Red-Light Camera Ticket Revenue and Short Yellows 976
NicknamesAreStupid writes "A Fort Meyers news station reports a nerdy husband getting his wife out of a red-light camera ticket by proving the light was set with too short of a yellow. Then he goes out and proves that nearly 90% of the lights are set an average of about 20% too short. Is this a local incident, or have local governments nationwide found a new revenue source? What puzzles me is how a single picture can tell if you ran a light. If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle). Wouldn't you need two pictures — one just before the light went red showing you are not in the intersection, and another after the light went red showing you in the intersection?"
Legality (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They put up the cameras in North Carolina, but there was a problem: Our state Constitution says that *all* fines collected must be put into the education fund (this would exclude court costs). They installed the cameras, collected a bunch of money, a lawsuit was had, and it was judged that both halves of the funds collected (was a 50/50 split between cities and the company that owned the cameras) must be given to the schools. That means the camera company would have to do it for free, which wasn't going
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's also t
Old news. (Score:5, Informative)
Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.
The study noted here [sciencedaily.com] actually found that accidents went up after installing the damned things. Then again it was Florida...
Re:Old news. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Just ask AAA: The number one way to make intersections safer is double the lengths of the yellows. You take an arbitrary intersection that has accident problems and if you lengthen the yellow, that tends to do more to solve the problem than anything else. Of course as you note, long yellows are counter to profit from red light cameras.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder for how long though? By this, I mean I heard they found a large benefit from adding the middle brake light (not sure of the name for it, but the one in the rear windshield) in taxi cabs in NYC. Something like 20% fewer rear end collisions (I'm guessing on the percentage as it was years ago that I heard this) so the government made it mandatory. Only it seems the improvement only lasted for a little while. Once it became standard and people became used to it, the improvement basically disappeared. So it only helped while it was novel, is that the case with longer yellow lights? Do people compensate for it after a little while when they start to learn it is a "long yellow"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not sure, I haven't looked at any of the studies extensively, but AAA seems pretty confident. It does make some sense when you think about it. Yellow warns people that a change is happening, but they need time to react. If they are trained on yellow being short they may elect to speed up or jam on the brakes, which causes problems. If they understand that there is plenty of time, they'll maintain speed and go through.
I know there are more than a few lights here where I get trigger happy on the brakes when I
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Forever.
By this, I mean I heard they found a large benefit from adding the middle brake light (not sure of the name for it, but the one in the rear windshield) in taxi cabs in NYC. Something like 20% fewer rear end collisions (I'm guessing on the percentage as it was years ago that I heard this) so the government made it mandatory.
CHMSL, Center High Mount Stop Light.
Only it seems the improvement only lasted for a little while. Once it became standard and people became us
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What a Bunch Of FUD....
If you're going to throw crap out there, you might want to trying providing links that back up your claims.
It was the same with airbags. Aside from unbelted passengers, airbags didn't improve safety. But Ralph Nader, knowing this, got up in front of Congress and lied in order to get airbags passed that would kill infants, while also working to prevent warning labels on them initially so that people wouldn't be scared of them. So we've had presidential candidates who worked very hard to pass regulations that killed babies by ejecting their heads out of the back of car windows while their bodies were still strapped into their car seats. Safety doesn't matter nearly as much as the appearance of safety.
Study [iihs.org] after Study [ama-assn.org] after Study [ohioinsurance.org] have shown quite the opposite. In fact, there have even been papers [apa.org] that conclude that the media have skewed their reporting on the subject to basically fall in line with what you were spouting about above.
The point of an airbag is to cushion and slow the upper torso and head from striking hard objects that cause rapid deceleration of the body and
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Airbags were only a problem in the USA, where they had to be powerfull enough to stop an unrestrained adult.
For the rest of the seatbelt wearing world, airbags reduce head trauma and thus save lives.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not in Austin (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.
Indeed. Which is why when red light cameras came to Austin, they first studied all the 'bad' intersections and decided which should have their yellow light lengthened, and which should get a camera. I looked at a map they published showing which got which treatment, and it seemed like about half of the problem intersections were given longer yellows.
One of the intersections that got a camera I have a lot of personal experience with, and it's yellow was just fine before and unchanged after. The problem was people just flagrantly running the red. Seriously it was ridiculous.
Anyway, while I'm sure there's a contractor making a lot of money off the cameras, it seems to have been implemented fairly intelligently here.
Also, while contracts may stipulate maximum yellows, state laws often dictate minimums. I've heard (on /.) of various municipalities getting in trouble with the state governments for breaking these laws to increase red light camera revenue. Which is disgusting. Okay yeah law is sometimes arbitrary, but this law is fundamentally based on the laws of physics. :P
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you cite any proof of that?
Just personal experience. It seems that, for quite a few people, when they know that their chances of getting through are high, they'll go for it.
Those who won't stop will have less chance of hitting someone because they're more likely to be through the light before it goes red.
That is true, which is why I still prefer it that way.
Because if you give people enough time to stop, the fines won't pay for the cameras.
The cameras aren't supposed to pay for themselves - insistence that they do is precisely what gets us into this mess. They should rather be viewed strictly as a tool to enforce compliance with the law, when violations of said law are common, and the consequences are likely dangerous and even deadly. If that too
Two pictures... and then some! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.plano.gov/Departments/Police/RedLightCameras/Pages/default.aspx [plano.gov]
How the cameras work. (Score:5, Informative)
From what I understand, the cameras are triggered by motion. If you cross a line while the light is red, you get photographed.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/red-light-camera1.htm [howstuffworks.com]
Then why are they shutting a bunch of them down... (Score:5, Interesting)
...if they are for "public safety" instead of revenue. I know of several cities here in Missouri that have turned them off because people stopped running the red lights. Instead of going to the press and talking about their success. No the departments were complaining because NO ONE WAS RUNNING THE LIGHTS and therefore not making any money and forcing them to "turn them off". They didn't put those cameras there to increase public safety. They did it to increase revenue.
Lights that count down (Score:5, Interesting)
In my city, we now have cross walk signals that display a count down in large illuminated digits until the signal is going to change.
I know this is primarily for the benefit of pedestrians, but I like them as a driver as well. I now know with a greater degree of accuracy how long the green light is going to last, and if I need to be aware of an upcoming change to yellow and perhaps slow down, rather than speeding up to "make it".
This is particularly useful at an intersection I drive through every day on my way to and from work, which has a red-light camera.
Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (Score:5, Interesting)
I got busted by a red light camera a few weeks ago.
I received a letter in the mail showing two photos of my car. The first showed my car approaching the red light. The second showed my care turning right at the red light. Of course, I assumed that I had come to a complete stop at the red prior to turning right. I was all ready to fight the ticket on grounds that the two photos did not prove the city's case.
However, reading the entire contents of the letter led me to an http link where I could see the 'complete evidence' available to the city. Sure enough, I go to the provided website, enter a string of letters/digits and I am presented with a video showing my car rolling through the light without stopping.
I had no idea that they were capturing motion video as well as still pictures. Nevertheless, I was bummed.
But, even then, my wife, who is an attorney here in St. Louis, advised me against paying the ticket. It turns out that the ticket is issued by a 3rd party that operates the cameras, and not by the city police. There will be no impact on my driving record. The worst that can happen is it will be turned over to collections and placed on my credit report. At that time, I will simply hand it over to my wife and she will challenge the reporting agencies to provide proof that it was me driving the car, and that the debt is mine. Being unable to do that, they will be forced to drop it from my credit report.
Sometimes it is helpful to have a wife that specializes in US Bankruptcy law.
Re:Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But in this case you are just using the legal system in the worst possible way: To screw someone out of a legitimate outcome. If you were fighting an illegal ticket, or something the company legitimately did wrong it would make more sense.
Wow! The same legal system that would fuck him if he just bent over and took it can also be used to fight back? What blasphemy! He plays by THEIR rules and still he's the bad guy?
Ever consider that 100% enforcement mechanisms are inherently illegitimate in the first place? Society runs on slack, the less tolerance of slack the less life is worth living (and the less efficient everything is too). Yeah, 1 out of a million times someone gets killed because the slack was used when it should not have been.
Re:Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (Score:5, Insightful)
But in this case you are just using the legal system in the worst possible way: To screw someone out of a legitimate outcome.
New to the legal system, are we?
But yeah, he should pay the ticket. It's not like he got snared by a rigged light, as happens to a lot of people. He made an illegal right turn. End of story.
Re:Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (Score:4, Interesting)
you're taking a lot of heat for your post, but I have to thank you! I just paid my $100 to the city of STL for the same thing. I actually debated it back and forth quite a bit, and ended up paying it because I don't have a lawyer for a spouse.
I made a right turn on red at manchester and kingshighway. I did not stop. Why? Because I didn't know that was the law. In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras. So the city criminalized formerly legitimate behavior, banking on the general populace's ignorance of this change, all for profit.
I made the right without a stop. But I didn't know the law had changed. What, am I and other motorists supposed to know where to find changes to the traffic laws and know when they change? Preposterous. The law is out of reach of the common man, and this is precisely what these evil corporations who set up the lights are banking on. Had I blatantly run a red light, I'd shut up and pay. But here the law is dubious.
I read that they are issuing arrest warrants for failure to pay. On one hand, if they were to arrest my wife, I'd hire a lawyer and sue them for false arrest (because she was not the driver at the time). On the other hand, my wife might be arrested while driving, so that's ultimately why I grit my teeth and paid up. There is a class action lawsuit against the city. I wonder how I could become a party to this? http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/02/plaintiffs_seek_class_action_lawsuit_against_st_louis_red_light_cameras.php?page=2 [riverfronttimes.com]
The biggest problem I have is that the red light companies have a share in the revenue and thus have a vested interest in "convincing" the city to play by their rules. So you are basically getting buttraped by some corporation and since the government has a share in the profit they fail to protect citizens against this tyranny. It's becoming a new form of oligarchy, or more precisely, corporatocracy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just pay it, considering you actually broke the law?
Because a private company is not law enforcement. There is no reason you should pay a corporation or private party for a perceived criminal, civil or traffic law infraction without it going through a government entity. To do otherwise is to invite fascism.
San Diego red light scam (Score:5, Interesting)
San Diego had this problem. The city either deliberately chose lights that already had short yellows or it set the yellows short after the cameras were installed. That was just one aspect of the fiasco that was the red light camera program. Some attorneys found that many tickets, which were originated by the red light camera company but supposedly "reviewed" by an officer, had in fact been issued without the review. The cop had gone on vacation and presigned a bunch of the "reviews" so people were in effect being ticketed by Lockheed. People who went to court and attempted to subpoena the red light camera design, software, and installation documents (so that they could assess whether the cameras were operating correctly when the alleged offense occurred) were threatened by Lockheed with a lawsuit for attempting to access trade secrets. There were many other questionable things that went on in the program that I've now forgotten about, but suffice it to say that the whole thing smelled so bad that the city terminated the program. It's since come back, but with major changes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not just one still photo. (Score:3, Informative)
At least in Oregon's system, it takes two photos. One just before you enter the intersection (it assumes you're going to run it based on measured speed,) and one when you are already in the intersection. The photos have the date/time stamp, as well as a "light red for x seconds" note.
In addition, each monitored intersection also has a video camera that records 10 seconds before, and 10 seconds after the still cameras trip. This way, there is indisputable video evidence of your run, as well. (Yes, I've gotten one. I tried to fight it under the grounds that what I did wasn't technically "failure to obey a traffic control device", but rather "improper right turn on red"; only to find out that under Oregon law, they carry the exact same penalty...)
Tried to fight, but wasn't worth it (Score:3, Interesting)
I got a ticket for a right turn on red maneuver, which came down to the fact that the light turned red a fraction of a second before I made my turn.
I asked for a hearing and requested information which would verify the accuracy of the timing of the light, including technical specifications, testing data, etc. The city attorney sent me a response claiming to have the information available at his office, but when I went downtown to peruse it, all they had was some details on the contract between the red light camera company and the city and a few tests of the light's vehicle speed reading against a radar gun. Nothing at all about the actual timing of the light.
When I went to attend the hearing, the 'testifying officer' (some guy who had watched the recorded video) could not cite for me how long the light was supposed to be yellow (although he did bring up some non-legal recommendation) which was something I couldn't find even after reading all the apparently applicable state and local traffic laws. He also was only able to roughly count out the length of light being yellow rather than providing a specific measurement.
Despite their not being able to show that the equipment was working properly (to within the relevant margin of error) or in compliance with legal specifications, nor providing me with the information I had requested which may have allowed me to firmly ascertain my own innocence, I was declared "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" of having committed this trespass of a fraction of a second. I could have requested to bring it before a judge but I was told the court fees would be more than paying the fine, and without legal aid it simply did not seem worth the effort.
It also irked me that it took them ~4 months after the fact to send me the notice of the violation. By that time I didn't even remember being at the intersection in question, so I was effectively deprived of my own witness (were there mitigating circumstances? had I loaned my car to someone else that day? I have no idea).
Point of no return markings (Score:4, Interesting)
I read somewhere once about a scheme to make intersections safer by marking a "point of no return" line prior to an intersection. The idea is that if the light turns yellow (or is yellow) prior to the point of no return, you have room to stop (assuming you're going the speed limit). If you've passed the marking, then it would be more dangerous to stop (and end up in the middle of the intersection) rather than continue through the intersection.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Said point would be good for exactly one sort of vehicle under
Re:Point of no return markings (Score:4, Insightful)
Two Pictures, Three Stories (Score:5, Interesting)
In my state, they DO need two pictures to prove that you ran the light. All of the red light cameras around here overtly take two pictures (with flash, even during daylight hours!) and you're "supposed" to receive the pictures along with your ticket in the mail. And, yes, nearly all of the camera equipped traffic lights here have noticeably and demonstrably short yellow lights, where the state mandate (and possibly federal DOT, 'do it this way if you want your highway grants') is three seconds, some of the camera-lights in town are as short as one second!
The process is highly automated and it's fairly obvious that there is no human oversight. The enticement not to contest the ticket or call the state out on anything is the (frankly, highly illegal) practice of my state demanding court costs up front if you take the ticket to court, to be refunded if you win. I'm fairly sure that violates the innocent-before-proven-guilty clause in both state and federal constitutions.
Story #1: I stood behind a gentleman in line at the DOT one day who was (this is important for the story) a fairly dapper black man who owned a very nice Harley, which I admired out in the parking lot. I saw him ride it up. He brought with him his mailed-in ticket, showing both pictures of someone on a bike running a red light. A skinny white man, with no helmet, wearing a wife beater. On a street bike (think crotch rocket, not a Harley). After pointing out his bike and skin color to the clerk (and I vouched for him; I saw him ride the bike up) the ticket was quietly erased. Obviously, no one had looked at the photos and even the computer system had gotten the license plate number wrong.
Story #2: I got "nailed" by a traffic light camera that I KNEW had a short yellow light, from watching other people get caught by it. Instead of going through the yellow, I stopped at the line and let the light turn red. A full three seconds or so after the light went red, the camera flashed me twice. I anticipated the stupidity well in advance, and was not surprised when a ticket turned up in the mail nearly a month later. It contained ONE photo. I contested and took it to court, to discover the "court costs up-front" policy mentioned above... I demanded to see the second photo, as the camera clearly and obviously took two. The state clerks were very cagey about this, first claiming it was "not necessary" and then claiming it "didn't exist," there was only one photo. To his credit, the judge pointed out that it was the law to present both photos, and he would decide what was bloody well "necessary" for the proceedings. The second photo was produced... Showing my car in exactly the same position, stopped well behind the white line, as it was in the first photo. Oops! In this case, clearly there was some human oversight which decided to lie about the evidence.
No one from the state was punished. I got out of the ticket (obviously) but it took them nearly four months to return my court costs.
Story #3: A friend of mine, who is somewhat cheeky, reported getting out of his automated camera-ticket by demanding to confront his accuser. As there was no paper trail as to who (if anyone) reviewed the ticket or entered the complaint to the court, the case was dropped. (This is why when a cop writes you a ticket it has a lot of flowey language to the effect of "I, [name of officer] do duly swear under oath of perjury that I observed, etc., etc." The cop is acting as your accuser, and entering the charge as TESTIMONY to the court, which is important. A camera can not testify, only a person can testify about what the camera captured.) I imagine this loophole will be legislated around as soon as someone tries it in every state.
That's not the purpose of the photograph. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle). Wouldn't you need two pictures — one just before the light went red showing you are not in the intersection, and another after the light went red showing you in the intersection?"
The purpose of the photograph isn't to prove you ran a red light. The motion sensors, and in some cases underground magnetometers, can detect if your car enters the intersection on a red. The only purpose of the photograph is to record your license plate so they know who to send the ticket to. The photograph is one, but not the only, piece of evidence.
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the light turns red before it's supposed to, which is the basis of the story.
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:4, Interesting)
The main weak spot in this type of enforcement is that you don't necessarily know if the person who gets caught was able to safely stop prior to going through the light. Accuracy and practical challenges aside.
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod points if I had 'em. If Boston instituted/enforced a rule that you couldn't enter the intersection on green for a left turn, they would have to outlaw left turns outright to avoid complete gridlock (dedicated left-turn lanes on otherwise single-lane-per-direction roads are rare here). Allowing to enter the intersection ensures that at least one car can move per light cycle.
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:4, Insightful)
You guys need roundabouts. They keep the traffic flowing.
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:5, Informative)
(d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. A vehicle that is not turning shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. After stopping, standing until the intersection may be entered safely, and yielding right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection, the operator may...
You were across the "Stop" line when the light turned red, so you cannot be charged for running a red light, in most states, at least. However, you need to be able to clear the intersection before you're busted for "impeding traffic" -- but you can aslo be fined, just as easily, for "impeding traffic" if you do NOT take the chance to wrestle your way into the yellow/red light left-turn by creeping across the line during the green.
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:5, Informative)
but the fact remains that being in the intersection when the light turns red is technically illegal in every state in the nation.
Not in Washington State. We seem to have a sensible legislature & judiciary.
There is nothing in the laws that say the intersection has to be clear on a red light; you just can't enter the intersection on red. In fact, you are obligated to stop in the middle of the intersection to allow legal traffic to pass. It seems perfectly legal to enter the intersection on green or even yellow and finish your left turn on red. And (news to me) we can even make a left turn at a red light from a two-way street onto a one-way street going left; this is explicitly stated.
RCW 46.61.055 [wa.gov]
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:5, Informative)
but the fact remains that being in the intersection when the light turns red is technically illegal in every state in the nation
Nuh uh.
From the Federal Highway Administration [dot.gov], as posted in another comment:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Score -1, wrong, unless the nation involved is not the US. In Louisiana it is illegal to enter on yellow and exit on red, but legal to enter on green and exit on red. In every other state I've checked, it is legal to enter on green or yellow and exit on red. Entering when there isn't sufficient
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:4, Informative)
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:4, Funny)
Incidentally, learn how to drive.
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:4, Informative)
Of course it's been a while since I took driver's ed. and things may have changed. and what was taught may be a rule of thumb rather than law. but I will always fight a ticket if this is the case.
NOTE: I am NOT talkig about the case where you FAIL to predict the flow of traffic and end up blocking the intersection (can't proceed). By all means, write me up if I do that.
Re:That's not true everywhere (Score:5, Informative)
The rule here is that your car must cross the line before the light goes red.
I was in court as a witness on a traffic ticket. A lady was ticketed for failure to yield right of way when she hit another car. She had a yield sign, the other car had a stop sign so the lady contested the ticket. The other car had already proceeded into the intersection when the lady moved past the yield sign and hit the other car. The prosecutor used the phrase "committed to the turn" to describe the other car, and the judge agreed so the ticket stood.
I would think going into the intersection before red, and continuing through the intersection after red falls into the same category. You are committed and it is legal to move ahead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's precisely what I mean. But people above claim that, if I complete the turn when light turns red, I break the law!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But people above claim that, if I complete the turn when light turns red, I break the law!
Once you are at the intersection you must clear it in a safe manner, regardless of lights - especially if you are turning, then it's not clear which light would govern your actions. I used to see this situation every morning at one place: when the light turns green the intersection ahead is still packed with cars.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you are at the intersection you must clear it in a safe manner, regardless of lights - especially if you are turning
That's precisely what the law is where I live, and I just can't understand how it could possibly be any different. The problem is that people in this thread claimed that it is not so in at least some U.S. states, which sounds crazy to me - might as well just ban left turns on controlled intersections altogether.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people above are wrong.
Running the red light means entering the intersection when the light is red.
If you are making a turn, you may still be in the intersection when the light turns red. That is fine.
If you remain in the intersection after the light turns red, you may be violating your state's anti-gridlock law. It's legal if you GTFO of the intersection now that the traffic's stopp
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:5, Informative)
You're mistaken about that [findlaw.com].
Many states only require you cross the white line before the light turns red.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yellow: Stop unless you're already crossing the line when it goes yellow.
[Citation needed]
A quick sanity check would show why your statement can't possibly be true as written: Suppose you are doing 50 mph down a business district. You are six inches (or six feet or even 60 feet) shy of the intersection as the light turns yellow. Do you stop or proceed through the intersection? According to what you stated above, proceeding through the intersection would be illegal. However, at 50 mph, the vehicle takes approximately 100 feet to stop (per this site [csgnetwork.com]). If you try to stop,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I they don't, they will eat all the repair costs and liability, and you will usually survive the collision with nothing worse than a stiff neck.
And time lost in bureaucratic runaround. Lots and lots of runaround. Unless you're deliberately looking for a really big settlement, it ain't worth it. I once swerved to avoid a Pepsi truck that ran a stop sign--a potential accident that could have set me up for life without major injury (wasn't going that fast), and I'm still not sure it would have been worth it.
Most states have a provision for "can stop safely", so you're well within the law to avoid slamming on the breaks on a yellow.
Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (Score:5, Informative)
In Texas, if you are in the intersection when the light turns red, then you didn't run a red light. Furthermore, you have the legal right of way to clear the intersection before crossing traffic may enter.
For unprotected left turns, that's why I pull out into the intersection during the green or yellow light and wait for the oncoming to stop before completing my left hand turn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You always need the yellow, and often need both. The yellow light is necessary because it takes a nonzero amount of distance to stop. Without the yellow light, the situation will often come up that the light turns red while a car is unable to stop before entering the intersection. The all-red period allows for traffic which entered late in the cycle
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Informative)
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:4, Informative)
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:4, Insightful)
If you cannot stop safely, do not speed up but drive cautiously through the intersection.
But that doesn't say that it's illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red. It just tells you what you should do on a yellow light. Going by the excerpt you quoted, if the light turns yellow too late for you to safely stop, it doesn't matter what color the light is as you leave the intersection.
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:4, Informative)
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Informative)
In California, if any part of your car enters the intersection while the light is still yellow, then it's "your intersection" for as long as it takes you to get clear of it.
Technically incorrect. If you enter an intersection, even on green, and cannot clearly/reasonably exit the intersection before the red light (usually meaning traffic is piled up in front of you) then you can be cited. Presumably it's for blocking traffic vs running the red, but it might be up to the officer and/or judge.
Not the same situation, but it would apply on a yellow if you cross the line before red, but there were cars in front of you keeping you from exiting the intersection before it did turn red.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Technically incorrect. If you enter an intersection, even on green, and cannot clearly/reasonably exit the intersection before the red light (usually meaning traffic is piled up in front of you) then you can be cited. Presumably it's for blocking traffic vs running the red, but it might be up to the officer and/or judge.
It's pretty much the same in most states (based on the 8-10 that I lived in or near and know the law), but it usually only enforced inside cities (e.g., "don't block the box"). And, every time it is enforced, it's by a human who saw the driver blatently ignored the part of the law about "if you can safely stop before entering the intersection" because the traffic wasn't actually flowing freely.
Red light cameras with short yellows lead to far too many bad driving decisions (stopping early, rushing to beat t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As Jeff Bridges said in the movie Starman.
[Starman is driving the car, and speeds across a recently turned red light, causing crashes for the other motorists]
Starman: Okay?
Jenny Hayden: Okay? Are you crazy? You almost got us killed! You said you watched me, you said you knew the rules!
Starman: I do know the rules.
Jenny Hayden: Oh, for your information pal, that was a *yellow* light back there!
Starman: I watched you very carefully. Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast.
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure what state-wide regulation there is (although there's talk about crafting some) but where I live in Florida the yellows get lengthened when cameras are put in, and if you get tagged a sheriff's deputy will review the picture and video, and if they deem that the infraction was, in fact, ticket-worthy, you get a link to not only the picture but the accompanying video snippet to see exactly what happened, and a chance to contest the ticket (or pay it.) While I would rather get more police on the street to enforce laws than put automated surveillance equipment in more places, it does seem like a pretty well thought-out and fair system to me. (And one of those options needs to happen, because people keep blowing through red lights like there's no tomorrow.)
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:4, Insightful)
...because people keep blowing through red lights like there's no tomorrow.
And for some of those people, there indeed will be no tomorrow.
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Informative)
That's Florida though, it has its own Fark tag for a reason. In every state that I've lived in you have to be clear of the intersection when the red light comes on or God help you if a cop is there cuz you're about to get butthurt.
Legal in CA, MI, NY, and CO, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody would ever be able to make a left turn in Chicago if they had to be out of the intersection when the light turns red.
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Interesting)
And Virginia... they have already removed one red light cam where I lived because of accident issues apparently. I even know of someone who had to goto court to fight his ticket despite the picture clearly showing his having been rear-ended and SHOVED through the intersection by the other car.
My favorite quote in this article is for others to come forward who think they were shorted! Hello! Why does this seem like guilt is assumed unless innocence is proven? Why can't they simply check the lights and rescind the tickets? Oh yeah - traffic court aka kangaroo court. Never have I seen a court in which a police officer can be caught in a bold faced lie and the driver still convicted but it happens in traffic court!
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why does this seem like guilt is assumed unless innocence is proven? Why can't they simply check the lights and rescind the tickets?"
A better question is why are we letting our letting our local government's treat it's citizens this way?
A private, for profit company should never issue traffic fines, officer reviewed or not. There is far too much room for abuse. The government should not look upon criminal penalties as a revenue system lest it turn all it's citizens into criminals.
Governments who treat the people as enemies of the state may find themselves the enemies of the people.
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:4, Funny)
That's Florida though, it has its own Fark tag for a reason. In every state that I've lived in you have to be clear of the intersection when the red light comes on or God help you if a cop is there cuz you're about to get butthurt.
In Florida, the requirement is that you drive as slowly as possible with your left turn signal on at all times.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's only in the retirement areas. Some places are speedways. I joke about "The Florida Speedway", which is a long loop. I-75 South starting at I-10, continuing the length of the state. It then turns East across the southern part of the state, switches to I-595 just as you exit the Everglades, and then turns North onto I-95. When you reach I-295 in Jacksonville, head West, and catch I-10 West.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's Florida though, it has its own Fark tag for a reason.
And the story of TFA takes place in Florida, so what is your point?
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Informative)
Thats not true of most states. In most states, if your car has completely entered the intersection when the light turns red you didn't run the light.
Now on the other hand, you're right that TFA is a good example of why Florida gets its own Fark tag. Red light cameras are illegal in Florida, see here: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3059.asp [thenewspaper.com] of course that doesn't stop cities from putting them up, despite the fact the state legislature declared them illegal. The towns and cities that have them are now trying to treat them as civil cases between the company that installed the cameras and the person issued the "ticket". Basically you can just rip up a Florida red light ticket, they are not even remotely legal.
Another fun Florida fact is that breathalyzers are no longer permissible as proof of intoxication for DUI stops. They do a good old fashioned "walk the line" sobriety test, which if you pass, even if you blow too high, you still walk. It got that way because the company that provided the breathalyzers would not provide the code for the software that drives them to opposing council, or even the court itself.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. I know what the california laws are. I also know they do not appear in the handbook [ca.gov]. If you carefully follow up this thread and re-read what I typed, you'll find that I said the courts do not go by the handbook -- they go by the law.
2. Legally, in California, it's treated "clear the intersection" if you are in it, and if not, treat it as a red light. Why? Because if you run the yellow light and it turns red while you are in the intersection, you will get ticketed for blocking an intersection.
Simply
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if the light turns red before it's supposed to, which is what the whole story is about. If you won't RTFA, at least RTFS.
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone paying attention and driving an appropriate speed for traffic conditions will be able to stop before the intersection for a red light -- assuming, of course, that the yellow light is of proper duration
Back in the real world, various cities have been shown to have reduced yellow light duration in order to increase fine revenues. It's hardly rocket science for a city that's low on cash. There were several newspaper articles about this in one city (DC, I think) a few years back.
And, back in the real world, the only method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce collision at stop lights is to increase the duration of the yellow; red light cameras merely result in more rear-end collisions as people slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket. While you can argue that's better than being hit from the side as someone runs the light, if you actually want to reduce accidents rather than rake in the fines, it would be much better if cities just increased the duration of the yellow.
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Interesting)
I have never in my life been in a situation where I've needed to run a red light
I have been in that situation many times. Specifically, I'm turning left, and there's no left-turn arrow, so when green comes up, I just drive ahead somewhat past the stop line (as they teach you to do), and wait for a gap in traffic to turn into.
Now, normally, in such a situation, if the oncoming traffic is heavy enough that there is no chance to turn on green, you end up turning on yellow. The problem is that all too often, people driving straight just blast through on yellow, one by one, not giving you a chance to turn - and so you end up still being stuck on the middle of the road when red comes up.
Then again, my city (Richmond, BC) has some really long yellow traffic light times - at least in comparison to many other places I've seen - for which I am really glad. It might make traffic move a little bit slower, but it also makes things safer somewhat, since people don't rush as much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:-1 False Assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you doing pulling a trailer at 30 mph in the rain in a town with crosswalks? Why aren't you driving at a safe stopping speed in those conditions?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd posit that someone who can't stop their vehicle in time to avoid a red light a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(1) Three lefts make a right
(2) I live in NJ. One thing I gotta say about NJ, the state looks out for people who turn left. Protected turns, jug handles, etc.
[1] Drivers, I mean. People who turn left politically only get looked out for about half the time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People breaking the law and potentially causing accidents is a far worse offense than my attitude.
They're not breaking the law. Entering the intersection to await a chance to turn left is not illegal in many jurisdictions. NJ with its jughandles and prohibited left turns off arterials is unusual - and, you're right, better for it. But it is unusual, and the rest of us do not have that option. It is perfectly safe to enter an intersection in order to await the chance to turn, so long as you wait until all oncoming traffic stops before proceeding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you actually may be contributing to it if you do what you're describing.
There's a good reason they teach you to pull into the intersection for unprotected left hand turns. It's more efficient. If you pull partially into the intersection, you are guaranteed that you can get at least one car out safely when the light turns red. There's no possibility that doing so can
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Out in the burbs, and even in some of the more urban areas, we have jug handles. And where we do have left turns, we tend to have either dedicated left-turn signals with red lights for oncoming traffic, or we have delayed green lights for oncoming traffic.
We've had bad traffic in Jersey for a long time... and so roads have been built/altered to accommodate those making left-hand turns.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're doing 35mph and the light turns red when you're 10 feet from the intersection, the SAFE thing to do is blow the red light... not lock up your breaks and go careening into the next lane to avoid breaking a silly ordinance.
No, the "SAFE" thing to do is to put down the phone/book/computer/whatever and pay attention to what you're doing.
If you only realised you needed to stop when the light went red 10 feet before you entered the intersection, then your actual driving error happened about 200 feet
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where in the world is it illegal to enter an intersection with a yellow light? What if you're going the speed limit (40mph) and just before you enter the intersection the light turns yellow? It would be impossible to stop and if you slammed on your breaks the guy behind you would probably run right into you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point of yellow if it's just as restrictive as red, then?
Everywhere I've driven in my life, yellow is there so that you can brake if you can do so safely, but since obviously there may be some people who cannot do that - as they're already too close to the intersection - they can proceed, knowing that it is safe, as the other direction is still red.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So when you're traveling the speed limit and the light turns yellow when you're 6 inches from the intersection, your vehicle is still able to stop before crossing the line?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, you just flunked civics. Different states have different laws. Welcome to Florida.
Re:hay kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No.
This argument comes up again and again. It is wrong.
Originally, Slashdot was a tech site. It's getting better at being one, but originally it was about technology. You see, back then, the Internet was young and interesting, and people were enthusiastic to talk about things. The bar of entry to actually being "in the know" was kind of low, since it was the dot.bomb boom, and there was lots, and lots, of activity.
Since then things have changed. It was starting to go downhill a bit just before Septembe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While off topic, this particular AC is keenly aware of the history and nuance of slashdot's past. It's actually very accurate, and since I've been here since not long after the beginning, I would know.
Politics can still be interesting. And compared to a plethora of drivel I've seen and learned to ignore on Slashdot over the last few years, a nerdy dude timing yellow light durations to beat traffic tickets is pretty damned good.
As far as yellow light durations go, I have it made in Minnesota. Big intersectio
Re:How to not get caught by a red-light camera (Score:4, Informative)
Then when you crash into someone, try to explain why in the pictures you have your face covered and you aren't looking at the road.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should follow your own advice...I'd like to see some citations from this handbook you speak of, since your statements are in error.
Wrong in all 50 states. You may not enter after it turns red, but it is legal to exit after it turns red. Assuming you are not violating anti-gridlock laws (see below).
You appear to be conflating anti-gridlock laws with the laws regarding r