusion after conclusion, study after study has shown that messing with traffic [especially to generate more ticket revenue] puts the public at additional risk which is direct vioation of the preamble of the constitution of the united states. In this case, the government is acting against the general welfare of the people.
When it has been demonstrated so many times in so many ways that these practices are bad for the public whose welfare they are charged, there is no reasonable excuse for that decision. In the past, this would be forgivable. Presently, it is abuse.
Because the word "primary" actually has a meaning.
I've always been curious as to what the cutoff age is.
If a 1-year-old dying in an accident is a tragedy and a 25-year-old dying in an accident is just a statistic, when does it switch?
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
So what you're saying is if the light had been yellow longer you would've been fine. What exactly are you arguing about?
Does anyone know how yellow light times are calculated in the UK? Because the times listed in the article (3.0s at 25mph, 4.0s at 40mph) sound long to me.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
...Wikipedia Editors Rejoice
What I'm saying is that people shouldn't speed, and they shouldn't run red lights.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
Any vehicle that's in an intersection when a light turns from yellow to red has the right-of-way until it can clear the intersection.
I'm glad you and your wife made it out of that alive (and hopefully unscathed), but if the other driver's light was in fact yellow when they entered, then your car shouldn't have been in that intersection. (More likely it wasn't and they tried to say it was yellow, in which case, fuck them and the horse they rode in on.)
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Agreed. Sounds to me like you jumped the gun on the green. Didn't your mamma ever teach you to look before you enter an intersection - even if you have the green? Especially if it has just turned green!
I was following a friend of mind in Eugene a few years ago. He was playing the trick of slowing down for the red light waiting for it to turn green, then blasting through just as soon as it turned green. Guess what happened? He got t-boned good. Light turned green, he punched it, and an SUV came from the right side and really made a meal of his car.
So, who is to blame here? Technically the chick in the SUV ran the red light, however it's a pretty fucking stupid thing to jump the gun on a green.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
This isn't realistic in large suburbs which are criss-crossed with 6 lane (3 lane each way) "surface roads" with 40-45mph speed limits, especially at rush hour. This is about 90% of most people's commute in the DFW (Dallas) area & suburbs (google "dfw metroplex").
For whatever reason, the yellow lights at these 45mph intersections by my mom's house in Plano (DFW) is shorter than the 30mph yellow light near my house 15 miles away in Dallas. The one big difference is that the 30mph intersection has no red light camera and is a low traffic intersection.
If anything, high traffic intersections should have 10-12 second yellow lights, not less than 5 seconds...
moox. for a new generation.
So, in business, the profit motive causes unethical and damaging (to everything, even profit sometimes) behavior by businesses and individuals. Criminal activity, safety violations, tax evasion, outright theft, and a host of other behaviors, motivated by the opportunity of profit.
And the government is somehow immune to this?
Obviously not.
For business, the solution is not to remove profit, since that is the purpose of business.
But for government, profit replaces taxation. So stop it. Stop letting government derive revenue from profit. Require them to do so by taxation, fees, blah, and let fines and penalties function only as deterrence or cost recovery.
Cranking down the caution light delay is not intended to recover any cost. It is intended to increase revenue. Profit.
Around where I live (Phoenix area) the red light camera are a pox, but we complain bitterly when they manage to shorten the interval too much. It usually works. My mother, however, lives in Florida, and she is not at all surprised that this strategy of extracting profit from drivers is afoot there. She expects it, and does not expect the government to give this up without a fight. I believe her.
At every level, our government must watched, restrained, and held to account. Every level.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I used the term "yellow" in quotes for a reason. The rest of the post is referring to people actually running red lights (and presumably claiming that the yellow wasn't long enough).
The other driver's light wasn't close to yellow. My light had been green long enough for me to be halfway through the intersection. And I wish it had been a horse instead of a Denali.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
Then move back to a safe distance again. If I am in slow traffic I will sometimes tailgate just enough to keep others from cutting me off, but usually it isn't worth the extra 10 seconds I gain.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
....out of state drivers and leads to more property damage due to it.
State should be sued with a class action suit to recover the fines they have wrongly collected.
> I bet you that they have immunity of some sort. That is the problem
I bet they don't have immunity to a baseball bat. If any parents actually had a kid injured at one of those intersections - even if the light timings were not at fault - someone may well decide to take justice into their own hands...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
No, no, no. You need to be heavy with faux rage about 'those speeders driving nicer cars than you who need to be punished' and how clipping the yellow lights to sub-microsecond timings somehow accomplishes this. It's best if you work the jealousy in by invoking some sort of inner strike present during someone's long forgotten high school years: "Those rich bastards driving their BMWs and Benzs totally deserve to get hit for driving through yellow lights. They could have hit someone! I was once out, minding my own business, and this guy, in a BMW, drive through a yellow light, and almost hit me!" - include a non-verifiable personal anecdote that no one will question, but many people will quietly side with, with because it confirms their bias.
But on a non-sarcastic note, yes, in PA, as well as other places, the yellow light timings are insane. Some days, it really does seem like your local government is waging war on the populace, a veritable Napoleon hell-bent on uncovering every pet peeve of the citizenry and mandating its usage 3 times a day.
I am John Hurt.
Also... that post had sarcasm.
Sorry about that.
(this post only contains moderate amounts of sarcasm)
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
Sayeth the idiot that obviously doesn't live in any metropolitan area.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I put them in my GPS as closed areas and route around them when possible. I let the businesses in the area that don't want the visitors only serve the local pedestrian traffic.
Want me to not visit a particular section of town, install automated systems to take my money without merchandise in exchange. I'll cut the money leak or avoid it altogether.
There are sections of town here I don't visit. Some are due to the reputation of the neighborhoods. Some due to the excessive costs of visiting the area.
The truth shall set you free!
OH NOS!!!! THEY MIGHT GET TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING BEFORE YOU GET TO WHERE YOU'RE GOING!!!! THE HORROR!!!!
Yes, I hate douchbags that cut me off too. No, it doesn't ruin my day unless they're driving really crazy. It doesn't happen often enough to matter. This is the equivalent of those assholes that will do 10MPH under the speed limit - until you try to pass them. Get over yourself - your time is no more important than anyone elses, and you *do* have control over when you leave to make your appointments, meaning: Plan ahead for God's sake and use your grey matter a little.
In my town, the walk/don't walk signs have a display that counts down the seconds left for the "walk" time. Then the red "don't walk" symbol pops up, and shortly after that the light turns yellow.
It's extremely helpful -- if I'm half a block away and the sign says 12 seconds left, I know I'm going to get through the light on green. If I see 2 seconds left, I know it'll be red and there's no point in doing anything other than coasting.
The signs we have look sort of like this (but without the glasses looking symbol on top): http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/ped_scdproj/webinar052809/las_vegas/images/image081.jpg
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
My apologies for grammar / spelling. Haven't had the morning tea yet.
I am John Hurt.
You know, I've thought for a long time that allowing the government to make laws that specify fines, and allowing the government to keep the proceeds from the fines, is a major conflict of interest. Any time a government want to raise revenue, but find that raising tax rates is unpalatable, they find it too easy to pass another law. It seems to me that laws should be passed to reduce harm to some (logical) class. In the case of red lights, and the running of same, the class of people harmed are the class of all drivers. I wish there were some way to divide all the fines amongst all drivers. That way there would still be an incentive for red light runners to forgo their favourite pastime, but there would be less incentive for governments to over-legislate red light running.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Which gets even worse because now the person behind you is tailgating extra close because they're annoyed you keep slowing down to rebuild that space. Or they whip around and cut in front of you themselves.
Then move back to a safe distance again.
So what you didn't see because you are so totally oblivious to how traffic really works, is that your repeated braking/slowing to get back to a safe distance is causing huge traffic snarls for miles behind you as the effect of slight variations in speed is magnified massively in a ripple effect behind you. This is pissing everyone off, putting many drivers in a bad mood and everyone at greater risk of an accident.
Rather than making things safer, you have made everything much worse.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Technically?
Explain to me how this isn't entirely the "chick in the SUV"s fault?
Your friend had a green light. She had a red light. Your friend entered the intersection legally. She enters the intersection illegally. A collision ensues.
At what point in that scenario was the "chick in the SUV" in the right... at all?
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
Spoken like one of the governed who doesn't own a paintball gun with a proper night scope.
. . .you need a computer. Preferably a computer running software purchased by a local government.
Granted, some meter-maid could have intentionally written you a bogus ticket at the behest of some corrupt local government worker.
However, what more likely happened is that glitchy or out-of-date location software miss-flagged your parking space as a red zone. Or miss-flagged you as exceeding the time limit in a metered zone, followed by the operator tapping the wrong button on some crappy handset and giving you the wrong citation.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
Those cameras are pretty rugged, with metal cases, and are mounted high up on steel poles. Your bat isn't going to do anything to the steel poles, and you'll probably need a ladder to get access to the camera housing (and then, swinging a bat while standing on a ladder isn't a good idea).
There's two things that are effective against these cameras: rifle rounds, and gas-powered portable cutoff saws. Of course, using either of these in an urban area is likely to attract police attention, and leave witnesses.
If you just want to disable them, a can of spray paint is probably your best bet. But you'll still need a ladder and some time. Maybe if you had some way of mounting a spray can on the end of a 3-foot pole; then you could quickly walk by and cover the lens with paint.
Remember, the posted speed limit assumes ideal conditions
No, it assumes you have a car made 30 years ago with tires made 30 years ago.
It also assumes the state can make a lot of money by keeping speed limits at figures that are far lower than what your car can safely handle.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I like the intersections that have countdown timers for pedestrians. :) Much easier to quickly glance at a number than to try to guess how long the "flashing hand" has been there and how much longer until the yellow light starts. :)
These are getting more common in the bigger cities, and even in the smaller ones around here. Very handy!
They should just pass a law that they can issue a huge fine to anyone who has an accident in an intersection. And then have cops occasionally shoot out peoples' tires as they're driving by. They'd make millions!
Why does this have to be about safety.
FIRST) From what I understand, the difference in light duration is because they changed the formula. Instead of using the speed that they assume people are traveling, they are now using the speed which is posted. It's not some arbitrary difference that some red-light camera company man came up with. (if this is not actually the case, someone prove me wrong).
The law dictates a minimum yellow time. The minimum yellow time used to be based on the greater of the posted limit or the actual 85th percentile of actual traffic speeds (there's no "assume" in there). They changed it so the minimum yellow is the lesser of them instead. Note that reducing the MINIMUM duration doesn't necessitate reprogramming any lights -- if they met the old minimum, they still meet the new minimum. So the change in itself maybe has nothing to do with red-light camera revenues -- but SOMEONE thought it was worth the time and expense to reprogram the lights shorter -- and the only conceivable reason is to increase red-light camera revenues.
SECOND) You only get a ticket if you enter the intersection AFTER the light has gone red.
Full disclosure, 4 years ago we here very nearly hit square on by someone blowing through a "yellow" light. Instead of killing both me and my wife (our sedan vs her lifted SUV), she just ran over our hood. If we had been 2 feet further into the intersection, I would most likely not be here typing this message. I have ZERO sympathy for people who try to beat red lights. The equations they use to determine the yellow light duration take stopping distance into account. The laws shouldn't be wrtitten just because you are going 10mph over the speed limit, and can't safely stop in time.
Yes, they fucking should. The 85th percentile provision in the law isn't/wasn't there to protect the person who's speeding and can't stop in time, it's written to protect you by giving them time to stop. If more than 15% of people are speeding, then you damn well need longer yellows so that their longer reaction+stopping distance doesn't result in them plowing into innocent third parties (like you, in the instance you cite).
.
May I ask a question then? From the fine article it provides a list of speed limits and yellow light durations. Why do the YLDs increase with speed? It takes less time to clear an intersection if you are travelling faster, so surely a shorter yellow makes sense.
Take an extreme case (to simplify the calc. and more dramatically show how wrong this yellow light thing must be):
- 1/10th mile long intersection, and 2 speeds - 10 & 60 mph. At 10 mph it takes (1/10 / 10) or 1/100th of an hour (36 seconds) to clear the intersection. At 60 mph it takes (1/10 / 60) or 1/600th of an hour (6 seconds) to clear. A factor of SIX less time is needed to clear an intersection at 60 vs 10 mph, yet the table in TFA clearly shows yellow light times increasing with speed.
By the way, for those thinking they need a longer yellow at higher speeds for safety, this is where it has been traditional (in Canada anyway) to increase the length of time where ALL lights are red as speed goes up.
Also, FWIW, the width of the intersection _must_ be considered when setting yellow light time. The yellow light is saying "Stop if you can, but if not I will cover for you as you clear the intersection". Wider intersection == more time needed to clear it.
I come here for the love
My opinion, but I think the timers help a lot with regards to safety. I always pay attention to them at intersections with them. I can save on gas by coasting towards an inevitable stop, or know that I can cruise through the light without worrying about it changing.
That's the key to them, they provide both pedestrians and drivers with knowledge of the light's timing. That's a critical improvement over "will it change, will it, will it, as one approaches the point of no return???".
Of course the intersections with stop-light cameras (very heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic) don't have them, I imagine that's by design... I need to time the yellows on those lights. And ask the city to install timer signals at those locations. People see the yellow and then slam on their brakes to prevent the flashbulb from going off. I've witnessed rear end accidents at one location in the past year due to this.
BlameBillCosby.com
States are allowed by the U.S. Constitution to be douche bags so long as they do not impinge upon interstate commerce or other federal juridictions. Florida has historically just been a bit douchier than most and this is simply an illustration of that.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I don't think he was suggesting the baseball bat be used against the cameras...
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
The problem is, nearly all traffic lights are stupid. They fall into one of two camps:
If someone is used to the first type, when they encounter the second, they start slowing down for a light that isn't about to change, and end up causing a substantial increase in traffic backup (and possibly even rear-end collisions). Similarly, if someone is used to the second type, they ignore the countdown, and it provides no benefit even when the light in question was of the first type.
In short, pedestrian countdowns aren't particularly useful for cars because they aren't consistently implemented, even within a single major metropolitan area. They're also too small to easily be read at anything approaching the speed of a fast road. What we actually need are car-specific countdown timers above the driving lanes, with larger numbers, that (when they exist) are guaranteed to be timed based on when the light will actually shut down.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You are correct, sir!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Then move back to a safe distance again.
You've never driven inside a city, have you?
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Having worked in a government office, I'm willing to believe that the "more expensive" portion alone was enough to make municipalities avoid them. I'm just curious if there's any truth to it.
That's why you legislate it at the state or federal level, just as every other major safety innovation has had to, historically.
Airbags: "They cost too much! Cars will be too expensive." ...
Seatbelts: "Consumers find them too restrictive!"
Third brake light: "It increases cost! And why would you need 3?"
Anti-lock brakes: "The maintenance costs will be extraordinary!"
Replacing metal 'guard rails' with concrete...
Repairing structurally deficient bridges...
You get the idea. The only way to get anything new adopted is either to have a lot of people die in a short period of time, preferably affluent people (see also: Titanic), to tax it, or to have a ground-swell of public support for it. Simply arguing for it on the basis that it'll save lives is a pointless endeavor.
It could save a hundred thousand lives a year, and nobody would give a fuck. See also: Drunk driving. Inattentive driving, etc. Nobody wants to deal with those problems, so people go right on dying... but at predictable rates. So there you have it.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Are those blue eyes hovering over the pedestrian in the LED-crosswalk-sign the "eyes of big brother watching over us"? ;>) jk.
Depends. Where does the kid fit within the socioeconomic/racial food-chain?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
It's trivial to fix. Vote from the rooftops. It's a little more expensive now with the ammo shortage but it is worth the expenditure.
If that happens they can just issue more citations and raise taxes.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
He was actually referring to the parent batting the politician, not the camera.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
they have...
the kickbacks go towards paying-off the mothers of the politicians' illegitimate children..
I can sympathize. I lost the front bumper of a previous car in an accident where someone ran a red light. The fucked-up part is that he was the third car through the intersection, a good five seconds after I had the green arrow.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Nothing to see here, citizen.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
if you're rich you're driving a large, very safe SUV that will survive any and all of the fender benders and minor t-bones this will create. Plus you're enjoying lower taxes with the same level of gov't service thanks to what is basically a regressive tax on the poor. Heck, they won't even put red light cameras in your area, because they learned quick if they start giving you tickets you'll get'em banned.
Ultimately this is another 'screw the (working) poor' initiative. Those always work because it's hard to orchestrate a political movement when you're living paycheck to paycheck, moving all the time to find work, and don't have Unions anymore.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you just want to disable them, a can of spray paint is probably your best bet. But you'll still need a ladder and some time.
Two words: paintball gun
No ladder required, takes seconds and relatively quiet.
I have but I hate too. City traffic in my area is pretty slow, maybe a max of 20 MPH so a safe distance is 1/2 a car length or less. When I am doing 60 and someone pulls in front of me with a 1/2 car length I am going to slow down or change lanes. I will not be the cause of an accident.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
One of the things that has been missed in the progressive enlargement of government by both the left and right is that the constitution has not been updated.
At a general level, the constitution is an agreement on HOW the people agree to be government.
So for things like say police powers, we have pretty good laws on it. There are problems here and there, but the DISCUSSION is always around the limits.
We grant the police the power to enforce the law, but we impose various limits on them (need warrants, trails, juries...)
Yet, when the progressive mentality took over on both the left and right, they made the argument that the constitution held back what people wanted government to do. Whether true or not, it left a vacuum. Government took over power in new areas without any constraints on itself. In all the 'new' areas, government can basically do whatever it wants. The only recourse people have is the ballot box. This might work for big issues, but not so much for all the little issues that ultimately affect government.
Government have begun using regulations to control people's behavior to a large extent. Again, whether you agree with it or not is not important. What is important is what are the regulation ON government to make sure it is acting in the correct interest.
Here's an example of the kind of constraints on government to regulate it to help it acts correctly.
1. All fines shall go to a fund used solely to compensate victims of such activity. So all traffic fines go to traffic victims. This pretty much removes the incentive governments have to use fines as revenue. Heck, I don't even think fines should pay for the regulating agency.
I have a saying that goes like this: "If something is worth regulating, it is worth regulating via general taxation"
While not law in Sweden, Sweden has experimented with having a lottery for traffic fine revenue... again... a much better system of making sure the law is not being used for revenue and creates an incentive for drivers to follow the regulation. If you are not caught speeding, you are entered into a lottery to win the money collected by the fines.
But like I said, as the progressives on both the left and right moved towards expanding the power of government, they skipped any amendments to the constitution in favor of a living constitution, and thus skipped the process of setting any regulations on themselves in the new areas.
Worrying about the people who made such a decision is hardly an effective mechanism. Democracy has many such short comings. Part of the reason we have rights and regulations on governments and other such items, so that we are not simply at the mercy of elected politicians.
I'd be more worried about those that created the highway traffic act and other such rule books without any concern for regulating government itself.
The problem with broad generalizations is that they're usually wrong.
Downtown in my fair city, the traffic lights do all of the following, all of the time:
Timer-based operation
Pedestrian button-based operation
Inductive loop operation
Photosensitive activation by emergency strobes of a certain cadence
The walk signals also operate whenever the light turns green for that direction, no matter what activated the light, unless it was activated by an emergency vehicle.
Despite all of this, the countdown displays make excellent predictors of an upcoming yellow light in normal traffic: It counts to zero (or 1, I forget), starts flashing some manner of "Don't Walk" idiogram for several seconds. After that, the yellow and solid "Don't Walk" happen concurrently.
Every. Single. Time. It's consistent.
Meanwhile, car-specific indicators do exist: Examples of them are on US 23 north of Columbus with a speed limit of 55MPH. The sign simply says "Prepare to stop if flashing" a good distance ahead of the intersections. By golly: If it's flashing when you approach that sign, you may as well coast because you'll be stopping soon enough.
In terms of trying to drive safely and proactively, I don't need a timer to tell me that the light will change soon. I just need an indicator. For me in my area, a dedicated flashing light works fine on higher-speed roads, as does a countdown timer on lower-speed city streets: I can see it fine at 35MPH. *shrug*
Kid-proof tablet..
If these cameras are anything like the ones we have, (and despise,) in the UK and parts of mainland Europe then a third and quite humourous method of disabling them exists although it may still require a ladders and possibly even a cordless power drill.
The trick is to find or create a gap or hole in the casing and simply fill it up with expanding builder's foam then leg it before any/too much attention comes your way.
Following the example of all good criminals you should leave a suitable period of time, (not too long though,) before returning to the scene of your hilarious crime.
I was, sadly, unable to find any images of the results so what happens is...
As the foam expands inside the casing it pretty much f&@ks up the camera and sensor electonics.
As it continues to expand, the casing bursts apart while still being held together by the adhesive proerties of the foam.
This method was a favourite of the now disbanded Tuf Tuf Club of The Netherlands, their sole aim being to destroy as many "Gatso" cameras as they could.
captcha: remains
The width of an intersection has nothing to do with amber light times. You should only enter the intersection on amber if it isn't safe (or possible) to stop before it. That is its purpose, to let you know you need to stop *if you can*. But no. Fucking hoorays think amber is the same as green and charge through when they could and should have stopped. Then there's the other fucking idiots who consider that just because the light is green for them that they have right of way over those already on the intersection. Both scenarios easily end with collisions.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Get some people who are damn good with paint balls and blast the crap out of the camera.
Or come up with a cool automatic telescoping stick with a spray can and remote actuator on the end. Either way...
what about endangerment of the rest of us? killing an adult is just as bad as killing a kid
Some would argue it is worse killing the adult, but that it depends on the adult. As a purely social equation, society at large has a lot more already invested in the adult, while a kid merely represents potential. However, the value to society of an adult with a PhD in Education who works with the homeless, and the value of an adult drug dealer, tend to weigh in on both sides of adult value as a whole, but on average, the investment is not mis-sunk cost.
One of Orson Scott Card's motivations in writing Ender's Game was to argue against this philosophy, via the "what if the kid is the next Einstein?" argument, but practically, the current system is designed to normalize performance as much as possible, so even if the kid IS the next Einstein, they'll be likely to stay with their job at the patent office.
I could care less about the money. I don't even care about the safety. If folks would just stop as the light turns red, safety would just happen.
What I do care about is this:
When the the left turning lane of the opposing traffic gets the yellow, act proper. by the time I get the green, I should not have to wait for three more assholes to chain together and run the light. They should die and their loved ones should pay a fine. Problem would solve itself before long.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
Remind me how this is a problem? Or is being courteous, driving defensively, and sharing the road not part of your local traffic laws?
Clearly the light countdown would be superior to using the pedestrian signs. Fortunately, I live in a comparatively small town (about 80k) and all of the pedestrian timers work the same way. But insofar as they are useful to me in my town based on my familiarity with their operation, it is a demonstration that a timer on the light itself would be even more useful.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I got a bullshit citation for bicycling on a sidewalk in Queens NYC to avoid getting hit by traffic and went to the Queensborough Criminal Court where they have traffic court and did what the poster above did.
I waited the entire day in court and declined all half price off deals and kept pleading not guilty to the judge since we all knew the cop wasn't going to show up to testify. Fucking uppity judge gave a postponement to the City prosecutor without giving me a chance to speak about my case that day and made me come back again in a few weeks. I had no chance to say anything or protest, was told come back in a few weeks.
Well I came back to see those fucks. Same bullshit again, half price deals and pressure to cop a plea deal to pay the fuck up at the casheer at the exit and go the fuck away. Continued to plead not guilty and at the end of the second day the fucking judge called me up, told me in my face that what I did was wrong and I was guilty but since the cop isn't here I am lucky to get away with it and dismissed my case.
All of this shit after me sitting on my ass in his kangaroo traffic court for 16 fucking hours that cost me then equivalent to $800 USD in lost wages for a $50 USD bicycle citation so I could avoid getting hit by a fucking truck while on my bicycle.
Saw lots of scams by them taking attendance over a bad microphone and PA system in the morning and after lunch. Saw a guy loose his case because his hearing wasn't good and he missed attendance and defaulted to guilty on his case for a no show with a bench warrant being issued while he was sitting in the back waiting the whole time. Hope the old guy said something before he left otherwise he'd be fucked by NYPD. Heard them lie that the plea deals won't go on their record or increase their insurance, it does both because it's a guilt plea.
Fuck Florida DOT yellow light shortening bastards as much as NYC injustice system. Not enough outrage and action anymore these days.
According to TFA, the Federal guidelines recommend times based on the posted speed limit or the 85th percentile of actual speed, whichever is greater. Florida is ignoring/removing the "whichever is greater" clause.
In most cases, one can assume that the 85th percentile is greater than the posted limit, in which case the times are based on the posted limit. The ones at risk of a ticket are speeding drivers. But reading the article literally, there is another possibility. If the 85th percentile of actual speed is *less* than the limit (as in a congested area), FDOT is free to time yellow lights according to the 85th percentile, and *below* what the posted speed limit would require. Such an action would put drivers who are otherwise law-abiding at risk for tickets.
Suing the government is nothing more then suing yourself sure someone makes a mint but nothing is fixed. And taxes go up to pay for the suit.The people responsible must be fired and to pay heavy fines.
Jack of all trades,master of none
If a 1-year-old dying in an accident is a tragedy and a 25-year-old dying in an accident is just a statistic, when does it switch?
When Herbert from Family Guy loses interest
Sorry, i couldn't resist it
You can sue for more than a monetary remedy.
Also, it brings attention to the problem and makes all manner of things a matter of public record... especially DISCOVERY of facts such as learning how they justify their decisions and who was involved in the process.
Please think more.
They are longer with increased speed because it takes longer to stop from that higher speed. Yellow lights aren't about the width of the intersection and all about stopping distance before the intersection.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Of course they are ALLOWED. However, when government can be shown to be acting against the health and safety of the people? They are in violation of the constitution. And by making intersections less safe, they are unquestionably acting against the health and safety of the people.
If NHTSA can change DUI limits, maybe they can mandate yellow times and end this nonsense. Blah, blah, blah states rights whatever. This is one case where I'd be happy to see them use the denial of Federal funding club to smack these douche bags upside the head.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
In many urban areas, you'll be able to obey the 2-second rule and still maintain less than a car's length of distance between you due to the slow crawl of traffic.
Unless you're a taxi driver, then you've gotten some sort of magical power to thread the car through a needle, those guys are crazy.
At what point did I ever say that the chick in the SUV was *IN* the right? My exact words were: "an SUV came from the right side". I NEVER claimed that the SUV driver was anything near being 'in the right'. Re-read my post and try again.
The point of my post suggests that BOTH drivers were in the wrong.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Stop speeding, stop running yellow lights, stop jumping the gun on greens, and stop bitching.
Fixed that for you.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Try it sometime. Maintain a 2-second following distance and see if someone merges into that space every 5 seconds. Maybe that happens in Miami or Boston, but not in San Diego.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Congratulations. Your city is one of the few where the traffic engineers have insisted on upgrading to more modern hardware. Either that or your traffic lights were added more recently. What you are describing is the exception that proves the rule, though.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I live in Tampa and just paid one this morning. The website ViolationInfo.com actually has a video you can watch. I checked it out and the light turned red a fraction of a second before my car hit the white line. I had a lawyer specializing in traffic law take a look and he said it was very close but a judge would probably find me guilty and just to pay it.
After RTFA, I discovered why it was so close. The intersection where this happened is one of those where the yellow light only lasts 3.9 seconds, below the Florida Department of Transportation recommended minimum of 4 seconds and well below the US Department of Transportation recommended minimum of 4.5 - 5 seconds for an intersection like that. I'm now considering filing a lawsuit with this new information and perhaps even disputing the charge.
I already knew that red-light cameras were a scam but, combined with the ridiculously-short yellow lights, this is a racket that would make The Mafia feel guilty (or envious).
The CAPTCHA was "collect." Nice.
Can you not see that a certain width of intersection and slowness of speed that, if the yellow goes off just as you enter the intersection, then you can easily be IN the intersection when your light turns red and it goes green the other way? You have done nothing wrong, but are not "running a red light" and in danger of getting hit by cross traffic. Does this sound right to you?
I come here for the love
Hell yeah, I'd use this change as an excuse to "panic brake" on yellow and encourage less tailgating ;)
Also, Springfield shortened their yellow lights in an effort to "standardize"- http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1759.asp
Coming into Orlando, I picked up my crappy Dodge rental and took the road to I95 and the east coast, which was a toll road. I saw the signs for the toll booth - 1 mile and expected the usual drill. Come 1 mile and where is the toll booth? It turns it you had to have EXITED the highway a ways back to go through the tollbooth. Anyone who actually STAYS on the highway without one of those easy pass things gets a ticket. I guarantee that will trap 90% of people out of town. Nice racket if you can pull if off...
"Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
No, no no, the result for citizens is quite different from the result for government.
Their tax revenue (aside from red light cameras and other scams) is mainly driven by property taxes and income taxes. Just because citizens have less cash to spend doesn't reduce either of those numbers.
So, is it bad for citizens and safety? Absolutely. Does it increase government revenue,... also Absolutely.
I can't disagree anymore strongly with that statement. Both drivers are not in the wrong.
A green light means I can legally go. Suggesting anything else is stupid and wrong.
But given your feelings about this maybe making sure that you aren't going to get hit by people running red lights isn't necessarily a terrible idea, since it appears that you think running through red lights is only mostly against the law.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
The actual fix was to just add quotes around the yellow (I just realized I missed that). If you want to drive through actual yellow lights, you can. But if it goes red before you enter the intersection, I hope that you get eaten by an alligator.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
How about an automated paintball turret to blind every single one of them?
Oh sorry, I misread his post. In that case, no problem. Swing away.
1 old tire, 1 gallon of gasoline, 1 piece of paper, 1 match.
I leave the details as an exercise for /. readers.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
One thing that would be cheap and effective in my mind would be to take the yellow time multiplied by the speed limit, and paint a line on the road that distance away from the light. That would take some of the guesswork out of yellow lights. That is, if you are driving the speed limit and the light turns yellow - if you past the line you can proceed through the intersection, and if you are behind the line you need to stop. No having to make a quick judgment of your speed and your distance from the light and guessing of the length of the yellow. This would have a secondary benefit that once the line is in place, it would make it tougher for them to arbitrarily change the yellow light time because then they would have to send a crew out to repaint the line on the road.
Definitely happens in SF area. They drive like shit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The problem I see with paintballs is that I don't believe that kind of paint is permanent (or else it wouldn't wash out of paintball players' clothes). So all the authorities have to do is spray off the camera housing with a hose. It'd be an irritant to them, for sure, but using real spray paint would require a lot more work on their part to get the camera operational again.
Is there any way to get paintballs filled with regular oil-based permanent paint (like typical Krylon spray-can paint)?
No, their primary purpose is to assert the force of government.
Or in other terms to commit legalized murder. It's been decades since police officers stopped doing their jobs and started copying the mafiaa in all but name.
sitting on my ass in his kangaroo traffic court for 16 fucking hours that cost me then equivalent to $800 USD in lost wages for a $50 USD bicycle citation
This sounds like the broken window fallacy.
LOL Ya know dam well that's not what they will get sued For. You can have public record when they are brought to trial. Please think more.
Jack of all trades,master of none
If everybody followed the current traffic laws, such as the legal set distance between cars and stopping as soon as the light turns yellow, then there wouldn't be the safety concerns. Therefore, the problem arises from people who are technically breaking the law. How could the federal government interfere with a state's rights concerning the health and safety of people during criminal acts?
You don't sue "for" discovery and to have things like testimony entered into the public record. You can sue for all manner of things including "a cut of the profits." After all, if a government starts to make money, it needs to be shared with its investors -- the tax payers. The reality of "greedy government" is that tax money is given to favorite friends and business partners through no-bid contracts and things like that.
Discovery is a great way to expose corruption in government. It's hard to argue "national security" at a state level isn't it?
It switches when the person is able to drive. So in Florida it would be 15 (with supervisor).
Florida had a massive property value inflation a few years ago. Houses were 200% up in the space of 3 years. Property tax income was obviously very nice at the time. Florida then had a bubble burst and went below the boom increases. Property taxes dropped. Unfortunately, FL cities and counties didn't see the boom as a bonus, they pissed it away on >80% pay rises and useless project. Now they're out of money and people are leaving the state in droves, abandoning property knowing they won't pay taxes on it until the banks clear their massive foreclosure stock.
Yes... or to say it another way, if humans weren't so human, we wouldn't need laws.
Please. Reality. Okay? I really hope you know what's what and why. Blaming the masses of humans for acting the way they do fails to appreciate what people are. That some societies are more lawful than others speaks more to the level of development of that society than it does of the individuals which make up that society. Humans are humans, but when they are a part of a civilized society, only the threat of not being able to benefit from society can be effective.
(Hey, I just realized why there are so many black criminals... they don't believe they are part of society and therefore have nothing to lose... disenfranchisement.)
Anyway. Humans require laws to be more than they are, but they are still humans when they think no one is looking.
Personally I believe that red light timings should be more about personal safety than revenue. I'm just saying that I can't imagine a legal argument for federal regulation which the OP suggests.
Also, on your second to last statement (racial assumptions aside): do you really believe that criminals will stop being criminals if we only just accept them? Isn't socially deviant behavior the reason why criminals get pushed out of society?
The unwritten rules of "safe driving" can get somewhat crazy in some cities.
I have first-hand experience of how driving slower than rest of traffic usually does on a given stretch of highway is more dangerous than going (further) over the speed limit... totaled a car (indirectly) due to going only 20km/h over the limit somewhere I knew most drivers usually drive 40-60km/h over.
This is a typical Republican tactic. Steal from the poor so the rich don't have to pay for it.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Their primarily purpose is to generate revenue.
Primary purpose is a slippery concept best avoided when analyzing behavior.
A primary decision driver of any "managed, budgeted organization" is how to reduce expenses and or increase income to support and protect the activities management wishes to pursue.
A common goal is keeping people employed, and people are expensive.
Not so.
Running red lights is absolutely against the law.
Hitting the gas the nanosecond that the light turns green without first ensuring the traffic is indeed stopping for the red is a fucking stupid thing to do. It is legal? Yes, but fucking stupid.
So perhaps only one driver is 'wrong', but the other driver is an idiot.
Am I stating it more clearly now?
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Congratulations. I just don't speed or run red lights. Simpler, safer, cheaper and less restrictive.
Tell it brother, the police are just another branch of the government-content industry or as I like to call it the MAFIAA because the MPAA and RIAA are just a cartel with the government in its back pocket who want to control what you can do with your own stuff ie your DVD player or Geo Metro which they do by sending you traffic citations for $5,000 knowing full well that you'll pay it because if you go to court they'll force you to pay statutory damages of like 20x that and that's per MP3 you were listening to when you ran the red light even though MP3 sucks and FLAC is a much better system but the MPAA forces you to watch their movies using MP3 because they don't care about quality they just want your money want you to buy their music to listen on your crappy M$ Zune and (continued page 94)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
In real world scenarios the mass of a bus, straight truck or tractor trailer changes the safe stopping difference by a signifigant margin. The simple safe braking rule rule is "Double the speed, Quadruple the distance. Double the mass, Double the distance." Yes you can have brakes on larger vehicles that apply greater force than you may find on smaller vehicles, and larger wheel surfaces to grab more of road .... but in the real world once you get past a certain point in vehilce mass the possible force gains for your braking system and wheel size are not equal to the mass difference. So you are incorrect, mass of a vehicle does signifigantly impact the safe stopping distance on reasonably level grades.
I drove larger vehicles for over a decade before becoming a programmer and every professional driver imporvement course I ever took all brought out the same simple information. "Double the speed, Quadruple the distance. Double the mass, Double the distance." To paraphrase one of my favorite driving instructors
"High school physics says we all stop in the same distance, but high school physics doesn't account for the difference in braking power and wheel size between passenger vehicles and larger vehicles. Larger vehicles and their loads need longer safe braking distances."
If you want check the DOT they have lots of data to support my points .... and none to support your point in a real world scenario.
Oh and yes you can have a heavier passenger automobile that can stop in a shorter distance than a compact car .... but that is because they have improved the braking system and tires of the heavier automobile to have greater stopping power than the brakes and tires on the compact car. But that doesn't prove that mass has no effect on stopping distance, it just proves that there are ways to account for increased mass
Is there any way to get paintballs filled with regular oil-based permanent paint (like typical Krylon spray-can paint)?
There should still be. When I first started playing paintball, the only guns were cattle marking pistols that fired oil based paint and used the small CO2 cartridges. You had to shake up the tube of paintballs or they would wobble and fly in a curve when you fired them. Hurt a lot more when you got hit too.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Not the same AC, but I do that in metropolitan areas. And you're right, people are constantly filling in the gap, causing me to ease up to regrow the gap, causing more people to fill it up, lather, rinse, repeat. And you know what? I frankly don't give a fuck. I'm not gonna let myself be bullied into unsafe driving just because.. I don't even fucking know, you want to get to McDonalds 3 seconds sooner, or some bullshit.
I also refuse to enter an intersection unless I can clear it without stopping. You can honk your fucking horn all you want, but I'm not gonna block the fucking intersection and fuck up the cross-traffic once _they_ get their green.
So, girls are always statistics, then?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The problem with that is in a lot of cases if you follow at a safe distance, somone will merge into your lane in between you.
This isn't a problem with the procedure, it's a problem with driver training and lack of enforcement.
The problem with improving enforcement is that people write it off as "revenue raising" and refuse to admit they did something wrong.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Honey, I hate to break it to you, but you were already too close. Drive a safe fucking distance behind me, and you won't even notice when I rebuild a safe distance with the new person in front of me.
What is this "productive" you speak of?
(I recently worked for years in the highway safety sector, and one of my colleagues, a former cop, did a research paper on this subject. He started the research with a high opinion of red light cameras, but found that red light cameras had no significant effect on fatalities while significantly increasing non-fatal collisions.)
I'll ask you since I'd like to know: I've heard that one of the most positive innovations for traffic lights is the inclusion of a "timer bar". A bar light along side the normal traffic signals indicates how long the single has until it changes. I've heard that the places it was tested vastly reduced the number of collisions and injuries. Is there any truth to that?
Not really.
It's been well proven that most drivers dont take any notice of signs that have changed, added or removed. So adding a timer bar wont do a damned thing because people aren't disciplined or observant enough. This is why they haven't been implemented.
Also I've driven in nations that have countdown timers (in seconds) and you get people running red's at 10 seconds to green when there is traffic. These countries have terrible driver fatality rates due to poor driver discipline.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Surely that means that when you actually stop at a red light you are now synchronized to hit greens the entire rest of the way - which sounds like the ideal scheduling for lights.
In my town, the walk/don't walk signs have a display that counts down the seconds left for the "walk" time. Then the red "don't walk" symbol pops up, and shortly after that the light turns yellow.
It's extremely helpful -- if I'm half a block away and the sign says 12 seconds left, I know I'm going to get through the light on green. If I see 2 seconds left, I know it'll be red and there's no point in doing anything other than coasting.
The signs we have look sort of like this (but without the glasses looking symbol on top)
Even better are the signs that have attitude of their own, like this one in Spokane, Washington that made the news a few years ago.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Which makes some politician's car an attractive target for the bat. In my state, they're conveniently marked with special plates.
Yes. When you use the right words to describe things, it can be said that it is more "clear".
My only problem with your original statement was that you phrased it in a way that stated that both drivers shared some fault (and the only fault that matters is legal). That isn't true, I realize that you (now, perhaps) realize that, and hopefully the people of Slashdot realize that.
Enough of this distraction... Now, if someone would just address the actual points of my initial "troll" posting. :) (I'm burned out though now)
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
Denver also has a little known out in their camera laws.
All traffic tickets must be given out in person by a law enforcement officer.
So if you get a red light camera ticket, speed monitoring van ticket, etc.. in the mail, don't pay it.
They'll send it again, and again, and eventually the TTL on the ticket expires and you go along your merry way.
I've heard of very rare instances where an officer will come to your house after the 2nd notice to actually hand you a ticket.
In Pennsylvania the solid white, do not cross, lines leading up to the intersection are the timed length that you are describing. If the vehicle is within the area of the solid white lines when the light changes to yellow the vehicle will make it through if it is moving at the speed limit or higher.
I probably shouldn't help but...
They make extension poles for spray cans. They are meant for use with wasp spray so that you can spray around the eaves. A hardware store, farmer's union, or similar should have such a product available. The holster at the end holding the can is adjustable and should hold a spray can of paint just fine.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I've heard that one of the most positive innovations for traffic lights is the inclusion of a "timer bar". A bar light along side the normal traffic signals indicates how long the single has until it changes. I've heard that the places it was tested vastly reduced the number of collisions and injuries. Is there any truth to that?
I've seen something similar (in Mexico) where the green light flashes for a short period of time before the amber light. The idea is essentially the same; give drivers extra time before they have to stop. These systems give drivers enough timing information to determine whether the best action is to slow down or not.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
If that happens they can just issue more citations and raise taxes.
So why wait? Set 5 MPH speed limits, catch anyone going 1 MPH over, and make sales taxes 100% or more.
If it's such a good idea when government is mismanaged, it must be at least as good an idea when government is acting responsibly.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Happens in Chicago all the time. One correction though is that it's not once every 5 seconds. It's a nearly constant stream much of the time. If you try to leave the correct distance in front of you, you will spend more time on the brakes than anything else.
Also, the concern at red lights is not generally that I'm too close to the car in front of me, it's that the car behind me is too close. I can, to at least a small extent, control the distance in front, but I can't do a damn thing about the distance in back.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Their tax revenue (aside from red light cameras and other scams) is mainly driven by property taxes and income taxes.
Where I live, the municipal government gets zero income taxes and very little in property taxes. Their main source of revenue is sales taxes.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
I see this mode of operation in many cities in Ohio.
The lights have been there for eons, though control of them has been continually improved over my lifetime (at least) in accordance with available technology.
Perhaps your usual stomping round just sucks.
Kid-proof tablet..
The world needs an application to measure the changes of lights.
Identifying a signal lights would be easier than faces.
Transitions from green to yellow to red would be easy to sense.
The law as I understand it hinges on not entering the intersection after the light turns yellow. The speed and distance considerations associated with the green to yellow transition do not change because the red is set to be quick.
A clever attorney could spot such a camera document it and force a reversal and repayment of all fines collected by the city and contractor and make a tidy fee in the process. The contractor can try and hide behind a written contract at which point the gvment cannot hide. Shield laws only go so far.... especially if the traffic contains auto tags from multiple states.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Countdown timers on RED traffic lights decrease accidents, as it decreases irritability and road rage.
Countdown timers on GREEN traffic lights increase accidents, as people seem to speed up when they see the light will soon change.
Rory Sutherland talks about this (starting around 8:37) on his TED talk: "Perspective is Everything".
Technically correct. True, you must be served in person and you can ignore the ticket at your own peril, but Denver will just send a process server to your door. If done within 90 days you get the ticket plus $29 server fee. You then have five days to pay or you have to go to court. If they don't serve you within 90 days you're fine, but it's a gamble not a certainty. And service doesn't have to be directly to you so no hiding in your home and hope they go away.
http://www.denvergov.org/police/PoliceDepartment/TrafficEnforcement/PhotoRadarRedLight/tabid/441407/Default.aspx
Around here there is a countdown from 30, but it isn't counting in seconds.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
expect them to get even shorter when people start following the new yellow light timing. otherwise the fdot won't be able to make the contract payments to the camera company.
the fdot morons are expecting static, nay, increasing profits from this when all they're doing is getting ripped off by a camera company and putting peoples' lives in danger to maintain the bottom line.
i expect that they won't hit their new mark. i also would bet that they'll start losing profit over time. i also expect to see a rise in rear end crashes everytime they reduce the yellow light timing.
I've always been curious as to what the cutoff age is.
If a 1-year-old dying in an accident is a tragedy and a 25-year-old dying in an accident is just a statistic, when does it switch?
When they stop being cute.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Fun fact: a sufficiently hard blow to the side of the head can cause the retinas to detach.
What is this "productive" you speak of?
It's certainly not something found around these parts.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
I get extremely frustrated on the freeway around here that my idea of a safe braking distance equals every P-platers[1] idea of a perfect merging space.
[1] P-plate is a probationary licence in Australia. While stupid road decisions is not limited to P-plate drivers and those with V8s, they form the dominant roadwarrior dickwad demographic.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
One big problem is Fdot has lost their way. They should be promoting traffic safety. Instead, they are doing the opposite and trying to be a revenue source in the totally wrong sense. Feds should crack down on them.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
1. I believe many, many criminals wouldn't be criminals if there weren't so many crimes which shouldn't be crimes. (war on drugs)
2. I believe when people faced with the decision of doing a crime or not, they weigh in many factors such as what one has to lose if they are caught. And while many factors are at play, the one of "what do I have to lose?" is answered with "nothing." But there are other factors such as how the individuals are raised and what their expectations of life are at play. And if you want to go there, you could even suggest physical and genetic differences as well. [read: Kennedy risk-taking gene]
That actually sounds like a really good idea. If I was on the local council where I live, I'd probably suggest it.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
On a "from state to state" basis, there is no reasonable expecation that driving conditions will vary at the border. The roads are all made to certain standards as are the automobiles. The humans are all basically the same as well. So to have different rules in different states when it has been shown that all other things are generally equal speaks to other motives.
I do, every day I drive in Chicago. "Every 5 seconds" is probably an overstatement, but this is a constant issue both on local roads and on the interstates/highways.
Here in chicago where there are police survielence cameras i. High crime rate areas people just throw eggs at the camera. It usually takes weeks for the city to clean it... and seconds for someone to throw another egg at it. Works well i guess since we are murder capitol in the US.
Can you not see that a certain width of intersection and slowness of speed that, if the yellow goes off just as you enter the intersection, then you can easily be IN the intersection when your light turns red and it goes green the other way? You have done nothing wrong, but are not "running a red light" and in danger of getting hit by cross traffic. Does this sound right to you?
That has nothing to do with what I posted. The purpose of the yellow light duration doesn't change because municipalities abuse red light revenue cameras.
The purpose of the yellow light duration is not to ensure that a car can traverse the intersection within that duration. The purpose of the yellow light duration is to ensure that a vehicle traveling at the posted speed has enough time to observe the yellow light, decide if the distance to the intersection is sufficient to safely stop the vehicle, and safely stop the vehicle.
The DELAY on the green light for the orthogonal lanes is what needs to be proportional to the time it takes a vehicle to traverse the intersection.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
There's no such thing as "running" a yellow light you fucking moron. Yellow lights mean "proceed with caution" not "FUCKING STOP, YOU WANKER"
Down here in Australia, it quite clearly states in the traffic code that a yellow light means "Stop if it is safe to do so"; furthermore it is illegal to enter an intersection if you cannot clear it before the light turns red - e.g. crawling forward in peak hour bumper-to-bumper traffic blocking intersections.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
More and more, the government is focused on pointing guns at people and taking their money.
I'll ask you since I'd like to know: I've heard that one of the most positive innovations for traffic lights is the inclusion of a "timer bar". A bar light along side the normal traffic signals indicates how long the single has until it changes. I've heard that the places it was tested vastly reduced the number of collisions and injuries. Is there any truth to that?
I don't know about timer bars, but in Bangkok they have countdown timers for both green and red. You always know exactly how many seconds until the light changes at a glance. Better than a timer bar, I would think.
which is used to generate revenue...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
The problem isn't the arrival time, the problem is that a) even if you try to maintain a safe following distance, half the time you can't actually maintain it, and b) there is a very high risk that the person behind you is not maintaining a safe distance. The net outcome is that no matter how safely you try to drive, reducing yellow time increases your risk of a wreck.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
- 'K' in Men in Black.
The problem is that governments are demanded to give more and more services to the public, however they are greatly limited on how they can get the money.
It is actually a sad state that governments make a good chunk of their money by criminal fines.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If I recall correctly, rush hour traffic in LA gives a 2 second following distance of less than an inch. I'd be surprised if San Diego is significantly better.
(tongue only slightly in cheek)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You bring up an interesting point. I recently had a similar concern, but came to a different conclusion. If someone is tailgating me, it means I need to leave plenty of space in front of me, not only so I can slow down and stop, but so that the tailgater can slow down and stop. I also try to gauge the warning time for potential hazards. Thus, I actually drive slower when I'm being tailgated. In some situations, much slower.
Does that make me a jerk? I don't think so, but I can see why someone might think that. I'm not doing it to teach them a lesson. That's just a potential side benefit. I'm just doing the rational thing to adjust to someone else's dangerous behavior so they don't wind up injuring me.
(If anyone prints a bumper sticker "I drive slower for tailgaters", I'd actually consider buying one.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I don't know any statistics but I certainly think people find them very useful where they are in London, (Holborn for one).
It gives people a chance to rethink dashing over the road at the last moment, as they can really see how long that last moment is going to be (though there will be a slight delay after the timer has finished I'm sure.
They show a numeric countdown (15 seconds if I remember correctly)
Still it doesn't help stop all the London drivers who seem to think that it's the slower party who should always get out of the way, rather than they that should slow down or even stop for an obstruction that is right in front of them.
But overall I think they've probably prevented a lot of accidents.
If that were correct, that might seem reasonable if only highly dishonest. Part of the problem is waste, fraud and abuse, but that alone does not explain the extreme greed we see in government. There are personal interests for the decision makers I am quite sure. Some discovery and investigation would go a long way to expose it.
If being fined by automated traffic monitoring systems is such a big deal for you, maybe you should consider changing how you drive.
On my way to work I've driven past at least four speed cameras, and two locations for temporary Police speed monitoring, and through an intersection with a red light camera for the past five years, and not once have I received a ticket. I've seen the cameras fire, so I know they work.
Granted this is totally anecdotal, and I know nothing of how things are where you are, but it seems that the only thing these places have in common is it's you driving through them.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Simple, brilliant, cheap, safe, mathematically sound. Why can't everyone involved in driving / traffic / yellow lights think this way? Just don't forget that trucks need a longer distance to stop... or rather they don't slow as quickly as cars can.
If you just want to disable them, a can of spray paint is probably your best bet. But you'll still need a ladder and some time.
Two words: paintball gun
No ladder required, takes seconds and relatively quiet.
cheap to fix too. important if you get caught.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
How about a pressure sprayer loaded up with thinned paint? :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
>I bet you that they have immunity of some sort. That is the problem
Sure, so maybe you won't get the legislators thrown in jail (unless you can prove bribery by the red light cam companies), but a reasonably unbribed judge should throw out the lessened yellow light delays and overturn the tickets.
That's exactly what happened here in San Diego when the exact same thing happened. We've since removed red light cams entirely.
I don't know if it exists everywhere but in many places there are a dead zone in the timing sequence of traffic lights where all directions are showing full stop (red light). The usual argumentation is that it is needed to 'clear the intersection' but that is nonsense as this is done during the yellow period. The result is a lot of wasted time if you pass many red lights as the light could turn green faster and still let exactly the same number of cars through in any direction if the dead zone was reduced to zero. This of course requires that the yellow period is indeed long enough to clear the intersection.
The basic rhythm is this:
red - green
red - yellow
red - red
(red +) yellow - red
green - red
yellow - red
red - red
red - (red +) yellow
Respecting the pure yellow as "stop unless you cannot do it safely" would mean that the "red - red" steps can be removed, thus saving time.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
I believe over here it's popular to use polyurethane foam sold in cans. Apparently there's a small opening in the housing where you can empty the can in. As it hardens out it expands and most camera's go "pop" under the pressure..
Some photo's to give a general idea: http://www.flitsservice.nl/flitspalen/Gravenland_Hilversum/Gravenland_Hilversum.html
Portable compressor and a sand blaster is another popular trick.
high power laser pointers, burn out the sensor.
Look at wickedlasers.com
> Maybe that happens in Miami or Boston
Doesn't happen in Boston. Well, the areas around Boston, anyways (anyone who drives in Boston is insane). Only one or two cars merge in front of me in heavy traffic, if that. It's rare enough that I'm not even really cognizant of it.
I can only imagine that these people complaining about everyone doing that are themselves the people who do that. Probably also the same assholes who know there's going to be a long line for the ramp and, rather than getting into it and waiting their turn, stay a lane over and then try to merge in right at the end.
The City of Houston was doing this crap. Yellows that were so short there was no way to stop or you'd be in the middle of the intersection. A petition got the cameras on the ballot and they were defeated. The City was whining about safety, but there were several studies done at intersections in the city by independent auditors that found rear end accidents increased due to the shortened yellows and the RL cameras. From what I read the city was pulling in $2 - $3 million per year on the fines.
Demand a QUICK AND SPEEDY trial BY JURY, in every single case.
The only reason they will be over loaded, is because the law makers, courts and law enforcers are arresting more and more people for stupid things, and there would be plenty of prison space if they would simply stop those practices.
The paint in paintballs washes away with water.
in Missouri the state supreme court ruled against Springfield, MO for the installation and operation of red light cameras. Unfortunately, this fact is not well known and there are other operations in the state. If you get a red light camera based ticket in Missouri, don't pay it.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3067.asp
The post is wholly incorrect. The Missouri State Supreme Court ruled against Springfield, MO for the lack of adjudication. The city was issuing red light camera tickets but the tickets were not handled by the court system. Instead the city treated the tickets like a tax bill while still passing along it's 'judgement' against you to the state DMV. People who received the tickets were denied their day in court and were not allowed to present evidence in their defense. The city simply considered itself 100% right. Add to that the cameras themselves were low resolution and did not have a polarizing filter that allowed seeing through windshields. So most picture were just of the license plate and did not contain any evidence on who was driving the vehicle.
The person who sued the city was a state highway patrol officer who received one of these tickets.
As a Resident of this F'd up state I can tell you about it.
Initially, if caught on camera, you are sent a citation for ~$158, with no way to fight it in court.
Next, as we are all taught in Driver's Ed. if you find yourself unable to slow down to a stop at an intersection safely, it is safer to maintain your rate of speed and go through the light.
Next if you're not driving the car and someone else is (say a friend), because the car is registered to you, an individual, you receive the citation, NOT the driver.
Clearly red light camera are designed as money makers. If it was truly meant for safety, then you could go before a judge and argue the citation in court. Only recently can people begin to fight the citation.
I understand clearly that driving is NOT a right, but a privilege, but now I see our local / state governments treating everyone as if they were a criminal. Red light cameras remove the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" aspect of our legal system. The burden of proof is on the camera, but since so many argued (originally), "...you can't ticket me if you didn't see me do it..." argument that our local govts. twisted the laws to suit their money making needs.
If they truly were installed for safety (as claimed), then people would be able to address the citations in traffic court. I have personally seen some positive results at one intersection. But shortening yellow lights, negates all of the positive results that people complained about originally, it's dangerous at that intersection. Now this will introduce more fender benders and accidents and way more red light violations.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
They already do that. At least in MO, that's been standard practice for as long as I can remember. The dotted white line becomes solid white near an intersection, indicating that you shouldn't change lanes until you're clear of the intersection. The length of that solid white line depends on the speed limit and yellow light length. I've never found it to be inaccurate except in places where two or three intersections are very close to each other and create a small clusterfuck of lines.
It doesn't stop the local municipalities from changing the yellow light timings, though. That 0.4 seconds (or whatever) doesn't affect the outcome noticeably at any driving speed. Things are too variable in real-world driving. The solid white line still generally matches up to the length of the yellow light (or at least is perceived to match), even if the yellow light timing is shortened.
Apparently that has been the preffered method in Breat Britian. The tire burns hot enough to completely destroy the inards while leaving the armored steel case just scorched. The red light cameras I've seen in my area aren't as prone to this sort of attack though as the cases are shaped differently enough that getting the tire to stay put would be a major problem. Although I guess you could just use some steel cabling to attach the tire.
I suspect the main reason we don't have those is related to the comments I usually see about them on Slashdot, to the effect of "that'll just make people see that the light is about to change and so they'll speed up." In other words, we can't have nice things because people love to assume the worst and so any change at all is viewed as being negative.
Protect and serve society as a whole, not individuals.
Creve Coeur, St. Peters, and Arnold are the main ones you have to watch out for in my area. They all got slapped for the 3.2-second yellow light timings. They've all increased the yellow light times to the maximum the contract with the red light camera company allows: 4 seconds.
Creve Coeur changed their local ordinances to define a red-light violation to mean any time you're in an intersection where the signal you entered the intersection from is red. So if you enter the intersection on green, and some dumbass in front of you stops and you can't get out of the intersection and the light turns yellow, then red, you're violating Creve Coeur's red-light ordinance. The camera takes a picture of your car and they have a rookie officer sign the ticket back at the station. It's as legal as any other ticket, and the MOSC hasn't ruled against it. If you were going to attack this, attack it as a bad local ordinance overriding state traffic laws.
St. Peters and Arnold both use the state's traffic laws, which state that if you're in the intersection before it turns red, you're not in violation if it turns red while you're still in the intersection. The cameras in these locations take two pictures, one at the beginning of the yellow, one at the end of the yellow. If you're in the intersection in the first picture, you're clear and no ticket is mailed. If you're in the intersection ONLY in the second picture, you get a ticket. This also stands up in court as long as the yellow light timings are legit.
On timings: 3.2 seconds is the minimum, by law. 4 seconds is the maximum by contract. There have been repeated bills introduced in the state legislature to push the legal minimum to 4 seconds or more, just to piss off the red light camera companies.
so you were driving over the limit and not paying attention?
airbags were only needed to save people too stupid to use seat belts.
so, yes, they cost far too much for what they accomplish, and have killed a fair number of children in the shotgun seat.
I bet you that they have immunity of some sort. That is the problem
Of course they do. The laws are different for "important people".
If people who make such decisions knew it could really bite them in the ass (as in fines and jail), they would think twice or thrice on these decisions.
There is no personal responsibility in government. Jail is out of the question and fines will ultimately be passed on to the taxpayers (i.e., you).
Another poster suggested an alternative way to deal with those miscreants, but the government does not look kindly on those who infringe on it's monopoly on violence so it is not very practical.
However, there is a way to show these crooks that actions have consequences:
Find out who the representatives responsible for those decisions are.
Organize a group of people to go door to door in their ridings, distribute flyers headlined "Do not let kill our children for profit" or suchlike (carefully constructed to not constitute libel) with information how shortening yellow raises accident rates and fatalities, especially among pedestrians, and politely urge the residents to vote them out of office because they cannot be trusted not to pull such a fast one again ("we're non-partisan, vote for anyone you like except this person").
Call the media. Radio stations work best because you can sometimes go live on air so your message won't get edited, but newspapers are also good if you can interest a reporter in this story. Try to arrange for actual parents (mothers work best) to be interviewed ("I was a staunch supported for but this is atrocious! What kind of a deal with the devil it takes to put city/county profits ahead of our children's safety? I will never vote for him again, even if he makes a shoe of recanting. Fool me once..." carefully constructed to avoid actual slander).
Make sure that the public associates those people with the vilest stereotypes. Make "think of the children" work for you for once.
Try paying attention to overhead signs when you get cut off by vehicles doing lane changes half a car length in front of you and in front of each-other. Over or under the speed limit would have made very little difference, I would still have missed the panels.
Here in Chicago, I noticed when I went to other cities they had the timers. I thought that was a great idea. We slowly started seeing them in Chicago and noticed much less issues at intersections and I even felt more relaxed while driving because of it. Then after they started putting up red light cameras I started seeing black frames put around the walk/do not walk signs blocking the count down timers from being seen. Typical bullshit corruption to generate revenue.
One of my personal stress relievers is putting the fear of god into the hearts of people who drive like assholes. If they are trying to squeeze their turn through a stale yellow light and I get the green while they are still in the intersection, they are going to see the front end of my car coming dangerously close to them. I know I'm not going to hit them, but they don't know that. The only way people learn these lessons is through instant fear. I've also developed the practice (that makes passengers crazy) of pretending to ignore people who are going to hit me. If the accident will be their fault, let them figure out how to stop it. I know I'm ready to avoid them, but they don't know that.
The problem isn't the arrival time, the problem is that a) even if you try to maintain a safe following distance, half the time you can't actually maintain it
No, the problem isn't that I cannot maintain the distance, the problem is why I cannot maintain the distance. I admit I am speculating as to the reason (some fucker just has to get to their destination a negligible amount of time sooner), but I cannot think of another reason why. However, I already said I do not give a fuck how difficult it may be to maintain a safe following distance. I will not be bullied into driving unsafely.
b) there is a very high risk that the person behind you is not maintaining a safe distance.
And my tailgating the person in front of me will some how change that? I think not.
The net outcome is that no matter how safely you try to drive, reducing yellow time increases your risk of a wreck.
Oh I agree. But what does that have to do with the fact that refusing to maintain a safe following distance also increases your risk of a wreck? Sure, it's the topic of TFA, but we derailed from talking about that a long while back. :P
That's a point of law I was trying to figure out one time. If the same offense can have a different punishment depending on how you are caught, there is something wrong with that. But I couldn't figure out how to find law that applied to it. The legislature is allowed to cede criminal enforcement to administrative enforcement, but it doesn't seem like they ought to be able to have it both ways.
In a strange way, I agree. I [intentionally] drive a bit on the crazy side. I've been in 30+ vehicular collisions in my driving career (don't worry, only two involved other vehicles, and I was found to be not at fault for those; and there's never been a single injury). I often exceed 100mph on my daily commute, and a set of decent tires lasts me no more than 2 years.
That being said, I've never set off an automated traffic monitoring system. I've never gotten a red light camera ticket (even though my home town is littered with the fucking things), and I've never gotten a speed camera ticket (despite frequently driving by one). I don't even have any points on my license, since I haven't gotten a moving violation in I don't know how many years.
Basically, if you're getting automated tickets, you're just not paying attention. And if you ask me, not paying attention is a lot more dangerous than driving a bit on the crazy side. Situational awareness goes a long way.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
"- Fines, cost of repairs, and insurance premiums eat away at their citizens' bank accounts. Less money = less spending = less sales taxes, and a lot of angry, pissed off citizens."
When you have repairs, higher insurance, and fines you are still spending just as much. You merely aren't spending it where you want to. The state still gets to tax those repairs and insurance premiums and gets all the money from fines.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Okay, this is something that's been bugging me for quite a while now. Here in Ottawa, there's typically about a second or two where all the lights are red before the next direction turns green. Is this not the case in the USA? As in, do the lights in the NS direction turn green exactly when the lights in the EW direction turn red?
Cynical Idealist
You're way off base here. Automobile transportation requires a massive public investment in infrastructure. The public, acting collectively in the form of a democratically elected government, therefore gets to decide how its infrastructure is used. From this it should be obvious that we need a living constitution otherwise we'd have to amend it every time somebody invented something new and the constitution would be a ponderous tome.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
Can one be hidden in a magnetically mounted black shark fin antenna? The idea is to create an automated turret that could blind them as you (or an unsuspecting other vehicle) drive through. Bonus points if it's done by a police cruiser!
Wouldn't it be easier to just stop for red lights?
Oh im not saying your wrong your a smart ass for sure. Stop talking down to me as if i dont know anything. Gee like i didn't know already ya can sue for all kinda things besides money. Get your nose out your ass snob. And you can reply if you feel the need but ive said enough to you. Have a great day
Jack of all trades,master of none
What a load of crap.
The speed/progress of the group of cars is limited by the car in front. Allowing a large gap to open in front of you doesn't "clear the jam". The jam is cleared when the guy in front makes it out (and he can't make it out until the guy in front of HIM makes it out, and so on).
You are not doing any favors to the people behind you in your lane because:
(1) the people in the adjacent lane are changing lanes into your gap, thus putting the people in your lane further behind
(2) what if the guy behind you isn't going 10 miles down the road, but wants to get off at the next exit. You have just delayed him by refusing to move up.
(3) if you take one gap of, say, 15 extra car lengths (4 m each), and multiply it by 30 douche bags, you get 450 DBL, or 1800m. That's right, an extra 1.8 km of traffic jam.
(4) usually, one of these constant-speed guys isn't paying attention at the end of the jam, and suddenly that 15 car lengths turns into 40 before he realizes it's time to start accelerating again, meaning he is now causing the jam that he is now the head of.
Your technique does reduce the need to brake as often, and can avoid accidents caused by mistakes, but in a multilane situation is just selfishness. "I know better than all those people behind me".
And by the way, the truckers are leaving larger gaps because they can't decelerate quickly and need larger gaps, not because they subscribe to your pet theory.
What it comes down to is observing what the signals do on your commute and use it as a guide - but you certainly can't make assumptions on how they work in other towns.
+1 Disagree
Understanding Californiaâ(TM)s Property Taxes
All Revenue From Property Taxes Is Allocated to Local Governments. Property tax revenue remains within the county in which it is collected and is used exclusively by local governments. State laws control the allocation of property tax revenue from the 1 percent rate to more than 4,000 local governments, with Kâ"14 districts and counties receiving the largest amounts. The distribution of property tax revenue, however, varies significantly by locality.
This is why many cities went broke after the real estate bubble popped...
And killing me is *way* worse than killing anybody else!
+1 Disagree
Use the tire to burn up the politician South Africa style.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not the mention the fact that it is unconstitutional. The right to ethical conduct by government or the legal profession is the single most fundamental right arising under the 9th Amendment (far more fundamental than the privacy rights recognized by the Supreme Court in decisions such as Roe vs. Wade). Even the appearance of ethical conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible.
As with other fundamental rights, this right supercedes the powers granted to the federal government by the pre-Bill of Rights portions of the Constitution, and the powers granted to state governments by their own Constitution or similar documents.
For any government to take money from traffic violations into its personnel, operations, or equipment budgets involves ethical conflict of interest, even if the money does not directly go to pay the salaries and benefits of the police officers and judges enforcing the tickets. After all, there is only a finite amount of money to be had, and spending this money for something OTHER than these salaries means that money from some other part of the budget is now available to pay salaries and benefits.
Further, the money can not be spent in any fashion that could reasonably be supposed to help politicians get votes, as this also would involve conflict of interest. Politicians, after all, set policies and have the ability to reward people engaging in actions that benefit them, even when such actions are directly contrary to the interests of the public.
The government officials involved in implementing this or any similar policy are -- at a minimum -- immediately and permanently disqualified from holding any position of public trust or responsibility. Those who have sworn oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, including all legal professionals, are subject to additional penalty.
The legal profession being in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to recognizing this and other rights arising under the 9th Amendment, any judgments to the contrary by any court are violations of the judges oath(s) of office, making them accessories to unethical conduct, are immediately rendered null and void. and immediately remove the parties involved from office. Similarly, the opinions of Bar Associations with respect to this issue, or any issue involving conflict of interest on the part of the legal profession, are irrelevant.
Just as we expect military officers to refuse to obey laws that require them to violate fundamental rights (the Nuremberg Precedent, another right applicable to US law under the 9th Amendment), so to do we expect civil officers to refuse to implement illegal laws, orders, and policies, or to determine their actions based upon invalid precedents.
Similarly, should the government use third party agents to implement these illegal policies, then these agents are subject to penalty for being involved in a violation of other parties fundamental rights. If this were not the case, any violation of fundamental rights could be implemented by government simply by contracting it out. By similar reasoning, such policies are still invalid when implemented on private land.
Unfortunately, just as many governments in this land have refused to be financially responsible for decades, so to have governments (and the legal profession) avoided ethical responsibility. These two problems go hand in hand with respect to this issue. It is time for a change. There are legal means for governments to make up their budget shortfalls: this is not one of them.
You just need to throw an old tire set on fire up onto the box. You could fill the tire with oil and tape a lit fuse to it before sticking it up there. There was a site from Europe I saw last year that collected photos of speed cameras that people torched like that. Sometimes they would have a second picture of the replacement camera that gets burnt right after being installed. Once the cameras are no longer profitable, the problem goes away.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
If more people use the Commercial Lien process on the government officials who who do such things because of their greed for money ( revenue ) Then when the people file these commercial Liens against the person who changed this in an amount of 2.5 Billion dollars, then follow through with the Lien process, then you can win against them and seize their property and assets. Then they will have zero revenue and will have nothing with which to fight with. Hit them where it counts. In the wallets.
It varies by locality. For example, most of the place I've been in Virginia seem to do that; there's at least a couple seconds of all red before the other side goes green, and it seems to be even a little longer in higher traffic areas where there is more likelihood someone will be out there. On the other hand I've been in towns in West Virginia where one side goes red and the other side instantly goes green. Every time I see it I can't help but think how that would just be an accident waiting to happen where I live.
One of the things that has been missed in the progressive enlargement of government by both the left and right is that the constitution has not been updated.
Oh, really? It was updated as recently as 1992.
It was designed to be hard to update, and the passage of he 18th amendment was a good example of why it was so designed.
Government have begun using regulations to control people's behavior to a large extent.
Yes, like those pesky regulations against theft, murder, rape, unsafe working conditions, dumping toxins into the environment, keeping airplanes from crashing into each other, assigning radio frequencies... all of these are constitutional and most of them make sense.
But like I said, as the progressives on both the left and right
I don't think you understand the meaning of "progressive". The left is progresive, the right is regressive.
I'd be more worried about those that created the highway traffic act and other such rule books without any concern for regulating government itself.
Government is regulated at the voting booth. If you don't participate you have little right to complain.
Police department had nothing to do with the change of yellow light timing. Any tickets generated by cameras have nothing to do with individual officers on the street. Regardless of the timing, running or accelerating at a yellow light, instead of slowing and preparing to stop (what the light is designed for) is dangerous and against the law. In Massachusetts yellow lights actually means "stop, if it safe to do so" look up your states chapter and section. Don't be so quick to point the finger at Police. Lastly, most Police Departments budgets far outweigh the revenue collected in the form of tickets.
Doesn't the proliferation of indirect taxes like this suggest that your direct taxation levels are too low, or that your tax enforcement system is too lax?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
They more or less have this where I live--at least if it's more than one lane each direction. As you approach the intersection, the dividing line between lanes goes from broken (can change lanes) to solid (lane changes prohibited). The point at which these become solid is roughly yellow time multiplied by speed limit, under ideal driving conditions. AFAIK this isn't officially mentioned anywhere, because people will use that as a rule rather than a guide, even if it's raining or snowing, and ignoring their own vehicle's braking characteristics. It's pretty consistently accurate though, whether it's 40, 60 or 80 km/h.
Darling, I was talking about the person behind me. The person I am not, the one I have no control over. Reading comprehension is a wonderful skill. I'd recommend working on yours.
You are right and this assertion of the force in government in turn generates revenue whether it be in new laws, policy or taxes. The bottom line is all that counts in government. "People" are the method of accomplishing this.
Why would you assume that? "He who smelt it dealt it"? As an observant driver, I notice this phenomenon because it creates a "channel" of other cars moving around me. This is hazardous because it involves a lot of unnecessary passing and lane-changing.
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence. This is something else that I see regularly at I-290 for the offramp to I-90/94. Actually, on this topic, I do have a pet peeve. When "merge ahead" signs are posted for construction, many drivers will merge shortly after the signs. However, if the signs are posted too far in advance of the actual merge, this results in some drivers merging too early, and other drivers seeing the opportunity to "jump the queue" and drive all the way until the merge point. If everyone stayed in their lanes until the merge point, there wouldn't be a moral hazard to jump the queue, and traffic flow would probably be improved due to an orderly "zipper" merge. But once an early merge has started, only an asshole will break the unspoken courtesy-merge and continue straight until the actual merge. All because the signs were so early.
When a state, county or city allows deviation in federal traffic control equipement they can become laible for accidents that take place. Even the issue of receiving a ticket from a sub standard traffic light is enough to trigger numerous law suits. Essentially the public can not be regulated by a sub standard device. There is a uniform code of traffic regulations that all are required to obey.
So now we have banana republic traffic issues. Our nation is in its death rattles now.
The new police vehicles, with all the trimmings, would argue otherwise. Tax-wise, the population density of the local area is sky-rocketing, and I believe the local government continues to rake in a fortune. The Lexus dealership down the way, and the giant Roman Catholic church (and I mean big) seems to indicate that not only are people flush with money, but they are parting with it.
On the other hand, this particular local government is responsible for, as I said, attempting to use eminent domain for some back-alley deal with a developer, said attempt resulting in the descent of a fair portion of the populous upon the local government to 'voice their opinions.' Somehow the idea of selling off the fair grounds used for horse shows did not go over well with the local population, of which a frightening number seem to own horses. My personal belief is that the local government was imported from somewhere else, and that they are acting as they would anywhere else, power-grabbing, philandering, lying, grafting, etc. and that it's only when they manage to bump into something that they stop. I do not think I am alone in this belief, and their actions seem to provide plenty of evidence to support it: they are, frankly, not representative of the people they are, for lack of a better word, ruling. That eminent domain action, a minor thing anywhere else, is a huge red card in this area.
I am John Hurt.
So, an aside here: There's absolutely no question that seat belts make drivers and their passengers safer -- none whatsoever.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, have a considerably higher death and injury rate in areas where seat belts are in use -- seat belts reduce risk for drivers, drivers behave more recklessly (because they can), and other road users who aren't protected by those seatbelts die.
I'm also reminded somewhat of guard rails on some of our major freeways (Austin area) being replaced with a trio of metal lines intended to redirect vehicles back onto the road rather than letting them cross the median into the other direction's traffic. It's not an entirely bad idea -- unless you're on a motorcycle, in which contact with those things at speed almost always means dismemberment.
Anyhow -- there's more than one kind of road user, and decisions made intended to protect one class can have unintended effects on the rest. A groundswell of support for something that makes drivers safer might well increase the risk of death for folks who are already in a marginalized class.
I agree with that. The problem is that if the yellow light timing is too short it may never be safe to stop at the yellow. That's why what they are doing is potentially dangerous. Sure it can increase their revenues, but it may also cause more accidents and possibly a few lives. A bad idea no matter how you look at it.
First off, the cameras are always hooded, to reduce sun glare and reduce the amount of rainwater that gets on them. Rain contains a surprising amount of dirt the drops pick up as they fall through the atmosphere, and you get the same effect on a camera lens as you do on your house windows.
Now hit that with a paintball and the effect is quite a lot worse. A single shot to any part of the lens or hood area is likely to completely coat the entire lens with a thick enough layer of (water-soluable) paint to make 100% of the photos taken with the camera unusable. (can't get a plate)
The rain hood will protect against rain washing the paint away. Although after a few days, the paint will have dried up enough that it will require a little scrubbing action to remove it - ordinary rain won't do the job at that point.
This method has many advantages and few disadvantages compared to other options. Firstly, it's unlikely to cause physical damage to the camera, which will be useful if you get caught. If you and four other citizens start balling the cameras, and you get caught, you will likely be judged responsible for 100% of the cameras. If you're taking them out with .22's instead of paintballs, that could easily be billed at a grand or more per camera. If it's just paint, they'll probably get you for $70'ish each to send out a guy with cotton balls and a long pole. (or a cherry picker)
Ammo is a lot cheaper. Shots can be a lot quieter. Easier to visually identify already "serviced" cameras. And odds are you'd be charged with vandalism rather than destruction of public property, since nothing permanent was done.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
the paint is food grade gelatin usually.
Wow. That's horrible. If I could mod you up, I would.
Cynical Idealist
I could care less about
Couldn't