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."
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)
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.
Until they start adjusting the lights and RLC limits to start making money again. Depending on where you live, it can be a for-profit company running the lights settings and handing out the tickets. That's actually the case around here, and they are adding more and more cameras :(
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).
RLC cause more accidents because people slamming on their brakes for yellow lights. It is documented.
Not only are they a money making scheme, they're dangerous as well. Sounds like it's BAU for politicians these days.
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.
I don't see safety as an excuse for ignoring people's privacy or rights.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If you removed the red lights and replaced them with round abouts, you wouldn't need the cameras, lights, or tickets. You'd increase safety, reduce the need for enforcement and increase traffic flow in the effected area. But don't let safety and common sense get in the way of the local police getting a new squad car.
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
You're saying you have a right to run red lights? And law enforcement should not be able to identify you in your vehicle? Really?
Proverbs 21:19
Then live in a liberal-dominated state like California, where there are state laws about how long the yellow light must be on before the lights turn to red.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The real reason legislators are agitated is that you can't bribe a camera.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Usually cities decrease the yellow light time in order to boost revenue. Albuquerque was caught doing that at several intersection. Another trick they would pull is put some orange barrels along the side of the road and declare it a construction zone (eligible for double fines) then park a speed van around the next corner. No one slows down as there is obviously no construction, profit.
Eventually the citizenry got sick of the crap and forced the pols to pull the cameras, but they didn't let their little money makers go easily.
Captcha: villains
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
In driver's ed, we were taught that yellow means "stop, if it is safe to do so." In practice (I live in Mass), yellow seems to mean "stomp on the gas" to most people.
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.
Around here, they're almost all 2 seconds long, and the green generally occurs 2 seconds after red for the other direction. They're quite predictable for the most part (but we don't have RLCs all over the place).
And being a San Diego native, I was pretty damn surprised as well, because San Diego is a big city for law enforcement-bootlicking. Here in San Diego, a red-light camera ticket was around 500 bucks, and surprise, only 100 of those dollars from each ticket went back to the city. The other 400 bucks? You guessed it, a private corporation owned by somebody who knew people in high places.
Because of this city's horrible public transportation and suburban sprawl, you need a car to be able function. So you get a red light ticket, which costs you 500 bucks, and now you have to cancel your vacation or choose between paying rent or the ticket. I once saw a red light camera on Aero Drive off the 15 north with its head beaten off, hanging by a threat. I'd like to shake the hand of that good samaritan who beat the shit out of that fucking camera.
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.
The thing that sucks isn't the fine ($75 bucks? pff) but the fucking insurance hit you take for driving like an asshole.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
You're saying you have a right to run red lights?
Interpreting what I said in that way is like saying that people who oppose DUI checkpoints are asserting the right to drink and drive. Absurd. I simply oppose having government cameras everywhere.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Im sorry, where did you get the idea that this helped keep intersections safe? Keeping intersections safe is actually fairly trivial without any sort of RLC or punishment. All you need to do, which many places already have done, is slightly increase the length of yellow lights, and delay the green transition on the other traffic lane, so that there is a period of 1-2 seconds where all sides are red; and thus cars that may have been late past the line, have time to make it through.
Sure it may not play into some people's fetish for punishment and strict rules enforcement, but, it does a great job of increasing safety.
And in light of that, when cities get caught reducing the yellow light time at lights, which is less safe and increases the chances of an accident, then YES it is a money making scheme.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Most police i know don't like them because they take a job from a person.
As for the monitary scheme, you can see that in the debate in ohio's legislature. One side of the isle actually said banning them would deny cities of a significant source of income at a time the state is restricting funding to those cities. And i bet your first guess to the party affiliatation of that law maker would be wrong (Hint, the republicans in Ohio seem to be against them). In my home town, the concept of revenue certainly was brought up as a plus to installing them. We tried to force the city council to provide a separate line item for the revenue from them with no luck and people regularly time the lights to see if they change. They were installed at the busiest intersections that seem to have the least accidents. Most of them have been from rear end colisions and when traffic is thick, you are lucky to get more that 15mph between lights.
law enforcement should not be able to identify you
Sure, LEO's absolutely have the ability to identify me, RLC's have zero to do with LEO's, they are private money making machines with the profits split with the municipalities. Basically they're the modern incarnation of the robber barons of the River Rhine, and when they receive too little income the companies pressure the municipalities into reducing the yellow time at the intersection which multiple studies have shown significantly reduces the safety at intersections where the cameras are installed, exactly the opposite of their stated purpose.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Also, around here, they paint these lines on the ground leading up to an intersection. If you're doing the speed limit, on a dry day, a moderate amount of breaking force will bring you to a safe stop if you begin braking at the beginning of the line. If the light is yellow at or before the beginning of that line, you stop. If the light turns yellow and you're past the line, you generally have enough time to cross the intersection safely.
I would also imagine that, given the weather I see outside my window right now (snowing), they would be an utter disaster here. You try to stop and end up skidding into the intersection, whereupon you get ticketed. Now, of course, some people caught this way will have just been going too fast, but I think more would be caught by the yellow light that is fine for normal conditions being too short for slippery roads.
www.wavefront-av.com
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.
Hmm actually I would say you have the right to only be subject to as much legal scrutiny as is necessary; and not just whatever old arbitary standard somebody makes up. Which is where I would put "no turn on red".
Since turn on red already requires that one stop, and already requires that it only be done when safe to do so, and to yeild to oncoming traffic; there really is no justification to ever have such a sign. Also, since there are much more effective ways to make intersections safe than to quibble over split seconds over lines (like a slightly delayed green).... running a red light really should only be the case of blatant runs after the change, or careless driving, rather than just "the rules justify the rules" BS.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Drivers will adapt. When they learn that there are 1-2 seconds during which all lights are red, passing a red light two seconds after it turned red will become normal.
Philipp
I don't know where you live... but where I live (Colorado), RLC "tickets" can't do anything to your driving record or your insurance. In fact, we just throw them away. The cameras are operated by a private company and collected by another private company; are NOT legitimate citations; and you cannot be issued any kind of warrant whatsoever for failing to do anything whatsoever about them.
The "ticket" you get in the mail has all sorts of threatening legalese on it, but read it carefully, and you'll find it's carefully crafted nonsense. You have no obligation to pay or even respond, as there is no legal force behind it. The traffic court it says you're to appear at has zero jurisdiction *until* you show up. No cop can come cite you either, since no cop physically saw you do anything. Throw it away.
This spreading knowledge is, I think, why we're seeing a reduction in the use of the cameras. The scam isn't working so well any more, and the collected "fines" aren't justifying the operating costs paid by the cities to the private contractors.
And once you've done all that, and you still have people running the red? My city did all of the above, and now people run the red because they know the other side doesn't get the green right away, so it's "OK".
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
Hah. Denver, CO was nailing people for stopping with their bumpers in the crosswalk. So not running reds, but stopping a few inches too late.
You obviously lack imagination. A crook will always find a way with the money-making schemes. And strangely, there will always be sanctimonious fuckwits defending said crooks as long as the crooks sell their scam as safety.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
But you wouldn't have an issue with a cop on every using a camera to film everyone who at the intersection, right?
That takes manpower. Disallowing government cameras in public places except those that are on a cop's person or on a cop's car seems like a more sensible policy to me. Mass, automatic surveillance is far different than a guy carrying a camera.
After all, you are in a public space.
Public space or no, it's our money, and they're supposed to be working for us. Hopefully they'll do what we say.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
They took our jerbs!
Frankly, that sounds great. I'm all for automating tasks that keep real police doing something other than sitting at intersections on motorcycles trying to fill the city coffers.
Public doesn't mean you get to ignore privacy or rights issues, and privacy is no mere excuse. You seem a bit unprincipled to desire safety that strongly.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Ah, so, you mean TWICE you were guilty.
I'm proud to live in a state that deemed these cameras unconstitutional a long time ago.
I also live in a state / metro where re-timing light changes is excessively utilized. Delays as long as 5 seconds are employed between one side's Red and the cross traffic's Green. Although the concept of a delay is one I think is beneficial I think that is going too far. 1-2 seconds *tops are enough to up the stats but any longer and we have people jumping the red on the front side, not the back side of the green. Similarly dangerous especially when combined with the recent trend of re-scheduling lights as well. (reversing the rotation, giving a second turn signal turn, etc) jumping the green is one thing but if you jump the green and it turns out it wasn't your green you get lots of trouble coming your way.
That and 3+ (we have an entire road that's 6) *minute long cycles could really stand to go away. Make people wait too long at a light and they will start deciding it's "worth it" to circumvent the impediment to their forward progress.
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?
Baloney. We've been changing the length of lights, and drivers know it, which is why they run them all the time. We should make them standard based on length of the intersection, lanes, and speed limits throughout the US. Add in the RLC when the light length is well known, and it will help keep intersections safer.
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!
If you do that AND put in red light cameras, it increases safety even more.
I disagree. Now I used to hate red light cameras.
In the evenings, especially Friday and Saturday nights there are sloppy drivers that have many times nearly hit me because they ran red lights.
I'd like for those sloppy drivers to get tickets in the mail --- there aren't enough police.
I don't think automated speeding ticket cameras are a good idea, but I don't see the harm in red light cameras --- just stop and they aren't a problem. Now the yellow times in my city are very reasonable and I understand if some cities are cheating on yellow light times to induce *FALSE* and/or *DANGEROUS* situations to generate revenue. I'm just stating that I think red light cameras, if used correctly, can be helpful --- *IF* the local government isn't abusing them.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Bingo. I'm pretty sure RLCs are illegal in South Dakota (not sure where exactly to look, but a google search seems to corroborate the theory), but in my town....there'd be an outcry if they tried to install them, at least during the winter.
I drive a 2003 Mustang. Rear wheel drive, not particularly heavy. Even with 250 extra pounds of icemelt bags in the trunk, it takes me an extra 5-10 seconds of feathering the gas to get moving on icy roads, and I have to start slowing down about 50 feet earlier than when it's dry.
Add to this that, during the winter, only the 4 or 5 major artery roads are ever satisfactorily cleared (and not due to plows, but due to the amount of traffic they get), sand is rarely re-applied to the intersections once it gets swept away by traffic, and it takes the city about 3 days after it stops snowing to actually start clearing the snow out in the first place.
Anyway, this morning's short drive to work is a perfect example. It was 31F yesterday - surprisingly warm, enough so that some of the snow and ice melted in the sun. Then it dropped back to 0F overnight, freezing the wet roads. This morning we had a thin-but-troublesome layer of ice pretty much everywhere. If I was less than 50 feet out of an intersection, even going slow, and the light turned yellow....if I hit the brakes, I'd end up in the middle of the cross street. Red light cameras here would wreak havoc on people who can't help that they can't stop in time.
Drivers will adapt. When they learn that there are 1-2 seconds during which all lights are red, passing a red light two seconds after it turned red will become normal.
Philipp
Says the 10 millionth person who's failed to actually look at the studies. Sorry, buddy, there's actual science that says you're wrong. What you have is a hypothesis. Guess what, it's an obvious one that's been tested and proven false over and over again.
Guess what else the studies show, all else being equal, adding a RLC to an intersection increases the number of accidents and injuries. Now is the time to go educate yourself and, if you're intellectually honest, change your mind.
I'm happy someone brought that up. Where I live they have the delay and it's great for safety but I still don't disagree with red light cams. The reason is that there's always that A-hole that will burn the red intentionally putting everybody's life in danger. I feel that guy should be punished and the cameras are a great way to do so.
FYI, last year I drove through the same 3 intersections with cameras over 400 times (twice a day) and never even came close of running the light yet according to the paper over 800 tickets (3 intersections combined) were issued. You want to bet those people who ran red lights won't do it again?
And once you've done all that, and you still have people running the red?
My city did all of the above, and now people run the red because they know the other side doesn't get the green right away, so it's "OK".
Then have the camera ticket in that instance. But switching the times lower to gain more tickets is that antithesis of safer.
There is already that delay. Drivers tend to take forever to get going when the light turns green. I am usually to the other side of the intersection before most cars start moving.
That is why I have to look both ways before going on green to avoid getting hit by runners. Where I live almost no one stops at stop signs anymore and most people drive right through right on red. Usually a few cars sneak through each red light at a busy intersection.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
I once saw a red light camera on Aero Drive off the 15 north with its head beaten off, hanging by a threat. I'd like to shake the hand of that good samaritan who beat the shit out of that fucking camera.
My kingdom for modpoints....
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Drivers will adapt.
No they don't. One or two seconds of "all red" causes a permanent reduction in accidents. This is not a hypothetical new proposal, where we have to guess how drivers will react. It has been done for decades in many cities.
Another way to reduce accidents is to have a count-down timer next to the light. I have never seen these in America, but they are common in some other countries. The countdown commonly starts 30 seconds prior, while the light is still green, giving drivers plenty of time to either slow down or speed up enough to make the light with time to spare.
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!
Hmm...
How could we identify these scofflaws? Perhaps an automated system that takes a picture of the offense?
I agree. If you trust your Government to enforce the law without abusing it for the indefinite period of time after red light camera installation, then I believe them to be a useful measure which will help to prevent red light running.
I do not, however, trust my Government not to abuse the system (escalate fines for revenue), abuse the light (create accidents through shorter yellow light), and not allow appeal (allow light running rainy/unsafe conditions, which it represents the safest alternative). In the event that I trusted my current Government (I don't), I don't know that I could trust the Government of 15 years from now.
DISCLAIMER: I have received a ticket from red light running via automated camera on an occasion when I ran a red light and should have received a ticket. My driving habits changed to become more dangerous after this time, as I would rather chance a minor fender-bender than receive a guaranteed ticket.
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).
The countdown timers are pretty widespread by now in NYC, at least in Manhattan, and they're great, for both drivers and pedestrians.
I'm for red light cameras IF combined with a countdown and a minimum 2.5 second yellow.
We have those in town and you always have plenty of warning since they start at 20 seconds from the time the light change to red.
Red light cameras in many cases increase the number of accidents at intersections- transforming them from Tbone's to front/rear accidents. That should reduce the fatalities and in some cases it has slightly but in others it hasn't. I guess it depends on the intersection.
I'm very wary of freeway feeder intersections- even with red light cameras they are the source of horrific T'bones. When a freeway feeder light changes I look to see if anyone is zooming along at 50mph before I start moving. I'll often wait a second for the cars closer to that side to move and get in the way. In the last 2 years alone, I saw four incredible accidents at those intersections. Car's instantly smashed, broken in 2, thrown over 30' breaking everything in their paths.
When you combine a red light camera with a shortened yellow (as they've been caught doing repeatedly), it's purely about making money.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Problem is people get paranoid around them (don't want to get fined!) and slam on their breaks the instant the light turns yellow - even if it's safer to pass through the intersection. People sloppy enough to run red lights are probably inebriated and will do so regardless of the fine, so while having the camera will punish them, it won't protect you from getting rammed in an intersection. Additionally though the cameras will increase the number of people who slam on the breaks in front of you, causing lots of rear end collisions.
Point to any study that shows this for which the increase in accidents and injuries cannot be attributed to other variables (such as the city reducing the yellow light timing, thus actively trying to use the RLC as a money-making scheme).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I once lived in a city in Ohio that did the "all red" thing long before cameras were around. Drivers often ran through red lights, to the point where traffic would just wait a few seconds into their green light before moving, just to be sure that the opposing traffic would actually stop. The worst intersections were the first to get cameras when they came out, and they helped. Once the lights were clearly being enforced 24/7, people actually stopped on time. It annoys me now that Ohio wants to ban the cameras.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
My thoughts exactly. Pay attention and check the signs.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
I don't see safety as an excuse for ignoring people's privacy or rights.
I fail to see how this is a privacy issue if you're out driving in public, they're not looking inside your car. What rights, exactly, are being trampled on? This isn't the same as speeding cameras, where calibration, angle, all that stuff can be questioned. This is simply for people who willfully blow through a red light.
Granted, the yellow light should last long enough to give you a chance (I hate Pennsylvania yellow lights, they're like 2 seconds long tops), and there should be some delay, but people will take that into account and still run red lights. The cops can't be everywhere, so this is one way of catching really bad drivers. I think blowing red lights (and failure to use turn signals) are ultimately much more dangerous than mild speeding, in any case, which is what most moving violations are for.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I think you mean brakes
(this wouldn't be slashdot without some pedantry...)
I'm in the UK where pretty much all lights get a three second yellow (approx) and there's a variable, but non zero, time when all the lights are red.
Drivers get used to this and, in London at least during busy periods, it's very common to have one or two cars cross after the lights have turned red (and that's when the average speed of the traffic probably isn't much more than 10mph so it's easy to stop)
Because cars do this, it's not at all uncommon for the junction to fail to clear before the other way goes green. Rather than getting 5-6 seconds for the cars to clear the junction, you get one or two seconds and sometimes the last cars who jumped the red are left in the middle of the junction when they're now at the back of the queue for the NEXT red light.
One thing that does seem different in the US (this is based on what I've seen in films so maybe not actually correct :-) is that drivers in the US seem to think they have the right to go if the lights are green. In the UK the attitude seems to be that you hit the horn if the cars who have jumped the lights going the other way are blocking you. It's still illegal but slightly less chaotic.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
I fail to see how this is a privacy issue if you're out driving in public
Because there is a different between surveillance equipment and people.
What rights, exactly, are being trampled on?
My rights to not be recorded by random government surveillance equipment. Don't see that as a right? Well, I'd say you're part of the problem, then. I simply don't want to live in a world where government surveillance equipment is installed in random places, even if those places happen to be in public.
This is simply for people who willfully blow through a red light.
Naive; much in the same way as people who say that the NSA is only a threat to terrorists.
The cops can't be everywhere
Nor do I believe they should be.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
there is obviously no construction
I think you mean "there is no obvious construction". There could be an open hole there that someone's about to climb out of, or there could be a hidden tire hazard, or that area could be needed to accommodate moving equipment that can't avoid cars easily. At normal speed, the driver has only a few seconds with a clear view, and likely won't see the abnormal hazards. When slowing down they're forced to pay attention. That's why the barrels are a nice bright orange.
There is no excuse for careless driving.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Read my post again. My intention was not to directly compare DUI checkpoints with red light cameras; it was merely an analogy.
the red light camera only snaps a pick if you broke the law....
So you say.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Additionally, my SO seems to think that the maximum acceptable distance from another vehicle is no more than 3", plus perhaps an inch for blizzards.
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.
A RLC near me gives tickets to drivers who make a right turn on red, if the cars fail to COMPLETELY stop COMPLETELY prior to the intersection painted lines. On a daily occurrence, I see several drivers get tickets because they came to a complete stop INCHES past the intersection painted lines. In no rational universe would a police officer ever give a ticket to any of these drivers; yet, the municipality is collecting several thousands of dollars each day due to such minor infractions.
The obvious solution is that those that design and operate the traffic light systems should not be the ones that profit from the fines.
This is why people who live around here tend to buy vehicles with AWD. Otherwise, you're not going much of anywhere. The further north you go, the more true this becomes.
It seems me you just want to be able to do whatever you want to do. If you're out in public, then you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy except inside the vehicle itself. What's to do stop other citizens from observing or recording you, after all?
A human eye, a camera eye, what's the difference other than the fact that the camera eye is not subject to the fallibility of perception and can be replayed so that a more objective assessment of what actually occurred can be made? If it's recorded, whatever action it caught you doing, well, you did it. In public. It's not much different than having an eyewitness on the scene.. only their perception could be skewed, (psychology tests prove it often is) which might actually make it worse for you if you're ever in an accident and need to prove the other guy ran the light.
I never said I *wanted* cameras everywhere though, but I don't see the big deal with having them at intersections.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
This is why people who live around here tend to buy vehicles with AWD. Otherwise, you're not going much of anywhere. The further north you go, the more true this becomes.
AWD doesn't help you stop.
I've slid right into an intersection when I hit the brakes to stop on orange and, only then, discovered that section of road was an ice rink (even though the previous couple of stop lights had been fine). On a normal, ice-free day I'd have stopped with no problem.
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.
It seems me you just want to be able to do whatever you want to do.
Just like people who oppose things such as the NSA, TSA, and stop-and-frisk must be bad guys, right? Please.
If you're out in public, then you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy except inside the vehicle itself.
I do, however, expect my government to not record what I'm doing just because I'm out in public.
What's to do stop other citizens from observing or recording you, after all?
Do I really need to explain the difference between a government installing surveillance equipment in random places for their own purposes and random citizens observing or recording you?
A human eye, a camera eye, what's the difference other than the fact that the camera eye is not subject to the fallibility of perception and can be replayed so that a more objective assessment of what actually occurred can be made?
Other than the fact that the data can be reliably stored and retrieved for later use, people aren't all connected to a single source like most of these cameras are, and a single citizen isn't everywhere at once? Come on, now.
If it's recorded, whatever action it caught you doing, well, you did it.
Which doesn't mean you did anything bad or illegal.
but I don't see the big deal with having them at intersections.
Well, I do.
My verdict: You don't distrust the government enough. Study some history.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
I'd like to see blinking red ( ~= stop sign rules) get a lot more usage in normal cycles, instead of just as a "the timing circuit is busted" backup. Maybe a second setting as well (blinking yellow?) equivalent to a yield sign. Well, except for the blinking part, that would get annoying fast. Seems like an awful lot of intersections would benefit drastically from a little human-powered common sense fine tuning the flow, instead of a bright red "Thou Shalt Not" from a timer on high.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Nope, but it does allow you to change direction to avoid a collision much more easily. The gas will save you more often than the brakes in a slide.
to use public roads with "safety"...
The world is NOT a safe place. It never has been, and it never will be.
And I'm damn tired of watching our freedom being stripped away by cowards who want a nanny state to protect them from their own shadow.
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.
One caveat I should mention: DON'T DO THIS WITHOUT PRACTICING IT FIRST. It isn't taught in driver's ed--frankly, they don't teach much there but the laws. But, if you live in an area prone to major snowfall, you should practice in an empty parking lot first until you're comfortable with how the car handles and how much gas is enough. Always keep the wheels pointed the direction you want to go, and don't give it too much gas or counter-steer too hard. Chances are, the car will straighten out after a couple swings--if you practiced before it became necessary, and didn't overdo the gas/counter-steering.
And once you've done all that, and you still have people running the red?
My city did all of the above, and now people run the red because they know the other side doesn't get the green right away, so it's "OK".
Then have the camera ticket in that instance. But switching the times lower to gain more tickets is that antithesis of safer.
So why not mandate a standard for yellow light length based on speed, so you eliminate the potential conflict of cities "tweaking" it to maximize fine returns. Instead we get the boneheaded idea that we should just ban the cameras, as if they were the problem...
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
Well, if it is Friday and Sat nights, it is likely you're on the road with more people that have been drinking, that's pretty common and normal.
A traffic camera isn't gonna do much good on that, you just need to be a bit more aware of things as you dirve those times of those evenings when risk on the road is naturally higher than other times.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Countdown timers are somewhat common in the US, though they're typically installed as pedestrian crosswalk timers. This limits them to urban and suburban intersections that see pedestrian traffic and municipalities that have updated them from the simple WALK/DON'T WALK symbols.
At complex intersections, the ped timers don't necessarily line up with the car traffic lights, though. I'd love to see real timers for the traffic lights themselves.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
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.
Actually, that's the way they got around the laws to put stop light/speeding cameras up in New Orleans.
It is nothing more than a revenue collection device, as that you don't go to traffic court over these and no points or marks go against your driving record.
It shows that is nothing more than for revenue generation. When people were protesting them (they almost got taken down awhile back) the first thing our govt and police said, was "we'll be losing $X if we do this...oh, and it will also make things less safe". That is a true story.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If the fines were lower, the RLC camera company couldn't cost-justify equipment, maintenance, and installation, and the municipality would have no reason to put it in.
We have timers on most of the lights here in Podunkville Ohio.
It's a college town and we have lots of pedestrians. I guess the idea was to make intersections safer and discourage jaywalking. Didn't curb that, but really helps in timing your approach to an intersection.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
The bright flashlamps needed to take a clear picture are also distracting and momentarily blinding for drivers who happen to be looking at them when they pop off a picture.
The problem is that no one has interest in doing it right. As far as I am concerned, the camera-at-traffic-light was solved in the 90s, when I was at MIT. I worked on the project for a while, and I remember the problems that we faced (and solved). Even better, time has made every single one of them trivial, through better cameras, faster and cooler processing, and cheap reliable communication.
So, here is how to make traffic cameras that work and save lives:
1. Once yellow is displayed, monitor the speed of the first vehicle in each lane that should be stopping.
2. Do not turn on the green (for any other lane) until every yellow (and later red) facing vehicle has initiated a deceleration that can bring to rest before the intersection.
3. Start flashing the red early if you detect a car that appears to be going too fast to stop before entering the intersection, but too slow to to enter it before the red is scheduled to appear.
4. Issue tickets to everyone entering the interception on red. As you don't delay the appearance of the red, this won't reduce the number of tickets.
5. Send warnings to people who have delayed the green, but have still come to a stop, reminding them that emergency stops are wearing down their shocks, tires, and brakes.
6. Send warnings to people who have crossed at flashing red, or speeding tickets if they did so by breaking the speed limit.
Note that none of this makes the green come earlier, or the red come later. You can still use an underlying, tested, proven reliable system to ensure that the new-fanged system does not give green to the wrong people at the same time.
This is going to save lives, and it was successfully testing in Boston last millennium. OK, so after a few weeks, the hardware went kaput, but that left the standard traffic light in place and there was no harm done. We lost interest. With today's tech, I could rebuild the system for one tenth of the price, and it would probably last a long longer.
No good deed goes unpunished...
My town in Oregon started putting in countdown timers last year. They're great
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
One caveat I should mention: DON'T DO THIS WITHOUT PRACTICING IT FIRST. It isn't taught in driver's ed--frankly, they don't teach much there but the laws. But, if you live in an area prone to major snowfall, you should practice in an empty parking lot first until you're comfortable with how the car handles and how much gas is enough. Always keep the wheels pointed the direction you want to go, and don't give it too much gas or counter-steer too hard. Chances are, the car will straighten out after a couple swings--if you practiced before it became necessary, and didn't overdo the gas/counter-steering.
There just aren't as many empty parking lots around anymore as when I was learning to drive. Lots more light poles, bumpers, curbs, etc. And a lot more cops to attract these days too.
I am not a crackpot.
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
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.
Shock and confusion caused by roundabouts is great, because it means people will actually pay attention to what the other cars are doing when they go through, for a change.
I can't speak for AWD (I wish I had it but my car works fine and I can't justify/afford a new one right now) - but with RWD, my rule of thumb is: if you start fishtailing, let off the gas and make sure your wheels are pointing where you want to go. That's it. Don't touch the brake unless you know they won't lock up (I don't have ABS either).
If there's a countdown pedestrian signal and the intersection phase is controlled by the pedestrian movement (i.e., there's not so much traffic that the light has to stay greener for more time than it takes a pedestrian to get across), then you can use the pedestrian countdown as a green light countdown.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
The privacy issue is that in principle there's no reason why the cameras couldn't be reprogrammed to track and log everybody's license plate all the time (including those legally traversing the intersection), building up a 4th-Amendment-violating database.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm a big fan of roundabouts, but they're a whole lot more expensive (including additional right-of-way) than adding a traffic light to an existing all-way stop. They're also not particularly appropriate for situations where the major street carries much more traffic than the minor street (think of a 6-lane avenue intersecting a 2-lane connector), which we tend to build a lot of in the suburbs.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
One reason I drive with a dash cam is that some red light cameras will randomly have no yellow light. Yep, green->red.
Shenanigans. I call bravo sierra.
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
This is what they teach in driver's ed, but the above that I mentioned does work in RWD cars as well--it's just a lot touchier. Same for FWD--it's touchier. AWD additionally has the advantage that the car tends to spin around the center in a controlled fashion, rather than over or understeering. I've practiced it in every style of car, and I still take the car out on the first snow of every winter to find a parking lot and refresh. But without specifically practicing beforehand, your advice is 100% correct. If you're interested in the mechanics, The Drift Bible and the Physics of Racing series are excellent introductions, and The Drift Bible provides exercises to safely learn to control a car under those conditions.
And a lot more cops to attract these days too.
I've always found it quite humorous that it is now so discouraged for young people to learn how to control a slide in the relatively safe environment of an empty parking lot.
Not to nitpick, but when I learned to drive it was very clear that a red light means STOP. Period. Making a right-hand turn doesn't make you immune to this, you need to stop at the light, not yield through it.
People were stopping, but they cleaned up on revenues from people going slightly over the speed limit.
So now, you see people speeding along knowing what the traffic cam is really for, and as they approach these intersections, even if green..you see nothing but brake lights slowing down to the limit...creeping through the intersection, then after passing, speeding up to "normal" speeds again.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
In my city we have blinking yellow (as part of the failsafe mode) for intersections where the major street has much more traffic than the minor street.
The trouble is, half the people don't understand what blinking yellow means and stop anyway. The uncertainty and confusion that ensues makes the intersection work perhaps even more poorly than it would as an all-way blinking red.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
Replying to myself with a better link to The Drift Bible. This is the full version, free, on YouTube. I'd be really careful where you choose to practice something like this--or you'll find your license taken away very quickly. Stick to empty parking lots, and know your area. Some places, the cops don't mind, as long as there's snow on the ground and the lot is totally empty. Other places, you're going to get your license taken away on the spot. Be safe, and DON'T TRY THIS ON PUBLIC ROADS.
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.
Spoken like a true masshole. *high five!* (BTW, how are you liking this current dusting?)
But yes, please drive slowly in snowy conditions. Better safe than sorry.
-- Another Masshole
The countdown timers are pretty widespread by now in NYC, at least in Manhattan, and they're great, for both drivers and pedestrians.
Last time I was in NYC, I didn't see a single one. I am NOT talking about timers on crosswalks (those are common in America). I mean a big countdown timer above the street, next to the traffic light, and visible to approaching traffic for about 200-300 meters. I have seen those in a number of countries, and they seem to improve the flow of traffic a lot. They not only count down to a red light, but once red, they countdown to green. So if you want to check your map or tune the radio while stopped at a traffic light, you know exactly how much time you have.
I don't run red lights, and I don't endanger anyone's life.
Opposition to an oppressive and overbearing government does not imply a desire on my part to engage in any particular behavior.
Then you don't live around here. If the light turns yellow around here, they hit the gas.
I see about half a dozen people per day enter the intersection two seconds after my light has turned green. This means that their light has been RED for two seconds plus however long the delay between their red and my green is. In those situations, I usually hit the gas hard enough to get within a foot or two of their vehicle. I am careful not to hit them, though. I have had two friends receive tickets for failing to avoid someone who had run a traffic signal. One of them actually got hit by the other person. In both cases, the person who ran the red light was not ticketed. But my friends, who were obeying their signal, got ticketed.
Ironically enough, they were both almost opposite situations:
Friend 1. Sitting and waiting to turn left across traffic. Left arrow turns green. He enters the intersection. A person coming from the other direction runs their red light, enters the intersection and hits him. My friend gets a ticket for failure to yield. The other guy got nothing for running a red light.
Friend 2. Driving down the road towards a green light. A car on the other side of the intersection is waiting in the left turn lane to cross traffic in front of my friend. Although he does not have a green arrow, he enters the intersection. My friend is unable to stop in time and runs into him. My friend gets a ticket for failure to yield. The guy who turned left on yield without yielding got no ticket. Not even for expired insurance even though his insurance was expired.
Ironically, in both cases, if my friend would have yielded to the other guy, he would have been breaking the law, failure to obey a traffic device.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
While it sounds nice, that kind of system can only work on signals with set timing. Signals with variable timing based on street sensor information (more than 50% of the signals in my city, I would guess) have no idea how long they may be green or red. Half may be better than none at all, though.
Because we don't need fucking cameras monitoring us every moment of our lives!
If it's not important enough for a real, live cop to write up a citation and hand it to the offender personally, then it's not important enough to enforce!
The government really needs to learn their place. And their place is NOT micromanaging every little detail of our lives.
I'm usually libertarian leaning, but this is one area where the state or better yet DOT needs to set some realistic standards for traffic light timing; in this day and age there is no excuse for not having accurate and consistantly timed lights. We have NTP and GPS, if I'm driving the speed limit cross town, hitting a red light should be rare anyways.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
We have those in my city. Some people hate it, but others love it. I use it to pace myself. If I am approaching a light and see five seconds left, I slow down way in advance of the light. Saves gas and my brakes.
If God gave us curiosity
You don't go to court because it's what they call "masked". Basically, unless you're pulled over by a real cop, they can only fine you.
By the way, this is why people with CDLs, like myself, can't be fined by red light cameras. It's illegal (federally) to mask a traffic violation on a CDL. I've run a few red lights, got my picture taken, but that was the end. Not even a notice in the mail.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
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.
Nope. I grew up in a rural area where people would routinely ignore the town's one traffic light. I've seen far too many people hit by drivers who just really didn't give a damn about the law.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Never seen those, I was talking about the crosswalk ones. They're certainly large enough to be read well before you get to the intersection. Remember, speed limit in NYC is 30mph except on the highways, so you shouldn't need to be that far away.
Yes, roundabouts are safer than stop signs and red lights, but they won't work on roads with more than two lanes, nor can most city intersections be re-engineered for them because there simply isn't enough space.
We have exactly one in Springfield, 12 blocks from the Capitol. There isn't enough room anywhere else.
Free Martian Whores!
This isn't about safety, didn't you get that message? It's revenue, pure and simple, with safety as the excuse. There are many other ways to make intersections safer, such as improved timing, visibility and lighting, geometry (gentler curves, gentler slopes, wider lanes), lower speed limits, and lowering the amount of traffic. Red light cameras should be a last resort. No one gets away with repeatedly entering intersections when it isn't safe to do so. Most of the time, when the traffic light is red, it's not safe! (We do have a problem with brainless lights holding people up for empty cross streets.) The person who tries it will get in a wreck before long. It's such a stupid thing to try that it is very rare, and those who do so rightly deserve being nominated for a Darwin Award if they get themselvs killed.
The #1 way to make intersections safer is ensure that the yellow light is long enough. Cities and their business partners who run these red light camera programs are notorious for deliberately neglecting to set the yellow to a reasonable duration. They used to be brazen enough to shorten the yellow. Now to head off accusations of cheating, they instead seek out intersections where the yellow was never long enough to begin with, and throw up cameras there. Every time they slap cameras on an intersection without first adjusting yellow durations, they show their true colors. Busting people for missing lights by under 1 second does not improve safety. They even trot out this ridiculous claim that longer yellows will not help because people adjust to them. Of course they can't cite any evidence to back that up.
In many cases, red light cameras have actually decreased safety. These programs have caused an increase in rear end collisions thanks to hard braking to avoid a ticket.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Safety? Ensuring that the law is just and fair is important. Fairness is every bit as much a safety and security issue as enforcing good laws. The law has many corrupt rules that are a net negative to the public. They are purposely designed to bilk the majority for the sake of a very small minority. How safe will you feel if the law swings too far into corruption, and touches off a rebellion?
The law is also purposely too broad and harsh, so that someone who is causing a problem that doesn't immediately fit into a neat predefined category can be quickly corralled if necessary. Such law is not meant to be enforced on everyone all the time. The problem is that broad laws are easy to abuse, and there are those who try to make a living doing just that. Setting drivers up to fail is definitely unfair and corrupt.
It is every citizen's duty to fight such laws and enforcement any and every way possible. Politically powerful schemers are always testing the boundaries, trying to see what they can get away with. We must push back. Take too much lying down, and we will lose our freedoms.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
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.
I never asserted that these cameras aren't often abused. I only assert that red light cameras are not an invasion of privacy or ignoring of rights. The wanton disregard for public safety is the infringement on your rights- not the camera.
As if you think forcing you not to run red lights and endangering people's lives is some major attack on your freedom.
Forcing anyone to do anything is the very definition of an attack on freedom, dumbass. If I force you to dunk your head in a toilet, I have taken away your freedom to have a dry head. This is kinda Civics 101, no?
I'm not taking an anarchist position here, mind you, but maybe you should think a little bit about what the words you use actually mean.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
This is simply for people who willfully blow through a red light.
Seriously? 99% of red light infractions are simply a result of a brief but minor distraction, and take place within the first 2 seconds of the red -- which is usually before the cross traffic gets a green anyway.
That's not "willful". It's "unintentional". Take a second to change the radio station, or scold a child in the back seat, miss when the light turns yellow, and suddenly you're cutting it a bit too close. Then a camera nails you when you cross into the intersection .003 seconds after the light goes red.
No cop would ever write that ticket.
No camera can tell the difference, either, between deliberate or inadvertent.
Maybe you should take a trip to the brain store, and try one on for size. And ride the damn bus, because you probably can't drive worth a shit anyway.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
Im sorry, where did you get the idea that this helped keep intersections safe? Keeping intersections safe is actually fairly trivial without any sort of RLC or punishment. All you need to do, which many places already have done, is slightly increase the length of yellow lights, and delay the green transition on the other traffic lane, so that there is a period of 1-2 seconds where all sides are red; and thus cars that may have been late past the line, have time to make it through.
Sure it may not play into some people's fetish for punishment and strict rules enforcement, but, it does a great job of increasing safety.
And in light of that, when cities get caught reducing the yellow light time at lights, which is less safe and increases the chances of an accident, then YES it is a money making scheme.
Increasing the yellow light period is an incredibly stupid idea. Sure, in theory it may allow late vehicles to get through safely, but is has two major drawbacks.
The first is human psychology. It will make people keep going even if they could stop safely, making them even later, and then you'd have to extend the yellow again to make if safe etc.
The second is the waste of time the all red period causes. It adds up. It either adds to the time lost to transportation (which is already immense due to queues and congestion) or makes people try to catch up by driving even faster, causing more and more serious accidients.
Oh, and there's a movement here where pedestrians start walking as soon as the light turns red across, not waiting for the green (or 'walk') to come on. It has caused some pretty hefty emergency braking and hopefully a massive shock to the late driver, making him or her think twice before running a light on what we call taxi-green (because it used to be mostly taxies that tried to avoid having to wait for the next green). I'm more or less part of this movement. After all, yellow also means stop so there's always ample time to stop, especially at city speeds.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
It doesn't require college level math.
The yellow light should have a duration based of the maximum legal speed, How long (including normal attentive reaction time) will it take to come to a rest safely from that speed? - Not emergency braking, just a normal stop. That is how long the yellow should be. No all red needed.
If you drive too fast or not paying attention, you deserve to get in trouble. A camera will determine if you ran the light and thus are at fault. Criminal charges in addition to the traffic fines should be applied, plus you get to pay all damages, both material and human. I'm sure that text can wait when the alternative is mandatory jailtime, a huge fine and a lifetime of paying for damages.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Here in Copenhagen, Denmark at busy intersections you will see 2-3 or more cars running the red at the end of each green period simply because they don't really respect the light; they only respect the risk of hitting cross traffic, and the 2 second all red period allows them to stretch their green a second or two into the full red. Most know this and most do it. It's not just a single car here and there; it's simply standard behavior and if someone actually stops as intended, the cars behind will honk and give the finger as they expect to make it across.
This is why there's a movement here to make them wake up because the late cars reach the far crosswalk after it has tuned green (or 'walk'), thus creating some very dangerous situations. We simply start walking the very second the light turns red across, thus bringing us well out into the intersection before the late cars are through, thus causing some emergency breaking (and a few accidents from loss of control). If we pay attention we can avoid stepping out right in front of a car (we give the driver the finger instead) and I've not heard of a single accident involving a pedestrian doing this.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
First of all: ensuring laws are followed for public safety is one of the primary purposes of the government. Stopping you from running red lights is not micromanaging.
You're ignoring the actual issues people have with it and pretending it's about running red lights; it isn't.
Second: you know for a fact it is impossible for humans to do that kind of monitoring and you would be even more petulant if they tried to hire more cops to do this.
But it's certainly possible to collect information to find targets to harass.
Welcome to the modern world where we use technology to do more work with less humans.
And it seems that some people in the western world want nothing to do with this. Surveillance of public places is something I believe only a fool would desire.
This is the perfect use case for computer monitoring.
Like the NSA, huh? They only bother with terrorists! Oh, wait...
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
RLC cause more accidents because people slamming on their brakes for yellow lights. It is documented.
If you need to slam on your brakes you're either going too fast or not paying attention - or both.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
The bright flashlamps needed to take a clear picture are also distracting and momentarily blinding for drivers who happen to be looking at them when they pop off a picture.
What? - All the cams I've seen uses near-infrared flashes which can be seen only as dull red that cannot blind anyone even in pitch black darkness.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
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) --
Quoting the grandparent:
they came to a complete stop INCHES past the intersection painted lines
Did you notice the relevant part of that comment this time?
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
What difference does that make, other than you nitpicking the nitpicker? Failure to completely stop before the intersection, even by inches, is an infraction and can be finable.
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
That's exactly what I saw happen. It was even more fun during the later part of the several-year transition period, when most of the lights had the all-red delay, but there were still some around that didn't. Hilarity ensued.
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.
Sadly though - the rules on left turn is the person turning left is always at fault - they are responsible for watching oncoming traffic and making a safe turn. If they are doing so, the person running the light would continue through and no accident would happen. I had this discussion with an officer friend after checking into whether or not another friend was at fault for the idiot who hit her car in Beverly Hills blithely talking on their cell phone while doing about 65 in a 30 zone.
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.
And what exactly would you be doing in your response? There's a reason most of the speeding cameras don't trigger until you've done some percentage above the speed limit. How many judges do you think would throw out a speeding ticket if you were doing 50.5 km/h in a 50 km/h zone? Would you even be able to tell if you were going 1% over the speed limit? Shall we also have police start handing out fines for jaywalking on empty streets?
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
There's a reason most of the speeding cameras don't trigger until you've done some percentage above the speed limit.
Yes, the reason is that a cars speedometer is not a finely calibrated device and the average driver doesn't really know if they're going 44 or 53 when their speedometer says 50.
How many judges do you think would throw out a speeding ticket if you were doing 50.5 km/h in a 50 km/h zone? Would you even be able to tell if you were going 1% over the speed limit? Shall we also have police start handing out fines for jaywalking on empty streets?
See, you answered your own question, so you know your analogy is absurd. Drivers CAN tell that their car is in the intersection and they CAN tell whether their car has a speed of zero (i.e. come to a complete stop). If the law is not going to be enforced then it shouldn't be a law.
Shall we also have police start handing out fines for jaywalking on empty streets?
Yes they should. Then maybe those poorly written jaywalking laws would be repealed rather than be an opportunity for the police to hassle whoever they sort of feel like shaking down that day. If YOU don't think the law is useful then your solution is to just violate it when it suits you? Why not advocate for a clearer, more useful law instead?
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
The signals don't change instantly when they register somone/noone waiting. You could still do a (possibly shorter) timer from when the sensors detects something until the time it actually changes.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I've only ever seen them on pedestrian signals, but I would really appreciate them on the main signals too. Sometimes I can see the pedestrian timer from my car, and I've been using that to try and gauge when the light will change, so having one easier to see would be sweet.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I could turn that around and say that I believe you to be unprincipled for desiring privacy that strongly. The real world is a giant balancing game: if you lean all the way to one side you'll fall over.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Exactly, anyone who exercises their freedom in such a way that they end up in that path of a car running a red light knew what they were doing. We should not abridge people's freedom to be killed. Damn micromanaging government trying to tell me to obey the laws: FUCK THEM!
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I can just imagine the FBI headquarters:
"Agent Johnson, what are you doing about the revolutionaries in Pennsylvania?"
"We've put up red-light cameras in their area, Lieutenant Smith."
"How will that help?"
"Soon enough, they'll run a red light. Then we'll have everything we need to send them to Guantanamo."
"Good work, Agent Johnson, keep it up."
Just in case my point isn't clear: the government is actually doing things that are really fucking bad, right now, but you're getting pissed off about red light cameras.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
We have the countdown timers on most lights with a crosswalk in the tampa bay area. Soon as it hits 0, light goes yellow. They really are a great way to help reduce accidents.
There are standards and laws regulating how long it must be yellow. Many areas have been caught breaking those laws to increase their ticket revenue.
I have ZERO problem with a law against running red lights. Nor do I have a problem with the fact that I am expected to obey said law. I also don't consider having to stop for them to be any particular inconvenience. Sure, there are occasions where they seem to last far longer than necessary, but all in all it's pretty easy to conceptualize why they are necessary, and how society functions more smoothly with them than we would without them.
What I do have a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM with is a method of "enforcement" designed not to keep people safe, or keep traffic running smoothly, but to raise revenue by gaming the system. (And, quite likely, to grossly invade our privacy by tracking people's movements.)
But no, simple minded fools like yourself can't comprehend that a rule being necessary does NOT automatically mean that any and every method of enforcement is justified. If I oppose executing people for jaywalking, that does NOT mean that I support jaywalking.
Why can't morons like you understand that this is NOT about "the right to run red lights"?
I could turn that around and say that I believe you to be unprincipled for desiring privacy that strongly.
You could, but I would say that anyone who would say such a thing should probably isolate themselves from the rest of the world; can't have them ruining countries with their nonsense.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, I would not expect safety to be even close to a prime concern, and especially so when fundamental liberties and privacy are at stake.
The real world is a giant balancing game: if you lean all the way to one side you'll fall over.
I'd say that's utterly false. Extremes are not always wrong, and something being 'extreme' (which is subjective) does not even mean it is likely to be wrong, as most issues are subjective. I don't know if that's what you were trying to get at, but if not, then I have no idea what message you were trying to convey.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You could, but I would say that anyone who would say such a thing should probably isolate themselves from the rest of the world; can't have them ruining countries with their nonsense.
Funny, because that's exactly the kind of thing I'd say about your unprincipled desire of freedom.
I started trying to critique the rest of your comment, but you're too far away from sanity for me to even get close.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I agree that gaming the system is wrong. Why can't morons like you see that red light cameras can (and are, in sane countries) used to enforce laws and not any other conspiracy bullshit you want to spout. Local governments are corrupt: that is the problem, you can't fix a corrupt city council by eliminating their red lights.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Funny, because that's exactly the kind of thing I'd say about your unprincipled desire of freedom.
Then move to North Korea or something.
I started trying to critique the rest of your comment, but you're too far away from sanity for me to even get close.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Ah, ColdSam, you are a barrel of laughs. Everyone is supposed to know the exact amount of traction their car will have on a given day in a given location so that they can make sure their car doesn't slide an inch or two past a line which is ALWAYS put at such a distance as to allow for a foot or more of sliding before a pedestrian or another vehicle would be at risk, and you are perfectly fine if they are penalized for that. Yet, when a law is enacted for your safety and the convenience of everyone around you that says you can be fined for not crossing in clearly marked locations, that's the law that isn't useful.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
You do realize that stopping a few inches behind the line is also okay, don't you? You don't have to know the 'exact amount', but if you can't stop before a clearly marked line (or pedestrian or wall or whatever) and often go a few inches past that line (or pedestrian or wall) then you shouldn't be driving. Are you really that out of control with your vehicle?
You yourself admitted the jaywalking laws are stupid at times, so how do you get off criticizing me for it? So yes, we both agree the law, as written, is not useful. The law is certainly not for my convenience because I know how to walk around traffic and while driving how to avoid any pedestrian who doesn't have a death wish. So the law should be that pedestrians can't cross where and when they impede traffic.. Likewise, if it were so hard to stop before a fixed line then the law should be that you have to stop before X inches past the line.
"Soon enough, they'll run a red light. Then we'll have everything we need to send them to Guantanamo."
Which assumes they're only used for their stated purpose.
Just in case my point isn't clear: the government is actually doing things that are really fucking bad, right now, but you're getting pissed off about red light cameras.
X being worse than Y does not mean that Y isn't bad. Yes, the government may be doing worse things, but that doesn't mean red light cameras aren't a problem.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
How about I stay here and you move to Somalia?
Is 1563649 a prime number?
No, the fact that red light cameras aren't a problem means that red light cameras aren't a problem...
Is 1563649 a prime number?
But I do see them as a problem.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I just can't see why getting molested at airports, having your communications spied on, and being recorded/tracked in public places could ever be a good thing. They all result people saying things such as, "I want safety, and I don't care if I have to sacrifice people's freedoms and privacy to get it!" We place limitations on governments because they are made up of humans who cannot be trusted, so why trust them with placing cameras in public places (Which I would oppose even if there were no slippery slope or potential for abuse.) and then blindly believing them when they say the cameras won't be used for anything else? It's not like history has countless examples of governments expanding their powers or anything.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Oh that's mature, "take a trip to the brain store", what the fuck are you, 12 years old? Angry much? Feeling persecuted? Poor baby.
And there's NO fucking excuse for driving so "distracted" that you're going through a red light 2 seconds after it's changed, that's why there are yellow lights. If you're that easy to distract while controlling a 2 ton vehicle, and you're' not looking in front of you while moving for that length of time, you shouldn't' be allowed to drive, asshole, you're a fucking menace to society. Some day you'll kill someone.
I've been driving for over 30 years and have never been in an accident, yet I drive 45 miles every day. What's your record look like?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
You've never, in 30 years, unintentionally run a red light, or even taken your eyes off the road for a couple of seconds? Do you expect anyone to believe that?
There is distracted driving as a result of bad behavior, such as texting or putting on makeup while driving... then there's inadvertent, like maybe an object flying at your vehicle in your peripheral vision, or your kid screaming from the back seat, or any number of things that would not be a result of bad driving behavior.
That's what I was getting at -- there's a difference. It happens. I'll take back the brain comment if you'll admit to being a self-righteous twat.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
Again, the camera wasn't the problem, the corrupt officials were. This is why independent audits are crucial. Video recording would also resolve this, as the records would show whether the yellow was operating correctly at the time of the recording.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
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.