How many cars run traffic lights?

[Jeff]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kerry" <k n i k o l a i s e n@s b c g lo b a l.net> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
> > I would like to think our lawmakers and traffic engineers are thinking
first
> > about saving lives as opposed to generating money. But if they generate money (with as little
> > tax burden as possible) while saving lives - more power to em!
>
> Unfortunately, the real money they're trying to generate is campaign contributions -- which I'm
> sure these camera contractors are very generous
with.

You may be correct, although I hope not, but I still like the cameras. That statement surprises me,
as I've always felt that it was just another example of creeping Big Brotherism. But a couple of
weeks ago, in an oral communications class, a student did a presentation on the evils of
red-light-cameras. Essentially, his entire thesis boiled down to "I want to break the law and I
don't want to be held responsible for doing so". If that's the attitude of those against the
cameras, I'm all for more cameras.

The simple way to put the cameras out of business is to obey the law.

Jeff

 

[Allan Leedy]

While I often agree with what you have to say, I think you've missed something here. The cameras can
be good and useful, and red-light running is bad. But the systems, like San Diego's, are flawed. The
worst part is the royalty paid to the company that installs them -- a large percentage of each fine.
This gives them an incentive to manipulate the system (including the duration of the yellow light
phase) to improve revenue. Doing this,obviously, makes the intersection more dangerous too.

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:38:04 -0500, <[email protected]>, Alex Rodriguez
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >They create a dangerous situation so that they can make more money.
>
> ********. It's the impatient canned asswipes running red lights and tailgating who create the
> dangerous situations.
>
> Learn to drive it or give it back to the bank.
>
> Red lights mean stop. There is no discussion.
> --
> zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 05 Dec 2003 14:58:57 GMT, <[email protected]>, "Buck" <s c h w i n n _
f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m> wrote:

>
>Just as most drivers don't understand that bicycles can go over ten miles an hour, people who don't
>drive cars regularly don't understand the dynamics that affect reactions at stoplights.

I understand drivers speed up when approaching a stale green or yellow light to avoid stopping.
Hell, they even accelerate if they see a pedestrian attempting to cross the street just so they
won't have to stop. They regularly follow other cars through a red light. They collide, often at
speed, with drivers obeying the law.

I've a friend who'll never walk right again because of a red-light running driver. My wife was tail
when she didn't enter the intersection on a yellow light. The goof that hit her started screaming at
her for having stopped as the law requires.

The dynamic most affecting drivers is simply an overblown sense of self importance.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:33:15 -0600, <[email protected]>, "Jeff"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Essentially, his entire thesis boiled down to "I want to break the law and I don't want to be held
> responsible for doing so". If that's the attitude of those against the cameras, I'm all for more
> cameras.

It's an 'position' promoted by well oiled lobby groups. The same ones that oppose 55 mph speed
limits, day time running lights and photo radar for speeding violations.
--
zk

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>The dynamic most affecting drivers is simply an overblown sense of self importance.

It would be tempting to conclude that. Around here, as I may have mentioned, they have signs that
say "No Red Light Running".

I am not kidding.

I suspect that such signs are symptomatic of a city that has in essence abandoned all hope of
enforcing traffic law in the downtown core, likely because routine traffic stops would disrupt the
flow (such as it is).

As for motorist and cyclist behavior here, it's a well known high stress area.

My theory is that the motorists are basically trying to get somewhere else as rapidly as possible
and aren't really in the moment in the same sense as the cyclists.

The cyclists aren't blameless either, messengers and casual riders run reds as a matter of policy.

Throw jaywalking pedestrians into the mix and you have what amounts to consensual anarchy.

It's a challenging environment, for sure.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[Bob Hunt]

Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 05 Dec 2003 04:54:38 GMT,
> <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:
>
> >>Alex Rodriguez [email protected]
> >
> >wrote in part:
> >
> >>Another thing to watch for is that unscrupulous vendors will alter yellow light timing when they
> >>install the cameras. They create a dangerous situation so that they can make more money.
> >
> >Something else to watch out for are whackadoos spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories on
> >Usenet.
> >
> Actually, it's all over the web: http://www.hwysafety.com/nma_rlc_timeline4.htm
>
> It seems that they're not such great money makers because people quit running that light.
>
> When sub-contractors take over the work, they've been found guilty of tampering with yellow timing
> in order to make money. That's supposedly led to increased accidents. It's just the whine of a
> well oiled lobby.

After reading (skimming actually... I got bored after about the 30th excerpt) the link you provided
I guess I should modify my statement. Perhaps those people asserting that unscrupulous
subcontractors are shortening the yellow light interval aren't whackadoos; maybe they just have poor
reading skills. With the exception of one unsupported "studies have shown" type comment every
mention in that link of retiming yellow lights had to do with a *lengthening* of the yellow light
interval. Regards, Bob Hunt

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:38:13 -0800, <[email protected]>, "Allan Leedy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>While I often agree with what you have to say, I think you've missed something here. The cameras
>can be good and useful, and red-light running is bad. But the systems, like San Diego's, are
>flawed. The worst part is the royalty paid to the company that installs them -- a large percentage
>of each fine. This gives them an incentive to manipulate the system (including the duration of the
>yellow light phase) to improve revenue. Doing this,obviously, makes the intersection more
>dangerous too.

That's all part of the game. If you're driving within the capabilities of your skill then you should
be able to avoid smacking into the car ahead if it suddenly stops.

Yes, it appears camera contractors have in the past tampered with yellow timing. But it's also
common to see impatient drivers crowd a stale green hoping to beat the yellow and then accelerate
when the light does turn yellow.

The camera itself didn't cause the dangerous situation. Without cars travelling too close too fast,
there'd be no collisions. There'd just be cameras sitting on posts.

It's driver's attitudes and incompetence while idly directing lethal objects through public space
that creates the dangerous situation.

Running red lights is only one of the rules regularly broken by drivers. Their numbers and lack of
meaningful consequence permits them to continue getting away with the behaviour. The frequency of
traffic tantrums is a fair indicator of their maturity level. The sick part is its becoming the
accepted norm.

Motorists have heavy weight lobbies that politically pressure law makers into diluting CAFE
standards under the guise of 'freedom' of vehicle choice. Those opposing red light cameras also
oppose photo-radar and laws regarding cell phone use while driving, emissions testing, 55mph speed
limits, daytime running lights, HOV lanes, radar detectors or anything else that has an emotional
appeal to the selfishly motivated.

Wherever the words "zealot" or "junk science" appear in their arguments, you just have to scratch
the surface to find oil.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

5 Dec 2003 19:14:25 -0800, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Bob
Hunt) wrote: re: > http://www.hwysafety.com/nma_rlc_timeline4.htm

>After reading (skimming actually... I got bored after about the 30th excerpt) the link you provided
>I guess I should modify my statement. Perhaps those people asserting that unscrupulous
>subcontractors are shortening the yellow light interval aren't whackadoos; maybe they just have
>poor reading skills. With the exception of one unsupported "studies have shown" type comment every
>mention in that link of retiming yellow lights had to do with a *lengthening* of the yellow light
>interval.

Just the fact that sub-contractors altered what had been previously determined by traffic engineers
was cause for throwing out tickets.

It appears that light intervals are always subject to review and re-timing within a narrow range.
The danger apparantly lies in people getting tail-ended when they stop faster at intersections with
the camera.

The bottom line on that page was to be your own judge.

Really it matters little whether they diddle with the yellow lights. A certain percentage of whiney
car-slaves will always run red-lights, exceed safe or posted speeds, fail to signal, turn and park
illegally, etc.

The real problem is deeper in the social mores accepting, condoning and promoting these actions
as normal.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:22:53 -0500, <[email protected]>, "Eric S. Sande"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>My theory is that the motorists are basically trying to get somewhere else as rapidly as possible
>and aren't really in the moment in the same sense as the cyclists.

They're more in the way than in the moment.

Everybody else on the road is just an obstruction depriving them of the advertised promise
they bought.
--
zk

 

[Cheg]

"MP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just my own observation in the area where I ride and drive, but I
seem
> to see three main kinds of red light running by motorists.
>
> 1. People seem to think that if they are close on the tail of
someone
> else it's okay. If someone goes through a light at the last moment
of
> the yellow, another three or four cars will follow him through, although the light has gone red
> by then.
>
> 2. People will block intersections waiting to make a turn or go straight in heavy traffic, and
> still be sitting there when the
light
> changes.

In Washington it's legal to pull your car out to the middle of the intersection to take a left on a
green light while waiting for traffic to clear . Cars often get stranded there because several cars
run the red light going the opposite way.

 

[Cheg]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:33:15 -0600,
<[email protected]>,
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Essentially, his entire thesis boiled down to "I want to break the law and I don't want to be
> > held responsible for doing
so". If
> >that's the attitude of those against the cameras, I'm all for more
cameras.
>
> It's an 'position' promoted by well oiled lobby groups. The same
ones
> that oppose 55 mph speed limits, day time running lights and photo radar for speeding violations.
> --
> zk

Last time I was in the UK they were activating photo radar for speeders on some of the Motorways.
The papers were full of stories about celebrities getting fines and license suspensions. Can anyone
comment on what effect, if any, the cameras have had on speeding over all?.

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:38:04 -0500, <[email protected]>, Alex Rodriguez
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>They create a dangerous situation so that they can make more money.
>********. It's the impatient canned asswipes running red lights and tailgating who create the
>dangerous situations. Learn to drive it or give it back to the bank. Red lights mean stop. There is
>no discussion.

You should take a peek at the MUTCD. They give some details on how yellow lights should be set up.
No argument that red means stop. The problem is that there is a right way, and a wrong way, to set
up traffic lights. In some instances the lights are changed so that the camera vendor can make more
money. This causes a dangerous situation. When you approach a traffic light it should not change
from green, to yellow to red in less than 2 seconds. That would be a dangerous, and unexpected,
situation.
------------------
Alex

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

>After reading (skimming actually... I got bored after about the 30th excerpt) the link you provided
>I guess I should modify my statement. Perhaps those people asserting that unscrupulous
>subcontractors are shortening the yellow light interval aren't whackadoos; maybe they just have
>poor reading skills. With the exception of one unsupported "studies have shown" type comment every
>mention in that link of retiming yellow lights had to do with a *lengthening* of the yellow light
>interval.

Part of the point. Lengthing the yellow light reduces red light running. There is no need for red
light cameras when the intersection is properly designed. So when a vendor sets up a camera at an
intersection is that set up properly, they don't make much money. So they try tactics they think
they can get a way with to make money. Besides altering the yellow light timing, they have been
known to snap the picture before the light turns red.
-------------
Alex

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Besides altering the yellow light timing, they have been known to snap the picture before the
> light turns red.

Where, when, and how have they "been known" to do this?

Matt O.

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

>It's an 'position' promoted by well oiled lobby groups. The same ones that oppose 55 mph speed
>limits, day time running lights and photo radar for speeding violations.

If they were well oiled, we wouldn't have 55mph speed limits on interstates. The Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices gives a good explanation on how to properly set speed limits. If speed
limits were being properly set, then you wouldn't have the overwhelming majority of drivers above
the limit on some roads.

DRL's are mostly poorly implemented, so they are a nuisance to other drivers on the road. Most of
the time, they serve no purpose. The times when they can do some good, a driver can take his hand of
the wheel for two seconds to turn on their lights.

Photo radar is also bad because it works on the presumption of guilty until you can prove your
innocense.

-----------------
Alex

 

[Matthew]

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Photo radar is also bad because it works on the presumption of guilty
until
> you can prove your innocense.
>
It does no such thing.

 

[Buck]

"Matthew" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> News search on Google for "decrease yellow light timing" did not match any documents. I leave the
> ball in your court to document your assertion that anyone is shortening yellow light intervals to
> make money.

While neither of these links provide evidence for cities shortening yellow lights, the do indicate
that cameras are being installed in intersections where the yellow lights are too short (even
shorter than their own laws allow), the installation of detector loops was done incorrectly, cameras
were being installed where no accidents were occurring, and accident rates increased after
installation (despite claims of the camera's positive impact on motorist safety).

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp
http://www.house.gov/transportation/highway/07-31-01/hedgecock.html
http://www.dgroup.com/dg_stoplight/SDPD_photoenf.pdf http://www.apfn.org/apfn/traffic-light.htm

-Buck

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Besides altering the yellow light timing, they have been known to snap the picture before the
>> light turns red.
>
>Where, when, and how have they "been known" to do this?

The same place the guy strapped the JATO rocket onto a Camaro (or Caddy or ????)...

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:26:31 -0500, <[email protected]>, Alex Rodriguez
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>>It's an 'position' promoted by well oiled lobby groups. The same ones that oppose 55 mph speed
>>limits, day time running lights and photo radar for speeding violations.
>
>If they were well oiled, we wouldn't have 55mph speed limits on interstates.

In 1995 the Republican Congress repealed the 55-mile-per-hour federal speed limit law. Thirty three
states have raised theirs.

>The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices gives a good explanation on how to properly set speed
>limits. If speed limits were being properly set, then you wouldn't have the overwhelming majority
>of drivers above the limit on some roads.
>
>DRL's are mostly poorly implemented, so they are a nuisance to other drivers on the road. Most of
>the time, they serve no purpose. The times when they can do some good, a driver can take his hand
>of the wheel for two seconds to turn on their lights.
>
>Photo radar is also bad because it works on the presumption of guilty until you can prove your
>innocense.
>
Now let's hear the unfounded claims and party line spin against radar detectors, seat belts, HOV
lanes, traffic calming, re-testing elderly drivers, cell phone usage and anything else that makes an
emotional appeal to a noisey bunch of petulant brats.

It's a bunch of spoiled whiners. I'm in favour of using every opportunity to make driving less
convenient for them.
--
zk

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

>Now let's hear the unfounded claims and party line spin against radar detectors,

I'm all for radar detectors.

>seat belts,

I use them all the time, always have. I don't need no stupid laws, and the idiotic enforcement that
goes with them, to tell me to use them.

>HOV lanes,

Seems like a good idea, but they are mostly under utilized, at least the ones I have seen are, so
they waste space.

>traffic calming

Can you say oxymoron?

>re-testing elderly drivers

Great idea, just try to convince the AARP.

>cell phone usage

Another stupid and uncessary law.

>It's a bunch of spoiled whiners. I'm in favour of using every opportunity to make driving less
>convenient for them.

I'm all for enforcing the adequate existing laws instead of coming up with the a law to cover the
current fads.
----------------
Alex