San Diego Drops Red-Light Cameras 330
gannebraemorr writes "U-T San Diego reports that the city has become 'the latest in a cadre of California cities turning their backs on red-light cameras — aloof intersection sentries that have prompted $490 tickets to be mailed to 20,000 motorists per year' there. 'Mayor Bob Filner announced his decision to take down the city's 21 cameras at a news conference set at the most prolific intersection for the tickets, North Harbor Drive and West Grape Street, near San Diego International Airport. A crew went to work immediately taking down "photo enforced" signs throughout the city. "Seems to me that such a program can only be justified if there are demonstrable facts that prove that they raise the safety awareness and decrease accidents in our city," Filner said of the cameras. "The data, in fact, does not really prove it."' I have to say I'm a bit surprised that my city is voluntarily shedding potentially $9.8M in revenue after objectively evaluating a program. I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"
So Floor It ! (Score:3)
" I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"
Hey, I will go for that and just keep my pedal to the metal...unless you do the same and then we are in deep too doo.
Re:So Floor It ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. This would be crazy stupid.
It would teach red light runners that they can, and will, get away with running red lights, because cross traffic will be stopped. I can't imagine the number of rear-ends this would cause for those having a green light switching to Red with no warning. I'd rather see it raise a crash-rated bollard to the high speed red-light runner. If someone is going to get hurt, it should be the scoff-law, not the guy with the green light.
Re:So Floor It ! (Score:5, Funny)
I had a buddy who used to cut his headlights when he'd come to a blind Y at night in their rural county to see if anyone was coming on the other leg. Woe unto him when he ran into someone (literally) who did the same thing....
Re:So Floor It ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Extrodinary claims. (Score:3)
As to the claim "The data, in fact, does not really prove it."', I find that hard to believe without some extraordinary evidence. I don't see any evidence in TFA, just some local politician making good on a populist pledge. As for tourists, I received a traffic fine from the UK after getting back home to Oz after a holiday. I paid it because I had fucked up and it was the RigthThingToDo(TM), not because of the risk of being turned back at Heathrow for outstanding fines next
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think the Major is giving up 10 million dollars, voluntarily, if there wasn't some hard evidence?
Re: (Score:3)
I'll note that there are probably some differences between the UK, Oz, and the US.
Here in the US, those traffic cameras are owned and maintained by private companies. Those companies contract with the cities to operate those cameras. Those companies, of course, share revenues with the cities.
While I haven't "studied" or "researched" those cameras, I've been aware of them, and I've listened to the talk about them for quite a long while. Everything I've heard indicates that they have zero impact on the rat
Re: (Score:3)
Let's just assume that a city has an annual "profit" of $100,000 from red light tickets.
They contract to have red light cameras put up. Gross profits increase by 100%. The camera company takes their 50% or 60%. So, the city is left with $140,000 to $150,000, IF they actually collect on all those tickets. Some people just don't pay them, as has been pointed out by other people in this conversation.
So, net increase in RED LIGHT TICKETS is up 40 or 50% - but as a percentage of overall traffic ticket revenu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, how many Y intersections are there in the civilized world which are not also provided with a merge lane on the tail of the Y?
Wouldn't slowing to a reasonable speed make more sense?
Using one dangerous act to cover for another dangerous act qualifies your "buddy" as an idiot.
Like Harry M. Whittington, you should choose your friends more carefully.
Re:So Floor It ! (Score:4)
Seriously, how many Y intersections are there in the civilized world which are not also provided with a merge lane on the tail of the Y?
I see you're not familiar with rural county roads in the US. You are lucky to get two full lanes.
Re:So Floor It ! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
When you take into account the number of people who intentionally run red lights, you will see the folly of your reasoning.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of people obey stop signs and red lights even in the middle of the desert where you can
see no cross traffic for 20 miles.
I'm not sure anyone wants to live in a world so rigidly controlled by technology, or laws, that it is impossible to commit any minor transgression.
Re: (Score:3)
"The overwhelmingly vast majority of people obey stop signs and red lights even in the middle of the desert where you can see no cross traffic for 20 miles."
Yes, we are dumb that way.
We don't even kill people who run stop signs, not even in the desert where nobody would see us kill them.
People who think the law ends at the city limit aren't really civilized. We could do without, so please crash into each other, preferably in the desert where we can't see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like entrapment.
Re:So Floor It ! (Score:4, Interesting)
In my city, red light cameras are also speeding cameras. City put them on all intersections that had lots of crashes. People do not speed through these intersections anymore. Number of crashes was reduced by over 50%. Number of serious crashes was reduced by 80%.
Red light cameras, shortening yellow light to "catch" more people, etc. are not good. Speed+red light cameras and normal yellow duration, then put them on all the troubled intersections and you'll see positive results.
Then again, the purpose of these cameras was not to make city money. The purpose was to reduced crashes which reduces costs for everyone. But then we have single auto insurance (gov't corp), so maybe the metrics are a little different. Seems to be working just fine though.
Re: (Score:2)
" I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"
Hey, I will go for that and just keep my pedal to the metal...unless you do the same and then we are in deep too doo.
He didn't say he'd switch the other persons light to green. All 4 directions would show red.
Hmmmmm..... (Score:3)
Not sure where the 9.8 Million figure came from, the actual story says they took in 1.2 Million in 2011. But after paying out to the camera company and the cost of for cops (who in today's whacky world generally make low 6 figures), the city only cleared 200,000$
My guess is that the only people that actually "make out" are the camera companies.
The real question is: Do red light cameras discourage running reds?
I don't know.
I've never got a "red light camera" ticket, because I don't run red lights, or speed through school zones.
Re: (Score:3)
The real question is: Do red light cameras discourage running reds?
Yes. In a lot of cities, people just kind of sneak through on a red if they are close enough to the car in front of them that is already going through the intersection (if there's less than 4 feet between you and the car in front of you, then it's ok). I confess I have done that when I know I will be stuck at a red light for a long time. If there's a camera, I'm extra careful. I don't think that's the kind of red-light-running that would cause accidents, though.
The thing you really need to watch out for a
Re: (Score:3)
I think most people are just too lazy to stop. A guy in my car pool runs right on reds and stops all the time. He never gets caught but I still wouldn't try it.
I always look both ways before going though a green light. The runners have already won.
Re: (Score:2)
In my state it is 3 seconds after stopping before you can go, the same for a stop sign.
Wow, what state is that??
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. In a lot of cities, people just kind of sneak through on a red if they are close enough to the car in front of them that is already going through the intersection (if there's less than 4 feet between you and the car in front of you, then it's ok). I confess I have done that when I know I will be stuck at a red light for a long time. If there's a camera, I'm extra careful. I don't think that's the kind of red-light-running that would cause accidents, though.
You figured it out in your last sentence. What's the point? To discourage running reds, or to decrease crashes? Red light cameras don't decrease crashes. What happens when the guy 4 feet in front speeds up at the yellow, and you follow, then he slams the brakes because he changes his mind because of the camera? Oh yeah, more crashes. And the worst crashes are when someone is more than a second after the red. The tickets go out to people like you describe at 0.5s after the red. But it's those seconds late (drunk, asleep, reading the morning paper) that kill, and they don't see the red light, they won't see the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
they don't see the red light, they won't see the camera.
That's a good way to say it.
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Informative)
Red light cameras don't decrease crashes. What happens when the guy 4 feet in front speeds up at the yellow, and you follow, then he slams the brakes because he changes his mind because of the camera? Oh yeah, more crashes.
Then you were driving incompetently. You shouldn't tail-gate. You should always leave enough room for you to stop if the guy in front does something strange like stamp on the brakes or swerve or something. Yes, they might be a lot to blame but you're still supposed to take care of yourself by anticipating the (immediate) future road conditions and driving so that you remain safe. Didn't you ever get taught that as part of showing you're fit to drive on the public highway?
And the worst crashes are when someone is more than a second after the red. The tickets go out to people like you describe at 0.5s after the red. But it's those seconds late (drunk, asleep, reading the morning paper) that kill, and they don't see the red light, they won't see the camera.
So, you're insisting that because cameras don't prevent all idiotic driving at an intersection, they're useless? I really don't agree, not at all. If you're behind the wheel, you should be fit to be driving safely, if not for yourself then for all your other fellow road users. That means being sober, alert and attentive. If you're not all three when driving, you're just a fucking jerkwad whose travel should be restricted to walking around the prison exercise yard.
Before you ask, I'm just as strict with myself about driving safely. Safely or not at all. No excuses. No third option. (Being a passenger when someone else is driving safely instead — bus, taxi, whatever — is a variant on "not at all".)
Re: (Score:3)
Then you were driving incompetently.
It's really a shame that nodoby reads for context anymore. Read the comment I was responding to. Note that my response is in relation to his 4-foot comment. I wasn't asserting I do it. And I'm not disagreeing that many drivers are incompetent. But the mechanisms for safety shouldn't exacerbate a known problem by causing crashes. Red light cameras cause crashes. People aren't addressing that little fact, and are instead quibbling about the fault of the crashes caused by the cameras, which is a non seq
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Interesting)
And you should be driving defensively, instead of assuming everyone on the road is driving in the correct frame of mind.
Red light cameras work in theory. They cause more accidents in reality. My coworker wrote a research paper on red light cameras. As a police officer in a past life, he believed they would be very helpful. But after his research, he changed his mind. It concluded that their implementation results in more accidents at intersections, with an insignificant decrease in fatalities (read: fatalities at all intersections were trending down during the study period, including in cities that did not have red light cameras).
A better system is longer amber lights, or (my favorite) a flashing green that precedes the amber light. That's much better than screwing over your citizens, creating headaches for your city government, while the camera vendor profits from your lack of research.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and getting hit in the back is less safe than getting hit in the side. That's why a shift from t-bone crashes to rear-end ones doesn'
Re: (Score:3)
But do red light cameras prevent t-bone collisions? The most common cause of a t-bone collision is running a red light well after it turns red. This happens because the driver isn't paying attention, or is intentionally running the light, neither of which will be improved by red light cameras.
It may happen because a driver guns it as soon as it turns green, and hits a car that hasn't made it through the intersection. This would be improved by a longer amber light or flashing green. And this case is the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, if your front wheels are over the line before the light turns red, I'm pretty sure you're legally good to go in most places.
If your front wheels are over the line: you are already in the intersection. Other cars in the conflicting direction are required to not proceed and enter the intersection until you clear, even if their light turns green.
And you are required to clear out, or risk being ticketed for blocking the intersection.
You may also be ticketed for being in the intersection during a red
Re: (Score:2)
The rules of the road state that you DO NOT enter an intersection if you cannot make it all the way through that intersection before light turns red then you should have never entered the intersection if the first place.
This entirely depends on state law, each state does it differently. If you are in a different state, better to stop on yellow lights until you know what the rules are.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that require pre-cognitive powers?
Re: (Score:2)
In an overwhelming number of situations, no it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. Interesting problem though. Even if it's only a small percentage of intersections where it doesn't, how do you tell if it's an intersection where it does? And we're back around to needing pre-cognitive powers.
The roads are put together by committees who are sometimes excellent, but often don't really seem to know what they're doing, and sometimes don't even care and have ulterior motives. I'm a very careful driver. I plan ahead and think about other traffic, and actively calculate things like points o
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, municipality after municipality have been caught reducing the length of their yellow lights to drive up infractions. That's the problem: you really have no idea how long the yellow will last without precognitive powers. There are actually plenty of intersections where, unless you're speeding, if the light turns yellow after you've passed the point where you can safely brake and stop before the stop line, you won't cross the intersection before the light turns red.
Re: (Score:2)
(This is a rule to prevent blocking traffic, not a rule for safety.)
The rule also has safety ramifications. If you are partially blocking part of an intersection which crosses a 4 lane highway, during a time when traffic is low on the highway: a vehicle on a conflicting path, may see the green light, and be approaching the intersection at the speed limit (E.g. 45, 50 Mph)
If you got a red light at 20% through the intersection, and cannot clear the intersection, then you may not be able to see t
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
After the speed camera's went up on the freeway, I personally witnessed 5 accidents directly caused by the camera. It didn't make people drive slower on t
Re: (Score:2)
Nope
I live close to an intersection with a camera and at night I'm always seeing the flash when someone runs the light. Multiple flashes lots of times
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:5, Interesting)
It may be hard to understand what's really going on here unless you live in CA, so let me try to explain.
These cameras were originally installed to raise tax revenue. When the city you live in gets busted by the state for using illegally short yellows in order to increase camera ticket revenue, it's very clear this has nothing at all to do with safety.
During the boom years, the police liked this idea - more revenue from the police dept meant more money to pay officers - what's not to like. But now most local governments in CA are either bankrupt (or like my county will be when Moody's changes their rules for rating Muni bonds), or for the first time in decades actually, finally starting to lay off employees in respose to the lack of revenue. In this new fincanial climate, the police hate these cameras! These cameras mean fewer officers are needed for the same ticket revenue, and that's just unacceptable. Since the cameras really aren't that great as a revenue source in the first place, they're being removed in city after city.
Sad as their reason for removal is, it's still great that they're gone. At least in my city, you had no right to challenge these tickets - sure, the constitution says something about a jury for criminal offenses and civil matters over $20, so, hey, we declare these tickets to be a new thing, neither criminal nor civil, so there! There's very little a California city won't do for money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a pretty scathing news article a few months ago about Oakland regarding its policies on red light cameras.
Basically, the story is that the city installed red light cameras with the promise of ticket revenue and reduced accidents. But like most studies have shown, the types of accidents just changed, from T-bone collisions in the intersections to rear-end collisions. But the revenue was there.
So fast forward some time and there is suddenly a HUGE drop in red light violations (and subsequent traffic
Re: (Score:3)
I parse that last bit as "to improve safety." And it sounds like it worked.
Re: (Score:3)
There's very little a California city won't do for money.
The authorities out here on the left coast love to find new ways to take your money whether it be through taxes, fees, fines or just generally running up the cost of living with all their bullshit. The weather's nice, but even mostly sunny skies only goes so far once the government gets grabby enough with your money.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect most cops would like to make "low six figures" but a quick Google found multiple sources which showed San Diego cops start at $51,000 and go up to $88,000 with a median of $71,000.
This sounds reasonable for a dedicated public servant... not "whacky" at all.
I do agree that the camera companies are the ones making the big bucks. Typical privatizing public services so that the private sector makes lots of profit from the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure...
You could, of course actually go to the BART.gov web site and look at the job adverts for accurate information:
ENTRY-LEVEL Police Officer
Job ID:3698
Location: Lake Merritt Admin Concourse
Full/Part Time: Full-Time
Regular/Temporary: Regular
Entry-Level Rate: $4,161.050/Month
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Informative)
Red light cameras discourage running *yellows*, out of the fear of running reds and getting a ticket. They dramatically increase accident rates: http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/825583--red-alert-lucrative-cameras-spark-crashes-injuries [therecord.com]
The other side effect is that they never bring in the money that's expected, and so yellows get shortened to catch more people running reds. They're a good deal for the companies selling them, but don't do anything for safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, red light cameras do discourage people from running reds. The problem is that people do an emergency stop if they see an amber light, and that can cause people to go into the back of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the text of the story CLEARLY says 1.2 million. So, are a significant number of people having their fines mitigated in court?
By the way, no need to be "snide" in you comments.
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's $9.8M potential revenue, $1.2M to the city after state and county takes their cuts(and an unknown percentage of unpaid or successfully disputed fines), $200k to the general budget after paying camera specific expenses for the camera company, officers to process the tickets, etc...
Now consider that $200k up against the charging of the city's own citizens $9.8M. That's a 'efficiency ratio' of only 2%. Consider that taxes like property, sales, and income will have 'efficiency' levels of 90% or more, it's lousy. It's probably lousy compared to writing speeding tickets. That's $9.8M worth of pissing off your electorate vs $200k of income. I'll note that red light camera companies, when advertising to citizens, have 'safety' being something like 10% of the words. In presentations to city officials though, 'revenue' is present 5x as often as safety.
Traditionally speaking, fines have been okay because 'most' people don't get them, or felt they 'deserved' the ticket, etc... Perhaps people fixated upon blaming the officer*, not the city/county/state. Perhaps red light cameras, with their delayed notification and impersonal delivery changes perception. For whatever reason, people seem to be irked more by the cameras. As such, lawsuits and campaigns over them HAVE happened, often costing the operating city far more than what any profit that could be produced in a decade. Especially if they were stupid enough to sign a contract with severance penalties.
*I'm talking emotional reactions here, not logical.
Wrote this up on the idea of a 'significant' portion of people mitigating their fines -
Well, I actually doubt that; most areas have made red light cameras a 'civil' offense, not a criminal or even statutory one. So no day in court unless they actually sue the city. On the other hand, this limits what the city can do to non-payers - in some cases they can't even report the unpaid debt to the credit monitoring companies, prevent you from renewing your driver's license or car registration, etc...
Thus they aren't going to collect every time. Consider these various scenarios(not any particular order of likelihood):
1. Stolen vehicles - I figure the criminal isn't going to care he's running a monitored red
2. Financial deadbeats - because it's not an officer issuing a ticket; as I understand it the worst they can do is ruin your credit. If it's already so bad you can't get a loan, who cares?
2. Drunk Drivers and such who don't have a license anyways(sort of like #2), but if said fines can actually prevent license renewal.
3. Mis-identified vehicles - My dad works for a company with a number of work vehicles. He's gotten tickets mailed to him for violations in a city over 300 miles away. For a car, not a company truck/van. BTW, they're tracked by gps and don't normally go past around 50 miles.
4. Right on red - Dad has also gotten a few of these - where the ticket was mailed for the clearly turning company vehicle
5. Wrong target - The company vehicle is stopped or turning right(legally), with a DIFFERENT vehicle clearing running the red.
6. Illegal Alien - a sort of mix between 'drunk drive' IE no license, and financial deadbeat.
7. Stolen tags
8. Moved away from the address on the registration; never updated(so didn't get the notification)
9. Moved between committing the offense and getting the ticket; sometimes out of state/country
10. Didn't understand the ticket, didn't have the money immediately*, forgot about the bill by the time the money could be scrapped together, something else happened, etc...
Roughly speaking, going by what Dad's said I wouldn't be surprised if the payment rate is under 50%.
*For a significant period of my life asking me to come up with nearly $500 out of the blue would require waiting a month for a couple paychecks while I frantically lived off of cheap food and scrambled to borrow money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:5, Interesting)
The other option is moving to a system that works well elsewhere in the US. The red-yellow light. After a red, before a green, the yellow light comes on with the red, indicating a "fresh" green. You may go as if it's a green, but proceed with caution.
That's not how it works. I grew up with them, and hold a license in a country where they're in use.
Red+amber is treated as a red light, and you get the same fine as for going on a red light.
The purpose of it is to make all the cars waiting prepare[*] for the green light, so they can all start rolling when it turns green. Yes, you read me right, all of the cars, not just the first one. Here in the US, one car slowly starts rolling, then the next one, then the next one. The lights have to stay green a lot longer as a result, which in turn blocks people going the other way, which in turn leads to idiots blocking the intersection or running yellow lights because they don't want to have to wait for three minutes for the next light.
[*]: Like clutch, gear, or handbrake. All foreign concepts to the majority of US drivers, alas. But even with three-on-the-tree, you can rev up slightly with one foot on the gas and one on the brakes (another foreign concept), or just mentally prepare to drive in a second, even if you're not the first car.
Yes, red+amber is a great idea. But not for the reason you think. And it wouldn't work here in the US, because it requires alert and active drivers, not slugs.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK all lights do either Red + Amber or Flashing Amber after Red. Red + Amber means get ready to move. Flashing Amber means go if it is safe (same as green, except there is a higher chance that it won't be safe to go).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, flashing amber is different. Red+Amber, on the other hand, is always red, as far as the law is concerned.
But a nice way to say "get ready", which improves traffic flow quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, red+amber is a great idea. But not for the reason you think. And it wouldn't work here in the US, because it requires alert and active drivers, not slugs.
How about police monitored intersections tickets, for a car, that sits idle for more than 1 second at a green light, when it is safe to proceed? (Whether first car or not...)
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Interesting)
You can get ticketed for being too slow on a green in some countries, especially where there's red+amber to prepare you. "Obstructing traffic". But not after a second, it's more likely if you finish applying lipstick or changing CDs.
Near where I work, there's a light that's 2 minutes green in one direction, and 30 seconds in the other. Back in Europe, you would easily get 10-15 cars through in those 30 seconds, but here, you typically get 3-5, with the last car or two likely running a yellow light. Part of it is drivers not preparing for the green light, and part of it is waiting for the car in front to move before you even start moving yourself, because you've left yourself no room to start moving yet brake if the car in front is an idiot who doesn't move.
I won't say that American drivers are the worst in the world (I've been to Cairo), but they're certainly the most sedate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlocking your phone is also against the law, maybe we need a trillion dollar fine to discourage it?
Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, I could have likely appealed this, and won in a county court vs the city court I was found guilty in; who has time to miss another day of work, and a possible double or triple in court fees because you just wouldn't shut up and pay your fine?
Or... (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Contrary to popular belief most civil engineers aren't dumb
I must live in the city that hired the rest of them:
Light cycles are very long here, regardless of the time of day. If you miss that green, you'll be sitting there for 2 or 3 minutes, even if you are the only car on the road. (Unless you just drive through the red.)
There are loops in the road to detect cars from less travelled roads, and they'll trigger a change in the light. There are also buttons to detect pedestrians, but they don't advance the cycle, they just give a walk signal. Eventually. The pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably used molasses values in their fluid sims.
Given many of the drivers I see on the road, that would be appropriate.
Re:Or... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and then the cops, bureaucrats, and private enforcement firms change it for their best interests. Science doesn't rule traffic law, profit does.
Re: (Score:2)
And then your local HOA (like mine) asks the Council to have the traffic department change the timing anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullshit
Lights would be far more efficient if they would simply put the detectors further from the lights so they determine how many cars are approaching from all directions. Currently the detectors are right next to the lights. All over my town (SoCal) I watch vehicles traveling in waves, and each wave gets a red light because a single vehicle beat the wave to the detector. It appears to be the most inefficient way to allow cross traffic for a modern society wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea (Score:2)
wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"
Such a proposed system would quicly train motorists to rush red lights even more than they already do, because they could supposedly depend on the system stopping motorists coming the other way. Problem is, if a red light isn't stopping a guy running a red light in one diection, what's going to stop a like minded driver in the other direction?
The cost wold probably be not a lot more than about 1000 deaths a year, based on http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118914&page=1 [go.com] but it would have the bonus o
Re: (Score:3)
A variation of this would be that when cars traveling at dangerous speeds are detected coming from perpendicular directions, turn the lights green for both of them. ;)
hell no! (Score:2)
"I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds."
Once people know that they'll get a (de facto) green light by speeding, what do you think will happen? That does not sound like a good idea at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious best practice would be to simply force all the lights to red. Don't reward the speeder. But also keep other vehicles out of the intersection if it appears that someone is going to fast.
Not sure how you determine what cars at what speeds constitute a hazard. Or if the instrumentation and implementation provide enough benefit overall to make it worth doing.
America, big respect (Score:2)
Now convince Victoria Australia, I sincerely doubt we'll ever get rid of the revenue raisers over here. The local govt need the money too much.
The mayor wants to be re-elected. (Score:2)
> I have to say I'm a bit surprised that my city is voluntarily
> shedding potentially $9.8M in revenue after objectively
> evaluating a program.
Votes matter more than money.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the independent study? (Score:2)
In 25 years of watching these systems try to replace traffic cops, I've yet to read any independent data on whether there's a net increase in safety in using speed and red-light cameras.
There are those who are pro-camera, who usually turn out to be affiliated with the makers of these systems, and those who are against, usually the expert witness traffic engineers who testify against municipalities in cases of those involved in rear-end accidents with the people who stopped for a changing light.
That said,
Re: (Score:2)
There are those who are pro-camera, who usually turn out to be affiliated with the makers of these systems, and those who are against, usually the expert witness traffic engineers who testify against municipalities in cases of those involved in rear-end accidents with the people who stopped for a changing light.
Here in Aus, it is always the fault of the rear car. It doesn't matter if the car in front emergency braked for a butterfly, if you hit it, it's your fault.
If the cops get called (mandatory if there are any injuries) there is a pretty good chance you'll end up with a dangerous driving charge as well as full liability for any damage.
Increase the Yellow Light time by 1 second (Score:2)
Running a red light is indicative of not having enough time to notice that the light is changing. By extending the amount of time the yellow signal is on, the more likely a speeder will notice the light is changing.
Re: (Score:3)
What's dangerous is not running a red light, what's dangerous is passing the light when cars from the other direction are already entering the crossing. So what matters is not the time between yellow and red,
Re: (Score:2)
What's dangerous is not running a red light, what's dangerous is passing the light when cars from the other direction are already entering the crossing. So what matters is not the time between yellow and red, what matters is the time between yellow on my side and green on the other side.
Plus the phasing for other directions might be different (e.g., a dedicated cross-traffic turn phase) or there might be a pedestrian-exclusive phase. (Some jurisdictions have them, others don't.) All you really know when you see a red light is that you're not supposed to be entering the junction at that point. That's even true if it is a junction you know well; a highway engineer might've just altered the sequence for all you know for sure. Cars are dangerous (if very convenient) and so should be driven car
Re: (Score:3)
Running a red light is indicative of not having enough time to notice that the light is changing. By extending the amount of time the yellow signal is on, the more likely a speeder will notice the light is changing.
Problem #1: Yellow light lengths are actually determined by the posted speed. They are supposed to be calibrated to allow for this. In fact, this is exactly how cities got busted with this program, by manipulating the yellow light times to be shorter, thus increasing revenue, but technically making the roads less safe than they were before (which obviously they didn't care about).
Problem #2: The assumption that a speeder will not put their foot through the floor if yellow light times are increased becaus
Speed on green (Score:2)
Here in Calgary, the cameras have two purposes. The first is a normal red light camera, the second is for speed on green. Basically, it's just like multinova except it's right at the intersections. So if you speed through the green light you will get the ticket.
I wish we could get rid of the red light piece of it, but keep the speed camera. I figure that stopping people from speeding through intersections is a lot more useful than catching speeders along long stretches of road where there wasn't going to
All about the revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously they weren't getting the revenue to make it pay off. Courts are not free. No doubt city workers were tired of it too.
Safety does not even enter into it.
Shedding 9.8 million in revenue. (Score:2)
Reach into your pocket and pull out some money.
That's essentially what these unaccountable, accident invoking driver distractions were doing.
[citation needed] (Score:2)
Quoth TFS:
The data, in fact, does not really prove it.
Where can I find a copy of that data? Without exception, the "studies" I've seen condemning red light cameras have been woefully biased and flawed. Even then, they often conclude that red light cameras "only" trade side impacts for rear impacts, which is actually very much a net win for safety, as the latter cause fewer and less-severe human injuries.
Many of the studies contain irritating circular references back to a handful of cases where suspect yellow timing was supposedly employed to increa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Habitually running red lights definitely puts other peoples' lives and property at risk.
It depends. If you habitually run a red light at 2 AM every other morning because there's never any traffic then, and you can see the headlights of any vehicle coming, the only people's lives you put at risk are those who drive without headlights in the middle of the night.
I think that if we are to start fining people more, let's start with:
- Tailgaters. Including those who hit you from behind if you stop on a yellow light.
- People blocking intersections.
- Doubly so for people who make a right turn on red
Re: (Score:3)
The issue for many people is not really money. Yes, criminals can and should pay a larger percentage of the taxes. However, there are two other factors. First is the contract. It seems to many that due to the costs, these camera companies are bounty hunters and therefore the revenue stream to the city is not what is expected. Second is the idea of the surveillanc
Re:What's wrong with money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Law enforcement should not be a profit centre. If you give people a financial incentive to find people guilty, then they will focus on trying to find people guilty rather than to stop the harm that the law was supposed to prevent.
Re:What's wrong with money? (Score:4, Informative)
It is a violation of my civil rights to obey red lights.
You have no right to drive a car on public roads. That's why you need to be licensed to do it. When you don't obey the laws your license should be revoked.
And it is a violation of my civil rights to be filmed in public.
There is no right to privacy when you are in public.
And it is a violation of my civil rights for the government to spy on my private affairs (I'm just driving my car, which I -own!).
Driving on a public road isn't a private affair.
See a problem?
The problem is you.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. You do. First Amendment guarantees you the freedom of association. Freedom of association requires the freedom to travel. And traveling, in many parts of the United States, means the freedom to drive.
Changes nothing. Voting is a right, but comes with certain requirements - that you be a citizen, that you be at least 18 years old, and not be a felon. Gun ownership is a right, but you have to get a restr
Re: (Score:2)
And to go Logan's Run, retire anyone over 30 who still has the nerve to drive without perfect reflexes and vision. Also, eliminate people who drive while distracted by kids, they're a menace.
Unless you're capturing video all the time, you can't get a camera to distinguish between tailgating and just being close to a car because someone hit the brakes unexpectedly. The only way to be sure someone has been driving too close to other cars is a history of them rear-ending people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know of a lawyer who beat a photo-cop speeding ticket in this way:
1. He was driving in his wife's car and was perhaps a little over the limit, and the machine flagged him.
2. His wife received the ticket in the mail.
3. Under local law, since she owned the car, but was not the one in the photo, it falls on her to identify the driver of the car at the time, so that he may be cited.
4. This, of course, meant that the lawyer's wife was being compelled to testify against her husband, which is illegal.
5. T
Re: (Score:2)
That's how I felt about the one between Aero and Murphy Canyon Road. Damn thing lights up like Christmas even when it seems like no one is crossing any lines.