Slashdot Mirror
Red-Light Camera Grace Period Goes From 0.1 To 0.3 Seconds, Chicago To Lose $17 Million (arstechnica.com)
The Chicago Department of Transportation announced a new policy earlier this week that will increase the "grace period" -- the time between when a traffic light turns red to when a ticket is automatically issued. The decision has been made to increase the time from 0.1 seconds to 0.3 seconds, following recommendations part of a recent study of its red-light cameras. Ars Technica reports: This will bring the Windy City in line with other American metropolises, including New York City and Philadelphia. In a statement, the city agency said that this increase would "maintain the safety benefits of the program while ensuring the program's fairness." On Tuesday, the Chicago Tribune reported that the city would lose $17 million in revenue this year alone as a result of the expanded grace period. Michael Claffey, a CDOT spokesman, confirmed that figure to Ars. "We want to emphasize that extending this enforcement threshold is not an invitation to drivers to try to beat the red light," CDOT Commissioner Rebekah Scheinfeld also said in the statement. "By accepting the recommendation of the academic team, we are giving the benefit of the doubt to well-intentioned drivers while remaining focused on the most reckless behaviors."
Did you hear?
Going faster through a red light means the camera won't get you!
Seems like any fines going to the department that makes them fines is a conflict of interest. These things should clearly be decided by direct democracy, at least how the money is spent, and should not go to their budgets by default.
I hate when people use the word "lose" to mean "not anymore have the opportunity to gain as additional income (under certain additional conditions)". See also: "the machine that will utterly bankrupt the music industry" by Peter Sunde: https://boingboing.net/2015/12...
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Before the government haters are triggered :
TEN 9/11's on the road EACH year in the US alone.
Why change the red light grace period? Red light is red light.
If you want to reduce accidents, increase the yellow period. People who push the limits of an extended yellow don't deserve grace. All this is going to do is now make people more comfortable running a little bit of red.
since that money stays with the drivers. Just like Media companies claiming billions lost from file sharing when in reality that money was spent on different market sectors and the gov probably made more off corporate taxes since small businesses can't get the same tax loopholes.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Leave the cases within the grace period to actual cops who need to fulfill their daily harassment quota.
Should be zero. People waiting for the lights to change will have to wait another .03 secs.
The maybe best solution ever I've seen in Austria. Here is a quick comparison between US vs. Austrian traffic lights.
Basically, their lights flash green 5 times before they go to yellow, giving you ample time to know that the green period ends. Also, before switching to green, it shows red and yellow for about a second or two to give you an idea that you should put your car into gear and prepare to accelerate, thus improving the reaction time of people and improving the usage of the green phase.
All in all, a WAY better solution. Of course their law also says that there is ZERO grace period for entering with a red light. You have ample time to know it's going red. Actually, I don't even know whether there isn't already some kind of provision that you're supposed to not enter when it goes yellow.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...that if I pass that white line before it turns red, really REALLY fast itll be OK.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
we are giving the benefit of the doubt to well-intentioned drivers while remaining focused on the most reckless behaviors.
No shot first and ask question later? Is this fake news?
So basically all the money the government has collected as fines and penalties is distributed evenly to all taxpayers. That money was collected as compensation for crimes against society, and this way it gets distributed back to society.
That's exactly how it works in other countries (e.g.: Switzerland).
Fines don't go to the department (e.g.: to the police)
Fines go to the public spending budget, so the country has more money to do things (in addition to the tax money), or more practically, gets less indebted to do the same things...
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's 2017 and we're still trying to figure out how to not kill each other on the roads. For all our achievements we're still just stupid apes.
You are sent a ticket, that is a "civil" ticket...no points. You are considered GUILTY unless you can PROVE you are wrong. Tell me how that is constitutional?
"I wanted to beat the light" isn't. "I know yellow means I should only enter if I can't stop, but I did it anyway." isn't. If you're in the intersection when the light turns red, you ran it. Just because you can't get away with it anymore doesn't mean your intentions were good.
That would be true if people treated yellow lights as the law requires. If you're in the intersection when the light turns red, it wasn't because you couldn't stop in time, it was because you tried to beat it instead of stopping.
If the problem is that drivers don't have enough time when driving the speed limit to safely slow to a stop when they see a yellow light, the solution is not to allow them some go-time when the light is red. The correct solution is to extend the length of time of the yellow light.
Yellow light does not mean speed up so you don't get stuck at a red light. Yellow light is an instruction to come to a steady stop before the intersection if speed and distance allow. This requires a light to be yellow for the appropriate length of time. Fix that (perhaps it already is), and let the ticketing commence. Some day drivers will recognize that ensuring that accelerating to make the light puts other people in danger, or at the very least, hits 'em in the wallet.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Chicago has reason to rejoice, as it was found that by trimming the red light duration from 1.7 to 1.3 seconds it will lose only 17 million and not $29M as originally estimated.
Camera shutters will not be altered in any way, saving even more of the city's budget on any unnecessary upgrades.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Just a minute ago when I needed to dump the contents of a file to stdout.
keep scaling. 6000 for 60 second, etc.
The easy solution is to shorten the yellow light, that way we catch everyone in the red.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Yes, we're gonna have to go right to... Ludicrous speed!
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Ask Schrodinger, he put it in a box somewhere.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Yeah. That land zeppelin behind me humping my exhaust system while the driver is texting and putting on makeup is reallllllly going to stop because I'm stopping at a light that just turned yellow. Shortened yellow light times and red light cameras may reduce T-bone accidents (and increase revenue) but tend to increase rear end collisions for this exact reason.
A lot of intersections in Chicago have a count down timer for pedestrians which is a good indicator when yellow/red will kick in.
I remember a red-light camera in Queens where the amber was unusually short, about half as long as normal, so it would turn red when you didn't expect it to and you ended up with a ticket.
soylentnews.org
right on red issues as well!
There was a place where they removed the camera after lot's of people where stopping after the line as they need to stop after the line to be able to see if they can make a safe right on red.
Or unless the intersection is so large that a cyclist can enter on green and the signal can go from green to yellow to red before the cyclist has cleared it.
Problem is, the way traffic flows in chicago, left turning motorists often are in the middle of the street when the light changes, and can only complete their turn once the light has turned red and the ticket has been issued.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I can't wait until self-driving cars become the norm and totally screw these local governments out of these sources of "revenue".
Better known as 318230.
"Chicago to Lose $17 Million" Hogwash. Chicago will keep that $17 Million. The *real* Chicago, not the city government.
If your car is that fast, I think you will have more pressing matters to attend to, like staying on the planet.
Actually given the amount of air resistance and therefore friction at that speed the large plasma fireball which will surround you will make you very detectable, although not really identifiable, and your immediate problem will be avoiding instant cremation, not staying on the planet.
0.1 sec is too fast. It takes your eyes 50ms (aks .05 sec) to notice, then there would be reaction time > 100ms (0.1s). If the yellow is 0.1s then that is instantaneous and no one or car could stop that fast! DOT say yellow minimally should be on for 3 seconds!
There is zero grace period here, I can tell you that from experience.
I have had 1 red light ticket in my life. the ticket shows that I entered the intersection 0.1 second after the light turned. This means that when I entered the intersection, by a human's perception, it was still yellow.
I guess next time I'll slam the brakes harder and not risk a yellow. Too bad I can't get the city to pay for the damage from being rear-ended for braking so hard.
Have you reported this underprovisioned intersection to the city? How often have you done so? If it affects you daily, complain daily.
Neither this article nor the study's abstract lists any clear motivation for this change. What is the reasoning? "Ensuring the program’s fairness" implies that the study found it to be unfair currently, yet I see no evidence of that. What does "giving the benefit of the doubt to well-intentioned drivers" even mean? If anything, it seems like they should increase the time of yellow lights by 0.3 seconds instead. It will have the same effect—preventing the ticketing of individuals who legitimately entered an intersection when the light was yellow—but not send the message that there is a margin of error during which breaking the law is somehow acceptable. I just don't understand this.
Now, if cases in the .1-.3s range were being fought in court and costing the city more money than they were bringing in, that I could understand. But a $17 million loss? What?
I really wish we had traffic cameras (red light and speed) in Minneapolis. It's just ridiculous what people get away with. These people do not deserve to live happy lives.
Yesterday, I did not walk around town and mug people to reach a goal of $1000 cash.
Therefore, I lost $1000!!
And kill citizens in exchange for tax revenue. Really, short yellow lights do kill people. Municipal governments know this and some of them still shorten the lights beyond the acceptable range as dictated by DOT engineering standards.
In my opinion we should be able to draw and quarter the people responsible for intentionally turning human misery and death into tax revenue.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Instead of a reality check on whether traffic light cameras actually provide value in traffic safety the politicians that think they have some inherent right to the contents of your wallet lament lower numbers of fines. Typical.
NRRPT/RCT
How about jail time for the officials that had it set to .1 seconds to begin with when other cities had 3 times as long. They effective extorted money from the people of Chicago with this illegal scheme. Let's start with the Mayor. He belongs in jail.
So, the data tells us then that most drivers ignore the red light and push it by 0.3 seconds or so to "scrape through". If the priority was safety, as well as issuing tickets, the time between one route going red and the subsequent route going green should also be increased by 0.3 seconds as well to compensate for behaviour. This would have more of an effect of reducing danger than a fine after the fact...
That said, shortening the yellow isn't done for public safety reasons, it's done to improperly generate revenue to the detriment of public safety and the Law itself. So I'm not counting it.
Then the municipality needs to rethink the intersection and/or it's bike laws. In the meantime, "that bike prevented me from exiting the intersection" should be an effective defence.