Slashdot Mirror
Red Light Camera Use Declined In 2013 For the First Time
SonicSpike writes "2013 may be a turning point for red-light cameras across the United States. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a non-profit largely funded by auto insurance companies, this year is the first time in nearly two decades that the number of American cities with red-light cameras has fallen — the systems were installed in 509 communities as of November 2013. While a single-year drop may not ultimately mean much, legislators across the country are increasingly agitated about the cameras. Bills are also pending in Florida and Ohio that would ban the devices entirely. A state representative in Iowa has also twice introduced legislation to ban RLCs (he was not successful). Part of this backlash has to do with the (sometimes accurate) perception that RLCs are a moneymaking scheme, pure and simple."
Police think it's a great idea to keep intersections safe. Politicians initially agree, at least until they get slapped with a fine. Then suddenly it's a moneymaking scheme.
Came hoping they have something to do with the Red Light District. Left disappointed.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I've been caught twice on red light cameras. One I was truly guilty of, and that was plain to see on video. The other was because the intersection became a "no turn on red" intersection and I didn't notice the sign because I've driven through the area a million times. Problem is that the local police charge $75 per incident, which is quite high considering they don't have to do any police work to catch us.
I think if it were structured with smaller fines and eventually violation points for people who keep running the lights over and over, then people would have fewer problems with it. I know a lot of privacy minded people have a problem with it, but there really are a lot of people around here who ignore very red lights and could cause accidents.
RLC cause more accidents because people slamming on their brakes for yellow lights. It is documented.
i was glad
The RLC's would not make ANY money if people did not run red lights. "Pure and simple!"
You know, by doing something about something completely unimportant in the greater scheme of things, but very popular regardless.
Let me know when they act constructively with regards to a meaningful issue.
DOT studies a while back showed that increasing yellow light time by a second or so would reduce red-light accidents. However, RLC contracts often come with a stipulation that yellow light time is reduced, by at least a half second or more, to increase revenues. These things need to go, the sooner the better.
I think red-light cameras have a negative connotation _because_ they make money and that is unfortunate.
Most every successful business makes money so if you want to contract out police work such as traffic speed enforcement, that contractor _has_ to make money.
If you want to keep the job in-house so-to-speak, well the government doesn't have to make money but then everybody whines about how expensive it is to maintain this wonderful society we have _because_ of government. They think it costs too much because all they look at is the expense of taxes, not benefit of courts, police, and laws that form a well-regulated market safe for businesses and customers.
Then all it takes is enough wealthy citizens and politicians getting actual tickets they can't talk or bribe their way out of and traffic enforcement gets to stop.
We either want laws or we don't. If you think less government is best, move to Somalia.
We have yet to analyze our systems correctly (i.e. scientifically instead of politically).
Has there been any long term research that showed that these things were anything but a revenue generator? Everything I've seen seemed to indicate that they increased incidents of minor accidents and showed no statistically significant decrease of fatal accidents at intersections.
I'm guessing that the same people that oppose them are the ones that pushed hardest to make them optimized for moneymaking instead of safety.
Bills are also pending in Florida and Ohio that would ban the devices entirely
Thats great that while there is pending legislation to ban them that they are still active and sending out tickets. Guess they dont really need the red light cameras here in Ohio anymore since an officer can just guess your speed and ticket you for it anyways.
now if we could just put some time in to getting out of that pesky agreement ohio got themselves in to with Correction Corporation of America to keep their private prisons stocked with 'offenders'
Sometimes? Over here the implementers were talking about having 2 second ambers/yellows. That proves it's not about safety.
If they also talked about increasing yellows to 5.5 seconds only then I'd believe it's about safety. Anyone running a red light when they have a 5.5 second yellow deserves to be booked. 2 seconds is ridiculous, even 3 seconds is too short in certain places.
Which is why many cities seeing decreased revenue for that very reason from their cameras decreased the yellow light times & began throwing in other rules (no turn on red for example).
Red light camera arrangements are in many cases tantamount to a government entity effectively delegating powers reserved to it (the power to issue summons, the power to levy fines) to private companies. Even the appeals process on these fines are generally heard by an "administrative officer" and not a judge.
This is quite possibly at odds with the Due Process of Law guarantee in the US provided by the 5th amendment - a private company fine not supervised by the judiciary is not generally the "due process" envisioned.
Studies have repeatedly shown that RLCs increase the number and severity of intersection accidents.
There is zero justification, even if you ignore the lack of constitutional merit that RLCs have.
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies
The Phx AZ traffic light system is built with the data capacity to provide realtime high-resolution imaging that would support online/real-time tracking of individuals. You can (and I have) called 911 to report individuals walking in traffic, and the dispacher was able to identify the individual by color of clothing and where they were. This isn't the speeding-ticket camera, this is city-based camera built into/onto the traffic lights. Whether or not people realize or value it - privacy stopped existing in the USA a long time ago, and it isn't coming back. Big brother thinks he should be trusted AND spends accordingly on infrastructure. These folks like their billion-dollar a year budgets, and the sense of power. That isn't going to change any time soon. The next person you give that billion dollar a year budget and all that power too is going to go just as big-brother as the last guy. Power corrupts, remember?
Maybe the jurisdictions that are opting out of red-light cameras operated by third-parties already have their own infrastructure that makes the third party irrelevant.
I wonder if there are going to be local/city-level disclosures about tracking of girlfriends using this system like there were for the NSA.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/
Another thing that should be banned is one- or two-second yellow lights. At every intersection in my area (Chesterfield County, VA) where they've shortened the duration of a yellow light, accidents have spiked dramatically. The original reason for the implementation of such was so that more tickets could be written, but as usual, the PHB's in the county offices didn't acknowledge that costs for police, ambulances and fire-engines to respond to an accident scene would outweigh any additional revenue.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
The real reason legislators are agitated is that you can't bribe a camera.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I am reminded of a conversation I had with my daughter when she was about four. We were driving around and came to a stoplight. "What does red mean?" I asked her. "Stop", she replied. "And what does green mean?" I said. "GO!" she yelled. "And what does yellow mean?" She thought for a minute, and said, "Go real fast?"
This gave me some insight into the driving habits of her mother.
I know that red light cameras have sometimes been abused, but what are we supposed to do about the pandemic of red-light-running?
Proverbs 21:19
We have two red light traffic cams in town. I know exactly which two red lights they are. There are big signs that say, "HEY THIS LIGHT HAS A CAMERA." I can understand an out-of-towner possibly not being aware of them, but that means someone was texting instead of looking at the giant sign warning about it as they sped through a red light.
This isn't to say I disagree - the cameras are stupid, and clearly designed to generate revenue rather than increase safety. But we've dealt with them for years and I've never once gotten a ticket because I don't run red lights.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Self-financing police departments create a conflict of interest. It pressures the police to go for the crimes that bring them the most money - ones that are easy and cheap to detect, even if they don't actually cause any time - and to resort to dirty tricks to increase the profit further. There's a simple solution to this: Don't give the fines to the departments (or, in this case, contracted companies) who actually enforce the law. Put them into a big state-wide pot, and each year divide it up between departments in the ratio of population (Possibly adjusted for crime rate). Likewise to any proceeds from police auctions and asset seizures.
It is rather funny how people blame everything and everyone for accidents but not themselves. Yes, of course, RLC are to blame for collisions, not drivers who speed and follow too close! Drive according to rules and RLC won't cause any trouble. Moreover, it seems to me that accidents caused by RLC would be minor comparing to accidents caused by running red light. During this type of collision everybody is already braking, speeds are lower. Rear end collision in most cases hits the front of the car which is design to absorb this hit, also car in front slides forward and in most cases there are only one or two occupants in the front of the car, so they are not hit by car in the back. But if you look into commissions caused by running red light the story is different. Car running red light is actually accelerating in a hope to 'make it' - the speeds are higher. One of the vehicles is being hit in the side causing much more damage. So yeah, RLCs are a moneygrab. Just like any other type of law enforcement. And prisons are legitimate form of slavery. Anarchy - the way to go, right.
These things do not "make money", they "get money". Making money implies that they have created some sort of value.
I got a ticket in Dallas once, and my dad got one in Miami recently. Looking at the pictures, and even the video in my case) you can see the infraction...but you can't see the person in the car. Now I don't have tints or anything, but the video is shot from the back in both of those cases and you can't see me or my father. When I got my ticket (several weeks after the incident), I was honestly not sure if it was me or my then-girlfriend driving my car that day. So how is it legal for them to ticket en masse without verifying identity, only identifying the car itself?
I think at this point all states have at minimum regulations for minimum yellow light time. However this does not stop cities from mistiming yellow lights. Of course it was an accident, or simply maintenance hadn't gotten to that one yet to correct it.
The point should not be to establish blame, but to reduce the frequency of accidents. Yes, people do stupid things on the road, we all know that. And sometimes you and I are the ones doing those stupid things, unless you are one of the 75% of drivers who think they are above-average drivers. If adding a second to the yellow light time reduces accidents (as it has been demonstrated to do), then increasing the yellow light time should be a seriously considered option!
I like what you wrote. This reminds me of a guy who rear ended my car and blamed me for it. He was 4 - 5 feet behind me going 70km/h before I started braking. Yes I did break suddenly and it was due to a minor lack of attention (I was looking in my rear view mirror trying to understand why he was tailing me).
The other driver argued with the cop about how it was my fault and the cop told him the following: "No matter how hard or what reason the person in front of you stops, it is your responsibility to keep a safe braking distance between you and the car in front". Case closed!
It's entirely possible for RLC's to be set up to improve safety - unfortunately, they often aren't. The goal should be to set up the lights in such a way to maximize safety (i.e. longer yellow, 1-2 second lag between red on one side and green on the other), and have the cameras there to deter people from acting unsafely (i.e. running red lights).
When they don't make enough money on the red light running, they then turn on the feature "speed on green". The biggest scam on the cameras is the amount of the funds that go to the company that run them. $80 or more of the ticket will fund the camera company in the first place. License to steal. And of course they shorten the yellow. They are in this to make money. Safety has never been their concern. It's always about the almighty buck.
Since they're GROSSLY over-represented in the drunk driving, 'running a red light and killing a car full of WHITE people' statistics.
Oh, wait... we're not allowed to tell the TRUTH on Slashdot, are we... we have to pretend that everything our unelected Jewish 'masters' who run the media say is true...
I think a lot of people in the US get weirded out by roundabouts. They seem to do well in the areas they put them in, but the initial reaction is always shock and confusion.
Not saying that is a valid reason to not install them, though. I can just see opposition initially.
Most every successful business makes money so if you want to contract out police work such as traffic speed enforcement, that contractor _has_ to make money.
Government is not supposed to be in the business of making money from violations of the law regardless of whether it is contracted or not. This is no better than when the police department goes out to meet a revenue quota by issuing speeding tickets at the end of the month. It is unethical and really not much more than state sponsored extortion.
Got ticketed once -- wrong vehicle, not mine -- they didn't care, finally got someone to listen to me and they threw it out. The vehicle in the picture was dark blue or black and my car was silver, not even close.
The obvious solution is that those that design and operate the traffic light systems should not be the ones that profit from the fines.
That is the law, indeed. I can slam the brakes in a Subaru Impreza WRX and virtually assure that whoever I'm brake checking hits me, on account of the 125' stopping distance. Of course, legally speaking, it's their fault. Great way of making money with whiplash payouts. The law is the law, and the law is always right. Case closed, ethics be damned!
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Unfortunately I do not know the details about research around longer yellow times, specifically I do not know for how long it was conducted. I would guess that this measure might have positive effect on short/medium term, but in the long term people just accommodate it. And those who run red light would just account for it and push it to the limits again.
Unfortunately there are only two things that stop people from doing stupid things:
1) money. i.e. fines
2) pain, injury
In case of running red light latter induces pain on innocent people, so the real option left is money, i.e. fines.
Yes, there is a percentage of people who run red light occidentally once on their lives, because they are humans, not machines. But there's large part who does this routinely and on purpose - and for those longer yellow, delayed green or whatever measure wont work. Fine, license suspension, double insurance premiums might safe lives of others with the help or RLCs.
When you get a letter from the red-light company, curb your curiosity and don't go to their website, don't login, don't call them. Don't acknowledge receipt in any way. Remember what the cop says when he hands you a ticket? "Signing here is not an admission of guilt." So what is it then? It's evidence that you received the summons. Until you call the red-light company or log in to their web site, you haven't received a summons. You haven't been charged with a crime yet. Why would you volunteer to do that?
Throw it away, wait for a registered letter or a paid summons-server.
Your points are valid. It comes down to WHY municipalities are shortening the yellow light time. If it's to make more money, that is unacceptable. If there is a positive impact on public safety, then that is a valid reason to make the change. If the impact is negative, and the officials know it, then it becomes downright unethical.
Your brakes may one day save some kid's life by the cost of rear end of your car. And you won't have to pay for it!
I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with ethics here, from your point of view.
Yes, humans in general are crappy in measuring times and distances. But that's what we have got. People should acknowledge this and drive safely according to human abilities and road conditions. But instead people risk, get injured, die themselves and kill other people - that is where ethics is damned.
In terms of fines, the national government is large enough that this will usually function as a black hole, at least where I am from (Norway). There does not seem to be any incentive to increase fines in order to fund anything.
I find it much harder to deal with the lights in California than I ever did in Norway, even though I've probably driven more in California than I ever did in Norway.
If you're not sure what's ethically wrong with a law that can explicitly protect malicious actors, I'm not sure what else to say.
No law is perfect, and I don't think I could craft a better one (regarding liability in rear-end collisions). However, to appeal to the current law as some sort of ideal that we should all be glad to abide by, well, it's ridiculous. There's plenty of shortcomings in this law, like the one that is evident in the situation I previously set forth. To boast "case closed" suggests that the issue of liability is adequately, if not perfectly, solved by this law. The fact that the law can benefit a malicious actor suggests that no, we have not solved the issue of liability, merely mitigated it with suboptimal legislation.
What I'm saying is that ethics ought to inform legislation. What Ravaldy seems to be suggesting is that legislation is what determines ethics. These are two very different viewpoints to espouse, and only one of them has any meaningful support among philosophers.
I'm currently looking to sell my Honda Accord, which has decent brakes, fresh tires, and ABS. It would be considerably easier and more lucrative for me to unexpectedly stomp on the brakes on my drive home today, causing someone to rear-end me, than it would be for me to seek out a willing buyer. It would, legally speaking, be the fault of whoever it is that rear-ended me, and I'd be getting a nice payout for my totaled Accord. What should be apparent to any ethical person is that such a plot would be unethical. It would jeopardize the safety of the unwitting accomplices that hit me. It would additionally burden them financially, between the damage to their own vehicle and the additional insurance premiums they'd have to suffer as a result of the insurance payout for my Accord. Also, making things even worse, is that the only blame they could legitimately carry would be for "following too close". However, if they're in a minivan with older tires and worn brakes, their stopping distance is likely considerably longer than mine. Add in the delay from human reaction time and it's not much of a stretch to say that the only stopping distance that is guaranteed to be sufficient would leave their car safely tucked away in a parking lot.
Ravaldy would have me believe that this is a good thing. That the law says that this is how it should be, so this is how it should be. I, personally, believe that innocent drivers should not be held liable for the actions of malicious actors. I'm not complaining that my brakes are too effective. I'm not complaining that if I stop short to save some kid's life, the law will not hold me liable in the event someone resultingly rear-ends me. I'm merely stating that the law has shortcomings. Significant shortcomings. Consequently, it is not suitable for an appeal to authority, which is what Ravaldy was doing.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Bad drivers say, "I didn't see him"
Average drivers say, "It wasn't my fault"
Good drivers say, "I prevented an accident"
Don't settle for mediocrity. Don't congratulate yourself for merely not being at fault. If a situation is developing, do something proactively to fix it.
FTFY. If it weren't true they a) would not ever shorten the yellow light but would rather lengthen it b) they would always post warnings c) would always turn the cameras off when it is snowing out because in icy conditions it is sometimes safer to run a red than to insist on stopping when the intersection is poorly cleaned and you start fishtailing on snow-over-ice even with traction control + abs just because you fear a ticket. Red light cameras are seldom if ever safety-motivated. It all comes down to the almighty dollar.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
http://fox8.com/2013/12/17/cleveland-traffic-camera-set-on-fire/
It's what happens in the ghetto areas of Cleveland. Surprised it wasn't stolen, dismantled and sold for scrap.
CLEVELAND — A portable camera unit that’s part of Cleveland’s photo traffic enforcement program is being restored after someone set it on fire. The unit was in the 8500 block of Hough Avenue when it was targeted about two weeks ago. The Cleveland Division of Police said some kind of fuel was used to set the fire at the unit’s base. It sustained cosmetic damage to the exterior and the antenna was ruined. The camera itself was not damaged. The city is waiting on a replacement antenna.
if you want to contract out police work such as traffic speed enforcement, that contractor _has_ to make money."
Making any for-profit entity dependent on law-breakers means that they will encourage people to break the law to increase they're bottom line. In the case of red-light cams, that means shorter yellows, and that means more accidents. The solution is simple: pay the the companies a fixed fee to install and manage the cameras, and let cities keep the revenue from fines. But in that scenario the cameras won't pay for themselves, and cities sure don't have extra money to pay for them.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I'm not sure I understand how getting a ticket and fine a week after the violation changes behavior in the same way as being pulled over. If somebody is truly committing an unsafe act on the roadway they need stopped right away to prevent serious injury. A ticket never has prevented a fatality on the road, but the personal contact from a trained officer may have saved thousands.
I'm not exactly sure the shortcomings of the law that you have described are actually shortcomings, for the following reasons:
1) Yes, van with older tires should keep larger distance - this is lawful and ethical thing to do. Just because it's a van, heavy vehicle , with, well, older tires. Thus it has longer stopping distance. The fact that drivers of such vehicles (or any vehicle for that matter) usually do not want to realise.
2) I'm not sure which country you live in, but I have a feeling that in any country getting insurance payments is hard enough that you would be willing to search for a buyer for your vehicle instead. And that's not to mention that you may be injured in such collision, more than you think, especially if you goal is to 'total' the vehicle. So, no person in their right mind would attempt this.
3) Probably most importantly. If you hit the brakes and someone hits you from behind - yes, they were following to closely. This is by the definition. And following to closely (and hitting someone as the result) is against the law. You might have done something ethically wrong by hitting the brakes for no reason and there is no law to punish you - that is true. But the other side did something ethically wrong and unlawful - and got punished. That is what law was intended to do.
So I guess my point is that yes, law is not perfect. And yes, you can quickly change lanes and brake in front of somebody not giving them opportunity to get back far enough. But I would argue that current law is the best that we can get with currently deployed technology.
Is better law possible? Probably, with onboard recorders, dash cameras and stuff, mandated by the law - better law would be possible. But I can only imagine the amount of whining about 'privacy' from people why think that are entitled to drive +20-30km/h over the speed limit.
All in all - current law is probably the best possible in current situation. Which means that we, as a society should do our best to obey it. And not to blame the guy who was stopping for red light/squirrel/kitten or child on the road.
Do you work for American Traffic Solutions, Redflex Traffic System or one of the others?
Ahh, they COULD look at doing that, but that would take money out for the hands of the corporations that run the privatized prisons. Gotta go for the low-hanging fruit to keep the prison head-count at the contractually mandated minimums.
I can slam the brakes in a Subaru Impreza WRX and virtually assure that whoever I'm brake checking hits me, on account of the 125' stopping distance.
Horseshit. If the person behind you keeps a reasonable following distance, they'll have plenty of time to slam their brakes or switch lanes.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
There are traffic engineering standards that describe this in every state and the country itself. However, that doesn't prevent a person with revenue generation intent from tampering when they install or maintain the signal, even remotely I suppose these days. If the same team that operates the things is also in charge of auditing the settings for compliance with standards.....you see where this is leading
Wow. Lemme guess. Ultra-conservative Republican?
Simple question: If they set yellow light delays in your area to be so short that the yellow light changes before you can count to "one" out loud, would you blame yourself for running all the red lights, or do you think you might start blaming some external cause?
If you could get off the moralistic "I'm superior to everyone else" high-horse tirade for a moment you might be able to open your eyes to the fact that yellow light delay timing has been routinely shortened at traffic stops where red light cameras are installed. There are documented cases of the delay being shortened from something reasonable and safe like 4 seconds to something completely UNREASONABLE and UNSAFE like 0.9 seconds. Yes, that's zero-point-nine seconds. This has two side effects. First, it makes it almost physically impossible to successfully come to a safe stop from the posted speed limit without running the red light. Your moral fortitude or superior driving ability will not help you do the impossible. At least, not safely.
Second, after local drivers (even morally-superior drivers just like you!) get a few red light tickets in the mail, it strongly encourages one of two behaviors (or both): (1) Approaching all traffic lights at a crawl in order to have some chance of avoiding a red light ticket, or (2) slamming on the brakes as hard as possible the instant you see the yellow light. Both of these behaviors, in direct response to the shortened yellow light delays, have drastically increased the risk of both rear-ending and t-boning accidents at traffic lights where red light cameras are installed. Of course I guess it also encourages drivers to slam on the gas and try to get through the intersection if they happen to think they're close enough and can't stop in time. So, short yellow light delays are bad news all around.
Couple this with the fact that this shortening of the yellow light delay provides an increased revenue stream to both the local law enforcement department and THE COMPANY THAT INSTALLED AND RUNS THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS, and you have what some people like to refer to as a HIGHLY CORRUPT MONEY GRAB that just makes red light stops far more dangerous than they ever have been. The accident statistics at RLC stops speak for themselves. An increase in accidents are in fact being CAUSED by the installation of red light cameras and the corresponding shortening of yellow light delays, and the corresponding behaviors that are a DIRECT response to the new traffic signal conditions.
This is absolutely NOT just a bunch of bad drivers complaining about getting tickets and blaming the red light cameras for their own bad behavior. Believe me, I'll be happy to go on all day about bad drivers and the stupidity of insisting we both have the right and that it's perfectly safe to constantly drive 15 MPH above any posted speed limits and follow too closely at freeway speeds and other things like that, but this is not a case of bad drivers being stupid. This is a case of humans being human and physics being physics and corrupt and unsafe law enforcement practices being corrupt and unsafe law enforcement practices. And we need to put this unsafe practice to a stop or put some very tight regulations on how the departments are allowed to set up an RLC stop, such as mandating that they absolutely WILL NOT under any circumstances shorten the yellow light delay. That delay should be entirely up to the D.O.T. traffic safety studies and I don't know how anybody got away with changing it in the first place.
And you know, the world is not just a black & white choice between ultra-draconian law enforcement and total anarchy. There is usually a place somewhere in the middle where things actually work out pretty well. Your attitude reminds of the classic Reagan-era Bloom County strip where they had a hooded executioner posted at the checkout counter of a supermarket to execute people for silly things like squeezing the Charmin. But hey, I'm all for jailing the corrupt creeps in
enforcement + revenue = corruption
If you want to take the corruption out of law enforcement, take the revenue aspect out of it.
Municipalities should not be allowed to keep the revenue from their own police and courts, its a conflict of interest and corrupt by its very nature. Any revenue generated by local law enforcement should be passed up the chain with the state law enforcement revenue going to the fed.
As for the fed keeping revenue from their courts, let them send the money from any fines, for whatever reason they're issued, back to the municipality the offense was committed in.
While true, in 'brake checking' you are also committing an offense (probably something like creating a hazardous condition). That means that while the person behind you is still responsible for the accident, you could also be charged with creating the initial unsafe condition. That charge would be independent of the culpability of the person doing the rear-ending.
The other driver argued with the cop about how it was my fault and the cop told him the following: "No matter how hard or what reason the person in front of you stops, it is your responsibility to keep a safe braking distance between you and the car in front". Case closed!
You heard the man, case closed!
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I must say I do not associate myself with any political party and do not even live in US.
But anyway, since you mentioned DOT, I'd assume you are in US. And as a matter of fact there is a standard 'Yellow change intervals' in US: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/trafficmanual-current.htm , chapter 9, section 9-04.5. It didn't take me too long to find that.
So, this effectively means that either US authorities on some levels were engaging in awfully dangerous and illegal activities by shortening yellow light time or that shortening is purely perceptual. I'm not sure which one it is :).
But RLCs have really nothing to do with any of this. If some authority can go against the law and make yellow light shorter than required - that is the problem unrelated to RLCs. It's like banning bullet proof vests after some policeman suffocates his wife in it.
RLCs act as a deterrent for some drivers to run red lights, and as such they can save lives, and so they should be used, not banned.
Speed enforcement cameras as well.
Near where I live (Bellevue, WA), they have installed speed cameras in school zones. When they enable the school zone signals (flashing yellow lights), the speed limit is dropped to 20 MPH and violators are photographed. Great. Think of the children.
Except that one of the most notorious school zones is switched on on a whim. In the middle of the day, no kids around (not even recess play on school grounds). It appears to be done at random at times other than school starting and ending. Just an FU to drivers to see if they can't catch one not paying attention.
And then, when they do use the school zone at the beginning of the day, they turn it off at 9:00AM on the dot (school starts at 9). I've seen a number of times when kids were 5 minutes late for class trying to dodge 35 MPH traffic, against the crosswalk signals to keep from getting the inevitable dunce cap (or whatever they hand out) for tardy kids.
Its not about the kids, its about the cash.
Have gnu, will travel.
The other driver argued with the cop about how it was my fault and the cop told him the following: "No matter how hard or what reason the person in front of you stops, it is your responsibility to keep a safe braking distance between you and the car in front". Case closed!
Not quite true. A car with all brake lights burned out will likely be looking at a citation, and may well be at fault (they are scary to end up behind, but you can compensate).
It is still the responsibility of the driver following you to maintain a safe following distance.
I've seen the most insane shit on the roads, I live in the city acknowledged as having the worst road users in the country (Dunedin, New Zealand): cyclists pushing their bikes out into traffic then shaking their fists at drivers (they're pedestrians in that particular case, because they entered on foot), cars ducking around others in an unsafe manner (putting two wheels off the road so they have slightly more acceleration time), vehicles overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic because someone isn't driving 120km/h in a 90 zone, motorbikes overtaking on blind corners (or just riding on the centreline because they can fit between cars).
I once saw some dipshit in a 1980s Mercedes try and overtake someone on a greasy road just after it had started raining. Rear wheel drive, front wheels pointing about 60 degrees off the angle of the vehicle. Stupid bitch slammed her foot down to overtake, and suddenly started spinning. Around and around and around she went, and then parked her car off the road.
She tried to blame the owner of the vehicle she was overtaking, but her insurance company didn't have a bar of it.
What's worse is that, one week later, I watched her drive at over twice the speed limit through a school zone in a different Mercedes.
When I was learning to drive, I saw an unregistered quadbike being driven on public roads (illegal, if it isn't registered it isn't allowed on the road). The trick is that I saw it in the wrong lane while I was climbing over a short but very steep blind hill. Nearly put the car off a bank while avoiding him - the bike rider wasn't wearing a helmet, was on the wrong side of the road, unregistered bike, and on top of all of that, just rode off without ensuring we were safe after the incident. (As far as I'm aware, that's a criminal offense in itself. Fucking farmers.)
When I come up to a RLC intersection, my whole body tenses up. I watch for one thing - that damn yellow light! How many times have you been behind an 18 wheeler and been unable to see any part of the light? Very frustrating indeed. When a camera goes up, watch for the speed limit to increase in that area. This reduces reaction time. Let's not forget about yellow light tinkering to increase the ticket count. This whole thing - it's about safety - is total BS... and everyone knows it.
Here is my proposed solution: If the city wants to put up a red light camera, fine go for it. But it can only be erected if that light is outfitted with a very clear timer device. The end result is the contract company will completely pull out because their revenue will dry up. With a timer, you instantly have a safer intersection. With a safer intersection, you have less accidents and save more money than would be made pissing off every citizen and passerby caught in the snarls of the evil RLC.
A variation on this are cams that records drivers caught in the intersection, blocking cross traffic while being unable to clear the intersection due to the cross traffic. Depending on which intersection it is, at will cost you a hefty fine and points on your license. This pure egoistic driver error and the punishment is appropriate.
People living near intersections that's often blocked often demand such cams because the usual reaction from the drivers being blocked despite a green light is to honk their horn continously until the blocking car(s) move away. Not legal but most certainly justified as it works to shame the moron that entered the intersection without being sure to be able to pass completely through.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
actually all cameras mounted at intersections need to be outlawed at the federal level, and the federal law strictly enforced. Just like federal law on possesion and sale of marijuana need to be strictly enforced. In the face of strictly enforced federal laws, states will not be able to ignore federal laws like they do now about "medical" marijuana.
Red light cameras are seen by far too many cities as a money generator, and these cities ignore evidence that they do not increase safety where they are installed. That added to he potential abuse of these cameras being used to track people and vehicles makes it imperative that these cameras be totaly outlawed everwhere.
I'ts even funnier how you haven't read any of the facts in this discussion.
It'll be hilarious if you get pulled over in NM and anally raped for suspicion of carrying drugs. But hey, they wouldn't be doing it if you weren't a suspect.
That's because he lives in the US where non sense is common sense. The fact that you can sew for being hit from behind and get ridiculous payouts if you get the right person to hit you is crap. I know in Canada there are limits to how much one driver can sew another one.
To consider law non ethical for a very minuscule percentage of accidents is silly. We don't build laws for the 0.000001% of cases but rather a number closer to 95%.
Bummer. I see cars running red lights almost daily. They deserve a ticket. What is needed are standard rules for implementing, rules known to citizens. For example, what is the definition of an intersection? What is the delay time between red and then green in the cross direction, and what is the length of yellow light time vs. speed limit? Does a car get a ticket if it is in the intersection when the light turns red, or only if entering the intersection after red? I support cameras if used to deter accidents, but not as a means of balancing the local budget.
OK, you slam on the brakes for no reason and the guy in back plows into your car, totaling it. We will further assume that nobody catches you on it, so it's a 100% their-fault legal situation. This isn't assured; if you arbitrarily brake hard and somebody is able to testify to that, I wouldn't be confident of the outcome.
So, you get paid a fair value for your car, and perhaps something extra for inconvenience. There will be actual inconvenience here, since you'll be out somewhere without a drivable car, and there will be a delay before you get a check and can use that money to pay for another car. I have had a car rear-ended and totaled in the US, and that's what happened.
It is of course possible you'll be injured, and able to sue for that. It isn't worth it. Your injuries are likely to be soft-tissue, hard to prove, and therefore you will almost certainly be underpaid for what is very likely a very painful injury. (Fortunately, the times I've been injured by being rear-ended, the pain has been in the middle back. Neck and lower back injuries are less likely to heal.)
Overall, from a purely selfish point of view, I'd rather sell the thing normally.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ah, sorry, I thought "red light cameras" where cameras installed in the Red Lights district capturing acts of physical intercourse... but it seems that that's not the case.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
This isn't assured; if you arbitrarily brake hard and somebody is able to testify to that, I wouldn't be confident of the outcome.
Are you suggesting that the police officer Ravaldy quoted as having said "No matter how hard or what reason the person in front of you stops, it is your responsibility to keep a safe braking distance between you and the car in front" was lying?
But while we're discussing what amounts to insurance fraud, I'd like to point out that my own car insurance company would gladly provide me with a rental car for as long as I need until I get a check from the victim's insurance company. To me, that's not too terrible of an inconvenience. Additionally, regarding the injury angle, it goes both way. It's difficult to prove the presence of soft tissue injuries, but it's similarly difficult to prove their absence. Civil suits have a rather low burden of proof, and false claims of whiplash are a significant proportion of such fraudulent claims.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I do know that, when we tried to file a claim for a totaled car, the marijuana-smoking inattentive driver's insurance company asked "Why were you stopped on the freeway?" (The answer was because of the two cars broadside in that lane after another accident, and when that company got the police report they changed their attitude greatly.) It is of course my responsibility to keep a safe braking distance, but we're not talking about criminal liability but rather civil. If the determination is that you had partial responsibility because of arbitrarily braking hard, the amount you receive may well be reduced, and you now get less money than if you'd sold the car. In addition, if your insurance company winds up having a certain amount of expense because of you, they may raise your rates. Financially, it's a stupid idea.
I'm not arguing that there aren't a lot of fraudulent soft-tissue injury complaints that work out, but to get that through you're almost certainly going to have to have been in some danger of such an injury. Trust me, you do not want that to happen.
Overall, I'd say that trying to commit insurance fraud like this is not only immoral but also stupid, and we can't really ask for better dissuasion than that. There are idiots who will try it, but there are idiots who rob banks while not actually running them at the time.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
My insurance company wouldn't be paying out if the fault lies with the driver who rear-ends me. The other driver's liability insurance would be the source of my windfall, leaving my own insurance rates intact. Of course, this all hinges upon Ravaldy's original claim that liability always, with no excuses or exceptions, falls on the rear driver.
In any case, I think we agree that this would be both immoral and stupid. The issue, however, is whether or not the law promotes such immoral and stupid choices. If there is indeed a standard of strict liability as Ravaldy claims, and the law actually does rest the blame entirely on the rear driver regardless of actions undertaken by the front driver, then this immoral and stupid choice is in practice promoted by legislation. Conversely, if Ravaldy's claim is false, then there may indeed be some semblance of reason in our legal code.
Being ignorant of the law itself, I'd have to guess that Ravaldy is probably spot on. A rational legal code is not something I'd expect to find in these United States.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I think you're missing an important distinction between criminal and civil liability.
If somebody comes up with a gun and forces me to hand over my wallet, that's armed robbery. It's a crime, and the robber can be found guilty regardless of anything stupid I just did (like flaunt it in the wrong neighborhood). Legally, it's simple: either the defendant did do it, or the defendant didn't do it.
In civil cases, liability can be portioned out. Obviously, the guy in the ramming car is at fault, since it was his job to keep a safe braking interval. However, if I slammed the brakes on for no good reason, and this comes out, the courts could well find I was partly at fault, particularly if they think this was an attempt at insurance fraud. This means that the insurance companies involved might well split the liability in some way, since they've some authority to do that, and they'd rather not go to trial. I can still sue, but if I have to then I've already lost the money game. So, there's an excellent chance that I don't get full reimbursement. Moreover, if there's lots of damage (injuries or the following car being lots more expensive than mine), even a relatively small slice of liability might cause my insurance company to raise its rates. Alternately, I may wind up being penalized for reckless driving.
As far as I can tell, the law can't be used to reliably cash out on a vehicle, and that's what I'm concerned about.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I must say I do not associate myself with any political party and do not even live in US.
But anyway, since you mentioned DOT, I'd assume you are in US. And as a matter of fact there is a standard 'Yellow change intervals' in US: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/trafficmanual-current.htm , chapter 9, section 9-04.5. It didn't take me too long to find that.
So, this effectively means that either US authorities on some levels were engaging in awfully dangerous and illegal activities by shortening yellow light time or that shortening is purely perceptual. I'm not sure which one it is :).
You got it. It's the first one. Dangerous and illegal. As measured in the real world. How are you not sure? I just told you which it is.
But RLCs have really nothing to do with any of this. If some authority can go against the law and make yellow light shorter than required - that is the problem unrelated to RLCs. It's like banning bullet proof vests after some policeman suffocates his wife in it.
RLCs act as a deterrent for some drivers to run red lights, and as such they can save lives, and so they should be used, not banned.
Wait, no, you didn't get it at all. And that's the most nonsensical analogy I've heard in a long time.
Statistically red light cameras DO NOT increase safety. Statistically they DECREASE safety. We have years of actual traffic and accident data now to support the statistics. These are now established facts. We know WHY they don't increase safety. How the hell is this difficult to understand? Stop listening to the echo in your own head. Just because you think something SHOULD work in theory doesn't mean that it WILL work in the real world. Red light cameras DON'T work to increase traffic safety in the real world. Fact, not opinion.
I can't rightly fathom how anyone could have such poor reading comprehension as to continue to fail to understand how the yellow light delays and increase in accidents at red lights is directly related to the (usually marred by corrupt profit motives) installation of red light cameras. I was as explicit and thorough as I could be. I'm sorry that I've failed you.